PDA

View Full Version : Lysholm v Kenne Bell/AR



Birdman93
06-11-2005, 06:48 AM
Dave-you made a statement one time that I would see negligible performance enhancement by mounting a Kenne Bell supercharger in place of the Lysholm Twin-Screw used on the Ford GT-here's a pdf file that shows the comparison between the Lysholm and the Bell/AR units.

Autorotor v Lysholm (http://www.kennebell.net/techinfo/ford-techinfo/AUTOROTORvsLYSHOLM.pdf)

Just thought I'd share that little tidbit with you :D

XxSlowpokexX
06-11-2005, 08:43 AM
Here we go again...........

Birdman93
06-11-2005, 08:50 AM
No-Damon-not here we go again.

Dave Dalke responded to a comment I made in a post some time back in his usual way-and now I'm backing myself up with factual information. If you don't like it, don't post.

Swade
06-11-2005, 10:05 AM
Myself, and I am sure several others have seen this same debate carried out on several other boards. One board even had Kenne Bell and another guy from Whipple actualy "duking it out" back and forth. Unfortunatly it seemed the argument was more about what company owns who and who stole what. Frankly I could give a damm who designed what, I wanna see a side by side comparison in a controlled enviroment. Maybe even some graphs with efficiency comparisons ect.

Sorry about the rant, but its frustratin trying to research a product with so much bs from both sides (kenne bell and whipple). Does anyone know of any independant testing of these two side by side?

Either way I think they would both be pretty bad @#$ on an SC. I think very few of our cars could even produce enough power to push the limits of either the whipple or the AR.

Birdman93
06-11-2005, 10:33 AM
I'm not talking about mounting a Blowzilla 2.3 on an SC-I was talking about mounting it on the Ford GT, which already has the Lysholm Twin-screw. I know that the Blowzilla will increase the HP over the Lysholm when it comes to the 5.4L motor used in the GT-it's already in use by three teams planning on competing at Le Mans-and the increase by mounting the 2.3 and retuning took the car from 550HP to 689HP.

That's the discussion I was talking about-and I'll have independent dyno evaluation of both huffers on the Ford GT 5.4L later this month.

David Neibert
06-11-2005, 11:12 AM
I'm not talking about mounting a Blowzilla 2.3 on an SC-I was talking about mounting it on the Ford GT, which already has the Lysholm Twin-screw. I know that the Blowzilla will increase the HP over the Lysholm when it comes to the 5.4L motor used in the GT-it's already in use by three teams planning on competing at Le Mans-and the increase by mounting the 2.3 and retuning took the car from 550HP to 689HP.

That's the discussion I was talking about-and I'll have independent dyno evaluation of both huffers on the Ford GT 5.4L later this month.

So...what point are you trying to make ? That the Blowzilla will produce more power on a 5.4 Ford GT than the Lysholm/Eaton twin screw blower that it comes with ? Okay, and I'll bet that twin turbos will perform even better.

Sorry, but I don't understand how any of that is relevant to the discussions about which of these blowers would perform better on an SC motor.

David

PS: Did you get your GT yet ?

XR7 Dave
06-11-2005, 01:11 PM
*yawn*

We've already had this discussion.

First of all, that write up by KB you posted is a lot of propaganda as are many things coming from the mouth of KB. No suprises there. It is extremely important to KB to maintain the image that their blowers are superior. When obvious performance advantages don't present themselves, they resort to nit-picking combined with vague generalities. No bigger there either.

Before anyone tells me that a "CNC ported" outlet is better than a cast one, I'd like for them to explain to me how. I've seen both blowers up close and personal. Give me a break. lol

Like the other guys said, show me side to side comparisons of the two blowers and then I'll listen. I have my own sources that have satisfied me that there is no appreciable difference in performance at high output levels.

However, if you would feel better in getting a KB for your GT, then by all means go ahead. I think they look better anyhow. :)

Sweet90SC
06-11-2005, 01:44 PM
increase by mounting the 2.3 and retuning took the car from 550HP to 689HP.

That's the discussion I was talking about-and I'll have independent dyno evaluation of both huffers on the Ford GT 5.4L later this month.

Wait, are you saying that by simply installing a different supercharger and some "tuning" they gained 139 HP????

XR7 Dave
06-11-2005, 06:35 PM
Wait, are you saying that by simply installing a different supercharger and some "tuning" they gained 139 HP????

It means absolutely nothing. First of all, remember that 550HP is only Ford's safe estimate. It says nothing of what the motor would do with some cool air, good fuel, and a couple ah, "free mods". A little tuning and some basic performance parts alone might get 680hp from the car.

I would bet that most of the HP gains came from the effective use of more boost. Very simple stuff really. I am quite sure that the use of the KB blower was much more a marketing choice than a performance one.

This coming from someone who uses/sells the KB(AR) version. :/