When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Ordered my new 16 Escalade and just saw Whipple came out with the 2.9 kit for it. . The system also includes a massive intercooler water reservoir that has over 4 gallons of capacity. anyone run this kit here???
Am I reading this chart right? This is telling me there is 100 less ft lbs. @ 2500 rpm with the supercharger and it's not until ~3300rpm that it starts making more power/torque.
Ordered my new 16 Escalade and just saw Whipple came out with the 2.9 kit for it. . The system also includes a massive intercooler water reservoir that has over 4 gallons of capacity. anyone run this kit here???
STOCK 6.2 with their off shelf tune made over 500 at wheels
I have to say I like the belt routing on the whipple more as well as the coolant capacity, but the maggie seems right there with 5 psi vs 7 on the whipple, I'm guessing real world numbers like 8-9 pounds compared between both would be a hell of alot more interesting. I have to wonder with the Jack Shaft setup on the whipple there's alot more room to grow, but on a high compression DI motor, I'd almost think its more blower than the engine is good for in stock trim. I have to say with my trucks I'm more of a install it and drive the ***** off it vs max effort kinda guy.
Thats the 1900 numbers but I'm assuming the 2300 upgrade will be available for the usual 600-700 bucks. Which winds up being just about the same on price between the two for MSRP, obviously end user deal go with what works for ya.
Theres no doubt that the 2.9 whipple can make enough power on these DI engines to blow it up. You really dont need that much blower. But I think its awesome they went there... an aggressive cam and a small pulley could do wonders.
I agree with everything posted above. The belt routing and coolant capacity are really nice features. I think at such low boost and CFM numbers the smaller magnuson is much more efficient than the 2.9 whipple is going to be. But if you plan to push things that could change fairly quickly.
That's the kit I got but found it on sale complete for 5850 before Christmas. It was in fact 100% complete including the Whipple tune. I've been totally impressed with it in every respect...quality and performance. The dyno chart is misleading. They don't get into it hard until 4k or so. I was thrown off by that as well and had to check it out. Their Camaro 6.2 and 'Vette 6.2 dyno started earlier and show a different curve altogether. Still down a bit on torque below 4k compared to Maggie but it comes stock with more boost hp and tq. Forget who at the moment but someone put out 1070 chp with a stroker with a 2.9. Its more than enough to blow up a stocker but I'm thinking down the road lol. At least a 6.2 in my future with same blower. My impressions so far...instant response, great performance, no issues and good mileage. Also looks just like the pic. I wouldn't hesitate for a turn key kit. For a tuner the 2.3 Mag is still a fantastic option I would think as well for the same $. Blonde or Brunette... cant go wrong with either.
That's what I'm talking 'bout!
I checked on the eforce as well. The runners are long so it produces even more low end than the Mag but it is restrictive from a hp point of view. Usually down maybe 10% or so at peak by comparison. Still on a truck torque is king at least at lower levels.
That's what I'm talking 'bout!
I checked on the eforce as well. The runners are long so it produces even more low end than the Mag but it is restrictive from a hp point of view. Usually down maybe 10% or so at peak by comparison. Still on a truck torque is king at least at lower levels.
That was definitely true on their old design, those long runners choked the motor up top. They redesigned the system for the DI motors so its just like the zr1 set up, no long runners that cross under the blower. I haven't seen any comparisons with this new design, but I doubt it's as restrictive.