2.9 or 2.3?

[JDUB348]

Alright so i've done alot of reading on this subject and would just like additional input from people.

The last "big" mods i will be doing with my car will be a return style fuel system and blower. Money is not going to be an issue, i want the best of the best.

I've always leaned more towards the 2.9 Crusher over the 2.3. My plans are to start out with a tune running just pump gas with a 3.5" pulley and go from there. I'm thinking meth injection or torco (to run with more boost) because E85 isn't hugely available in my state.

Power goals.. i know i'd like to make atleast 600 rwhp. Knowing myself, i think i would eventually get bored if i was capped out at 600 rwhp, so thats why i've always gone for the thought of the 2.9.

Would it necessarily be a "bad" thing to only spin the 2.9 crusher to the point of only making around 600 rwhp? And at that, would a 2.3 perform better making the same power at higher boost levels?

I've always went with the "beefy" choices as far as mods for my car. I know my drive train can now support much more then the 2.3, so thats another reason why i'm leaning towards the 2.9 (see mods in sig)

 

[MalcolmV8]

If all you'll ever want is 600 whp then get a 2.3. It'll make it more efficiently than the 2.9. Myself I knew I'd always want more and keep pushing things so I went straight from the ported/pullied Eaton to the 2.9 Crusher.

This was a few years ago. Now days I'd seriously consider the TVS blower. They both make about the same power but the TVS looks so much easier to work with. Removable intake plenum which is a life saver when working fuel rails and injectors etc.
My 2.9 Crusher places the IAC directly into the A/C line and is bashing it in and wearing away at it.
Accessing bolt holes when installing the Whipples with non removable plenums is also quite the challenge.
The whipple looks nicer though when you pop the hood and it has EGR where as the TVS does not if your state emissions require it. The TVS is a little cheaper too.
Can't go wrong with either one really.

 

[ctubbs]

^^exactly

 

[SVT_Troy]

Like Malcolm said if you not lookin to make 700+ I'd stick with a 2.3 or TVS. The 2.9 crusher needs to be spun up 20+ to shine. Thats no secret either. If 600-mid 6ish is enough stuck with the smaller blowers. Crap the TVS has seen over 700 on E-85.....

 

[SlowSVT]

The 2.3 will be easier on the crank snout.

I was thinking a 2.9 for my 5.0 but my "reliability" and "drivability" goals are higher then my "hp" goals and my car will never see anything other then pump gas.

 

[Nolimit]

So if you have acess to e85 and want big HP the 2.9 crusher is the way to go? What are 2.9 with crushers putting down with 25psi on,e85? Im stuck between the two aswell.

 

[Tractionless1]

2.3 TVS ONLY! http://www.svtperformance.com/forum...-front-florida-equals-new-personal-bests.html<<< Stock block 50k mile, E85 car and stock trans!

 

[SlowSVT]

So if you have acess to e85 and want big HP the 2.9 crusher is the way to go? What are 2.9 with crushers putting down with 25psi on,e85? Im stuck between the two aswell.

if E85 is in the equation then you want a 2.9 minimum

 

[Tractionless1]

if E85 is in the equation then you want a 2.9 minimum

What equation stipulates 2.9 minimum? See post # 7 above. Also for reference Jake is in the 8s with the same blower and E85.

 

[SlowSVT]

What equation stipulates 2.9 minimum? See post # 7 above. Also for reference Jake is in the 8s with the same blower and E85.

I see your point but I think I would be leaning toward a 2.9 for E85. If you start getting close to 25 psi I would want to slow the blower down.

 

[LGHTEMUP]

I have the 2.3l whipple and have 635rwhp...no i am going to the 2.9l crusher just to make more..

 

[JDUB348]

Forgot to say, I was meaning 2.3 whipple or 2.9 whipple

 

[sn94cobra]

2.3.
It will make 700 on e85. If you want more than that, then 2.9.

 

[SlowSVT]

2.3.
It will make 700 on e85. If you want more than that, then 2.9.

The problem with E85 is "availability" and it makes the car get piss poor mileage so dives wandering in the countryside are out of the question. To really take advantage of E85 you gotta bump the CR to where it makes it a dedicated corn fed automobile. Might not be the best choice for a street car.

 

[sn94cobra]

The problem with E85 is "availability" and it makes the car get piss poor mileage so dives wandering in the countryside are out of the question. To really take advantage of E85 you gotta bump the CR to where it makes it a dedicated corn fed automobile. Might not be the best choice for a street car.

Yes it has worse gas mileage but also is a lot cheaper than 93 octane.

I use to drive my car to places that didn't carry e85. That is why I also had a 93 tune. Change the tube while at the pump and off I went.

You don't need higher compression to take advantage of e85. It has plenty of benefits for any forced induction setup.

I will never run any blower/turbo without e85. There's just no reason not to use it. It's like magic fuel. :burnout:

 

[ctubbs]

My car has a 2.9 non crusher. On the dyno it was making 23 pounds of boost. The E85 tune made almost exactly 100hp more than my 93 tune. I love the corn!! I have a switch chip in my car so changing from one tune to another is as simple as turning the knob from 1 to 3.

Now if I had to go back in time and rebuy the blower for my car, I'd really lean towards the TVS. Seems like a great blower and it's a grand cheaper than my whipple

 

[MalcolmV8]

Yes it has worse gas mileage but also is a lot cheaper than 93 octane.

Overall it's still more expensive to run E85 if anyone cares. The loss of gas mileage is greater than the reduced cost of fuel. How much will vary with fuel prices. I used to DD my turbo honda so got plenty of miles on it with both 91 (premium in KC) and e85. Here's some info from about a year ago when I was doing the comparisons

91 = $3.22 and e85 = $2.72. That's only 50 cents cheaper or better put 15% cheaper. However I had to increase fuel in my tune by 42% to keep stoich. Spraying 42% more fuel on e85 is 27% more expensive than running 91.

 

[c6zhombre]

Overall it's still more expensive to run E85 if anyone cares. The loss of gas mileage is greater than the reduced cost of fuel. How much will vary with fuel prices. I used to DD my turbo honda so got plenty of miles on it with both 91 (premium in KC) and e85. Here's some info from about a year ago when I was doing the comparisons

91 = $3.22 and e85 = $2.72. That's only 50 cents cheaper or better put 15% cheaper. However I had to increase fuel in my tune by 42% to keep stoich. Spraying 42% more fuel on e85 is 27% more expensive than running 91.

Malcolm.....that analysis is true from a range standpoint....but not really apples to apples when factoring in power capability. You can create so much more additional power on the E85, you would really need to compare it with $12 race gas. At that point, this analysis would swing dramatically in favor of E85, even with the diminished per tank range.