Talked to Jim Bell
Thread Starter
|
Suspended For Rules Violations
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,813
Likes: 0
From: So. Cal
Talked to Jim Bell
Well, for those who care, I talked with Jim Bell.
To my knowledge, got the man personally, also got a fax from him.
To those who are thinking that I got turned down, you're not completly right. He told me that he has two of the same kind of offers right now on the table (not sure to belive that since there is only two Works 140s out to my knowledge, and they would have told me if it was them or not). He also said that if one of those offeres backs out, then, he'll give me a call.
Here's his fax, and I'll highlight things I didn't like about it. Nor do I respect anyone who uses these tactics for sales.
"We appreciate your interest in our Lightning supercharger kit. However, we are comitted to at least two similar test comparisons, both of which will be on the F150 website(s). Additionally, we'll be conducting extensive in house testing of the Works with manifold - once it is available.
Unlike the Works, Kenne Bell possesses the dyno, tools, scanners, data acquisition etc. to perform accurate testing and R&D. This data will be used to verify any other tests conducted on the kits. Why try and make Works look bad, saying they don't have any of the propper equipment when it isn't true.
All superchargers - including the Eaton 112 - were previously tested at Autorotor for temperature, power consumption etc. so we are already well aware of the performance differences. Could these be the tests JL was talking about? Or were they just done in the same place? Also, why mention the Eaton 112? We are talking about the "Blowzilla" vs. the Works 140 kit.
We'll let you know if one of the other parites drops out.
A good test will require at least 12 channels of sensors and a Ford scanner to verify timing, load, injector pulse width etc. and a Horiba or ETAS air fuel ratio meter to monitor fuel. Nothing less would be acceptable.
If your shop performs installs and dyno testing, we're looking for a good installer in your area.
Regards,
Jim Bell"
I did call Jim back after getting this fax, and I did let him know, the place of testing does have in fact 15 channels of sensors, a Ford scanner, and 3 ETAS meters. When I let him know it was Magnuson Products, he didn't seem to thrilled, so I told him fine, we can take it to Superior Automotive in Anahiem. To "keep it nuetral" as he put it.
So, sorry folks, got brushed off... I really did try to get some *real* tests done by a *real* average guys like me. So JL, what makes me so special and why would he pick me over tons of other poeple. I guess nothing...
Spoke to Works today as well... they are still willing to do the tests whenever Jim is ready. And are almost as disappointed as I am, since we all were looking forward to letting the BS stop here.....
So hopefully Jim will come to his senses and call me back, or we'll just have to wait for these other testors. Or just wait another 5 months for good solid results on both blowers.
Hey JohnnyL if you read this, I and some others on this board would appreciate it if you maybe could put sort or a lean on his decision. Unless there is no faith in the product.
To my knowledge, got the man personally, also got a fax from him.
To those who are thinking that I got turned down, you're not completly right. He told me that he has two of the same kind of offers right now on the table (not sure to belive that since there is only two Works 140s out to my knowledge, and they would have told me if it was them or not). He also said that if one of those offeres backs out, then, he'll give me a call.
Here's his fax, and I'll highlight things I didn't like about it. Nor do I respect anyone who uses these tactics for sales.
"We appreciate your interest in our Lightning supercharger kit. However, we are comitted to at least two similar test comparisons, both of which will be on the F150 website(s). Additionally, we'll be conducting extensive in house testing of the Works with manifold - once it is available.
Unlike the Works, Kenne Bell possesses the dyno, tools, scanners, data acquisition etc. to perform accurate testing and R&D. This data will be used to verify any other tests conducted on the kits. Why try and make Works look bad, saying they don't have any of the propper equipment when it isn't true.
All superchargers - including the Eaton 112 - were previously tested at Autorotor for temperature, power consumption etc. so we are already well aware of the performance differences. Could these be the tests JL was talking about? Or were they just done in the same place? Also, why mention the Eaton 112? We are talking about the "Blowzilla" vs. the Works 140 kit.
We'll let you know if one of the other parites drops out.
A good test will require at least 12 channels of sensors and a Ford scanner to verify timing, load, injector pulse width etc. and a Horiba or ETAS air fuel ratio meter to monitor fuel. Nothing less would be acceptable.
If your shop performs installs and dyno testing, we're looking for a good installer in your area.
Regards,
Jim Bell"
I did call Jim back after getting this fax, and I did let him know, the place of testing does have in fact 15 channels of sensors, a Ford scanner, and 3 ETAS meters. When I let him know it was Magnuson Products, he didn't seem to thrilled, so I told him fine, we can take it to Superior Automotive in Anahiem. To "keep it nuetral" as he put it.
So, sorry folks, got brushed off... I really did try to get some *real* tests done by a *real* average guys like me. So JL, what makes me so special and why would he pick me over tons of other poeple. I guess nothing...
Spoke to Works today as well... they are still willing to do the tests whenever Jim is ready. And are almost as disappointed as I am, since we all were looking forward to letting the BS stop here.....
So hopefully Jim will come to his senses and call me back, or we'll just have to wait for these other testors. Or just wait another 5 months for good solid results on both blowers.
Hey JohnnyL if you read this, I and some others on this board would appreciate it if you maybe could put sort or a lean on his decision. Unless there is no faith in the product.
Last edited by BLackBoLT99; Feb 20, 2003 at 09:38 PM.
Senior Member
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,363
Likes: 0
BlackBolt- Thanks for taking the time to try to get this comparison to acutally happen. I am glad to see that Works is eager for this comparison to actually take place rather than a spitting contest on the net. I guess we will wait and see if KB comes through. If they don't then I guess that will answer our questions. However if they don't it would be nice if someone who has a KB or will be purchasing a KB would lend it to you to use for a few weeks so that a comparison could be made!
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
From: All over the US
Hey JohnnyL if you read this, I and the rest of this board would appreciate it if you maybe could put sort or a lean on his decision. Unless there is no faith in the product.
I still stand behind my original OPINION on this blower testing idea, It aint gonna happen and it is foolish to think that you will get anything resolved by doing this.
Understanding your desire to do this test is one thing and I applaud the desire, dont get me wrong, but just like at the racetrack, there are too many variables to think that you will get a clear idea of wich blower is superior or better at a certain RPM than another.
I am not supporting either brand of blower, I will let the track results speak for themselves.
Have one of these
on me and thanks for the effort.
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,141
Likes: 0
From: lancaster,pa. usa
Johnny,
I totally agree with you that bickering and theorizing on the internet is counterproductive. Unfortunately, even providing meaningful factual data will fail to satisfy or convince everyone. Some people have their own egos, agenda and theories to protect.
There's a sign on our dyno that's been there for years. It says "One of the real dangers in running a test is you're bound to get data." At Kenne Bell, we do our level best to provide accurate data and testing. It's why many of the magazines choose our dyno facility for testing.
You requested more data. I'd suggest going to our website and che
cking out the technical features by Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords, Truckin' and 5.0 Mustang on the Eaton vs. Twin Screw tests on the 5.0 Mustang, Lightning truck and '03 Cobra. Weeks were spent compiling and data logging these tests - and they're accurate. There's a load of test data here.
It's certainly easier to analyze than the 2 posted dyno tests with DIFFERENT trucks, headers, inlet, exhaust, cool air kit, tune, cams, headers etc., etc. Testing is an art. It's difficult enough without adding even one variable. At Kenne Bell, we believe that the ONLY way to test is to test ONE PRODUCT AT A TIME UNDER IDENTICAL CONDITIONS.
As I mentioned in my last letter, we haven't yet tested the Works 2.3 kit with manifold, but we will once one becomes available to us.
In response to your other request for daya, yes, we have tested the Lysholm 2.3 which to the best of our knowledge is the Lysholm 2.3 Whipple sells to Works. Autorotor tested this Lysholm 2.3/Works 140 under identical conditions. Here are the results at 15 psi and 15000 rpm. We sent the 15 psi data as the majority of our customers will be running 15 psi with 92 octane on the street.
Kenne Bell . . . . . . Temp 265 degrees . . . . . . . HP 105
2.3 . . . . . . . . . . . Temp 285 degrees . . . . . . . HP 118
"Temp" is discharge temp at a standard inlet temp and "HP" is the power consumption or horsepower required to drive the supercharger. This can also be referred to as parasitic loss. Supercharger manufacturers determine adiabatic or overall efficiency by plugging these numbers into an equation (see Autorotor definition and the Kenne Bell explanation in FAQ's on our website). I think this data is accurate - unless there is some new 2.3 Lysholm/Works we are not aware of.
Other Autorotor testing clearly proved that both the power consumption and discharge temp are significantly better than an Eaton 112 under the same air flow conditions. This was verified in the 3rd party magazine dyno testing mentioned earlier.
This 13HP performance advantage over the 2.3 is substantial as is the 38HP advantage over the Eaton. That's about the same HP that a Lightning owner can get from headers, exhaust, throttle body and cool air kit - and you have all that "potential" HP from higher boost (16-21 psi) for even more horsepower.
The Kenne Bell performs as designed, giving substantial power increases over the Eaton at the same boost levels, while enjoying some definite advantages over the 2.3.
This was our goal from the onset - to provide an all new maximum performance direct bolt on replacement supercharger with internal bypass that was equally at home on the street or track - all at a fair and reasonable price. Since we buy direct from Autorotor, there is no middleman and our cost, even with the new FLOWZILLA inlet, costs less than the competition. The FLOWZILLA competition inlet cost will be only $199.
I hope you agree that we've met our design and cost objectives and will be supplying a quality cost effective product that lives up to our advertising and customer expectations.
Racing successes help substantiate our claims while verifying the HP potential of the product., but we should never lose sight of the fact that the majority of Lightning owners will not purchase our supercharger for all out racing, but will instead operate their street driven trucks at 10-15 psi on pump gas and 16-20+ on weekends.
I think the tests prove they can expect 38HP over their stock supercharger from parasitic losses alone with some additional gains from the cooler air charge temperature and lack of any "boost drop off" (13HP per psi boost).
You also asked about inlet manifolds. We should not overlook the potential of the stock Lightning inlet. It flows 1000 cfm. The engineers did one hell of a job. Bolting this inlet to our supercharger increases flow 5% - versus the supercharger with no manifold - because of the single "gentle" turn it provides into the supercharger. Again, you have run 10.50's at 126 with this exact stock manifold without Nitrous. Quite frankly, we're questioning whether or not we need the all out FLOWZILLA manifold we're currently developing - but we're proceeding anyway.
We've measured the losses in all the inlet components with sensors at power levels ranging from 360-520. It's very interesting. Some of this data is confidential, but a lot of it is on our website FAQ's and in article reprints. In a couple of weeks, we'll add the "Lightning and Cobra Tech Tips."
In summary, one must consider and test all the inlet components and combinations that make up the inlet track, including the supercharger, as they all operate in series. We have an 11" high stack of data on the lightning alone.
Air flow is everything, so a Lightning owner must first decide on the power level and range he wants to be in. Then he should consider the cost per HP of the various products and most important - the power increases at that particular HP/air flow level.
You are right. The most difficult part of selecting product(s) is obtaining accurate data and HP tests. Superchargers, which are rated in cubic inches or liters, should never be selected on size alone. EFFICIENCY is the key. As you've seen from our previous testing, supercharger power consumption and discharge temp are two important factors in selecting a supercharger. The Eaton 90 and Kenne Bell Twin Screw 90 (1.5L) are rated identically, but look at the test data in the Mustang tests on our website. With a 1.975" pulley on both, the Kenne Bell out powered the Eaton by 72HP peak and nearly 100HP at 6000 rpm. If you were in the market for a 350 cubic inch (5.8 liter) engine, you wouldn't just buy one based on liter rating or cubic inches alone would you?
Supercharger engineers compute the displacement of a supercharger in much the same way as you do the displacement of the engine - but equally or more important is the inlet and outlet design and the rotor profiles. Check out the Autorotor paper. You may want to post this for the Lightning enthusiasts.
If you need more information for your customers, just let me know and I'll do what I can.
Your '03 Cobra Upgade Kit was shipped today. You should make 617RWHP @ 20 psi with only a cool air kit on a 100% stock Cobra. Check out the March issue of 5.0 Mustang Magazine. There's a lot of good data in that article.
Regards,
Jim Bell
I totally agree with you that bickering and theorizing on the internet is counterproductive. Unfortunately, even providing meaningful factual data will fail to satisfy or convince everyone. Some people have their own egos, agenda and theories to protect.
There's a sign on our dyno that's been there for years. It says "One of the real dangers in running a test is you're bound to get data." At Kenne Bell, we do our level best to provide accurate data and testing. It's why many of the magazines choose our dyno facility for testing.
You requested more data. I'd suggest going to our website and che
cking out the technical features by Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords, Truckin' and 5.0 Mustang on the Eaton vs. Twin Screw tests on the 5.0 Mustang, Lightning truck and '03 Cobra. Weeks were spent compiling and data logging these tests - and they're accurate. There's a load of test data here.
It's certainly easier to analyze than the 2 posted dyno tests with DIFFERENT trucks, headers, inlet, exhaust, cool air kit, tune, cams, headers etc., etc. Testing is an art. It's difficult enough without adding even one variable. At Kenne Bell, we believe that the ONLY way to test is to test ONE PRODUCT AT A TIME UNDER IDENTICAL CONDITIONS.
As I mentioned in my last letter, we haven't yet tested the Works 2.3 kit with manifold, but we will once one becomes available to us.
In response to your other request for daya, yes, we have tested the Lysholm 2.3 which to the best of our knowledge is the Lysholm 2.3 Whipple sells to Works. Autorotor tested this Lysholm 2.3/Works 140 under identical conditions. Here are the results at 15 psi and 15000 rpm. We sent the 15 psi data as the majority of our customers will be running 15 psi with 92 octane on the street.
Kenne Bell . . . . . . Temp 265 degrees . . . . . . . HP 105
2.3 . . . . . . . . . . . Temp 285 degrees . . . . . . . HP 118
"Temp" is discharge temp at a standard inlet temp and "HP" is the power consumption or horsepower required to drive the supercharger. This can also be referred to as parasitic loss. Supercharger manufacturers determine adiabatic or overall efficiency by plugging these numbers into an equation (see Autorotor definition and the Kenne Bell explanation in FAQ's on our website). I think this data is accurate - unless there is some new 2.3 Lysholm/Works we are not aware of.
Other Autorotor testing clearly proved that both the power consumption and discharge temp are significantly better than an Eaton 112 under the same air flow conditions. This was verified in the 3rd party magazine dyno testing mentioned earlier.
This 13HP performance advantage over the 2.3 is substantial as is the 38HP advantage over the Eaton. That's about the same HP that a Lightning owner can get from headers, exhaust, throttle body and cool air kit - and you have all that "potential" HP from higher boost (16-21 psi) for even more horsepower.
The Kenne Bell performs as designed, giving substantial power increases over the Eaton at the same boost levels, while enjoying some definite advantages over the 2.3.
This was our goal from the onset - to provide an all new maximum performance direct bolt on replacement supercharger with internal bypass that was equally at home on the street or track - all at a fair and reasonable price. Since we buy direct from Autorotor, there is no middleman and our cost, even with the new FLOWZILLA inlet, costs less than the competition. The FLOWZILLA competition inlet cost will be only $199.
I hope you agree that we've met our design and cost objectives and will be supplying a quality cost effective product that lives up to our advertising and customer expectations.
Racing successes help substantiate our claims while verifying the HP potential of the product., but we should never lose sight of the fact that the majority of Lightning owners will not purchase our supercharger for all out racing, but will instead operate their street driven trucks at 10-15 psi on pump gas and 16-20+ on weekends.
I think the tests prove they can expect 38HP over their stock supercharger from parasitic losses alone with some additional gains from the cooler air charge temperature and lack of any "boost drop off" (13HP per psi boost).
You also asked about inlet manifolds. We should not overlook the potential of the stock Lightning inlet. It flows 1000 cfm. The engineers did one hell of a job. Bolting this inlet to our supercharger increases flow 5% - versus the supercharger with no manifold - because of the single "gentle" turn it provides into the supercharger. Again, you have run 10.50's at 126 with this exact stock manifold without Nitrous. Quite frankly, we're questioning whether or not we need the all out FLOWZILLA manifold we're currently developing - but we're proceeding anyway.
We've measured the losses in all the inlet components with sensors at power levels ranging from 360-520. It's very interesting. Some of this data is confidential, but a lot of it is on our website FAQ's and in article reprints. In a couple of weeks, we'll add the "Lightning and Cobra Tech Tips."
In summary, one must consider and test all the inlet components and combinations that make up the inlet track, including the supercharger, as they all operate in series. We have an 11" high stack of data on the lightning alone.
Air flow is everything, so a Lightning owner must first decide on the power level and range he wants to be in. Then he should consider the cost per HP of the various products and most important - the power increases at that particular HP/air flow level.
You are right. The most difficult part of selecting product(s) is obtaining accurate data and HP tests. Superchargers, which are rated in cubic inches or liters, should never be selected on size alone. EFFICIENCY is the key. As you've seen from our previous testing, supercharger power consumption and discharge temp are two important factors in selecting a supercharger. The Eaton 90 and Kenne Bell Twin Screw 90 (1.5L) are rated identically, but look at the test data in the Mustang tests on our website. With a 1.975" pulley on both, the Kenne Bell out powered the Eaton by 72HP peak and nearly 100HP at 6000 rpm. If you were in the market for a 350 cubic inch (5.8 liter) engine, you wouldn't just buy one based on liter rating or cubic inches alone would you?
Supercharger engineers compute the displacement of a supercharger in much the same way as you do the displacement of the engine - but equally or more important is the inlet and outlet design and the rotor profiles. Check out the Autorotor paper. You may want to post this for the Lightning enthusiasts.
If you need more information for your customers, just let me know and I'll do what I can.
Your '03 Cobra Upgade Kit was shipped today. You should make 617RWHP @ 20 psi with only a cool air kit on a 100% stock Cobra. Check out the March issue of 5.0 Mustang Magazine. There's a lot of good data in that article.
Regards,
Jim Bell
Last edited by JohnnyLightning; Feb 21, 2003 at 12:16 AM.
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,141
Likes: 0
From: lancaster,pa. usa
Temperature and adiabatic efficiency
The aim of this paper is to clarify definitions used to describe compressor efficiency. There are many different definitions used by different manufacturers and to avoid misunderstanding, this paper explains efficiency definitions used by Opcon Autorotor AB.
In compressors for air or other gases, there are different ideal processes, which the actual performance can be compared with. If there is no cooling of the gas during compression, the process is called an adiabatic process. The ideal process is a reversible adiabatic process (=isentropic process). The ideal isentropic power, which is called adiabatic power among compressor manufacturers, is denoted Pad and the actual measured input power is denoted Pinput. The expression for the so called compressor total adiabatic efficiency is then:
With this definition, the following equations are used by Opcon Autorotor AB to express compressor efficiency.
Definition of temperature efficiency
Where:
Tsuc = Temperature suction side [Kelvin] Tdis = Temperature discharge side [Kelvin]
Psuc = Suction pressure (abs) [N/m2] Pdis = Discharge pressure (abs) [N/m2]
k = Isentropic exponent [1.4 for air]
Mechanical losses such as frictional losses and belt losses are not included in temperature efficiency.
Definition of adiabatic (or total) efficiency
Where:
qvs = Measured volume flow [m3/s]
M = measured torque [Nm]
n = Input shaft speed [rpm]
Autorotor measures as shown on drawing No 1101. Mechanical losses as well as belt losses and losses in one bearing in the torque transducers are included in the adiabatic efficiensy, had. Autorotor measures what the crankshaft of the engine would ?measure?.
NUFF SAID.........JL
The aim of this paper is to clarify definitions used to describe compressor efficiency. There are many different definitions used by different manufacturers and to avoid misunderstanding, this paper explains efficiency definitions used by Opcon Autorotor AB.
In compressors for air or other gases, there are different ideal processes, which the actual performance can be compared with. If there is no cooling of the gas during compression, the process is called an adiabatic process. The ideal process is a reversible adiabatic process (=isentropic process). The ideal isentropic power, which is called adiabatic power among compressor manufacturers, is denoted Pad and the actual measured input power is denoted Pinput. The expression for the so called compressor total adiabatic efficiency is then:
With this definition, the following equations are used by Opcon Autorotor AB to express compressor efficiency.
Definition of temperature efficiency
Where:
Tsuc = Temperature suction side [Kelvin] Tdis = Temperature discharge side [Kelvin]
Psuc = Suction pressure (abs) [N/m2] Pdis = Discharge pressure (abs) [N/m2]
k = Isentropic exponent [1.4 for air]
Mechanical losses such as frictional losses and belt losses are not included in temperature efficiency.
Definition of adiabatic (or total) efficiency
Where:
qvs = Measured volume flow [m3/s]
M = measured torque [Nm]
n = Input shaft speed [rpm]
Autorotor measures as shown on drawing No 1101. Mechanical losses as well as belt losses and losses in one bearing in the torque transducers are included in the adiabatic efficiensy, had. Autorotor measures what the crankshaft of the engine would ?measure?.
NUFF SAID.........JL
Last edited by JohnnyLightning; Feb 21, 2003 at 12:17 AM.
Banned
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,508
Likes: 0
From: Huntington Beach/CA
That is not a letter to Johnny, that is an out-and-out sales pitch.
"testing is an art"? No, testing is a science. If you are going to the trouble of buying a Works 140 - no doubt to make it look bad - why not simply meet Works at an independant test facility like Superior and get it over with? Or are you afraid of your own axiom, "If you test you're bound to get data"?
I won't bother picking apart all the half-truths in that piece of... writing. I about pi$$ed myself over that shamless plug "Your '03 Cobra Upgade Kit was shipped today. You should make 617RWHP @ 20 psi with only a cool air kit on a 100% stock Cobra." Only a cool air kit? Or you mean, a cool air kit, race gas, and a 4" bazooka tube that gained something like 50 hp over just the air filter? "only a cool air kit", my a$$
"testing is an art"? No, testing is a science. If you are going to the trouble of buying a Works 140 - no doubt to make it look bad - why not simply meet Works at an independant test facility like Superior and get it over with? Or are you afraid of your own axiom, "If you test you're bound to get data"?
I won't bother picking apart all the half-truths in that piece of... writing. I about pi$$ed myself over that shamless plug "Your '03 Cobra Upgade Kit was shipped today. You should make 617RWHP @ 20 psi with only a cool air kit on a 100% stock Cobra." Only a cool air kit? Or you mean, a cool air kit, race gas, and a 4" bazooka tube that gained something like 50 hp over just the air filter? "only a cool air kit", my a$$
Trending Topics
Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
From: Kingston, Ontario Canada
Well it is quite obvious that the professionalism of this board has gone to he!!. You know I will be so glad when spring finally arrives and the blower war is settled at the tracks. Personally, I hope that Johnny kicks everybodys a$$ this year and silences all the critics. After a winter of continuous board bashing of KB and JLP, you better believe that JL will be ready for the competition in the spring. Better yet when this 140 actually becomes reality, I want to watch the poor person that has to change their plugs. It should only take 3 hours(including the 2 required for the blower removal/re-install).
JLP/JJ Rocks
Chris
2001 Silver Lightning (Soon to have JLP built block/KB Blower)
JL Ram Air Kit
JL Delta Flip Chip
Amsoil Synthetic
Oil Breather Cap
Boost Bypass Kit
Single Blade Throttle Body
4lb Lower Pulley Interchangeable Kit
Line Mod Valve
Deep Sump Trans Pan & Filter Kit
Jet Coated Long Tube Headers
Twin Magna flow Full Muffler System
Electric Fan Kit
Cobra R Water Pump
Drive Shaft Loop
JJ's SS Traction Bars(LFP traction bar hardware kit)
Denso IT-20's
JLP/JJ Rocks
Chris
2001 Silver Lightning (Soon to have JLP built block/KB Blower)
JL Ram Air Kit
JL Delta Flip Chip
Amsoil Synthetic
Oil Breather Cap
Boost Bypass Kit
Single Blade Throttle Body
4lb Lower Pulley Interchangeable Kit
Line Mod Valve
Deep Sump Trans Pan & Filter Kit
Jet Coated Long Tube Headers
Twin Magna flow Full Muffler System
Electric Fan Kit
Cobra R Water Pump
Drive Shaft Loop
JJ's SS Traction Bars(LFP traction bar hardware kit)
Denso IT-20's
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 830
Likes: 0
From: Plymouth, MI
Originally posted by JohnnyLightning
Autorotor tested this Lysholm 2.3/Works 140 under identical conditions. Here are the results at 15 psi and 15000 rpm. We sent the 15 psi data as the majority of our customers will be running 15 psi with 92 octane on the street.
Kenne Bell . . . . . . Temp 265 degrees . . . . . . . HP 105
2.3 . . . . . . . . . . . Temp 285 degrees . . . . . . . HP 118
Regards,
Jim Bell
Autorotor tested this Lysholm 2.3/Works 140 under identical conditions. Here are the results at 15 psi and 15000 rpm. We sent the 15 psi data as the majority of our customers will be running 15 psi with 92 octane on the street.
Kenne Bell . . . . . . Temp 265 degrees . . . . . . . HP 105
2.3 . . . . . . . . . . . Temp 285 degrees . . . . . . . HP 118
Regards,
Jim Bell
The equation for adiabatic efficiency (which doesn't seem to be in JL's post) includes the air flow number, so let's see the air flow numbers...
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,081
Likes: 0
From: Dyer, IN
Originally posted by HORSE9
Personally, I hope that Johnny kicks everybodys a$$ this year and silences all the critics. After a winter of continuous board bashing of KB and JLP, you better believe that JL will be ready for the competition in the spring.
Personally, I hope that Johnny kicks everybodys a$$ this year and silences all the critics. After a winter of continuous board bashing of KB and JLP, you better believe that JL will be ready for the competition in the spring.
