Lingenfelter tests supercharged 6.2L Gen 5 engine
10-08-2013, 06:45 AM
#22
Le Mans Master
621 with a nice broad shouldered torq curve will please many
no need to go to a bigger blower when this one "flows enough" for that power level efficiently
bigger isn't always better, and I'm sure they will offer another higher HP package down the road.
give em a bit of credit, LPE does some nice work
my c4 ZR-1 puts 508 at the tire out of the "old tech" LT5 and it's proven to be "just about right" on the power without resorting to drag radials.
this one will put a bit more jam than that down and prove to be a thrilling ride like most LPE products.
kudos, tell Graham hi and have the old mucker post up a bit. he's no doubt in there fiddling a bit with the tune.
that old brit has forgotten more than most will ever know
good job LPE!
to all the naysayers. when you get your PE credientials and have tuned thousands of hot rods, you can take over LPE and let them know what the next build should be. In the meantime, I'm pretty happy to see this one come down the pike. for those that can't wait for the next chevy hi po C7 variant, it's a good option. it will no doubt be spankin a track soon in the cool fall air and laying down the jam.
no need to go to a bigger blower when this one "flows enough" for that power level efficiently
bigger isn't always better, and I'm sure they will offer another higher HP package down the road.
give em a bit of credit, LPE does some nice work
my c4 ZR-1 puts 508 at the tire out of the "old tech" LT5 and it's proven to be "just about right" on the power without resorting to drag radials.
this one will put a bit more jam than that down and prove to be a thrilling ride like most LPE products.
kudos, tell Graham hi and have the old mucker post up a bit. he's no doubt in there fiddling a bit with the tune.
that old brit has forgotten more than most will ever know
good job LPE!
to all the naysayers. when you get your PE credientials and have tuned thousands of hot rods, you can take over LPE and let them know what the next build should be. In the meantime, I'm pretty happy to see this one come down the pike. for those that can't wait for the next chevy hi po C7 variant, it's a good option. it will no doubt be spankin a track soon in the cool fall air and laying down the jam.
10-08-2013, 06:56 AM
#24
Instructor
Member Since: Jun 2000
Location: Decatur Indiana
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10-08-2013, 07:31 AM
#25
Instructor
So Graham is this going to be your final power figure for this package, 620 @ the engine? Just curious if your still tinkering and pushing more out or if this is in fact your final product. I take it this was done without cats? Yeah I agree id rather purchase a 2.3L vs 1.9L if I had the choice for this package.
Last edited by Spulbus2013; 10-08-2013 at 07:35 AM.
10-08-2013, 09:25 AM
#26
Premium Supporting Vendor
We have made 732 rwhp w. that tiny 1900 on a 2012 ctsv w. auto transmission with cats and without meth or nitrous but it is over spinning the blower and has heads, cam, plenty of other bolt ons and porting.
Trust me they could make a bunch more if they wanted to.........
J.P.
Last edited by 21STCENTURYMUSCLECAR; 10-08-2013 at 10:07 AM.
10-08-2013, 12:09 PM
#27
Intermediate
Member Since: Aug 2007
Location: Cumming GA
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
St. Jude Donor '13
Good Advice!
[QUOTE=JeffInDFW;1585119792]Your QUESTION is an excellent one. How you ASKED it is the problem. Nothing good happens when you put people on the defensive right off the bat. Instead, how about:
LPE, always loved your twin turbo builds but I've got a question.....I noticed you used the smaller TVS1900 instead of the TVS2300. It seems to me like the larger 2300 would allow the owner to have more options for future growth, and is IMO a better unit. What was the reasoning for going with the TVS1900 instead? Thanks guys.
Same question, you get your point across, and you don't look like your trying to be a jerk.
That's good advice!!!
LPE, always loved your twin turbo builds but I've got a question.....I noticed you used the smaller TVS1900 instead of the TVS2300. It seems to me like the larger 2300 would allow the owner to have more options for future growth, and is IMO a better unit. What was the reasoning for going with the TVS1900 instead? Thanks guys.
Same question, you get your point across, and you don't look like your trying to be a jerk.
That's good advice!!!
10-08-2013, 12:09 PM
#28
Instructor
Member Since: Jun 2000
Location: Decatur Indiana
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK all, may or may not answer all questions, if not just let me know.
Why TVS 1900, many truck applications that we sell are TVS 1900 on base engines, so first up TVS1900 truck kit from Magnusson. BTW the 1900 is capable of much more power than this only spinning at 15K for this boost level.
Pulse width 5.4 ms at 6000 rpm, fuel press 15Mpa(rail)
This is just an insight into a fraction of our R&D so far, it is not a defined package, just sharing test data so far.
Graham.
Why TVS 1900, many truck applications that we sell are TVS 1900 on base engines, so first up TVS1900 truck kit from Magnusson. BTW the 1900 is capable of much more power than this only spinning at 15K for this boost level.
Pulse width 5.4 ms at 6000 rpm, fuel press 15Mpa(rail)
This is just an insight into a fraction of our R&D so far, it is not a defined package, just sharing test data so far.
Graham.
10-08-2013, 01:37 PM
#30
Team Owner
10-08-2013, 10:02 PM
#34
Team Owner
a punch!
10-08-2013, 10:04 PM
#35
Team Owner
10-09-2013, 12:37 AM
#36
OK all, may or may not answer all questions, if not just let me know.
Why TVS 1900, many truck applications that we sell are TVS 1900 on base engines, so first up TVS1900 truck kit from Magnusson. BTW the 1900 is capable of much more power than this only spinning at 15K for this boost level.
Pulse width 5.4 ms at 6000 rpm, fuel press 15Mpa(rail)
This is just an insight into a fraction of our R&D so far, it is not a defined package, just sharing test data so far.
Graham.
Why TVS 1900, many truck applications that we sell are TVS 1900 on base engines, so first up TVS1900 truck kit from Magnusson. BTW the 1900 is capable of much more power than this only spinning at 15K for this boost level.
Pulse width 5.4 ms at 6000 rpm, fuel press 15Mpa(rail)
This is just an insight into a fraction of our R&D so far, it is not a defined package, just sharing test data so far.
Graham.
My concern with the 1900 over the 2300 is the efficiency of the blower and the amount of power required to drive it.
I'm not going to pretend I know that much about roots blowers because I've always used centrifugal style blowers, but I thought the 2300 was a much more efficient blower to run. As laughable as it may be to have concerns over mpg and efficiency with a 600+hp car, it still matters to a certain degree.
Turbocharged vehicles are much more fuel efficient than blowers, and get better hp per boost because they don't tax the engine like a blower does to spool and create boost.
If you could still get 30mpg in eco mode that would be absolutely awesome!!
10-09-2013, 01:32 AM
#37
Le Mans Master
OK all, may or may not answer all questions, if not just let me know.
Why TVS 1900, many truck applications that we sell are TVS 1900 on base engines, so first up TVS1900 truck kit from Magnusson. BTW the 1900 is capable of much more power than this only spinning at 15K for this boost level.
Pulse width 5.4 ms at 6000 rpm, fuel press 15Mpa(rail)
This is just an insight into a fraction of our R&D so far, it is not a defined package, just sharing test data so far.
Graham.
Why TVS 1900, many truck applications that we sell are TVS 1900 on base engines, so first up TVS1900 truck kit from Magnusson. BTW the 1900 is capable of much more power than this only spinning at 15K for this boost level.
Pulse width 5.4 ms at 6000 rpm, fuel press 15Mpa(rail)
This is just an insight into a fraction of our R&D so far, it is not a defined package, just sharing test data so far.
Graham.
My concern with the 1900 over the 2300 is the efficiency of the blower and the amount of power required to drive it.
I'm not going to pretend I know that much about roots blowers because I've always used centrifugal style blowers, but I thought the 2300 was a much more efficient blower to run. As laughable as it may be to have concerns over mpg and efficiency with a 600+hp car, it still matters to a certain degree.
Turbocharged vehicles are much more fuel efficient than blowers, and get better hp per boost because they don't tax the engine like a blower does to spool and create boost.
If you could still get 30mpg in eco mode that would be absolutely awesome!!
I'm not going to pretend I know that much about roots blowers because I've always used centrifugal style blowers, but I thought the 2300 was a much more efficient blower to run. As laughable as it may be to have concerns over mpg and efficiency with a 600+hp car, it still matters to a certain degree.
Turbocharged vehicles are much more fuel efficient than blowers, and get better hp per boost because they don't tax the engine like a blower does to spool and create boost.
If you could still get 30mpg in eco mode that would be absolutely awesome!!
)
10-09-2013, 10:25 AM
#38
Intermediate
Member Since: Jul 2013
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a little confused as to what you are referring to here, but allow me to point out that the Gen V heads, both in truck and car/Corvette applications, are very different from the Gen IV. Gen V has generally speaking a lower flow intake port as a consequence of port designed for high swirl motion. It also has reversed valve positions and higher exhaust flow.
10-09-2013, 06:03 PM
#39
Apparently my one line saying I think there is plenty of injector left see (post #35) was enough to invite this unsolicited pm
So be careful how you guys debate, or get a flame PM.
My experience with boosted DI cars in the last few years tells me not injectors, but fuel pumps, are usually the issue with getting enough fuel. Wow people here are touchy.
Awesome Job to Lingenfelter cant wait to see how this reacts in the car.
Originally Posted by Skypilot797
HP tuners is showing a 19 percent duty cycle for baseline pulls on the Z51 M7 trans. Several of my friends who have shops have reported this to me and we were wondering with the boast how much injector was left. Presently, there are no injectors available for the LT1.
My question was directed at them, not you, for a clarified answer, which they did give and you didn't understand.
Your answer was not called for nor wanted. Also, a DI engine can handle a lot more boast than a LS engine can. The compression ratio on the LT1 is 11.5 to 1.
Maybe you just need to realize your "all god knowing" is nothing here to many of us! So butt out when the questions aren't directed at you......
In short, use your dad's boy attitude to impress the bar crowd.
You must be a used car salesman!
My question was directed at them, not you, for a clarified answer, which they did give and you didn't understand.
Your answer was not called for nor wanted. Also, a DI engine can handle a lot more boast than a LS engine can. The compression ratio on the LT1 is 11.5 to 1.
Maybe you just need to realize your "all god knowing" is nothing here to many of us! So butt out when the questions aren't directed at you......
In short, use your dad's boy attitude to impress the bar crowd.
You must be a used car salesman!
My experience with boosted DI cars in the last few years tells me not injectors, but fuel pumps, are usually the issue with getting enough fuel. Wow people here are touchy.
Awesome Job to Lingenfelter cant wait to see how this reacts in the car.
Last edited by Baron7700; 10-09-2013 at 06:07 PM.
