Edelbrock SC coming for LS3

[radz28]

Originally Posted by HaveBlue

More pics from the Super Chevy event.

http://www.superchevy.com/features/s...kit/index.html

I'll try to get more info this weekend.

radz282003
I have some answers and ideas for you, but I'm off the airport. I'll try to post tomorrow.

Very cool. Thanks - I'd be very appreciative

Originally Posted by DarricSS

Wow! That is the best looking S/C on the market! Does not look like something you would see on a radio control car like the Techco...good job Edelbrock!

That is one cool looking SC. I think the Techco and Edelbrock systems for the Mustang looked good, but sheesh!!!

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

I'm no expert (so that little voice on my shoulder is telling me to "shut up, doofus.") BUT...

The Bypass valve point they made is actually quite significant in terms of durability. Every magnacharger instruction manual I've seen has had numerous, big bold warnings NOT to touch the bypass valve vacuum actuator during install. It pretty fragile. I imagine this stays the same throughout the life of the unit. If you accidentally whack it with a wrench or your arm or something, it's gonna pop, snap, or full-out break off. The Edelbrock way provides just one less thing to worry about (and it looks cleaner).

The runners and extra ducting up top isn't the big issue, I mean I'm thinking maybe 5-10 lbs extra weight...at most...(and if they can get it to fit under a stock Vette's hood..that's not high up at all. But also note on traditional systems how the actual supercharger (the majority of the weight) is mounted higher up than this unit. I actually think this system provides a CoG benefit over other supercharger systems, though probably not a net weight advantage.

And the jackshaft point may not be common, but think about it -- an extra shaft, and extra belt...more room for slippage, and more distance to lose power. Plus...that little belt back there is a pain in the rear to maintain.

I'm in the same boat, brother Everything you posted makes sense to me. I'm all about simpler is better. I still wonder how efficient a ZR1/LSA set-up really is though. Considering the LS9/LSA have better heads, and I know the LS9 has a bigger cam (.562"/.558" 211/230 (@.050 in) cam, the LSA has a .480"/.480" 198/216 (@.050 in) cam, and an LS3 has a .551"/.525" 204/211 (@.050 lift) cam), how does an LS3 SS put down more power at lower boost than either the LS9 and the LSA? I wonder how much of that comes from any efficiency differences there are with the manifold/intercooler arrangement between the three designs. I can totally see where there'd be a bit of power loss in the jack-shaft and the LS9 and LSA both get by this but I just wonder how the LS3 does so well.

Originally Posted by BlownChevy

Rated for 100K usage
Never in 11 years had an issue with slipage
Negligible power lost....in fact not even measurable

Think about this for a second, with a 427 CI motor and the direct drive blower you will NEVER get the blower to spin fast enough to make pressure. I noticed someone questioned the longevity of the shaft, we have been running this same set up for 11 years and have it on well over 13K units.......I can count on one had the failures I have seen in 6 years. The System of topic is pretty, however there are some inherent performance issues that they fail to mention. When you shrink the package to fit under the hood of a corvette you LOOSE performance. Whomever thinks we did not already try the under the hood approach is crazy.

Magna Charger works for a reason, it is engineered to do so. The system of topic will surly make the power, it is the same blower........ I give them credit for a well though out package for the envelope they were trying to fit it in....but the performance shortcomings will surface in due time.

It always does...

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by radz282003

I'm in the same boat, brother Everything you posted makes sense to me. I'm all about simpler is better. I still wonder how efficient a ZR1/LSA set-up really is though. Considering the LS9/LSA have better heads, and I know the LS9 has a bigger cam (.562"/.558" 211/230 (@.050 in) cam, the LSA has a .480"/.480" 198/216 (@.050 in) cam, and an LS3 has a .551"/.525" 204/211 (@.050 lift) cam), how does an LS3 SS put down more power at lower boost than either the LS9 and the LSA? I wonder how much of that comes from any efficiency differences there are with the manifold/intercooler arrangement between the three designs. I can totally see where there'd be a bit of power loss in the jack-shaft and the LS9 and LSA both get by this but I just wonder how the LS3 does so well.

I would have to guess that the single biggest factor is compression ratio. The LS3's is 10.7:1, and the LS9/LSA are in the 9.1:1 range.

[boostedyards86]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

I would have to guess that the single biggest factor is compression ratio. The LS3's is 10.7:1, and the LS9/LSA are in the 9.1:1 range.

agreed on this. its all about the compression ratio really. 9.1:1 is a very safe CR for s/c's meanwhile 10.7:1 is pretty high for anything over say 10psi. And imo thats pushing it.

[GQ4Life]

to handle the power over 10psi u probably going to have to rebuild the motor anyway..
still don't know how much power this motor is good for..

[radz28]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

I would have to guess that the single biggest factor is compression ratio. The LS3's is 10.7:1, and the LS9/LSA are in the 9.1:1 range.

Good point. I'm still trying to figure out why does an LS9 need to push 10 psi to get ~ 500 RWHP, with better heads, cam, exhaust, etc. while an LS3 only needs ~ 6 psi though Is the CR affecting the power that much? I'd be interesting to learn though

[old motorhead]

Originally Posted by radz282003

Good point. I'm still trying to figure out why does an LS9 need to push 10 psi to get ~ 500 RWHP, with better heads, cam, exhaust, etc. while an LS3 only needs ~ 6 psi though Is the CR affecting the power that much? I'd be interesting to learn though

Just as a point of reference, my TVS blown LS3 is over 670 at the wheels with 8.5psi. It has a bigger blower cam than the LS9, LT headers (no cats) with free flowing mufflers. Also has ported throttle body. Some of the power increase I'm sure is due to the higher C/R. The bigger cam has much to do with it also. Nelson Performance did the work and he was amazed how much timing he was able to dial in and still keep the tune safe. I'd also submit that the TVS just might be a better forced induction system vs the Chevy LS9 version.

[radz28]

Originally Posted by old motorhead

Just as a point of reference, my TVS blown LS3 is over 670 at the wheels with 8.5psi. It has a bigger blower cam than the LS9, LT headers (no cats) with free flowing mufflers. Also has ported throttle body. Some of the power increase I'm sure is due to the higher C/R. The bigger cam has much to do with it also. Nelson Performance did the work and he was amazed how much timing he was able to dial in and still keep the tune safe. I'd also submit that the TVS just might be a better forced induction system vs the Chevy LS9 version.

That's kinda' what I'm suspecting; maybe less restrictive?...

[Q-ship]

Originally Posted by radz282003

That makes sense. I don't know if there's a similar trap in Camaro's air box but I remember reading about the Mustang.

I like the little features that Edelbrock touts in that video. Some of the stuff, though, seems like they're trying to make something of nothing though. The bypass valve is one. I LOVE how huge that intercooler is. I like the idea about the design of the manifold and runners, but it just looks like excess weight to me, in the worst part of the car - up high. I can see how it's figured that if it was good enough for ZR1, it should work here too... The jack shaft location and failure is something I haven't heard of much though. Considering the power production though - it's not like it was that much farther advanced, in comparison to a TS blower I read about, in a Mustang rag a couple months ago. The claim that Edelbrock makes about producing the same power with less boost really didn't pan out to complete confirmation when I compare bot articles. However, it was on two different cars, on two different days, and a bunch of other factors. There was a problem with the tune too... which they touted as a feature in that video:(

I'm not taking shots at Edelbrock. I'm totally interested in seeing some real-world comparisons though. That blower looks so cool though! I'm down for some more info'.

Your making a mountain out of a mole hill with the weight issue of the longer runners. I was at the Super Chevy event, I heard and saw what was going on with the Corvette. Edelbrock went with the out the top blower and long runner for superior and smoother airflow into the cylinder heads, so the power improvement could well out weight (no pun intended) the extra 2 or 3 pounds of intake weight. The internial bypass will have a major advantage in nonboost situations with cleaner airflow into the cylinder heads along with better response between boost and unboosted driviablity. In the Mustang system they saw a dyno honest 466 at the flywheel @ 5 pounds which is pretty impressive, at that rate the of power added per liter the 6.2 LS engine will see HP numbers in the 570 to 580 range.

[radz28]

Originally Posted by Q-ship

Your making a mountain out of a mole hill with the weight issue of the longer runners. I was at the Super Chevy event, I heard and saw what was going on with the Corvette. Edelbrock went with the out the top blower and long runner for superior and smoother airflow into the cylinder heads, so the power improvement could well out weight (no pun intended) the extra 2 or 3 pounds of intake weight. The internial bypass will have a major advantage in nonboost situations with cleaner airflow into the cylinder heads along with better response between boost and unboosted driviablity. In the Mustang system they saw a dyno honest 466 at the flywheel @ 5 pounds which is pretty impressive, at that rate the of power added per liter the 6.2 LS engine will see HP numbers in the 570 to 580 range.

Well, maybe; but a couple pounds here and there add up; we all know this car's no light weight. I totally see how much smoother the flow is into the ports, just like you've pointed out. But hey, as long as there's a pay-off in performance, then I have no concern. I'm not sure if you're talking RWHP or FWHP, but the other TVS-rotor'd SC is running at right around 500+ RWHP through the OEM airbox (LS3s), like the Edelbrock probably will for CARB-exemption. If there's a gain, I'll be very suprised. I am interested in the intercooler and flow efficiencies though

[talwell]

Originally Posted by old motorhead

Just as a point of reference, my TVS blown LS3 is over 670 at the wheels with 8.5psi. It has a bigger blower cam than the LS9, LT headers (no cats) with free flowing mufflers. Also has ported throttle body. Some of the power increase I'm sure is due to the higher C/R. The bigger cam has much to do with it also. Nelson Performance did the work and he was amazed how much timing he was able to dial in and still keep the tune safe. I'd also submit that the TVS just might be a better forced induction system vs the Chevy LS9 version.

How are you feeding this system fuel at that high of HP? The factory fuel system seems to be cutting off safely at 575rwhp and hitting 600rwhp with low pressure.

[Q-ship]

Originally Posted by radz282003

Well, maybe; but a couple pounds here and there add up; we all know this car's no light weight. I totally see how much smoother the flow is into the ports, just like you've pointed out. But hey, as long as there's a pay-off in performance, then I have no concern. I'm not sure if you're talking RWHP or FWHP, but the other TVS-rotor'd SC is running at right around 500+ RWHP through the OEM airbox (LS3s), like the Edelbrock probably will for CARB-exemption. If there's a gain, I'll be very suprised. I am interested in the intercooler and flow efficiencies though

Edelbrock is going for a true bolt on in your driveway deal that is CARB exempted, and they are trying to keep the cost down along with the durablity up. Remember the LS3/L99 are powder metal rods with Hyperutectic pistons unlike the LS9 that have forged rods and pistons. For a 5 PSI system on the factory fuel pump (fuel pump was the limiter in the Vette, 580 FWHP) that is pretty damn impressive for a low boost system that has a torque curve flatter than Kansas (really you should have seen the dyno sheet).

Looky what I just found......
http://www.superchevy.com/features/s...kit/index.html

[old motorhead]

Originally Posted by Q-ship

Edelbrock is going for a true bolt on in your driveway deal that is CARB exempted, and they are trying to keep the cost down along with the durablity up. Remember the LS3/L99 are powder metal rods with Hyperutectic pistons unlike the LS9 that have forged rods and pistons. For a 5 PSI system on the factory fuel pump (fuel pump was the limiter in the Vette, 580 FWHP) that is pretty damn impressive for a low boost system that has a torque curve flatter than Kansas (really you should have seen the dyno sheet).

Those hyperutectic pistons and powder metal rods have been holding some serious power for years. They live long and prosper at boost levels double 5psi, and power levels well in excess of 600rwhp (with an accurate/safe tune). You're spot on about the fuel pump limiting safe power levels. Not sure about the Camaro, but the upgrade situation is a little cloudy on vettes. I'm running a boost a pump. It ups the voltage to the pump to increase pressure/flow. I don't like it, but haven't seen an effective alternative. My supercharged truck has a simple in tank pump that does well at over 600hp. Not sure why that pump can't be used in Camaros and Vettes.

[Q-ship]

Originally Posted by old motorhead

Those hyperutectic pistons and powder metal rods have been holding some serious power for years. They live long and prosper at boost levels double 5psi, and power levels well in excess of 600rwhp (with an accurate/safe tune). You're spot on about the fuel pump limiting safe power levels. Not sure about the Camaro, but the upgrade situation is a little cloudy on vettes. I'm running a boost a pump. It ups the voltage to the pump to increase pressure/flow. I don't like it, but haven't seen an effective alternative. My supercharged truck has a simple in tank pump that does well at over 600hp. Not sure why that pump can't be used in Camaros and Vettes.

I am not saying that the LS3 can't hold some good power, just that the LS9 has better parts to take more.

[JM10]

Originally Posted by HaveBlue

Crap, I'll work on it.

Any new info? Update?

JM