F&B 68mm Throttle Body

[O-Gauge Steamer]

Blanket is in. It made my Kid scratch his head a bit, but it is in. It is routed in a serpentine fashion (not easily seen in the photo) so as to leave access to the lower bolts. Wrapped all the way down to the collector. Keep in mind this is a replacemetn for stock manifold with the bellows. Yeah, the NAPA part...

Photo, of course!

Hope is to get the thing back together and started by the end of the day. We will see what we see.

 

[O-Gauge Steamer]

It is in and the Heep is alive. I expect to see a considerable change in performance as the boost has changed. Just as predicted by F&B. They predicted "A minimum of 1 possibly 2 psi" What I have seen so far is 3ish psi.


Depending upon the barometric, I was seeing 5psi to maybe 6psi. Now, I am seeing a solid 7psi and did see an 8psi whilst blipping the go pedal in the garage. Even at an average of call it 7.5psi, it is a 50% improvement in boost. Not bad at all...


IAC. I did have to manually drive the pintle in so as to be able to mount the IAC into the TB. Without resetting the PCM, the Heep settled it's idle down to desired nearly immediately.


There are no additional noises from the TB discovered so far. And my Kid can hear so it is not the old neaaly deaf guy saying this... Well OK it is, but it isn't, yes?


Exhaust manifold temperature abatement. Up until today, sitting in the garage and running at idle, hood open would cause the Heep to go over 93C and the main fan would shift from low speed to high. The Kid and I sat there for a good 12+ minutes and the Heep did not get much past the 90C setpoint. So, insofar as I am concerned, header blankets are worth the time/trouble as well as the cost to install.


As expected, I had to reroute the air tube. But just by a huge amount...

Photos:

And

Neither dipsticks are blocked by the filter. This may or may not be the final configuration but it is a right now so it can be tuned solution.


I have made a disturbing discovery in that there is a remarkable (to me) amount of oil in the intake. The Heep has 135,000+ miles on it. So, I guess it is time for a crankcase ventilation oil/air separator to be installed. Good news is that I now have room for it. Bad news is that they are not cheap either.


I have in mind something like, but not necessarily this, type of part.
http://www.jegs.com/i/Moroso/710/85496/10002/-1

Will have to shop around but there it is. Another opportunity for improvement.


Meanwhile, tuning for the 68mm begins in the morning.


Progress.

 

[offroadordnance]

Beemer AOS is much cheaper and a true cyclonic separator. I had similar issue on my 5.2L Dodge including pinging @ WOT, the AOS cleared it right up. Attached is the type of seperator I'm reffering to.

http://www.autopartsnetwork.com/cat...ter=part name:Engine+Oil+Separator_year:2000_

 

[Talyn]

What I have seen so far is 3ish psi.

Nice!

So, insofar as I am concerned, header blankets are worth the time/trouble as well as the cost to install.

You could also wrap your fuel rail and your injectors. I did my fuel rail, injectors and fuel rail back past the firewall. I would also revise the air intake, which I know you said you may.

I have made a disturbing discovery in that there is a remarkable (to me) amount of oil in the intake. The Heep has 135,000+ miles on it. So, I guess it is time for a crankcase ventilation oil/air separator to be installed. Good news is that I now have room for it. Bad news is that they are not cheap either.

I did mine the cheap way. Got what I though was the best assembled one. It is nothing but an open tank with two inlets. It would have done no good in that configuration. I pretty much knew what I was getting, so I wasn't surprised. I then went searching for stainless steel wool or something of the sort. Lowes, Home Depot, Walmart didn't have anything I would use. Finally at Food Lion (of all places) I found exactly what I was looking for. Stainless steel pot scrubbers. I wasn't looking for the pot scrubbers per se, but something stainless and a wool. But it fit the bill. I put a piece of screen I had from my windage tray I had made at the bottom of the canister by the drain, pot scrubber, then another piece of screen at the top to keep it all contained. I then attached a piece of brake line into the intake port and ran it down in the pot scrubber until it was about 1.5" from the bottom. It works. I cleaned it when I put fresh oil in and changed the oil right around 3000 miles and drained the canister. There was about 1.5oz of black nasty stuff in it, maybe a bit more. The only draw back is where i mounted it... its rearward of the Viper coil :wave: and if I don't have a cup or something immediately under it it drains on the "frame rail". It also makes removing the oversized oil filter a bit of a maze. I'm running out of room in my engine bay, but I have more to add. :doh: I think I have like $35 in it. It will even help more with your FI.

Beemer AOS is much cheaper and a true cyclonic separator. I had similar issue on my 5.2L Dodge including pinging @ WOT, the AOS cleared it right up. Attached is the type of seperator I'm reffering to.

http://www.autopartsnetwork.com/cat...ter=part name:Engine+Oil+Separator_year:2000_

Is it made by Dyson? No loss of suction? LOL.

Does that have to drain back to the crank case or can it drain into a canister of some sort? I've seen those before and the ones from Bimmers come in a few different styles.

 

[CobraMarty]

7--7.5--8 psi, that's great.
Do you think that the Sprintex S5-210 blower is still too small?

Here's something smaller and cheaper to try and test for the oil issues.
http://www.jegs.com/i/JEGS-Performance-Products/555/52205/10002/-1

That BMW part looks very interesting. What orientation does it mount? Vertical? Is there a ?check valve/ball inside so it just doesn't suck up thru the drain? It just mounts inline with the PCV hose?

 

[offroadordnance]

It mounts horizontal. In the OE config is dumps back thru the dipstick tube to the pan but it can dump to a catchcan. I don't want to derail O-G-S's thread. Let's discuss elsewhere.

 

[Talyn]

7--7.5--8 psi, that's great.
Do you think that the Sprintex S5-210 blower is still too small?

You must have some sort of issue. HE CAN'T SEE YOUR POST.

 

[CobraMarty]

I have no issue, the question can still be asked.

 

[Talyn]

Sure you don't. Stick to tarding up your own threads.

 

[5-90]

@Marty - ogs can't see your question because you're on his Ignore list.

@Talyn - be civil, willya?

Don't make me shut down another thread, I really don't like having to do it...

 

[O-Gauge Steamer]

Owing to what I can only assume is Senility (but, how would I know?) I forgot to put up a pic of the TB after it's installation.

So, here 'tis!

For those that are actually attempting to be helpful, my most sincere thanks.

Ordnance, I will look into the Beemer part as most anything can be made to work. Cost is the issue. So, if it turns out to be the least expensive solution, I will take my hat off to you. Maybe even a bow...

This is exactly why I ask questions on this board. To solicit responsible responses. Nobody knows everything. But I maintain that there is always somebody "out there" that is clutching the data I require in his/her grubby little fingers.

For those that are less than helpful or already know way more than I do, please stay off my threads. I promise to stay off any of yours. Agree to disagree and move on.

5-90. If you have to shut down yet another thread, feel free. As you well know, I fully support your decisions.

Yet, it would be a shame for another thread to be destroyed when all I am attempting to do is share my real world experience. I am finding things that contradict what I was told by Sprintex and just thought that it should be put out into the world. Others might be interested...

For instance, the entire process of resolving the Perfect Power SMT8-L issue was lost due to a sniper not leaving my thread alone.

And on that note:
IMO, 8 pounds of boost is the practical "no intercooler" limit point. Above this level of boost, again IMO, intercooling is a requirement. As I have previously stated, I have been doing forced induction (off and on to be fair) since 1959. I have seen a large number of really good ideas and some that can only be labled "OMG".

Which means... If I find that the boost exceeds 8 pounds on the road, I will have to slow the compressor down. Which has value as it reduces the parasitic loss to the engine. If the boost exceeds 8psi only at red line, I will,of course, not do anything to the compressor.

Now, if there were room under the hood, and I had the bucks to throw at the Heep, then I would replace this compressor with one that is properly sized to the engine and add the requisite intercooler as, IMO, 12-15 pounds of boost is actually rather a nice thing to have on tap. This compressor will never deliver that level of performance. as it is undersized.

I do not claim to be the World's Foremost Authority on anything. I am quite competent on some things, completely ignorant on others. Which is why I ask questions. Answers that I do not agree with, I discard. Those that appear to be practical, I embrace.

Let the tuning begin!

More Progress...

 

[Talyn]

Have you thought of using any thermal barrier coatings in conjunction to the blanket/stick on?

 

[sidewaysstarion]

Have you ever thought about putting a slightly smaller pulley on it and adding water/meth injection?

 

[Talyn]

@Talyn - be civil, willya?

I am.

 

[O-Gauge Steamer]

Have you thought of using any thermal barrier coatings in conjunction to the blanket/stick on? No I have not as I sort of figure it to be one or the other and at $20.00 (if I remember right) the stick on is a good starting point. Should bucks drop into my lap I can revisit.

Have you ever thought about putting a slightly smaller pulley on it and adding water/meth injection? Nope to the pulley. I am now at what I consider to be the maximum safe non-intercooled boost point. 8 pounds. It freaks me out to even think of attempting to run (enough qualifiers?) more boost with out intercooling. Plus, the compressor is only a 0.94 Litre per Revolution unit where what should be there is at the least a 1.67LPR compressor or, better still, a 2.3LPR compressor. It is far and away better to run a large compressor slow than a small compressor fast.

Water/methanol is in the plan. It is just so far away that the back burner is a far distant point. Most likely will use the AEM controller and the "spare" injector that is already in the system. Will need to make another fuel line but that will be easy-peasy. Just some hose and a couple of clamps as I can recycle the connectors that Sprintex is using.

To be honest with everyone, I did look into replacing this compressor with a Whipple 2.3LPR unit and add intercooling via yet another custom intake manifold. The cost was astronomical. Never mind that, at the time, I could have gotten the compressor, recirculation valve and the intercooler at Jobber prices, the cost was huge.

But, I would have had 15 to 18 pounds of boost on tap... Can you say "GO"?

But, reality reared it's ugly head and I had to completely cover a trimester's worth of tuition and books for the Kid. Those that know me know why, those that don't, don't need to...

Now back tuning. I have made very little changes to the fuel table so far. And, for that matter, why should I? The Heep just goes to a different cell than before. We are contniuing to get after the ignition so as to be able to run as much advance as possible.

In fact, the fuel changes have been to refine my long and short fuel trim levels to be closer to zero.

We are going out again this morning. With any luck at all, the Heep will be dialed in this morning. Going to see "Paranorman" this afternoon. In 3d. Call it "homework" for the Kid as, after all, that is what he is going to be doing for a living... That's right, yeah, homework.

Yeah, homework, that's the ticket...

 

[CobraMarty]

Plus, the compressor is only a 0.94 Litre per Revolution unit where what should be there is at the least a 1.67LPR compressor or, better still, a 2.3LPR compressor. It is far and away better to run a large compressor slow than a small compressor fast.

To be honest with everyone, I did look into replacing this compressor with a Whipple 2.3LPR unit...

[FONT=&quot]
2.8H, 2.8, 3.3/3.4, TVS DYNO TESTS & POTENTIAL HP

[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]THE MORE “EFFICIENT” [/FONT][FONT=&quot]2.8H TOPS THE [/FONT][FONT=&quot]3.3/3.4
WITH LOWER PARASITIC LOSS & HIGHER VE[/FONT]​

WHY THE TEST COMPARISON?
Enough of the opinions, theories and bogus tests. At Kenne Bell, we take pride in our testing. We’re respected throughout the industry for our expertise and accuracy. So, we decided to publish our back to back - no other change tests on the 2.8H and 3.3/3.4 kits after some misleading information and ridiculous tests were posted on the internet comparing our supercharger on - get this - different cars. But that wasn’t all that was DIFFERENT! How about headers (short tube, long tube), different tunes, different boost, cats vs. no cats etc. In the post it’s recommended the “readers” talk to their tuners to verify. Well we did - with Adam at ST Motorsports, owner and tuner of the “World’s Fastest and Quickest Street Legal PD Supercharged 3V 4.6 Mustang.” Adam verified the 2.8H outpowered the 3.3. As the old saying goes: “If you don’t like the test results, to hell with the facts. Change the test until it agrees with YOUR agenda or opinion.”

CHOOSING THE RIGHT SUPERCHARGER?
When choosing the right supercharger, the first reaction may be to blindly favor the “biggest one” available believing rating/size or the flow (cfm) alone will make more HP and maybe your car will run faster. Unfortunately, “bigger” is not always better. In this case, a 2.8H kit makes MORE HP than a 3.3 (see dyno test). Always remember “a good test is always better than a thousand opinions.” Then there are the Kenne Bell customers who purchased a 2.8H and wonder if a 3.3,3.4,4.0 etc. would make even more HP. The answer is NO! - as many of them have already discovered when their 2.8H kits makes more HP than a 3.3/3.4.

THE DYNO TESTS
Our back to back RW data logged tests on the same vehicle with the identical AFR, timing etc. SAE corrected for accuracy clearly proved the 3.3/3.4 kit cannot beat the 2.8H, even at 23 psi intercooler “out” (25 psi intercooler “in”) which is about max safe boost for any Twin Screw. The RW tests mirrored our supercharger dyno tests. At 23 psi and 14,673 rpm, the rotors 3.3/3.4 contacted the case and ruined the supercharger. That tells us it is maxed out at 23 psi. That does not imply the 3.3/3.4 is not a reliable efficient supercharger. It is. It just can’t be revved as high as a 2.8H, it uses more engine HP to drive and has a lower VE (volumetric efficiency = cfm out ÷ cfm in) at 23 psi where it loses 15HP (see dyno test). It is what it is.

2.8H vs 3.3/3.4 SUPERCHARGER DYNO COMPARISONS​

We are not claiming any supercharger is “good” or “bad”. We do claim that “bigger” is not always “better” or more efficient. One only need to look at engine sizes vs hp output to realize that in many cases bigger is not better. The Kenne Bell 2.8H is more efficient than the larger 3.3/3.4. When designing or testing superchargers, the ONLY 3 parameters that determine efficiency or HP a supercharger supplies to the rear wheels are:

1) PC (Power Consumption) - Often referred to as parasitic loss, PC is simply the HP your engine uses to drive the supercharger. LESS PC means MORE HP to the rear wheels.

2) DT (Discharge Temperature) - The LOWER the supercharger’s air discharge temperature, the HIGHER the HP potential.

3) CFM (Cubic Feet Per Minute) - The GREATER the airflow, the higher the boost potential, and VE (Volumetric Efficiency). NOTE: Cfm may be limited by the supercharger’s design limitations - rpm max, rotor profile, inlet/outlet porting, etc.

These tests were conducted on our new, state-of-the-art Supercharger Dyno. There was no inlet system to enhance, limit and therefore skew the data. Data is not from some peak Dynojet value or 1/4 mile recordings, but instead stabilized numbers after approximately 15 seconds of continuous operation. No confusing graphs or adiabatic and esentropic efficiency claims. Just simple, easy to understand numbers describing how one supercharger compares to another. Yes, we have tested the TVS and many others.

1/4 MILE TESTS: Anyone knowledgeable in PD supercharger design knows that it TAKES HP TO GO FAST. Superchargers make more HP and Torque because they can increase boost. More boost = more HP = higher top speed which is DIRECTLY proportional to Dyno HP. There are very accurate formulas to determine 1/4 mile speed and ET if the vehicle weight is known

* Boost measured at the supercharger discharge is “intercooler in” boost (prior to an intercooler). Ford measures the boost AFTER the intercooler (approx 2 psi less boost at 23 psi) and therefore will be less than the actual boost produced from the supercharger.
Note: The Lysholm 3.3 was near identical in performance to the 3.4 as it is very similar in design - i.e. rotor profiles, etc..

The above numbers clearly illustrate the 2.8H to be 17 HP and 11 degrees F more efficient at 23 psi than a 3.4. At 26 psi and higher supercharger rpm, the margin will be much greater as the 3.4 efficiency drops off much faster than the 2.8H.

** 3.4 rotors “touched” at 23 psi (25 psi measured before the intercooler) during our Dynojet tests and seized on the supercharger dyno at 26 psi.


WHY IS THE 2.8H A MATCH FOR THE 3.3?
First of all, the lighter compact 2.8H has lower reciprocating weight/mass (rotors, gears, bearings, etc.) and requires less engine HP to turn, so it’s capable of higher rpm (18,000 vs14,500 max rpm rating) potential. That coupled to the ultra efficient “H” series pressure ratio ports (intake and discharge) design allows it to match or exceed the cfm and air charge temp of a 3.3/3.4 with only a 1/2” smaller SC pulley (2.5” vs. 3.0”). The 2.8H is superior to the 3.3, so there is no “boost drop off.” In summary, the 2.8H more than matches the 3.3/3.4 in parasitic loss, lower discharge temp and cfm/boost. If it didn’t, then how could it possibly outperform the 3.3 both on a Dynojet and Supercharger Dyno?

WHY DOESN’T KENNE BELL OFFER A 3.3 FOR A 5.4, 4.6 FORD?
We have a 3.3/3.4 and even larger superchargers in the works which can be “shortened” back to a 2.9-3.2L but we’d still have the same hood clearance problem as the 3.3/3.4 which are taller in height. Our number one concern was that we offer a larger 2.9-3.4 kit for the 4.6, 5.4 only to have our customers humiliated upon discovering the 2.8H outperforms them. Not good for our customer relations! What would we tell them? Yeh, but it’s “bigger” so you should feel “better.” So we chose not to offer a 2.9-3.4 simply because the 2.8H appears to be the obvious and ideal supercharger size for these engines. If it wasn’t, why then does a 2.8H make the same boost but more RWHP. And just look at how it’s still pulling hard at 806RWHP (940 engine HP). We believe the 2.8H kit is as good as it gets for the 4.6-5.4 engines. We sure haven’t had any complaints about lack of HP vs. other superchargers.

WHERE THEN IS A 3.3/3.4 BETTER?
That is not to imply that larger superchargers are not efficient. But our 19 years of Twin Screw experience has taught us that there is an “ideal” supercharger size for any application. But engine size, desired min and max boost and supercharger rpm limits and parasitic loss must be considerations. Never order a kit “just because you want 14 psi” or “because it’s bigger.” Dig deeper before choosing. For example: If your goal is 24 psi with a 7.0L on race fuel, the 2.8H is “too small.” But it may be “just right” at 14 psi on pump gas with the same 7.0L. The 2.8H is “perfect” for 15-25 psi on the
4.6-5.4 but not “ideal” or recommended for 8-13 psi. On ANY given engine size, a 2.8 (non “H” series) will produce the exact same 23 psi of boost as the 2.8H but it will use 56HP more HP than the 2.8H or 3.3/3.4 (see 2.8 vs. 2.8H Dyno Tests). Again, the only difference is that all important parasitic loss (engine HP required to drive supercharger). Keep in mind that as compared to the 2.8 it would take another 5 psi of boost to equal the 56HP saved by a 2.8H or larger equally efficient supercharger kit. So, ALWAYS CONSIDER THE ENGINE HP REQUIRED TO DRIVE THE SUPERCHARGER. It’s a factor too often overlooked. Our goal here is to make our customers aware of some of the basics and variables in Twin Screw supercharger design, sizing, efficiency and application - and assure our many customers that their 2.8H supercharger choice was a sound one. DON’T replace the 2.8H with any 3.3/3.4 including a Kenne Bell. It’s a waste of good money. In summary, a bigger supercharger - than a 2.8H - won’t make more HP at the same boost. Neither will vendor hype. If bigger was better, we would have done it ourselves. For those wondering about discharge air temps, the 2.8 was 30° hotter at 24 psi but the 2.8H and the 3.3/3.4 were the same. The 3.3/3.4 tested was the best design we could find.

THE LIMITS
Our tests indicate the practical limit for a 3.3 is 21 psi vs. 25 psi for the 2.8H. Both these superchargers will keep on pumping air and boost until the charge temp expands the rotors and they contact the case and gall. Sort of like pistons expanding in a bore from excess coolant temp. There’s a limit for both supercharger and pistons. The larger the diameter the greater the expansion.

TVS vs. 2.8H (also see Shelby GT500 literature for dyno test comparison)
Now let’s look at a supercharger comparison where there’s a REAL difference in HP etc. - one that may cause some buyer remorse - the TVS. We flow all the superchargers we can get our hands on. The TVS is a butter knife at a gun fight. The Roots style is “always catching up” but they just never seem to get there, do they? Now there’s this hype about more lobes, twisted rotors etc. Sure it’s better, but it isn’t a Twin Screw. The Shelby Super Snake back to back TVS 2.3 vs. 2.8H kit? Here’s some Shelby GT 500 2.8H vs. Eaton TVS 2.3 kit tests that can be seen on our website. Both 3” pulley: KB 687HP. TVS 573HP. 2.5” KB, 2.59” TVS pulley. KB 801HP. TVS 609HP. That’s 192HP more for the 2.8H and a convincing illustration of the HP potential of the 2.8H vs. 2.3 TVS. Cutting the drive OD down to accommodate a smaller pulley resulted in the drive breaking off. Not Eatons fault. Their drive was chopped up. Note: With a 2.59” pulley, the TVS kit is all used up at a non-recommended 17000 rpm and 609HP (24° timing and 11.5 AFR). It made a mere 14.5 psi vs 23.5 for the 2.8H kit. That’s a whopping 9 psi deficit with no hope of hitting 24 psi. Consider a page from the past when deciding on a Twin Screw or TVS. The Eaton 90, the 112, the 122, the TVS 2.3 all made or make “good power.” So does a non supercharged engine. The Twin Screw simply makes “more power” with equal reliability. They cost more, but you get what you pay for. It is what it is!

NEW LARGER KENNE BELL SUPERCHARGERS
Its lightweight high rpm ultra efficient billet design makes the 2.8H about as good as it gets for the 5.4/4.6 Ford at ANY boost from 15-24. And YES, we too have a 3.3/3.4 and are testing and developing even larger superchargers for off road, marine and larger street rod 7.0L, 8.0L engines, so I think we may be in a position to objectively and honestly offer our input on the 2.8, 2.8H (H series) and 3.3/3.4 family of superchargers. We’ve sure spent enough time testing them.

SUPERCHARGER - INLET MANIFOLD DESIGN & HP POTENTIAL (ONE PIECE vs TWO PIECE)
Any superchargers potential is ALWAYS limited by the inlet system. If the inlet manifold is too small, it becomes the restriction to higher HP. Imagine an engine block and inlet manifold cast as a “one piece” casting that cannot be separated. An integral supercharger - inlet manifold casting is used by the OEM because it costs less to manufacture. Unfortunately, the manifold cannot be replaced or upgraded for a larger throttle body, etc. So if it is too small for your HP requirements, you are stuck as both the manifold and supercharger are too small. Kenne Bell billet superchargers and cast inlet manifolds are independent of each other and larger than the competition. They may cost more, but larger manifolds coupled to larger and/or more efficient superchargers means more HP for your dollar up front - and more room to grow.

Original article here

 

[O-Gauge Steamer]

So, this will be the last of my posts in this thread.

The high boost I saw was, apparently, due to the current atmospheric conditions at the time I started the Heep. I jumped the gun and will beat my breast, here for all to see, over this. We had a day of 13.3psia ambient when I fired it for the first time. On both Friday and Saturday, the ambient atmosphere was at 11.2psia and 11.3psia respectively and all I was able to develop was a measly 5.5psia of boost. You just can not compresss what is not there. "Normal" here is 12.5psia or there abouts.

Overall, I am pleased with the results. The TB is dead quiet and performance (by the seat of the pants dyno) has been improved. Quite obviuosly, it now takes 12% less throttle applicaion in any situation and I will say that the boost does come up nearly instantly and the thing pulls like there will be no tomorrow... It is pretty amazing to be cruising down the street with the throttle barely off idle. Perfectly controllable as it is only a 12% change.

I made a mistake. This is what happens when one is not perfection personified. I forgot to take teh ambient pressure into consideration or I never would have reported the boost gain. Those or you I communicate directly with already knw about this error. I feel it incumbent upon me to be, as I have been through out, open and transparent with the attempts made and results gained.

So, it is back to the compressor being woefully undersized. I will need to save my pennies and install a proper sized compressor.

A 1.6LPM is, as far as I am concerned, the mimium size one should consider. A 2.3LPM would be better as it can be ran at a reduced speed.

I suggest that those interested in Forced Induction take a good look at the Whipple Industries web site. All sorts of pieces/parts are available for the do-it-yourself person.

It can be found at http://www.whipplesuperchargers.com/

In closing, thanks for following this thread. One caveat to this being the final post. If I can get a chassis dyno run in I will post the numbers. I have a baseline run from before this project started so we can compare the two.

 

[5-90]

Closed per request from OP. Responsible parties, you know who you are.

I'm getting tired of having to nuke threads, people. Don't make me get nasty...