KB vs. Whipple superchargers.
- Thread starter S5Snake
- Start date
TECH@KB said:
Jim,
Pretty simple, just showing that your statements are incorrect :bs: , it's called the truth, consumers should have it. It's not fair for the consumers to be mislead as you have done in your post. Sad I'm hung up on the truth and you call that a "hang-up." :nono:
Even funnier that the "meaningless" out of date patent is the compressor style your utilizing! You don't care who the CEO is of the company that your purchasing SC's from? :loser: Geez Jim, do you read before you hit "submit reply"? :shrug: I really don't think you have the right to decide what people should know and not know, let the others decide on what is imporant and what is not.
Thanks again,
Dustin :-D
BTW, Whipple Superchargers is offering a 5% discount to any servicemen/women. Your support and protection goes above any call of duty, thank you.
Hey all,
I've personally heard great reviews for both Whipple and Kenne Bell, but the darts being thrown back and forth here seem extremely childish and no offence intended have steered me away from both companies. I'll be sticking with the Vortec/Paxton solution, maybe less efficient under the power curve, but they seem allot more proffessional to me.
Regards,
Mike
I've personally heard great reviews for both Whipple and Kenne Bell, but the darts being thrown back and forth here seem extremely childish and no offence intended have steered me away from both companies. I'll be sticking with the Vortec/Paxton solution, maybe less efficient under the power curve, but they seem allot more proffessional to me.
Regards,
Mike
nyerpp said:
Mike,
How is posting the truth to contradict false statements made by competition unprofessional? Your feedback is appreciated, honestly.
I think "blower wars" have been pretty common for years, I think Vortech and Procharger are still suing eachother over false advertising. In all honesty. we've always had the practice of not targeting any competitor in marketing, but when it's directed against us (which is where everything started), we either have to say nothing and possibly lose sales because consumers are misinformed or state the truth so consumers can make an honest decsion. No doubt we can't believe everything we read, but somebody has to be responding to those damn spam emails for PE pills :shrug: so some do :rolling:
epper: (not me, swear :dw: ) I hope this makes since. Like I said, feedback is welcome, [email protected]. Thanks,
DW
definitely need to hear that KB once you get it installed
Mike_Hawk said:
Hey Mike,
A year and a half? Jeez!! That positively sucks!!
I think I speak for Jim by saying yes to Afghanistan!
Again, we appreciate the sacrifices all of you are making for this great country!
Regards,
Ken
I have talked to Dustin Whipple on two occassions with my blower and have to say he seems to be very helpful in my setup. Even when I made the mistake of using the stock TB and asked him to help me out he made me the offer to fix my problem. Now I have to call him back to take advantage of it. I have heard good things about Jim Bell also and have seen his product proven. I went the whipple route due to the fact that I wanted to be different and wanted to try out a new product and couldn't be any happier. Most companies would turn away from when a customer makes a mistake with their setup but all I did was ask him if he could help me out and he did that is great customer service and gains trust in a company knowing they are there to help you. Just my 2 Cents. Nice Product Dustin :rockon:
Accusations, Misrepresentations
We know everyone is a little tired of the salvos going back and forth between Dustin Whipple and Kenne Bell. Frankly, we think some of the subjects brought up by Dustin have little to no merit to the members as well. But when a situation arises wherein there are ongoing accusations and product misrepresentations, we have no choice but to respond.
Jim Bell asked me to post this:
I’ve cautioned Dustin Whipple before about defaming Kenne Bell, Autorotor, or me personally, but he refuses to let it go. He continues to accuse us of false advertising and confusing our facts. So let’s compare and check out some of Dustin’s “facts” he’s always touting. In particular, his misleading and false comments and advertising claims regarding our ‘03 Cobra inlet manifold vs. the Whipple. The following are some of Dustin’s comments / claims from his posts and from Whipple literature.
* “When comparing superchargers, you also need to compare kits. Our Cobra inlet is far better designed, it offers almost 11" sq. inches throughout the casting. The Bell necks down to nearly 4.75"....Whipple have never gone after a ‘blower war’ but I’m so sick of the false Bell propaganda. Jim Bell is a very intelligent person and has made some incredible products, he’s a very likable character, but we need to keep the facts straight.”[1]
* “Other companies make false claims and inaccurate judgements regarding supercharger efficiency and kits.”[2]
* “The Whipple supercharger inlet is nearly 35% larger than other companies inlet which offers a much lower possibility for starving the compressor for air at high power levels.”[2]
* “CAD designed air inlet for maximum air flow, almost twice the airflow capability as competitors.”[2]
[1] taken from a post by Dustin Whipple on the SVTPerformance website 10-15-2004.
[2] taken from actual Whipple website advertising as of 01/13/2004.
We realize how someone inexperienced in inlet component design might just redesign a particular manifold, make it “bigger” in some areas, and wrongly conclude that “bigger is better”, without flow testing and dyno testing the component. The end result would be false and misleading claims such as “almost twice the airflow capability as competitors” that are based solely on a simple size observation.
Really? “...twice the airflow...” of a Kenne Bell 1035 cfm Cobra inlet manifold? 2070 cfm? That’s laughable. Anyone the least bit knowledgeable in inlet and exhaust tract and port flow knows “bigger is not always better”. So you want comparisons? The flow test results on the big Superflow #1020 flowbench are as follows for the big oval throttle body manifolds:
Kenne Bell - 1035 cfm
Whipple - 983 cfm
That is 5% less, not 200% more than the Kenne Bell. The flow numbers for the dual throttle body manifolds were identical - both flowed 903 cfm. NOT 200% more, but equal. Maybe Whipple should get a new CAD program, or at least a flow bench before making claims like they have been. We have flow bench and dyno tested our Kenne Bell 1125 cfm Cobra prototype manifold, but even at 700 rwhp, there were no gains. This prototype Kenne Bell manifold was tested on both 4V and 2V engines. In fact, we have the flow data on all 25 of the manifolds we’ve designed. Our tests prove the Kenne Bell 1125, 1035, and even the Whipple 983 cfm manifolds are all 3 more than adequate for 700 rwhp.
So, we’re not bashing the Whipple or even claiming our manifold makes more power, just getting “...the facts straight” using accurate test data. We have also dyno tested the Whipple Cobra kit, and know exactly how much it makes compared to our 2.2 and 2.4 kits with all the manifolds. We have the facts. In no way does a Whipple kit make more power than ours. No way!
At Kenne Bell, we take a lot of pride in our own kit designs. We flow test all the prototype and final components on both the flowbench and the dyno. Each of the various inlet pieces (filter, hose, MAF meter, screen, inlet tube, throttle body and inlet manifold) are tested individually and as assemblies (more on this in a future post). That way, we can better determine exactly where the restrictions are if any. The inlet manifold must be able to flow enough air to support the potential of the entire inlet tract.
Subsequently, considerable time was spent shaping and contouring the ‘03/’04 Cobra inlet to support very high hp levels. Rest assured, the Kenne Bell inlet will not be “...starving the compressor for air at high power levels.” The gentle, smooth contours of the Kenne Bell manifold weren’t guessed at, so we’ll disagree with Dustin when he states “Our Cobra inlet is far better designed...”. Furthermore, our sources assure us the Whipple Cobra manifold never saw a flowbench. We know how it was designed.
Let’s chalk this up to inexperience and move on. Whether it be the Kenne Bell 1035, Whipple 983 cfm, Kenne Bell 1125 cfm - or someone else’s hypothetical 1250 cfm, etc.. manifold, don’t expect to see any gains in an inlet manifold. All of the above mentioned are perfectly adequate. It’s sort of like a big 6" x 12" filter. A bigger 6" x 14" or 8" x 16", etc. filter won’t make any more power if it’s not a restriction in the first place. A good example of a “restriction” worth addressing is the stock 90mm MAF screen. It restricts the flow by a whopping 100 cfm - with any manifold (but beware, before you simply remove it, this can cause idle instability, driveability issues, and even change the air/fuel ratio at WOT).
Also, according to all our flowbench data and dyno testing, the 90mm MAF itself is the worst restriction in the system, and offers the greatest potential gain in hp. It is too small. The MAF size should be more like 125mm (a full 5 inches), than even a 101, 110mm etc...
Hopefully, this serves to clear up any confusion regarding the inlet manifolds.
Sincerely,
Jim Bell
We know everyone is a little tired of the salvos going back and forth between Dustin Whipple and Kenne Bell. Frankly, we think some of the subjects brought up by Dustin have little to no merit to the members as well. But when a situation arises wherein there are ongoing accusations and product misrepresentations, we have no choice but to respond.
Jim Bell asked me to post this:
I’ve cautioned Dustin Whipple before about defaming Kenne Bell, Autorotor, or me personally, but he refuses to let it go. He continues to accuse us of false advertising and confusing our facts. So let’s compare and check out some of Dustin’s “facts” he’s always touting. In particular, his misleading and false comments and advertising claims regarding our ‘03 Cobra inlet manifold vs. the Whipple. The following are some of Dustin’s comments / claims from his posts and from Whipple literature.
* “When comparing superchargers, you also need to compare kits. Our Cobra inlet is far better designed, it offers almost 11" sq. inches throughout the casting. The Bell necks down to nearly 4.75"....Whipple have never gone after a ‘blower war’ but I’m so sick of the false Bell propaganda. Jim Bell is a very intelligent person and has made some incredible products, he’s a very likable character, but we need to keep the facts straight.”[1]
* “Other companies make false claims and inaccurate judgements regarding supercharger efficiency and kits.”[2]
* “The Whipple supercharger inlet is nearly 35% larger than other companies inlet which offers a much lower possibility for starving the compressor for air at high power levels.”[2]
* “CAD designed air inlet for maximum air flow, almost twice the airflow capability as competitors.”[2]
[1] taken from a post by Dustin Whipple on the SVTPerformance website 10-15-2004.
[2] taken from actual Whipple website advertising as of 01/13/2004.
We realize how someone inexperienced in inlet component design might just redesign a particular manifold, make it “bigger” in some areas, and wrongly conclude that “bigger is better”, without flow testing and dyno testing the component. The end result would be false and misleading claims such as “almost twice the airflow capability as competitors” that are based solely on a simple size observation.
Really? “...twice the airflow...” of a Kenne Bell 1035 cfm Cobra inlet manifold? 2070 cfm? That’s laughable. Anyone the least bit knowledgeable in inlet and exhaust tract and port flow knows “bigger is not always better”. So you want comparisons? The flow test results on the big Superflow #1020 flowbench are as follows for the big oval throttle body manifolds:
Kenne Bell - 1035 cfm
Whipple - 983 cfm
That is 5% less, not 200% more than the Kenne Bell. The flow numbers for the dual throttle body manifolds were identical - both flowed 903 cfm. NOT 200% more, but equal. Maybe Whipple should get a new CAD program, or at least a flow bench before making claims like they have been. We have flow bench and dyno tested our Kenne Bell 1125 cfm Cobra prototype manifold, but even at 700 rwhp, there were no gains. This prototype Kenne Bell manifold was tested on both 4V and 2V engines. In fact, we have the flow data on all 25 of the manifolds we’ve designed. Our tests prove the Kenne Bell 1125, 1035, and even the Whipple 983 cfm manifolds are all 3 more than adequate for 700 rwhp.
So, we’re not bashing the Whipple or even claiming our manifold makes more power, just getting “...the facts straight” using accurate test data. We have also dyno tested the Whipple Cobra kit, and know exactly how much it makes compared to our 2.2 and 2.4 kits with all the manifolds. We have the facts. In no way does a Whipple kit make more power than ours. No way!
At Kenne Bell, we take a lot of pride in our own kit designs. We flow test all the prototype and final components on both the flowbench and the dyno. Each of the various inlet pieces (filter, hose, MAF meter, screen, inlet tube, throttle body and inlet manifold) are tested individually and as assemblies (more on this in a future post). That way, we can better determine exactly where the restrictions are if any. The inlet manifold must be able to flow enough air to support the potential of the entire inlet tract.
Subsequently, considerable time was spent shaping and contouring the ‘03/’04 Cobra inlet to support very high hp levels. Rest assured, the Kenne Bell inlet will not be “...starving the compressor for air at high power levels.” The gentle, smooth contours of the Kenne Bell manifold weren’t guessed at, so we’ll disagree with Dustin when he states “Our Cobra inlet is far better designed...”. Furthermore, our sources assure us the Whipple Cobra manifold never saw a flowbench. We know how it was designed.
Let’s chalk this up to inexperience and move on. Whether it be the Kenne Bell 1035, Whipple 983 cfm, Kenne Bell 1125 cfm - or someone else’s hypothetical 1250 cfm, etc.. manifold, don’t expect to see any gains in an inlet manifold. All of the above mentioned are perfectly adequate. It’s sort of like a big 6" x 12" filter. A bigger 6" x 14" or 8" x 16", etc. filter won’t make any more power if it’s not a restriction in the first place. A good example of a “restriction” worth addressing is the stock 90mm MAF screen. It restricts the flow by a whopping 100 cfm - with any manifold (but beware, before you simply remove it, this can cause idle instability, driveability issues, and even change the air/fuel ratio at WOT).
Also, according to all our flowbench data and dyno testing, the 90mm MAF itself is the worst restriction in the system, and offers the greatest potential gain in hp. It is too small. The MAF size should be more like 125mm (a full 5 inches), than even a 101, 110mm etc...
Hopefully, this serves to clear up any confusion regarding the inlet manifolds.
Sincerely,
Jim Bell
Jim,
To let you know, I will not continue to reply to any of your further oulandish post. You can continue posting false information if it makes you feel better. Just as your other false info, this is just another example. But it would be very wise for you to refrain from mentioning inexperience. Don't get me started on this topic, nobody will benefit, especially you. Even though I would love too post each one of your false quotes :smmon: with correct info, I will spare everybody the drama.oke:
So last, but not least.......
Sources? Seriously, get real. You know how it was designed, really? No, you must not otherwise you wouldn't post such a rhetoric statement on a public forum. We measured and tested your production piece. We evaluated your products before designing ours, it would be silly not to know what were up against and we could use that info to make something better, which we didepper: . To think that we knocked yours off is a complete gut buster :lol: . In reality, we used your pieces as the "do not do" example. After testing and evaluation, we found where there were potential problems and during our design (which was 100% hand fabricated), we knew where we could improve, which we did. Our inlet was flow tested with our CAD flow program (Solidworks with flow option), flow tested on a flow bench and the compressor flow bench :thumbsup: , which shows true results (3ft pipe doesn't simulate real world). From our results, I know your results are simply just that, your results! :bowdown:
If you want to compare, please flow the bypass passage :burn: , flow test the discharge adapter, flow test the inlets on the compressor, although I'm sure your results will somehow come in favor of KB, maybe you'll notice a few items. :shrug:
Take care,
Dustin
To let you know, I will not continue to reply to any of your further oulandish post. You can continue posting false information if it makes you feel better. Just as your other false info, this is just another example. But it would be very wise for you to refrain from mentioning inexperience. Don't get me started on this topic, nobody will benefit, especially you. Even though I would love too post each one of your false quotes :smmon: with correct info, I will spare everybody the drama.
oke: So last, but not least.......
Sources? Seriously, get real. You know how it was designed, really? No, you must not otherwise you wouldn't post such a rhetoric statement on a public forum. We measured and tested your production piece. We evaluated your products before designing ours, it would be silly not to know what were up against and we could use that info to make something better, which we did
epper: . To think that we knocked yours off is a complete gut buster :lol: . In reality, we used your pieces as the "do not do" example. After testing and evaluation, we found where there were potential problems and during our design (which was 100% hand fabricated), we knew where we could improve, which we did. Our inlet was flow tested with our CAD flow program (Solidworks with flow option), flow tested on a flow bench and the compressor flow bench :thumbsup: , which shows true results (3ft pipe doesn't simulate real world). From our results, I know your results are simply just that, your results! :bowdown: If you want to compare, please flow the bypass passage :burn: , flow test the discharge adapter, flow test the inlets on the compressor, although I'm sure your results will somehow come in favor of KB, maybe you'll notice a few items. :shrug:
Take care,
Dustin
I Did buy a Whipple but look what slamming does.
It is great to compare products.
There is a basis and a bias in the truth from both Whipple & KB.
As a mechanical engineer I read these posts with interest.
I suggest that a third party conduct a Blower comparison test on a Dyno.
Same Car, Same Day or at least schedule in a place where weather runs consistent, i.e. not the Northeast, Same Dyno, Same MAF, CAI , Exhaust, and Tune for same timing and A/F , 16-17 lbs max Boost. Both Manufactures must be present and have sign off on install. Superchargers Picked at Random from Distributor inventory, No ringers.
I bet it would prove to be a close draw.
Also Whipple Should publish more raw test data like KB and both companies should also describe the test set-up and other parameters along with any claims of “Mine is bigger than Yours”
One question for both:
What is the first critical speed of the rotors?
Regards,
Mike69440
One Observation: There sure are a lot of posts to this thread!
Big_Torch said:
It is great to compare products.
There is a basis and a bias in the truth from both Whipple & KB.
As a mechanical engineer I read these posts with interest.
I suggest that a third party conduct a Blower comparison test on a Dyno.
Same Car, Same Day or at least schedule in a place where weather runs consistent, i.e. not the Northeast, Same Dyno, Same MAF, CAI , Exhaust, and Tune for same timing and A/F , 16-17 lbs max Boost. Both Manufactures must be present and have sign off on install. Superchargers Picked at Random from Distributor inventory, No ringers.
I bet it would prove to be a close draw.
Also Whipple Should publish more raw test data like KB and both companies should also describe the test set-up and other parameters along with any claims of “Mine is bigger than Yours”
One question for both:
What is the first critical speed of the rotors?
Regards,
Mike69440
One Observation: There sure are a lot of posts to this thread!
Last edited:
I got a great idea ; kb vs whipple race
get the 10 best of both for a good old fashion shootout. It's still early enough to organize one for the spring or summer . how better to prove the worth of your product that to just have it out.one event winner take all the bragging rights back to there respectable shop . i'd travel 1000 miles and pay good money to see that .
P.S both companies bring product ot a race becasue the winner will get a new custoner in me .....
get the 10 best of both for a good old fashion shootout. It's still early enough to organize one for the spring or summer . how better to prove the worth of your product that to just have it out.one event winner take all the bragging rights back to there respectable shop . i'd travel 1000 miles and pay good money to see that .
P.S both companies bring product ot a race becasue the winner will get a new custoner in me .....
shootout shootout shootout
A third party test is deffinately the best way and only way to get a true unbiassed opinion.
I have friends who run KB's as well as a friend that runs a whipple on his 03 Cobra.
To say the least I was very impressed with the power output of the whipple at only 13psi.
I have friends who run KB's as well as a friend that runs a whipple on his 03 Cobra.
To say the least I was very impressed with the power output of the whipple at only 13psi.
badvenom101 said:
For those who are wanting to see some Whipple vs Kenne Bell stuff, I'm sure that I'll have some good vids come this spring, there are two cobra's in my area getting Twin Screws, one whipple(i know for sure), and another KB(heard from owner he is getting one, haven't seen it though yet).
THey both know each other/are in a car club, so we'll see what happens.
I've riden in a Kenne Bell Cobra and in a Whipple Cobra. Kenne Bell Cobra was running 15lb of boost and the Whipple Cobra was running 15lbs of boost, both were custom tuned and had same basic mods (midpipe,catback,cai) KB Cobra also had the BAS & BAP while the Whipple had Focus Pumps and i want to say BAS. By far the KB Cobra was faster, it pulled harder and was still at 15lbs before a shift! I can't remember the numbers of hand but i do know that the KB Cobra made something like 35 more rwhp! That's quite a bit in my book!! I will get the numbers and post them later tonight. Not trying to bash anyone just simply stating my experiences with both. I will say though the fact that Jim Bell has got numbers and presentable facts makes me lean more towards getting a KB. :rockon:
Cant get enough of the whine from the KB!
BigZach love the rims!!!
BigZach love the rims!!!
Keep us posted on the numbers. I am in the market for either a Whipple or a KB and I need some help deciding :burnout:
Big_Torch said:
I agree....but seeing as how they don't make a Whipple for the SN95s and the Kenne Bell representative seems to make valid points and has good information readily available, I am leaning a little that way. You can't go wrong with either TwinScrew, its just you see alot more people giving KB the thumbs up. At least on the boards anyway.
Users who are viewing this thread
