I've had a couple of requests from guys looking for more info on exactly where I cut the plastic "radiator baffle" under the Halltech shroud to let more cool air in. This should give you a pretty good idea...easily done with the baffle in the car using a box knife with a fresh blade.

 

That is exactly what I need. When I lived in Houston we had those in the shop. Made it bearable, almost pleasant.

 

Now that's a FAN. When you get to work with the intercooler let us know.

 

I think this FAN has it beat

 

Thanks for the Boost-a-Pump Information

 

I have heard that the eforce for the LS2 (2005) C6 is out. Has anyone done this yet?

 

They just started shipping those... I'm sure the first install will be somewhere soon. We're going to be doing our first LS2 E-Force in about 2 weeks.

 

Cool. Please let me know how it goes. It does look like a lot of work to install but hopefully, it will be worth it. I am definitely interested but I have my concerns (engine heating, reliability, etc). It they work, I will probably try to find a good installer in Northern CA, if they exist.

 

Same here.

 

On Edelbrocks website they list the LS2 and LS3 units with the same HP. Kind of strange.

 

I noticed the HP also. Maybe it's a mistake or wishful thinking or they have a secret......

 

im guessing the LS2 has a lower CR, and "The Brock" put in a smaller pulley for more boost to make up for the less Cubic Inch.

 

I went the KB route with the 1591. Have logged 3000 miles with the setup and am happy with it with no major issues to report. Please consider I am a "cruiser? vs a "racer" and have gone WOT only a couple of times so far. What I have subjectively noticed with the KB is that the gas consumption seems directly proportional to the amount of boost power (1-5) applied to the pump. Have to admit have had not the time to gather empirical evidence but it is almost evident.

So question for the forum please: I drive 70mph with KB set at 1 and get x miles. I drive 70mph with KB set at 3 and I get much less. Would make sense until the below are considered:

Engine is a gas "pull" system so why do I consume more at same load?
At 70mph the KB should not engage anyway?

Ultimately it is just hard for me to believe that the engine is consuming more because the KB is providing more fuel at the same comparable load? (push gas instead of pulling gas?)

 

When you turn up the Boost-A-Pump your are increasing the voltage to the pump which in turns delivers more fuel to the rails. If you had a fuel pressure gauge installed I bet you'd also see an increase in pressure at the rails. This in turn screws with the calibration you had done. I would be willing to bet that if you had a wideband o2 in the circuit you'd see a lower AFR when you turn up the wick on the BAP.

 

The LS2 has a higher CR: 10.9:1 stock.

 

That is not how deadhead fuel systems work; the pump is internally regulated at 58psi regardless of voltage or load.
Also since the car runs closed loop it would simply recalibrate the fuel trims if what you said were true (which it isn't).
The BAP's only job is to provide more fuel capacity under boost to prevent a drop in fuel pressure which is what happens when you try to flow more fuel than the stock system can support.
Even if you ran 20V to the pump at idle all that would happen is that it would end up running hotter.

 

Thank you both Motorhead-47 and PowerLabs. I think I am getting closer to understand.

I guess when you say "hotter" you are referring to the pump getting hotter?

So at a basic level I am concluding that the 1591 obviously implies more gas consumption at any load because of the bigger injectors and associated tuning and not because of the augmented supply via BAP which engages at boost anyway?

If it is so why then more consumption as I turn the BAP wick up at the same load?

Please consider this is not about fuel consumption but on whether I am running richer/poorer fuel mix?

 

Your car runs in closed loop mode at idle and cruise; the ECU commands a fixed air/fuel ratio of 14.7 (Lambda 1, stoichiometry), then looks at what the actual, obtained air/fuel ratio was at the oxygen sensors, and makes small corrections accordingly. Your fuel pressure, injector size, intake, exhaust, etc should have no bearing whatsoever in this; larger injectors are calibrated for by commanding smaller pulse durations, and the net result of any change that alters the air/fuel ratio should just be a larger fuel trim (correction factor) to bring it back to the point where the observed AFR is Lambda 1, just like in a factory car.
If it can't do that it will throw a code.

The reason you observe poorer fuel economy with a supercharger is because your engine now has to run itself, along with all the accessories, PLUS the supercharger. The blower IS bypassed under all vacuum conditions, but it is not by any means a zero restriction piece, it is not frictionless, and it doesn't have zero mass, so it takes some additional horsepower to turn, and as a result it shows some loss of fuel economy.

Larger losses can be accounted for deficiencies in the tune; it is possible that too little timing is being commanded, for example. If the loss is very large that would be my guess. Typically you'd see a 1 - 2MPG drop from the blower, as per Corky Bell, in his book "Supercharged".

My current full time occupation is in fuel and fuel economy research btw

 

Sounds like your tune could be tweaked a bit. The computer learns but it takes a little while as in more than just a few miles. How familiar are you with how it's tuned?

 

The LS2 actually has a little higher c/r. I'd bet if they put the same blower with the same drive pulley on an LS2 and LS3, they'd make near the same power. The boost on the LS3 would be less. Pulley the LS3 down to where the boost pressure is similar to the LS2 and the LS3 would make more power.