Ripp or Prodigy-- Is there any hard evidence out there? - Jeep Wrangler Forum
Jeep Wrangler Forum

Go Back   Jeep Wrangler Forum > JK Jeep Wrangler Forum > JK Tech Forum

Join Wrangler Forum Today


Reply
 
Thread Tools

Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about them on WranglerForum.com
Old 05-05-2015, 08:55 AM
Thread Starter
  #1
Jeeper
 
OttoVonMog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 904
Ripp or Prodigy-- Is there any hard evidence out there?

I've been looking more and more into the Vortech's unit used for the Ripp's system... I'm thinking perhaps going with this system or maybe the Prodigy Turbo Kit. Does anyone have hard evidence to support the manufacturer's claims?

OttoVonMog is offline   Quote
Old 05-05-2015, 06:47 PM
Thread Starter
  #2
Jeeper
 
OttoVonMog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 904
So, no one has dynoed their engine after one of these kits?

OttoVonMog is offline   Quote
Old 05-05-2015, 07:01 PM   #3
Supporting Member

5-Year WF Supporting Member
 
kenb1023's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Edgewood NM
Posts: 1,407
I would like to know as well. If the increase is enough it would be a lot cheaper than an LS conversion.
__________________
2007 Black JKU now known as the Black Mistress. Dynatrack PR 44 front w/RCV axles, 4:88 Gears, Eaton 4P E-Lockers, 3.5 MC Coil Lift with Adjustable CAs, Bilstein 5100 Series Shocks, 315/70/17 Micky Thompson ATZ-P3s on MB 11 wheels, XRC MOD front Bumper, Smitybilt X2O Comp 8000 Winch, LOD Gen 4 Rear Bumper, s-Pod Swith system, Amp Research Retractable Side Steps, Polly performance Suspension Bolt upgrade Superchip Programer and more
Member of New Mexico Jeep Group
kenb1023 is offline   Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 05-05-2015, 07:04 PM
Thread Starter
  #4
Jeeper
 
OttoVonMog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 904
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenb1023 View Post
I would like to know as well. If the increase is enough it would be a lot cheaper than an LS conversion.
I'm surprised some one hasn't answered this question yet with dyno-charts and data...

The LS is a good option.
OttoVonMog is offline   Quote
Old 05-05-2015, 07:07 PM   #5
Jeeper
 
Kraxler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,003
Pieface has done a lot of posts and tests with various super chargers and such. There are several threads on this topic. Also several YouTube videos.
Kraxler is offline   Quote
Old 05-05-2015, 07:08 PM   #6
Supporting Member

5-Year WF Supporting Member
 
kenb1023's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Edgewood NM
Posts: 1,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krakus View Post
I'm surprised some one hasn't answered this question yet with dyno-charts and data...

The LS is a good option.
Good option but just the kit alone is about $5K. Now add another $10 to $20K for engine and transmission. Ripp installed is about $6K
__________________
2007 Black JKU now known as the Black Mistress. Dynatrack PR 44 front w/RCV axles, 4:88 Gears, Eaton 4P E-Lockers, 3.5 MC Coil Lift with Adjustable CAs, Bilstein 5100 Series Shocks, 315/70/17 Micky Thompson ATZ-P3s on MB 11 wheels, XRC MOD front Bumper, Smitybilt X2O Comp 8000 Winch, LOD Gen 4 Rear Bumper, s-Pod Swith system, Amp Research Retractable Side Steps, Polly performance Suspension Bolt upgrade Superchip Programer and more
Member of New Mexico Jeep Group
kenb1023 is offline   Quote
Old 05-05-2015, 07:13 PM
Thread Starter
  #7
Jeeper
 
OttoVonMog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxler View Post
Pieface has done a lot of posts and tests with various super chargers and such. There are several threads on this topic. Also several YouTube videos.

Yeah, I would never think to look for a user named Pieface. I have to be honest with you. Don't care about Youtube videos. I'm really looking for sources that have rigorous testing methodology. I'll start with the more generic information. However, I would like to see some tests that are performed in a serious and scientific manner.
OttoVonMog is offline   Quote
Old 05-05-2015, 07:15 PM
Thread Starter
  #8
Jeeper
 
OttoVonMog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 904
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenb1023 View Post
Good option but just the kit alone is about $5K. Now add another $10 to $20K for engine and transmission. Ripp installed is about $6K
I would get a built engine by serious engine maker if I went to the LS option. No reason purchasing a create motor for 15K if you can get a monster for 20-25k the way I see it.
OttoVonMog is offline   Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 12:40 PM   #9
Supporting Member

5-Year WF Supporting Member
 
kenb1023's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Edgewood NM
Posts: 1,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krakus View Post
I would get a built engine by serious engine maker if I went to the LS option. No reason purchasing a create motor for 15K if you can get a monster for 20-25k the way I see it.
Actually, I think getting a junked yard LS and have a reliable shop rebuild it would be the better way to go. A basic crate engine though would still yield a lot more than what the 3.8 or 3.6 have to offer and fit better than a Hemi.
__________________
2007 Black JKU now known as the Black Mistress. Dynatrack PR 44 front w/RCV axles, 4:88 Gears, Eaton 4P E-Lockers, 3.5 MC Coil Lift with Adjustable CAs, Bilstein 5100 Series Shocks, 315/70/17 Micky Thompson ATZ-P3s on MB 11 wheels, XRC MOD front Bumper, Smitybilt X2O Comp 8000 Winch, LOD Gen 4 Rear Bumper, s-Pod Swith system, Amp Research Retractable Side Steps, Polly performance Suspension Bolt upgrade Superchip Programer and more
Member of New Mexico Jeep Group
kenb1023 is offline   Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 03:01 PM   #10
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Staten Island, NY
Posts: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenb1023 View Post
Actually, I think getting a junked yard LS and have a reliable shop rebuild it would be the better way to go. A basic crate engine though would still yield a lot more than what the 3.8 or 3.6 have to offer and fit better than a Hemi.
Depends on what LS we are talking about, a true "LS"? If so which one? 5.3(LS4)? 5.7(LS1/LS6)? 6.0(LS2)? 6.2(LS3)?
Specifically talking Pentastar engines, they are rated to 285 Hp, which yields "roughly" 200 hp to the wheels give or take. Our Vortech V3 based system allows you to realize an additional 120+ wheel hp or 320 WHP rated on 37" tires with an automatic (4.88:1 or higher gears). That translates to @450hp at the engine.

So, with that in mind, we would be talking about an LS3 take out.(6.2L 430 hp engine rating)

There are many other variables involved of course, but just food for thought.

Best luck with your decision!
Questions welcomed.

RIPP
RIPPMODS is offline   Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 03:21 PM   #11
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 837
I would go ripp charger if you have a 3.6L.

They obviously have it all figured out and done. Turn key. Just do it.
__________________
2015 wrangler sport "Frank the Tank"
Ordered 3/31
D1 status 4/13
Arrival 5/13
Hardtop, 6 speed, alpine 9 speaker. The basics.
Mr.P_0_0_P is offline   Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 03:22 PM   #12
Supporting Member

5-Year WF Supporting Member
 
kenb1023's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Edgewood NM
Posts: 1,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIPPMODS View Post
Depends on what LS we are talking about, a true "LS"? If so which one? 5.3(LS4)? 5.7(LS1/LS6)? 6.0(LS2)? 6.2(LS3)?
Specifically talking Pentastar engines, they are rated to 285 Hp, which yields "roughly" 200 hp to the wheels give or take. Our Vortech V3 based system allows you to realize an additional 120+ wheel hp or 320 WHP rated on 37" tires with an automatic (4.88:1 or higher gears). That translates to @450hp at the engine.

So, with that in mind, we would be talking about an LS3 take out.(6.2L 430 hp engine rating)

There are many other variables involved of course, but just food for thought.

Best luck with your decision!
Questions welcomed.

RIPP
What I had been looking at is the 5.7 LS1 or 6.0 LS2. It is all a pipe dream but that what America is all about, the right to dream. For now I will live with what I get out of my 3.8 Auto.
__________________
2007 Black JKU now known as the Black Mistress. Dynatrack PR 44 front w/RCV axles, 4:88 Gears, Eaton 4P E-Lockers, 3.5 MC Coil Lift with Adjustable CAs, Bilstein 5100 Series Shocks, 315/70/17 Micky Thompson ATZ-P3s on MB 11 wheels, XRC MOD front Bumper, Smitybilt X2O Comp 8000 Winch, LOD Gen 4 Rear Bumper, s-Pod Swith system, Amp Research Retractable Side Steps, Polly performance Suspension Bolt upgrade Superchip Programer and more
Member of New Mexico Jeep Group
kenb1023 is offline   Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 03:37 PM   #13
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Staten Island, NY
Posts: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenb1023 View Post
What I had been looking at is the 5.7 LS1 or 6.0 LS2. It is all a pipe dream but that what America is all about, the right to dream. For now I will live with what I get out of my 3.8 Auto.
Ok let's discuss that. 3.8L Minivan motor is rated to 200hp, but you will actually only see 118-135 whp. Our sustem can add up to 110 Whp.

Have you looked into our Long Tube Headers?

They are a tuned design and not just noise maker. 25+ additional wheel HP 30+ additional wheel TQ, power comes on 600+ RPM EARLIER in the power band. And 40 additional Wheel TQ @1900 RPM. They really wake the 3.8 up.

RIPP
RIPPMODS is offline   Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 08:31 PM
Thread Starter
  #14
Jeeper
 
OttoVonMog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 904
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIPPMODS View Post
Depends on what LS we are talking about, a true "LS"? If so which one? 5.3(LS4)? 5.7(LS1/LS6)? 6.0(LS2)? 6.2(LS3)?
Specifically talking Pentastar engines, they are rated to 285 Hp, which yields "roughly" 200 hp to the wheels give or take. Our Vortech V3 based system allows you to realize an additional 120+ wheel hp or 320 WHP rated on 37" tires with an automatic (4.88:1 or higher gears). That translates to @450hp at the engine.

So, with that in mind, we would be talking about an LS3 take out.(6.2L 430 hp engine rating)

There are many other variables involved of course, but just food for thought.

Best luck with your decision!
Questions welcomed.

RIPP

I've got some questions about the specifics of your setup:

You say it is a V3 Vortech Unit-- Is that a V3SI unit or a V3SCI unit? And do you maintain the standard gearcase or do you spec out a custom ratio? Because, I was reading a post on another website that claimed you get a 40% in HP and Torque between 1800-200rpm-- Is this claim true? Or is this just a poster miss reading the dyno charts?

Also, what is the specific volumetric efficiency of the 3.6L engine operating at 1800-2000rpm? I'm curious to know exactly how much of an increase VE would be required at these low boost pressures to see that sort of gain in performance.
OttoVonMog is offline   Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 08:34 PM
Thread Starter
  #15
Jeeper
 
OttoVonMog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 904
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIPPMODS View Post
Ok let's discuss that. 3.8L Minivan motor is rated to 200hp, but you will actually only see 118-135 whp. Our sustem can add up to 110 Whp.

Have you looked into our Long Tube Headers?

They are a tuned design and not just noise maker. 25+ additional wheel HP 30+ additional wheel TQ, power comes on 600+ RPM EARLIER in the power band. And 40 additional Wheel TQ @1900 RPM. They really wake the 3.8 up.

RIPP
I have a question have you ever dynoed the Engine outside of the vehicle to see if the average engine even comes close to manufacturer's claims?

Why not add MW-50 while you're at it and gain another 100+ Hp at least?
OttoVonMog is offline   Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 08:36 PM
Thread Starter
  #16
Jeeper
 
OttoVonMog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 904
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenb1023 View Post
What I had been looking at is the 5.7 LS1 or 6.0 LS2. It is all a pipe dream but that what America is all about, the right to dream. For now I will live with what I get out of my 3.8 Auto.

Personally, I'm not that impressed with the 3.6L engine... I'm going to try squeeze in a 5.9L Cummins instead with Compound Turbos and MW-50 Injection!


Pump diesel will goes places no pump gas will ever go!
OttoVonMog is offline   Quote
Old 05-07-2015, 08:37 AM
Thread Starter
  #17
Jeeper
 
OttoVonMog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 904
I wonder if Ripp will answer my questions.
OttoVonMog is offline   Quote
Old 05-07-2015, 04:37 PM   #18
TOK
Jeeper
 
TOK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krakus View Post
Personally, I'm not that impressed with the 3.6L engine... I'm going to try squeeze in a 5.9L Cummins instead with Compound Turbos and MW-50 Injection!


Pump diesel will goes places no pump gas will ever go!
I'd like to see that one... The engine without the giant transmission is a little over double the length of the Pentastar. Squeeze isn't the word.
TOK is offline   Quote
Old 05-07-2015, 05:14 PM   #19
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Staten Island, NY
Posts: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krakus View Post
I've got some questions about the specifics of your setup:

You say it is a V3 Vortech Unit-- Is that a V3SI unit or a V3SCI unit? And do you maintain the standard gearcase or do you spec out a custom ratio? Because, I was reading a post on another website that claimed you get a 40% in HP and Torque between 1800-200rpm-- Is this claim true? Or is this just a poster miss reading the dyno charts?

Also, what is the specific volumetric efficiency of the 3.6L engine operating at 1800-2000rpm? I'm curious to know exactly how much of an increase VE would be required at these low boost pressures to see that sort of gain in performance.
We use a Vortech V3SI unit. Specifically talking about a 3.8, At 1900 RPM, we see 30 extra wheel HP and 20 extra Wheel TQ. Those are the straight dyno increases for a 6speed (Full Converter lockup on an auto is 2200-2400 RPM)

The Pentastar benefits vs 3.8:
4 Valve per cylinder
Double overhead Cam
Dual Independent Cam Phasing

The 3.6L in the Pentastar engine in the wrangler is able to move roughly 470 CFM of air at normal atmospheric pressure. The compressor we use has the ability to move roughly 1150 CFM max.

We are able to reap the benefits of moving large volume of air along with psi to reap the power gains.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Krakus View Post
I have a question have you ever dynoed the Engine outside of the vehicle to see if the average engine even comes close to manufacturer's claims?

Why not add MW-50 while you're at it and gain another 100+ Hp at least?
We have never dynoed an engine outside of the vehicle nor have we had any need to. Our in house chassis dyno is a Dyno Dynamics LB450, and eddy current load dyno. The number we advertise is the number at the wheel, the number that counts. We take our base line stock vehicle power number, un strap it, supercharger it, strap it down again, "pull". The difference between the 2 numbers is the added HP to the wheel.

Regarding the WM-50, we utilized that system of "chemical intercooling" in 2007-2008 on our Generation 1 3.8L JK system. We found them to be one more fail point, and one more level the end user would have to monitor.
We also found inconsistency's within the available mixtures available with, varying levels of cooling, leading to inconsistency's in the performance of the tune from re-fill to re-fill.

In the end, in the name of simplicity, ease of maintenance, and consistency, we migrated to a air to air heat exchanger design.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krakus View Post
Personally, I'm not that impressed with the 3.6L engine... I'm going to try squeeze in a 5.9L Cummins instead with Compound Turbos and MW-50 Injection!


Pump diesel will goes places no pump gas will ever go!
Why not just forgo all that nonsense and "squeeze" a Pratt & Whitney PW100 in it!!! It'll run on ANYTHING Diesel, gasoline, kerosine, bulkoil... whatever!! Now THAT'S real power right there!

But on a serious note - We've wheeled, driven and seen an enormous amount of diesel JK's on the trail, rocks and road. They really aren't what you think they'd be. No matter how much you set them up, they really aren't a perfect fit for everything. The chassis is really too small for the over powering torque and starts to age quick. Different strokes for different folks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krakus View Post
I wonder if Ripp will answer my questions.
We tried
RIPPMODS is offline   Quote
Old 05-07-2015, 06:19 PM   #20
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Naples, FL
Posts: 404
Look at the Edelbrock supercharger for the 3.6L.
__________________
JeepForum>WranglerForum
88Hatchy is offline   Quote
Old 05-07-2015, 10:55 PM
Thread Starter
  #21
Jeeper
 
OttoVonMog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 904
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIPPMODS View Post
We use a Vortech V3SI unit. Specifically talking about a 3.8, At 1900 RPM, we see 30 extra wheel HP and 20 extra Wheel TQ. Those are the straight dyno increases for a 6speed (Full Converter lockup on an auto is 2200-2400 RPM)

The Pentastar benefits vs 3.8:
4 Valve per cylinder
Double overhead Cam
Dual Independent Cam Phasing

The 3.6L in the Pentastar engine in the wrangler is able to move roughly 470 CFM of air at normal atmospheric pressure. The compressor we use has the ability to move roughly 1150 CFM max.

We are able to reap the benefits of moving large volume of air along with psi to reap the power gains.
I understand the differences between the 3.8L and the Pentastar 3.6L engines. What I'm curious about is exactly how much air flow will a Vortech 3SI unit produce at .6-1.6PSI which is approximately what the dyno charts show your system produces between 1800-2000rpm. I'm curious have you figured out what exactly is the Normally Aspirated volumetric efficiency of the engine at these rpm ranges. My guess is that at even within this range of .6-1.6PSI you're pushing the volumetric efficiency from 89-91% on average at these low RPMs to 94-98% efficiency... Which would account for the extra 30hp... no problem according to my basic calculations.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Rippmods
We have never dynoed an engine outside of the vehicle nor have we had any need to. Our in house chassis dyno is a Dyno Dynamics LB450, and eddy current load dyno. The number we advertise is the number at the wheel, the number that counts. We take our base line stock vehicle power number, un strap it, supercharger it, strap it down again, "pull". The difference between the 2 numbers is the added HP to the wheel.
Yes, that is the method I would use as well to figure out wheel hp. But, let's be honest Wheel HP doesn't tell the complete story. Which is great from a marketing perspective, because it allows your customers to let the imaginations run wild-- one person told me his drive train was responsible for at least 33% loss in power-- so 285hp manufactures claim goes down to 190hp at the rear wheels shoots back up to 325HP after your kit-- leaves said person to only absolute conclusion: Crankshaft HP of about 475HP. You and I know that is unlikely the case. But it is vapor hp advertising that spreads around the internet about your stuff and fuels the imagination of many people.

But serious, I was just curious if you actually took the engines out ever to just see how close the Pentastar on average is to manufacturers SAE NET power gains.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rippmods
Regarding the WM-50, we utilized that system of "chemical intercooling" in 2007-2008 on our Generation 1 3.8L JK system. We found them to be one more fail point, and one more level the end user would have to monitor.
We also found inconsistency's within the available mixtures available with, varying levels of cooling, leading to inconsistency's in the performance of the tune from re-fill to re-fill.

In the end, in the name of simplicity, ease of maintenance, and consistency, we migrated to a air to air heat exchanger design.
Myself, I've never had problem with my WM-50 systems-- when it comes to consistency of power. I understand that it does add complexity to the system. That is very true. And it does require the end user to monitor more than just the usual fuel and oil in the car. So, I understand that those features are always drawbacks for the type of customers you are mostly dealing with.

But, you have to agree that with a well tuned system you can get vastly superior HP and TQ numbers with WM-50 System in conjunction with proper intercooling.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Rippmod
Why not just forgo all that nonsense and "squeeze" a Pratt & Whitney PW100 in it!!! It'll run on ANYTHING Diesel, gasoline, kerosine, bulkoil... whatever!! Now THAT'S real power right there!
Actually, Turbo-Shaft engines like the PW100 or the AGT 1500 Turbo-shaft engine in the M1 Tank series are not a good mix for off roading. Turbines have always had massive power, but they also always suffer from it being way too high in the rpm range and having way too little torque at low rpm. The engines are also best when operated at constant rpms i.e. like a ship, plane, or helicopter. But when you constantly operating at various points along the rpm range the Turbine just doesn't match up well against any modern diesel engine.

Why do you think the rest of the world uses Diesel Engines in their tanks-- they actually work much better for most the operating ranges for off-road applications. What is funny is how history repeats itself so often in the military during WWII we used the Wright R-975 Aero Engine and it suffered from all the same problems of the AGT-1500 has today. But, it suffered more because of poor transmissions the manual gave the drivers problems with constant shifting and the automatic didn't have enough gears to really fix the issues. However, the M1 Abrams tanks , do , but the engine is still not as good off road as the diesel engines of MTU, MAN, Mitsubishi, Perkins or Wartsila....

So, I'm going to stick with my diesel engines. If I could fit it into the engine bay a Detroit Diesel 6-71T with two-stage turbos I would!!! Best of both worlds-- it has the sound of a loopy muscle engine and the beauty of a Diesel! Sadly, the DD's are out of the picture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rippmods
But on a serious note - We've wheeled, driven and seen an enormous amount of diesel JK's on the trail, rocks and road. They really aren't what you think they'd be. No matter how much you set them up, they really aren't a perfect fit for everything. The chassis is really too small for the over powering torque and starts to age quick. Different strokes for different folks.
Well, I just think it would be cool to build a 800hp 5.9L Cummins and put it in the JK Chassis for the hell of it. I don't expect a long life the chassis with that much power and torque.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Rippmods
We tried
Thanks for answering.
OttoVonMog is offline   Quote
Old 05-08-2015, 12:22 AM   #22
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 1,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krakus View Post
one person told me his drive train was responsible for at least 33% loss in power-- so 285hp manufactures claim goes down to 190hp at the rear wheels shoots back up to 325HP after your kit-- leaves said person to only absolute conclusion: Crankshaft HP of about 475HP. You and I know that is unlikely the case. But it is vapor hp advertising that spreads around the internet about your stuff and fuels the imagination of many people.
...but the HP at the crank doesn't really matter anyway, so why are you worrying about what conclusions people my draw about how much HP there is at the crank with a bolt-on kit?

It's the HP/TQ at the wheels that correlates to how quickly/easily a vehicle can accelerate. So that's what should be used to compare stock to aftermarket mods.

Also, a majority of the drivetrain loss in an inertia dyno style acceleration sweep dyno run is caused by the moment of inertia (rotating inertia) of the drivetrain. The inertia of the drivetrain remains constant when adding bolt-on mods. If the inertia of the dyno drum stays constant, then the portion of drivetrain loss due to inertia remains a constant *percentage* as you increase power at the engine. A small portion of drivetrain loss is a constant amount (not percentage) of loss due to friction in the drivetrain.

The end result is that the total percent drivetrain loss, when changing nothing else aside from adding power to the engine, stays relatively unchanged, but does decrease some as you increase power.

The Wrangler has some heavy drivetrain components (high moment of inertia), which is what causes the ~30-33% loss in chassis dyno results. I would not be surprised at all if the drivetrain loss with the RIPP installed is still up in the high 20's% range.

But again... why is this important?
__________________
2013 Wrangler Sport (2DR) | Stick Shift | 4.10 Gears | TrueTrac LSD Front & Rear
33x12.5x15 Duratracs on 15x8 Black Rock D-Window Wheels
Prodigy Performance Stage 2 Turbo
AEV 2" Spacer Lift
Full Disclosure: Affiliated with Prodigy Performance as of 3/10/16 (explanation)
This is my personal account. My statements/opinions are my own; not Prodigy's
UselessPickles is offline   Quote
Old 05-08-2015, 08:27 AM
Thread Starter
  #23
Jeeper
 
OttoVonMog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 904
Quote:
Originally Posted by UselessPickles View Post
...but the HP at the crank doesn't really matter anyway, so why are you worrying about what conclusions people my draw about how much HP there is at the crank with a bolt-on kit?

It's the HP/TQ at the wheels that correlates to how quickly/easily a vehicle can accelerate. So that's what should be used to compare stock to aftermarket mods.

Also, a majority of the drivetrain loss in an inertia dyno style acceleration sweep dyno run is caused by the moment of inertia (rotating inertia) of the drivetrain. The inertia of the drivetrain remains constant when adding bolt-on mods. If the inertia of the dyno drum stays constant, then the portion of drivetrain loss due to inertia remains a constant *percentage* as you increase power at the engine. A small portion of drivetrain loss is a constant amount (not percentage) of loss due to friction in the drivetrain.

The end result is that the total percent drivetrain loss, when changing nothing else aside from adding power to the engine, stays relatively unchanged, but does decrease some as you increase power.

The Wrangler has some heavy drivetrain components (high moment of inertia), which is what causes the ~30-33% loss in chassis dyno results. I would not be surprised at all if the drivetrain loss with the RIPP installed is still up in the high 20's% range.

But again... why is this important?


Actually, the HP and Torque at the crankshaft is very important for certain calculations. For example I can only know the engines' true volumetric efficiency increase between Normally Aspirated and Force Induction if I have an accurate understanding of hp and torque at the crankshaft. This is the best way to determine if my modifications are actually achieving my goals.

The formula looks something like this:
Required VE= (9411*Hp*BSFC)/(Displacement*RPM)

We can confirm these results by measuring the torque at the crankshaft and working out backwards what the theoretical peak volumetric efficiencies will for this engine over its entire rpm range. Most people use the stated values given of 95-99% for modern 4-Valve VVT engines, reduce it slightly for merely being 4-valve heads and 2 valve designs running in the 88-95% . VE peak usually coincides with Torque Peak.

Once we have these calculations we then use this formula:

Map(req) = (Wa * R * (460+Tm))/(VE* n/2 *Vd)


So, as you can see we need to have a really good idea of actually our specific
engines VE capability to really have any starting point figure out exactly how much Manifold Pressure is required to flow enough volume of air into the engine for specific amount of horsepower to be developed.

Changes in the engine's starting volumetric efficiency will greatly affect the amount of boost I need to achieve my end result.

So, lets for example say we have a nice 2.0L four cylinder engine with a peak VE of 92% from the factory. And you want to finish up with 400hp. It red lines at 7200rpm and it requires 44lb/min of air to flow to cylinder head. If the do the formula you will find it will take like 26 PSIG to do it.

If you change number to 100% and keep the same values the same you find that you get reduction in pressure to 23 PISG!.

Myself, I want to know these numbers when I'm tuning an engine. Because if I return to the original formula I showed you I will discover that my new volumetric efficiency with forced induction has to be somewhere above 107% from my original starting point with the .92% if it makes 200hp. And if we run it again with the 100% figuring that this will give us about 30-40hp increase alone-- means our turbo or super charger only needs to increase our effective Volumetric Efficiency at peak performance to .85% above the normal peak performance or we need about 23 PISG on the manifold...

To do these calculations and confirm there results you really need to do the engine alone.



As for the chassis dyno we can factor out most of the loss in power to acceptable limit given certain information about the dyno's power requirements and so on. In fact most dynos right now actually do take into account their own power requirements when determining HP and Torque outputs.

As for the 30-33%-- I ask you, how do you know that figure is even remotely correct? How many Jeeps have you seen tested that show this power loss? What were the testing procedures? Were they under all the same conditions? Did they all conform to a specific standard?

The reality is that the 285Hp SAE Net advertised HP is very optimistic for the average production vehicle. It is probably running substantially lower than advertised power outputs. Something, you will only know if you actually remove said engine check it out with a dyno and work it out backwards.


Question: "The inertia of the drivetrain remains constant when adding bolt-on mods. "

Why would you think that I believe the resistance to change of the gears velocities would be at all effected by the addition of a bolt on turbo or supercharger? Those factors are determined by the mass and the amount of force required to move them. The force required to change a gears' velocity or direction is fixed by the amount of rotating mass it has. The only thing I can change by adding more torque to the equation is a net increase of Gear ratio x -minus total torque input = net gain in torque after the gear is rotating. I'm not sure exactly what eureka moment I'm supposed to have with this statement? If a transmission needs 25Hp and 30ft-lbs of torque to operate then that is my loss of power and torque from the transmission no matter the HP and Torque of the engine.

It is only important if you want to know the realities of your vehicle.
OttoVonMog is offline   Quote
Old 05-08-2015, 08:31 AM
Thread Starter
  #24
Jeeper
 
OttoVonMog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 904
Quote:
Originally Posted by 88Hatchy View Post
Look at the Edelbrock supercharger for the 3.6L.

The venerable Root-Lobe... It is a great means of increasing air pressure at low rpm. Gets a little wonky at high rpm, however... But, it is a classic.
OttoVonMog is offline   Quote
Old 05-08-2015, 08:44 AM
Thread Starter
  #25
Jeeper
 
OttoVonMog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 904
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIPPMODS View Post
Depends on what LS we are talking about, a true "LS"? If so which one? 5.3(LS4)? 5.7(LS1/LS6)? 6.0(LS2)? 6.2(LS3)?
Specifically talking Pentastar engines, they are rated to 285 Hp, which yields "roughly" 200 hp to the wheels give or take. Our Vortech V3 based system allows you to realize an additional 120+ wheel hp or 320 WHP rated on 37" tires with an automatic (4.88:1 or higher gears). That translates to @450hp at the engine.

So, with that in mind, we would be talking about an LS3 take out.(6.2L 430 hp engine rating)

There are many other variables involved of course, but just food for thought.

Best luck with your decision!
Questions welcomed.

RIPP

So, the claim of 450Hp is total theoretical, right? Myself, I would rather know what the engine is doing at the crankshaft.
OttoVonMog is offline   Quote
Old 05-08-2015, 09:21 AM   #26
Jeeper
 
Kraxler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,003
The way I see it, all that really matters is what is at the wheels. All else is nice to know and may give you bragging rights. Four independent electric motors with a battery pack and a generator would give great low end torque and also do away with the power loss from the complex drive train, and the wright there of. I don't see this happening any time soon. Although there have been several historical cars that had this as a drive train. Also several tanks. And the U.S. Was not the only one yo use modified aircraft engines in tanks. The Brits did it as did the Germans.
Kraxler is offline   Quote
Old 05-08-2015, 09:29 AM
Thread Starter
  #27
Jeeper
 
OttoVonMog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 904
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOK View Post
I'd like to see that one... The engine without the giant transmission is a little over double the length of the Pentastar. Squeeze isn't the word.
Things need to be moved around-- Little things like the Radiator and other things.
OttoVonMog is offline   Quote
Old 05-08-2015, 09:31 AM
Thread Starter
  #28
Jeeper
 
OttoVonMog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxler View Post
The way I see it, all that really matters is what is at the wheels. All else is nice to know and may give you bragging rights. Four independent electric motors with a battery pack and a generator would give great low end torque and also do away with the power loss from the complex drive train, and the wright there of. I don't see this happening any time soon. Although there have been several historical cars that had this as a drive train. Also several tanks. And the U.S. Was not the only one yo use modified aircraft engines in tanks. The Brits did it as did the Germans.
Didn't say we were the only ones to use engines based on Aircraft engines-- I just said it was a bad idea.

The best tank engines of WWII were the Ford GAA V8 1100cid engine , the Double GM Diesel 6-71's and the Russian V-2 38.88L V-12 diesel engines. All of which were designed for use as land vehicles and not adapted from an earlier aero design like other engines.


Every heavy machine in a mine is a diesel electric design. It has advantages , but savings in weight isn't one of them, usually speaking.
OttoVonMog is offline   Quote
Old 05-08-2015, 10:03 AM   #29
Jeeper
 
15RubieJK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,542
The turbine while thirsty isn't a bad engine for the tank. Yes it's high end power but it goes through a 10-1 reduction gear box to the trans to the final drives. It takes that 40k RPM down to usable numbers. The number 1 cause of failure in those engines is foreign debris caused by crew or maintenance errors. They can average a thousand hours of use. The 88 which uses a large turbo diesel is only rated for 900 hours. Though it's a little more forgiving to a lazy crew. As far as the claim for hp numbers from manufactures I do believe them. If they say a power number that isn't reached they can be sued. Look at what happened to ford and their 01 cobra.
15RubieJK is offline   Quote
Old 05-08-2015, 10:21 AM
Thread Starter
  #30
Jeeper
 
OttoVonMog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 904
Quote:
Originally Posted by 15RubieJK View Post
The turbine while thirsty isn't a bad engine for the tank. Yes it's high end power but it goes through a 10-1 reduction gear box to the trans to the final drives. It takes that 40k RPM down to usable numbers. The number 1 cause of failure in those engines is foreign debris caused by crew or maintenance errors. They can average a thousand hours of use. The 88 which uses a large turbo diesel is only rated for 900 hours. Though it's a little more forgiving to a lazy crew. As far as the claim for hp numbers from manufactures I do believe them. If they say a power number that isn't reached they can be sued. Look at what happened to ford and their 01 cobra.
Yes, it does have all that reduction system to make it drivable. That is true. And it isn't a bad engine for dependability. However, the reality is that turbines are constant speed engines. That is where they like to operate and that is where they perform best.

Which is why you don't see any tanks in any other nation using the turbine as a power plant. The MTU KA501 series tank engine in the Leopard II series tanks makes the same 1500hp--- almost 1000feet-lbs more of torque at peak torque when compared to the turbine and it is also at much lower rpm and more sustained.

The M88's tank engine is from the Continental corporation the 1790AVS series engines they were not great engines. It wasn't that great in the Patton series tanks and still isn't.

As for manufacturer's claims the beauty of them is all they have to do is fall within their tolerances. If there tolerances claim +/-10-30hp is acceptable for the 285hp class engines-- then they are safe. They just have to leave this information in a nebulous area of fine print. So, as long they fall within their tolerances for that HP class the manufacturer can make the claim. And they used the standard SAE Net procedures to develop the tolerances and so on they are safe!

OttoVonMog is offline   Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off






All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

Jeep®, Wrangler, Liberty, Wagoneer, Cherokee, Gladiator, Mopar and Grand Cherokee are copyrighted and trademarked to FCA US LLC.
Wranglerforum.com is not in any way associated with FCA US LLC.