Not true. when you put in a new tune, the tuner saves the stock program as a backup. When you install the new tune, it overwrites the factory tune. Besides, here's the thing: unless they actually SEE the blower on the car, It was never there. They can speculate all they want. Let them prove it.subzero05 said:Granted, they won't see an oil fitting but they WILL see the PCM was reprogrammed regardless if you put it back to the stock tune or not...How do I know this: I have the predator on now and just out of curiousity figured I would leave the program on the car when i took it into to get serviced since I am friends with the service MGR.. I mentioned nothing of the tune being on the car and never spoke if it before, but when I got the car back his quote to me was : "so, how does the new programming affect the cars performance?..Do you like it?"..We both laughed and of course he wouldn't rat me out since we are friends, but for those who are wondering if ford WILL SEE a tune...THEY WILL!..So, either way if you have an oil fitting tapped with a tune or a procharger kit with a tune, the dealer will see the PCM was flashed with the tuner...end result: unless you are friends with the dealer,you will be dealing with the potential of your warranty being revoked..Just FYI for those who are interested
CobraIILover said:We are going to be using a positive displacement supercharger on our 05 project. I've run all types of blowers on past vehicles, and I prefer this type of blower on anything but an all out race vehicle. Even then, a good positive displacement blower can still outperform a centrifugal on certain setups. The main problem with running a good positive displacement blower is that there are very few out there. I was going to run the Whipple, but they aren't out yet. I wouldn't put a KB on my worst enemy's car. But now that Saleen has their Series VI twin screw kit, we are going to run that. I've not been a fan of Saleens prior blower kits, but they really hit a home run with the 05 setup. It's very clean, has a factory look to it, has a quality Lysholm rotor pack, and performs awesome. I've got a lot of experiance with twin screws, and it's really nice to have the low end power of a blower like this, as compared to a centrifugal. And as far as top end power, let's just say that even at 26psi when I ran the Whipple on our Lightning, there was never a power drop off issue. We are planning to limit our 05 project to 500 rwhp on the stock motor for now. We'll see how it goes, I still need to GET one of the blowers.
300bhp/ton said:Just curious why Whipple and not KB. They both source their actual blowers from the same company, is it the ECU setup and inlet/pluming you don't like?
except that its all the same company. Opcon basicaslly own Lysholm.CobraIILover said:Untrue. Whipple uses Lysholm blowers/rotor packs (they are the US distributor for Lysholm) and KB uses Opcon/Autorotor blowers/rotor packs. Big difference.
300bhp/ton said:except that its all the same company. Opcon basicaslly own Lysholm.
Not sure if the blowers differ internally or not. Any Opcon has been a market leader in this field since the ot set pretty much.
Does that mean this is in correct information:CobraIILover said:That's also wrong. They are two seperate companies, with two different products. People "think" they are the same company because a year or so back Lysholm bought Opcon Autorotor in a reverse merger, which made it look like Opcon bought Lysholm.
KC@KB said:OPCON/AUTOROTOR, the Swedish manufacturer of superchargers for Kenne Bell, has purchased Lysholm / SRM, another Swedish twin screw manufacturer.
Lysholm supplies superchargers to Whipple Industries in the U.S. This is not a merger, as rumored by some, but simply one company buying out another. We have taken the liberty of posting the Press Release taken directly from OPCON's own website:
Pressrelease 1/15/2004
Opcon completes strategic acquisitions
Opcon AB has acquired Svenska Rotor Maskiner AB (SRM) and Lysholm Technologies AB (LT).
The purchase price is 1,450,000 newly issued shares in Opcon AB and SEK 5 million in cash. There is also an additional purchase price that depends on the financial results for the past year. Opcon took possession on 31 December 2003. The companies had sales of around SEK 65 million and reported an operating profit of around SEK 5 million in 2002. Increased sales and profits are expected for 2003.
”With this acquisition we have secured important strategic resources that will influence Opcon’s short-term and long-term profitability and development,” comments Sven G. Oskarsson, CEO of Opcon.
SRM has invented, developed and licensed screw compressors and now has over 70 active patents and 35 licence holders such as Carrier, Trane, Mitsubishi and York using the product for various industrial applications.
SRM had sales turnover of SEK 46 million in 2002 and made an operating profit of SEK 2.4 million. Similar results are forecast for 2003. The company recently received a large design assignment that will be followed by a production order. The design order is worth SEK 10 million.
Opcon’s strategic aim with the purchase is, among other things, to safeguard intellectual property rights and globally advanced competence for the continued development and manufacturing of complete air systems for fuel cells and combustion engines. Opcon Autorotor AB (OA), a subsidiary of Opcon AB, is involved in several important development projects within the fuel cell sector. These projects rely partly on private financing and partly (50%) on financing from the Swedish Energy Authority and the EU’s Sixth Framework Agreement.
Opcon’s customers in the fuel cell sector are currently reorganising their purchasing structures ahead of series production. Opcon’s continuing involvement in the fuel cell sector depends on being able to offer customers a complete air system comprising frequency converter, electric motor, compressor and heat exchanger. Opcon has developed, or is in the process of developing, all the products necessary for an air system in order to provide an optimum package.
Lysholm Technologies AB (LT) is a sister company of SRM. LT had sales turnover in 2002 of SEK 20.7 million and an operating profit of SEK 2.5 million. The company forecasts that it will double sales turnover and operating profit in 2003.
LT competes with the Opcon subsidiary, Opcon Autorotor, primarily on the US aftersales market for compressors used in combustion engines. The acquisition will give Opcon considerable synergies in product development, marketing and manufacturing. Future rationalisation of the product ranges of both companies will also generate cost savings.
Both Opcon Autorotor and Lysholm Technologies have started series production of compressors for both fuel cells and combustion engines. The acquisition gives Opcon an immediate increase in advanced capacity in order to complete these projects. LT will commence commercial deliveries of compressors to OEM customers in January 2004. The volume of this business is expected to reach SEK 15 million in 2004. LT has also signed an agreement with a German company concerning sales of compressors on the European aftermarket. The value of this order is in the range of SEK 20-30 million. This will give the companies further opportunity to rationalise manufacturing and purchasing.
Another Opcon subsidiary, Laminova (LA), holds a patent for its heat exchanger and the acquisition of LT will also provide an opportunity to use this heat exchanger as an intercooler in screw compressor applications for fuel cell and combustion engines in the auto sector.
Both SRM , LT and OA are based in Nacka, LA in Sollentuna outside Stockholm.
………………………………………………………………………………………………
For further information, please contact:
Sven G. Oskarsson, CEO, Opcon AB,
tel +46 532 611 30, mobile +46 70 625 81 21.
Göran Falkenström, CFO and deputy CEO of Opcon,
tel +46 532 611 22, mobile +46 70 330 05 02.
website: www.opconab.com
Just asking cos I'm curious. The 'official' looking statment from Ken at Kenne Bell states what I posted, yet you claim different. How am I to know which is correct?CobraIILover said:300bhp/ton, I really don't want to get into a debate on the logisitics of what happened a year and a half ago. We all argued it back then. Whether I am right or wrong about the merger, what matters is what's going on in present day. The two companies produce two different products, they are not the same.
300bhp/ton said:Just asking cos I'm curious. The 'official' looking statment from Ken at Kenne Bell states what I posted, yet you claim different. How am I to know which is correct?
As for the products, well I assume each company was producing its own twin screw compressors but if one is better than the other and for the sake of economies of scale I would assume they would universalise.
PS
You never did answer why you don't like KB, all you said is they are supplied by Opcon. So what do have against them?
Is it a technical issue or service? Or something else?
Who gives a f? you are obviously not in the market for one anyway. Ever heard the term 'obnoxious' applied to you?300bhp/ton said:Just asking cos I'm curious. The 'official' looking statment from Ken at Kenne Bell states what I posted, yet you claim different. How am I to know which is correct?
As for the products, well I assume each company was producing its own twin screw compressors but if one is better than the other and for the sake of economies of scale I would assume they would universalise.
PS
You never did answer why you don't like KB, all you said is they are supplied by Opcon. So what do have against them?
Is it a technical issue or service? Or something else?
you're just pissed cos every one keeps ripping you for your poor ET's with a 500+bhp Mustang.Nolyaw said:Who gives a f? you are obviously not in the market for one anyway. Ever heard the term 'obnoxious' applied to you?
CobraIILover said:Again, I'm not going to get into a meger debate. All that matters is what the present day status is. And that status is that no matter who owns who, the two companies are producing seperate products. And yes, I prefer the Whipple over the KB. I don't want to start a Whipple vs KB debate; been down that road many times. So I'll try to make the following statement as "politically correct" as I can...
I deal with both of these blowers on a daily basis. It's my job, it's what I do for a living. And in MY personal experiance, the Whipple is far superior to the KB in quality and performance. That's all I am going to say.
royb said:Sal, I appreaciate your real world experience and having sent back the saleen blower a while back I'm still in the market for a supercharger and am going to go with the Whipple since i dont see many other options other than the kb there is the roush. so could you give me a high level what you like about the whipple since that is the route I think I will go?
300bhp/ton said:you're just pissed cos every one keeps ripping you for your poor ET's with a 500+bhp Mustang.
While you keep dreaming about owning a fast new car, other people post with real world questions about their new products. The long drawn out wanna-be-know-it-all responses ARE obnoxious and most of the time unrelated, because you dont know what its like to experience the type of car that these threads are about. Maybe I'll go post a new thread on the Ferrari Enzo board...do you see the resemblence?300bhp/ton said:you're just pissed cos every one keeps ripping you for your poor ET's with a 500+bhp Mustang.
bryannathan1 said:Gentlemen,
I have read through these threads, but I didn't hear much about the Roush supercharger. I was at a Ford dealer today checking out the new Mustang GT (comparing to GTO and Chrysler SRT-8). I liked the car, but felt it paled a little to the 400+ hp of the others. That's when the sales rep told me that they could install a Roush supercharger for about $5K that would add about 120hp and it would not void any factory waranties. Wow, 420 hp for about $32K. Not bad. Anyone know anything about this? I see a supercharger kit on Roush's web page, but no price. Will the factory 4.6L and drivetrain handle such?
Thanks for the advice.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?