Most engine friendly power adder

twogts4us · Jul 30, 2005

Gearbanger 101 said:
A nice Eaton based positive displacement blower running in the 6-7psi range like the FRPP or the Allen. Every bit the amount of power that the KB makes (at that level) for considerably less money.

I wouldn't really compare the twin screw design to an Roots design - the power curves, the potential, the way each one works is completely different. If you are going to soak your motor in some money, IMO, make it the best you can afford. He didn't mention money as being a major issue, and he mentions a 6psi blower, 300 RWHP to keep up with traffic. With the $3800 6 psi KB (which is a COMPLETE kit, including a new, non-plastic manifold, chip, boost-a-pump, etc - everything you need to install), he could be at 350 RWHP (and could just upgrade from there if that isn't enough).
The twin screw is just a superior design, as much as 30% more efficient than a comparable size Roots style blower. Sure, the 03-04 Cobras have a Roots...but the Ford GT...? Yep, it's a twin screw.

Gearbanger 101 · Jul 31, 2005

twogts4us said:
I wouldn't really compare the twin screw design to an Roots design - the power curves, the potential, the way each one works is completely different. If you are going to soak your motor in some money, IMO, make it the best you can afford. He didn't mention money as being a major issue, and he mentions a 6psi blower, 300 RWHP to keep up with traffic. With the $3800 6 psi KB (which is a COMPLETE kit, including a new, non-plastic manifold, chip, boost-a-pump, etc - everything you need to install), he could be at 350 RWHP (and could just upgrade from there if that isn't enough).
The twin screw is just a superior design, as much as 30% more efficient than a comparable size Roots style blower. Sure, the 03-04 Cobras have a Roots...but the Ford GT...? Yep, it's a twin screw.

Don’t be fooled by KB’s creative marketing techniques. Twin screws are only more efficient that an Eaton blower when you really start putting the boost to them. They may thrive at 14psi, but they’re the worst of the bunch with respect to “efficiency” at 6-7psi! In fact, the KB’s makes far more heat than a comparable M112 and even more so than an M90 at or below this level. Roots blowers are designed to “paddle” the air back and forth within the housing in order to build compression. Not very efficient from a volumetric filling standpoint, but it beneficially keeps discharge temperatures to a minimum. It is true that Adiabatic Efficiency with the Eaton’s starts to rapidly take a nose dive after the 6-8psi level (depending on the blower), but the efficiency of the M112 is in the 65% @ 7-8psi and 65% @ 4-5psi with the M90.

The screw compressors like the KB and Whipple uses an internal compression method, which is typically a 1.35 ratio on Lysholm and Auto Rotors. This means that it’s able to move a larger volume of air in the lower ranges, but not without spoiling most of the charge with elevated discharge temps. The screw design works by constantly compressing air even when it does not need to. Squeezing and discharging hot air repeatedly, over and over. Adiabatic efficiency at 2-psi is in the 30% range. At 4-psi it is in the 40% range. Peak is 65% at 15-psi. Great if you’re really planning on putting the boost pressure to your engine, but not so great if keeping a stock motor together is your priority. If the Twin Screw design was in fact a superior design, why are 90% of all automakers still utilizing the Roots based Eaton blowers? Stone reliable and more efficient in the lower regions, that’s why. Sure the Ford GT uses a twin screw, but that’s also because it’s pumping out at a whopping 12-13psi through it’s housing which is right around peek adiabatic efficiency for that particular blower. Not to mention it was designed to fulfill the needs of a 5.4L 500rwhp super car, not a measly “keep up with traffic 300hp Mustang!” The Twin Screw wasn’t used because it was a “superior blower”, it was utilized because it was the best choice to get that particular job done. And lets face it, you have to use the right tool, for the right job…right? But pulley that puppy for 6psi and see how well if performs!

His post suggested to me that money was a concern; otherwise he wouldn’t have stated he wanted to “safely” add power to a stock engine. If money was no object, then he would have opted for a high end rebuild went with as much power as streetable and not have worried about it.

SRT Handz · Jul 31, 2005

Tornado!!!!!

tomustang · Jul 31, 2005

Gearbanger 101 said:
Don’t be fooled by KB’s creative marketing techniques. Twin screws are only more efficient that an Eaton blower when you really start putting the boost to them. They may thrive at 14psi, but they’re the worst of the bunch with respect to “efficiency” at 6-7psi! In fact, the KB’s makes far more heat than a comparable M112 and even more so than an M90 at or below this level. Roots blowers are designed to “paddle” the air back and forth within the housing in order to build compression. Not very efficient from a volumetric filling standpoint, but it beneficially keeps discharge temperatures to a minimum. It is true that Adiabatic Efficiency with the Eaton’s starts to rapidly take a nose dive after the 6-8psi level (depending on the blower), but the efficiency of the M112 is in the 65% @ 7-8psi and 65% @ 4-5psi with the M90.

The screw compressors like the KB and Whipple uses an internal compression method, which is typically a 1.35 ratio on Lysholm and Auto Rotors. This means that it’s able to move a larger volume of air in the lower ranges, but not without spoiling most of the charge with elevated discharge temps. The screw design works by constantly compressing air even when it does not need to. Squeezing and discharging hot air repeatedly, over and over. Adiabatic efficiency at 2-psi is in the 30% range. At 4-psi it is in the 40% range. Peak is 65% at 15-psi. Great if you’re really planning on putting the boost pressure to your engine, but not so great if keeping a stock motor together is your priority. If the Twin Screw design was in fact a superior design, why are 90% of all automakers still utilizing the Roots based Eaton blowers? Stone reliable and more efficient in the lower regions, that’s why. Sure the Ford GT uses a twin screw, but that’s also because it’s pumping out at a whopping 12-13psi through it’s housing which is right around peek adiabatic efficiency for that particular blower. Not to mention it was designed to fulfill the needs of a 5.4L 500rwhp super car, not a measly “keep up with traffic 300hp Mustang!” The Twin Screw wasn’t used because it was a “superior blower”, it was utilized because it was the best choice to get that particular job done. And lets face it, you have to use the right tool, for the right job…right? But pulley that puppy for 6psi and see how well if performs!

His post suggested to me that money was a concern; otherwise he wouldn’t have stated he wanted to “safely” add power to a stock engine. If money was no object, then he would have opted for a high end rebuild went with as much power as streetable and not have worried about it.

JESUS ****ING CHRIST

A+++

fright88 · Jul 31, 2005

Gearbanger 101 said:
Don’t be fooled by KB’s creative marketing techniques. Twin screws are only more efficient that an Eaton blower when you really start putting the boost to them. They may thrive at 14psi, but they’re the worst of the bunch with respect to “efficiency” at 6-7psi! In fact, the KB’s makes far more heat than a comparable M112 and even more so than an M90 at or below this level. Roots blowers are designed to “paddle” the air back and forth within the housing in order to build compression. Not very efficient from a volumetric filling standpoint, but it beneficially keeps discharge temperatures to a minimum. It is true that Adiabatic Efficiency with the Eaton’s starts to rapidly take a nose dive after the 6-8psi level (depending on the blower), but the efficiency of the M112 is in the 65% @ 7-8psi and 65% @ 4-5psi with the M90.

The screw compressors like the KB and Whipple uses an internal compression method, which is typically a 1.35 ratio on Lysholm and Auto Rotors. This means that it’s able to move a larger volume of air in the lower ranges, but not without spoiling most of the charge with elevated discharge temps. The screw design works by constantly compressing air even when it does not need to. Squeezing and discharging hot air repeatedly, over and over. Adiabatic efficiency at 2-psi is in the 30% range. At 4-psi it is in the 40% range. Peak is 65% at 15-psi. Great if you’re really planning on putting the boost pressure to your engine, but not so great if keeping a stock motor together is your priority. If the Twin Screw design was in fact a superior design, why are 90% of all automakers still utilizing the Roots based Eaton blowers? Stone reliable and more efficient in the lower regions, that’s why. Sure the Ford GT uses a twin screw, but that’s also because it’s pumping out at a whopping 12-13psi through it’s housing which is right around peek adiabatic efficiency for that particular blower. Not to mention it was designed to fulfill the needs of a 5.4L 500rwhp super car, not a measly “keep up with traffic 300hp Mustang!” The Twin Screw wasn’t used because it was a “superior blower”, it was utilized because it was the best choice to get that particular job done. And lets face it, you have to use the right tool, for the right job…right? But pulley that puppy for 6psi and see how well if performs!

His post suggested to me that money was a concern; otherwise he wouldn’t have stated he wanted to “safely” add power to a stock engine. If money was no object, then he would have opted for a high end rebuild went with as much power as streetable and not have worried about it.

Thank you. Nice post. Yes I am worried about cost and engine buildup cost. The way I would like to get things done is run something with low boost till I can afford an engine swap. Dunno tho then we get into the what if's and why not just do it right the first time. Frankly I don't really need or want much more than 450 high end to justifying the cost of a new engine is kinda hard to me when my car only has 32k on it.

Gearbanger 101 · Jul 31, 2005

fright88 said:
Thank you. Nice post. Yes I am worried about cost and engine buildup cost. The way I would like to get things done is run something with low boost till I can afford an engine swap. Dunno tho then we get into the what if's and why not just do it right the first time. Frankly I don't really need or want much more than 450 high end to justifying the cost of a new engine is kinda hard to me when my car only has 32k on it.

As much as I like the blowers I described earlier.....if upping the power levels in the eventual future with a built engine and running in the 450rwhp range are where you're eventually going to end up, then I'd probably consider alternatives to the FRPP or the Allen and go with something that will grow a little more with your combo. It's true that both these blowers are superior performers at moderate power levels, but you're not likely to ever see beyond 340-350rwph with bolt-ons and the FRPP and 390-400rwhp with the Allen. If that's enough jam for you, then look no further, but If you're later looking to move beyond that, then going with the Kenne Bell or a Centrifugal blower like a Novi, ATI or an S-trim would be most the cost effective.

Then again, if building or buying a new engine isn’t anywhere in the near future and you’re 3-5 years away from anything of that sort, then going with either of the previous blowers described might not be such a bad deal, since the resale on either one is extremely high. If you’re some what automotively inclined, a positive displacement blower install isn’t much more involved than an intake swap and taking it off and putting it on could be accomplished over a long-weekend. Besides regardless of the blower you buy, you’re going to have to rip it all out again to bolt in and mate it up to the new motor anyway, right? I’ve seen used Allen and FRPP kits go for nearly what they were worth new, because they’re a top notch, stone reliable kit and most buyers know this. You could then put that money towards a new KB, Centi or whatever and match your fresh new motor to a fresh new blower. Consider your first stock internal, low-boost based set up a trial run until you're ready to start making the real power and shelling out the money.

Ya see any way you go, one method of doing it isn't head over heals better than the other. In the end it’s all up to you and is going to depend on what you’re looking to do in the long run, how well you’d like it to perform before and after that point and how little money you’d like to spend in the mean time.

Sorry guys I’m long winded, I know.

DBMSTNG · Jul 31, 2005

the most engine friendly power adder is a turbo hands down. it makes more power with less boost than any supercharger and does not produce excess drag on the motor since it's exhaust driven. also, it doesn't have the instant impact of a nitrous hit.

Z28 KILR · Jul 31, 2005

From experience there is no friendly engine power adder. Beef up the motor first then add the power adder.

Most engine friendly power adder

twogts4us

Gearbanger 101

Straight Outta Locash

SRT Handz

I tripped & fell down and cut myself & got blood

tomustang

Psychotic Member

fright88

Gearbanger 101

Straight Outta Locash

DBMSTNG

I fantasize about it being BIG!

Z28 KILR

Similar threads

Most engine friendly power adder

Straight Outta Locash

I tripped & fell down and cut myself & got blood

Psychotic Member

Straight Outta Locash

I fantasize about it being BIG!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency