Late last year, JDM was tuning a Lightning with a 2.3 twinscrew 5.4 2 valve, lightning supercharger assembly adapter kit. With a 3.10 upper pulley and 8 lb. lower pulley for 19-20 psi of boost with a 100 shot of NOS, they made:

759 rear wheel horsepower (rwhp) and
1,015 of rear wheel torque (rwtq) !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thats right, they broke the 1,000 rwtq. barrier with a 2.3 twinscrew!!!!

Here is the link to the dyno (it is the fifth post down)

https://www.f150online.com/forums/sh...=&pagenumber=5

They went even higher and generated

812 rwhp and 1,023 rwtq. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

but a dyno sheet was not shown.

Note: Dyno numbers are SAE. If the numbers were STD, the numbers would be EVEN HIGHER!!!!!!!!!!

.....yeah, TWINS

 

geez man its like a broken record..last 5 topics you posted the same thing...we get it

 

Just updating all relevant threads with the info. while I am "here".

However, since you bring up the topic of "broken records"
......the twinscrew adapter kit continues to do just that!....break all other records!!!!!!!

 

will be intersting to see how much r&d gets done on the lightning, 2v 5.4 now that it is no longer in production. from the been counter point of view you would have to think that the sale of lightning performace products has seen its peak.

the 3.3 will be such a limited market that i cant help but think that the adapters will be special made and will be $$$$ becasue there is probably not enough of a market to justify casting the adapter. i would thing there would be more of a market for an adapter to allow the eaton or the kennebell to work on the 4v heads, but even that would be limited.

IMO, a 4v with the 2.2 would be more powerfl than a 2v with the 3.3. especially if they were both ported.

John Mihovetz (accufab) '02 Cougar is making over 1700 hp with a twin turbo, 4v, 4.6

 

Ok, here is my idea.

Take a 2.3 twinscrew, 3.3 twinscrew, 4.3, 5.3 or whatever else you want too, and put it on the same engine at the same boost levels and you should get pretty much the same power, am I right?

The only way I see to make more power on the same engine with a bigger blower is:

1. If the bigger blower robs less power from the crank that turns it.
2. It puts less heat into the air charge than the smaller blower does.
3. The smaller blower is maxed out and can not flow as much air as the engine needs, and the bigger blower can.

I just don't see how a 3.3 twinscrew will really be that much better than a 2.3 twinscrew unless the 2.3 is maxed out. I just don't buy into all the hype about the 3.3 twinscrew. I'm with Brotherdave, I think a 2.3 will do much better on 4v heads than a 3.3 will on 2v heads.


Marlon

 

Ever notice how we all try to rationalize or justify our choices? In a way, its kind of funny! I wonder if Snapper and Honda lawnmower owners debate like this. "Mine has more top end hp! Yeah, but mine has more low end torque at the blades and cuts better! haha!

Heres another spin on it.....

We are seeing better performance from the oem supercharger assembly and adapter kits everyday. As well as, new adapter kits being produced for it. Since it will bolt down on any 5.4 SOHC engine, including our F150s, I believe we are not seeing the limits or peak of the use of the system.

We are just now seeing the development of better aftermarket heads for our engines and they will continue to get better. This is the typical aftermarket cycle for any popular vehicle and our F150 is very popular.

It would be nice to take the same 5.4 engine and bolt down all the roots, twinscrew, centrifugals and turbo systems out there.
However, we can already access information concerning the performance of roots, centrifugals, twinscrew and turbos on the 5.4. SOHC engine........just review my threads.

If a lightning supercharger assembly 2.3 twinscrew adapter kit can produce over 1,000 rear wheel torque AND MORE TORQUE WITH LESS BOOST and NOS, than a centrifugal or single turbo on a 5.4 SOHC OR A CHEVY 6.0, AS HAS BEEN SHOWN, it is only logical to conclude that a twinscrew with a full liter MORE of displacement will only produce much higher gains. To me that is not hype, that is real progress for our benefit as F150 SOHC engine consumers.

Stay tuned! As we continue to keep you informed of all the latest roots and twinscrew news.....whether you like it or NOT!

 

I wasn't trying to justify anything. I know what I think is best and I know why I think it, and I know what I like and why I like it. But thats isn't what this thread is about, I'll save that for another debate in another thread.

I am just trying to get some things straight in my head. If you take an engine that already has a 2.3 twinscrew, and you take that off and stick on a 3.3 twinscrew, it should pretty much make the same amount of power, am I right?

And I think this because the only way to get more power is take less from the crank that drives the supercharger, put less heat into the intake, or raise the boost. Am I wrong about this?

The only instance where I see the 3.3 better than the 2.3 is at very high power levels where the 2.3 doesn't flow enough air to supply the engines needs, and the 3.3 can. And I don't think that most people with street driven vehicles will ever see enough power to max out the 2.3 twinscrew. Am I wrong about this too?

Now keep in mind, I am talking about these 2 different blowers on the SAME EXACT engine. Not changing heads, cams, exhaust or anything else. Only trying to determine exactly how the 3.3 twinscrew can be any better than the 2.3 twinscrew on the SAME engine with no other mods.


Marlon

 

Great Statement!

Boost is Boost. But just like you stated, other issues affect how much power is created for a specific level of boost. Just looking at the twinscrews, we will find that, with everything eles constant, a 1.8 and a 2.3 will produce different power levels at the same boost level. A major reason for that is VOLUME. With a larger displacement of compressed air, comes more power at the same boost levels. Thats why, when everyone sees a comparison pic of the 2.3 and 3.3 size difference, we all freakout.

The fact that the 3.3 is a lysholm design (considered to be the most efficient design) and the 1,023 rwtq 2.3 twinscrew is not, only makes it even more appealing. Remember, the Eaton roots is a "blower", but the twinscrews are true compressors. Thats why, Ceruckers regular F150 with a non-intercooled twinscrew, is able to run as fast as an actual Lightning with an intercooled roots, "better" torque converter and transmission.

What many like about the 3.3 as well is, you will be able to run very low boost for stock, or higher for forged internal engines or mega high for billet internal engines. The fact that, due to design and location of the twinscrew, you get the power low in the rpm band which makes it very streetable, yet it makes outrageous midrange and topend numbers, it will simply bolt on to the lightning intercooled supercharger assembly, and with a pulley change your truck will become a street legal dragster!

Someone did the calculations for the power potential differences between the 1.8 and 2.3 twinscrews. Based on these calculations, they were able to determine the power potential of the 3.3 twinscrews. It was insane! I will try to find it.

 

Yes, please try and find that. I still can't comprehend how you can increase the intake volume of air on the same engine without creating more psi of boost. The way I see it, the engine will flow as much as it can at a certain psi and no more than that, regardless of the compressor. I just don't see how it is scientificaly possible, maybe someone smarter than I (and that is just about every person on the face of the planet, lol) can prove how it is possible.


Marlon

 

I will look for it, but to put it another way.....

With eveything eles remaining constant:

Eaton Roots M90 @ specific boost level = specific power
Eaton Roots M112 @ same specific boost level = More power

1.8 twinscrew @ specific boost level = specific power
2.3 twinscrew @ same specific boost level = more power
3.3 twinscrew @ same specific boost level = even more power

 

You both make valid assumptions. Bigger is better...to a degree.

Otherwise, you'd see a 10L Lysholm blower mounted atop a 5.4L mod motor. In the end, it all comes down to how much air your heads are flowing.

So the question is, are folks maxing-out the flow of their heads with the smaller blower or not?

If not, then there are gains to be had with the larger blower.

If you are maxing-out the airflow thru your heads, then you will see a lot of boost with no power increase, as boost is always measuring restriction; in this example, via the heads as they simply can't flow more air.

BTW - Lysholm blowers are very efficient, as you say. But you'll still get more parasitic loss versus a turbo setup. That's the beauty of turbos - you are converting wasted exhaust energy to produce boost. On any other engine, you are wasting-away energy potential thru the hot exhaust.

 

ironhorse, i know, that you know, that i know, that you know, that boost is not boost.

do you have any information about the differnce in the volume of air that the 3.3 vs the 2.2 vs the stock lightning. another point of interest is that at what point is the stock intercooler simply not enough and what are the option on that.

when they stay 3.3, is that a physical dimension or is that the volume of air it produces in one revolution or a certan number of revolutions?

it seems as simple as buying an air compressor. the $99 dollar one delivers 90 psi and the 1200 ingersol rand produces 125, seems close but it is not and not even in the same ballpark. as you said it is about the volume but just hom much of a difference in volumes are we taking.
percentage wise how much bigger is the 2.2 compared to the stock 112 and how much (percentage) bigger is the 3.3 compared to the 2.2. The 3.3 seems to be 50% bigger than the 2.2.

ironhorse, since you arent giving up on this one, lets just explore it further and see if the number add up. it would seem that you could predict the power output before the combination is actually built, wonder if desktop dyno has any provisions for this?

wonder if there is a formula as to how much air you can boost through a certain volume (port) before heat becomes an issues and actually starts hurting hp.

i expext an answer asap......

 

Wow! I'm dizzy! I tried to stand up and I did this and then fell down!

 

Originally posted by JimIII@JDM in this thread:
https://www.f150online.com/forums/sh...e&pagenumber=5

"See the thing that is going to be awesome about these blowers is that you wont have to spin them as hard to make the power.

This is the conversion from liter to CFM

(ltr X 61.05) X RPM
3465


So if you follow this equation for the Kenne Bell (2.2L) you will see that at 10,000 RPM's the KB will flow 388 CFM and at 18,000 RPM's it flows 699 CFM.


Now apply that to the Whipple at 3.3L you will end up with 581 CFM at 10,000 and 1046 CFM at 18,000!!

This means the blower will see cooler tempratures and more power at less boost! Not being spun as hard also accounts for being easier on the bearings and rotors.

This blower also only weighs 4.4lbs more than the Kenne Bell even though it looks very bulky.

These blowers have been used on Marine race engines for quite some time now. As I was told, in California there is a 200 mile race of nothing but WOT. They use these blowers on some of the boats and have had no failures do to case to rotor and rotor to rotor clearance. The Whipple uses a .015" clearance. On other blowers it is much closer and if there is flex in the case the blower will then seize which is something we all have seen or heard of.

Lifting the heads on these motors can be attributed to more than one reason as already discussed. Low octane, too much timing, not enough fuel. Boost levels shouldnt be a problem. The only thing that can be done to prevent this is to prepare the vehicle properly.

As far as boost levels go this blower is capable of 30+ psi. However as I mentioned above you dont need to spin this charger as hard to get the same or better results. You can still run this blower at a safe boost level and make more power then any blower on the market for these trucks.

I would even have to go back on my statement of saying these are generally designed for built motor/trans trucks and say that if run at a low enough boost level it would be an awesome blower do to the fact that you are spinning it much less you would have to with any other S/Cer. This means lower temps and less wear on the unit itself.

These blowers are extremly good for street use do to versatile boost levels. For example 10 psi of 3.3 boost is like 14psi of the other aftermarket blowers on the market."


JimIII@JDM

 

Originally posted by JimIII@JDM in this thread:https://www.f150online.com/forums/sh...e&pagenumber=4

"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by TrackBeast
What is the purpose behind the 3.3. Twin screws already make 20+lbs of boost. Is someone trying to aim for 30?

Is bigger better in this case?

TB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The 3.3 will be 30+psi capable and yes bigger is better.

If you look at a Eaton at 112 then a KB at 140, now the 3.3 is 201!!! You increase at least 100HP from Eaton to KB now think what it will be with the 3.3!!!"

JimIII