That's pretty sick!

 

Or so you may "Think"

i have seen the maps and compared side by side... I beg to differ.

The problem is that sometimes theories are just that.. theories

 

Gotta love the dyno graph

Andy

 

That's just crazy... I say put some 3.23 gears in an m6 and that would be one hell of a highway runner, if you could hook up.

 

The magnacharger if you go to their site has a 3 lobe and 4 lobe twist rotor, looks pretty close to a screw if you ask me.

Either way 850+ torque at 2,500 is not something that is easy to do, you won't do it with a turbo motor, not at a comparable boost or hp level in the same rpm range.

People can debate what blower is better, I could give a sh*t, that's a mean dyno graph and I bet whoever has that motor in their ride has one big *** grin on his face every time they hits that gas from an idle.

 

Are they only supporting the front of that engine on one side?

 

The 3-lobe is in their Gen 5 blowers and the 4-lobe is in the Gen 6 ones. On each of those 2 generations of blowers, the 2 rotors in each blower are identical. For the TVS units, Eaton teamed up with Lysholm (owns the major twinscrew patents) to make a Hybrid Roots-type blower with as many of the advantages of the twin screws as possible without patent violations. It's closer, but it's not a twinscrew.

I agree this dyno session is badass and it's quite a capable unit.

Jim

 

What Liter size is it? That is a pretty big motor to begin with so I am wondering what the net gain of the blower itself was.

 

This is the 2.3 Liter TVS

 

Eaton also has an MP 1900 which is a 1.9 Liter unit. I'm mostly curious to see if one of those sizes could be stuffed on top of an LS1 F-body.

 

LYSHOLM WAS NOT INVOLVED in the development of TVS.

Please dont start that rumor. Eaton did all of this development "in-house"

Its still not an "internal compression" unit based on rotor geometry, and again no screw manufacturer had anything to do with this development. You can search for the patent yourself..

 

I was looking at Kenne Bells website and saw this comparison of there 2.8H and the TVS 2.3L on supposed exact same setups...

Take that for what you will, but it "seems" like a fair head to head comparison between the two.

 

it should fit, the tvs unit is only 11mm taller than the mp1900, so in theory it SHOULD work, but i wont hold my breath

 

I don't care if it's a bunch of hamsters stuffed in there huffing and puffing their hardest, 850ft/lbs of torque at just off idle is amazing in my book.

 

There is actually some good info in there. You can get a pretty good picture as to what is going on if they used the same car and same setup with each comparison. Like what I did below, all thsoe numbers look like this:

KB 16.5#'s 687/601 = 41.6HP/36.4TQ per# of boost
TVS 11.5#'s 573/540 = 49.8HP/46.9TQ per # of boost

KB 23.5#'s 801/738 = 34HP/31.4TQ per # of boost
TVS 14.5#'s 609/513 = 42HP/35.3TQ per # of boost

Per # of boost as boost increases figured form the variables above:
KB losses 1.08HP/1.4TQ per # of boost
TVS Losses 2.6HP/3.8TQ per # of boost

With that being the case if both ran at 11.5#'s then:
KB = 529HP/460TQ @ 11.5#'s
TVS = 573HP/540TQ @ 11.5#'s

IF you could get the TVS to spin past 14.5lbs to 16.5 this is how it would look based on loss per # progressively (as to the formula i created)

KB = 687HP/601TQ @16.5#'s
TVS = 607.2HP/452.1TQ @ 16.5#'s

Here is the kicker on that below 12#'s of boost the TVS has more umph per # of boost. At
10.5#'s of boost i calculate the (ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST WHOLE NUMBER)
KB = 48/41
TVS = 52/51

Pulley sizes where equal, but my 2.9"pulley on my MP112 gets me 10#'s imagine what a 2.9" pulley from a Procharger would do so I equalled out the pulley sizes for you:

TVS 16.5#'s = ~2.49"
KB 11.5#'s = ~3.35"
Average for KB was .07" per lbs of boost in the 16.5 to 23.5 area.
Average for TVS was 0.56 per lbs of boost. If I knew exact RPM these things ran we could really get these figured.


That being all said efficient wise the TVS is more efficiant in the lower boost levels and the KB is in the upper. So they both meet up around 14#'s of boost are about equal it seems when working all of this out. Most of my variables are within +/-1 and about +/- .1 with the pulley size. Just figured this sitting here, I am sure its not 100% but from what I can tell it seems that the difference really is in how much boost you want to make. Reliable under 15#'s my money is on the TVS, want to really get her moving run 15+ go with the KB. DO not flame me on this I just figured this by what info was given by the Dyno's above from KB. You can see though that from that formula I figured that the Eaton's loose steam after 12 lbs, but to say they are unefficiant is not 100% true depending on your varibles with your particular build.

 

Good write up and it makes sense to me.

 

FYI

That is a non-optimized TVS unit that was packaged in the housing that is the same as the Ford GT500 blower. (i.e. more flow through same restrictive geometry)

its not a "side by side" comparison because the blower inlets were different giving the KB the advantage..

Just trying to give "more of the story"

 

I just went off the info that was given I know there is ALOT more, just hope its not that bad . Its going to be hard to really compair anything without an enigne on a dyno with the blowers running the same boost, with the cost being included as well. I only did what I could see. Honestly I am a fan of the TVS. I had no intension of going over 10lbs of boost myself is why i got the maggie twice now (06 C6 & 00 SS). And just looking at those numbers the way they are even if the TVS was not optimal it still hung with it if not better till 14#'s by the numbers i got on this paper from doing all of that. Those dyno'd (much like the 'ol dyno vids, those of us who been on here long enough know what I am talking about with the old H/C debates ) are misleading in a way but the truth is there you just gotta fish and do the math a bit Not to mention the fact that the TVS 1900 will be on the CTS-V coming up, and with the ZR1 getting the TVS2300 I think that says alot for itself for reliablitly and performance. It may not get the "BEST" peak HP/TQ at its max effiency but it sure as hell ain't weak.

I would love to get a Procharger, Vortech, Maggie, APS, all of them installed run them off my block and give real world numbers for the bench racers . I would do it for free if I could get the F/I setups. I would even return them. I know do a Shop locally that has a engine dyno I could use for better controlled tests. Doubt he will let me do it for free though

 

That is tight, awesome Maggie

 

I say what ever the power adder, those numbers are not to shabby. THat thing will flatten your eyeballs clean back into your sockets. I just wish something like that would fit under my hood with out modding the base of the windshield. I would be just throttle it to hear that blower whine and a big grin on my face from the sudden acceleration