[Himmelkat]

That is to say, they are putting the blower under the manifold, it is compressing the air, it is coming upwards, then going down to the cylinders

Old tech: supercharger is on top, and it feeds down-ish to the cylinders, somehow. Not an ideal flow path, by any means, as look at the angle outwards at which the runners must splay to hit the ports.
Magnuson:

The Kenne Bell does something similar.

Gen 3 Whipple:

Meanwhile, the new technology being promoted to everyone (except Dodge, in the case of Magnuson) is low blower, high manifold, longer and straighter-vertical intake ports:

Gen 5 Whipple for Dodge

Edelbrock for Dodge
Edelbrock even made it ultra-obvious their (LONG) intake ports are on the top.

Magnuson for a GM truck

Magnuson for some Chevy product

But, notice, how no one other than Whipple is bothering to design a new-generation system for the Hellcat?

I guess the Brand X automakers were lobbying so successfully in the boardrooms, bedrooms, bordellos, etc. where political lobbying is done that word got out there would be no Hellcat long before WE heard it.

No Hellcat-specific bottom-blower aftermarket systems are available but from Whipple. Everyone else seems to have thrown in the towel. (I mean on the Hellcat, not on the Brand X cars, which are as plentiful and individual as one's blood color.

Thus, it looks like in order to really take things over the top, IF you want a bottom-blower type setup on your Hellcat-family vehicle, the Whipple Generation Five is the only competitor, and thus, the winner.

PS they put out a 3.8L for the Ford products. Evidently, not a hugely dramatic difference in tooling, etc, is needed to go with the larger-diameter 3.8L rotors, which they chose over longer rotors, according to Whipple.

In a war of attrition, Whipple has won by just not quitting on us.

 

[BigDaddyEureka]

The big challenge with all of these vs a centrifugal like a Procharger or a Vortech is packaging under a low hood. Now if you're OK with taking a sawzall to your hood the sky is literally the limit...and it's old skool cool too!

 

[FreddyG]

The Whipple should fit under the hood and the Edelbrock too. I have a Good Friend that has a Whipple on his ZL1 and it fits under the hood. It also make 968 to the ground, so these blowers work pretty darned good too. He's got a cam and heads too though.

That car is violently fast!

 

[Hossfly]

I’m eyeing a new whipped setup right now as my build will be complete this week. My factory 2.7 will be maxed out at the levels we are running and with the super stock hood I can easily for the 4.5 whipped under there. It’s a question of where does it end.

 

[Hossfly]

The Anderson hood has plenty of room to scavenge the hot air and cover all the extra stuff up

 

[baabootoo]

The big challenge with all of these vs a centrifugal like a Procharger or a Vortech is packaging under a low hood. Now if you're OK with taking a sawzall to your hood the sky is literally the limit...and it's old skool cool too!

Yep, Roadkill style!

 

[Himmelkat]

I think the Gen Five Whipple would be a better choice than the "just throw more size and charge air heating at it" earlier Whipples.

 

[Himmelkat]

The big challenge with all of these vs a centrifugal like a Procharger or a Vortech is packaging under a low hood. Now if you're OK with taking a sawzall to your hood the sky is literally the limit...and it's old skool cool too!

Centrifugal driven from crank is the way the Big Boys are all whomping on records these days.

The main issue, why centrifugals are not used by the car companies, I HEARD is that the compressor, even with a bypass valve, (I would vote on having a truly gigantic one) use energy to compress the air every time it goes by them blades.

I believe the answer is just put a clutch on the supercharger, use a centrifugal blower, then cam it for somewhere-below-bulldozer torque, as the blower will ram the air in like an obnoxious salesman at your front door in old times, regardless of timing, and balance out the low-end cam timing. (A lot of lift, though. Lots and lots of lift.)

 

[Himmelkat]

The Anderson hood has plenty of room to scavenge the hot air and cover all the extra stuff up View attachment 583953

I think that would lower drag and front lift, also, BTW, not only the hood, but the extended splitter.

 

[hpindy]

I think the IHI is a fantastic supercharger if used with in its limits . The gen 3 whipple and kenne bell create way too much heat . In my opinion they are just too big for the 6.2L displacement.

Sent from my BBF100-2 using Tapatalk

 

[Himmelkat]

The rotor design of those two is also adept at torturing the air molecules by the flow path they take through the rotor meshing. The Gen V Whipple is mopping the floor with them, in my opinion, much more the 3.8L Gen V.

I say again, did everyone at Magnuson just die? Or are they turning their backs on the Hellcat?

 

[Himmelkat]

I think the IHI is a fantastic supercharger if used with in its limits . The gen 3 whipple and kenne bell create way too much heat . In my opinion they are just too big for the 6.2L displacement.

Sent from my BBF100-2 using Tapatalk

Too big. Can't you just turn them more slowly? Wouldn't that make it more efficient? I think the lobe design is suboptimal.

 

[hpindy]

Too big. Can't you just turn them more slowly? Wouldn't that make it more efficient? I think the lobe design is suboptimal.

Unfortunately no . I believe the biggest pulley requires cutting the hood for clearance! And still doesn't slow it down enough .

Sent from my BBF100-2 using Tapatalk

 

[Himmelkat]

But they claim to make Big Power, isn't that the whole point?

 

[Himmelkat]

Strangely, no word from Magnuson since 2020:

Magnuson Unveils Most Powerful Blower Systems Ever at SEMA360

Massive 3.1-liter Magnuson supercharger system promises to deliver huge power gains. Can you and your car handle it? Check it out!

ls1tech.com

It seems that since the rest of the world finds the low-blower high-manifold design to be preferable, Magnuson's planned birth of their 3.1L supercharger-top, aftercooler-bottom unit was stillborn.

It seems like a better design of top-mount, in that it puts the supercharger outlet closer to the middle (fore-and-aft) of the cylinders.

But since then, nothing new. Cramming a sufficiently-large aftercooler under a larger supercharger with greater airflow may have taxed the efficiency of a relatively-tortuous air path to the limit, and then been abandoned.

It took quite a bit of research to even find ANYTHING about the 3.1L Eaton rotor pack-based Magnuson. None of the other supercharger makers, such as Edelbrock, report anything of the kind.

Being kind of a researcher/journalist/whatever, I am concerned about the future of Magnuson. I have been trying to get any information out of them for more than a year, FAR more than a year, and I have seen nothing of note that is new in that time. That sucks because I was a Magnuson fanboi, but I now wonder if they are disavowing any future plans for upgrades or innovations.

 

[Himmelkat]

Well, it does seem to be that the facts of what people are experiencing are indicative that the Eaton 3.1L rotor pack (TVS 3100 and various other forms from other makers, evidently) from Magnuson was not increasing performance as much over the 2650 as the far-better TVS 2650 did over rivals and its prior 2300. so, evidently, everyone, not just Magnuson, abandoned it wholesale.

I do not know the ins and outs of all that happened, but the facts are that no one on planet Earth is using the 3.1L Eaton blower rotor pack, and this latest review by a long-time Magnuson-selling shop:

 

[Himmelkat]

I wonder what happened. Just looking at the way that pair of rotors is meshing, it does look kind of inefficient, as there is a pocket of air trapped on the wrong side of the rotor blade against the groove in the other rotor, IF they are meshed accurately according to manufacturer's specifications.

This means that as the rotors mesh along their length, that the air would have to be squirted along its length toward the rear as they mesh, (top opening, bottom re-meshing, driver side rotor turning as viewed counter-clockwise) or the air just gets carried back from the high-pressure side to the low-pressure side.

All twin-rotors have some carry-back volume, which is one reason centrifugal superchargers are doing so well in classes where any kind of supercharging is allowed, evidently, as centrifugal superchargers have little carry-back volume.

Just theorizing, but the facts seem to indicate an industry-wide abandonment of the Eaton 3.1L rotor pack.

 

[Himmelkat]

More research turns up that VMP is falling back onto using the 2.65L rotor pack, and has completely abandoned all thought of working with the 3.1.

This page from June of 2021:

404 | NMRA Digital

www.nmradigital.com

I think someone quite simply screwed up the design of the 3.1L rotor pack at Eaton. It seems like something that would be hard to screw up, as you would have to cut-and-pate the 2.65L design with slightly scaled-up diameter, and you are off to the races.

I find it unlikely that the exact same rotor lobe profile that was so stellar in the 2.65L suddenly became a dud when it was scaled up for the 3.1L.

My belief, based on what evidence I have seen, is that Eaton goofed the rotor lobe profile and can't sell the 3.1L rotor pack to ANYONE.

 

[Himmelkat]

This picture illustrates just how inefficient the flow path of a top-blower-really-really-bottom-aftercooler design is.

Air enters in one end of the supercharger.

Air is compressed to one end of said supercharger.

Air has to make a 90-degree (at least) turn to go from one end of the supercharger rotor chamber to enter the aftercooler. This is ALL superchargers of the screw type, BTW, unless they are mounted FAR forward, which Magnuson attempted on their failed design VMP tried out. (pic in earlier post in this thread)

Air has to make a 180 degree turn to exit supercharger aftercooler complex on the bottom of said aftercooler

Air has to make ANOTHER 180 degree turn to go down into the cylinder heads.

Also, intake runners? The intake runners are what, an inch long?

This is a design I would not want anywhere near my car.



The Gen V Whipple, on the other hand,

Air enters the front

Air exits supercharger at 90 degree angle, at least, as other superchargers

Air goes through an aftercooler section

Air turns 180 degrees and goes through second aftercooler pass

Air goes down gracefully-tapered intake runners to the intake ports, directly to the valves, unobstructed.

That removes 180 degrees of air direction change which is an important feature.

With plenty of length and a horn cross-section, which combine to take advantage of intake positive pressure buildup resonance at the back of the shut intake valve, plus the resulting negative pulses from opening of said valve, unencumbered from the valve all the way clear up to the underside of the aftercooler brick.

This is important as there is plenty of plenum space AFTER the aftercooler brick, allowing the entirety of air supplied to one bank of cylinders to feed all four cylinders as needed, which is better for higher-RPM power .

The softer lobe profiles also are a quantum leap up from the air-raping scythe-like convex lobes of many earlier-generation blower lobes, by Whipple, IHI, PSI, and others.

 

[Hossfly]

I’m going to the 3 liter whipple
my internals will definitely hold the 4.5 I just don’t need that much boost.
a friend of mine just spent. Small inheritance on suspension, cold air system, inter chiller on and on and lapped a 4.5 whipple on motor with stock pistons and rods. I don’t think it will be long for here the way he abuses it.
we shall see.