SC confused !

[Donbona]

Malaka is here

[Andrew@ActiveAutowerke]

Originally Posted by Sal@Evolve

ok,

so this should be of interest to many of you:



Doesn't get closer than this does it.
Peak RPM PSi as close as it gets, within 0.1 PSi.

One kit has it's throttles 100% open to the RPM limiter and the other still with the soft cut limiter with the throttles closing (proof lies in the boost spiking up).

Interesting isn't it.

Additional Notes - no the Vortech is not really that weak under 3500rpm, just how the car launches itself on the dyno. Can sometimes give a bit of a skewed effect. Hard to control.
Stock engines. Primary DECATS. 99 Euro Fuel (Shell V Power)
Both have properly cold air induction systems with smooth flow to rear of SC.
Rotrex Tested in 15 DegC Ambient
Vortech 8 DegC Ambient
Correction Factors both extremely close to 1.00

This is a very very close test of what two different kits with two different blowers with equal boost are actually like in comparison.

So both of these are your dyno's? What vortech is this?

[THE-FN-MAN]

M33 I've heard from some of their previous customers thank you very much. As i stated before they have been very professional with all of their business dealings concerning me and those I know. How have they wronged you or are you just going by hearsay? I'm assuming they must have done you a disservice because you seem like an upstanding individual on this Internet forum who would not try to smear or slander a company simple because you have another product or allegiance to friends on here. My apologies to the OP but it seems as if he has made a decision so this shouldn't bother him to much. Congrats by the way!

[Sal@Evolve]

Originally Posted by Andrew@ActiveAutowerke

So both of these are your dyno's? What vortech is this?

Yes Andrew. These tests are from my dyno. You cannot export data from one DD to another like you can export a DRF on a dynojet.

V3Si.

Now compare the compressor maps of both.

Then look at the above results again.

Then you will see they both marry up almost exactly.

To get the above results from a Rotrex takes a lot of work and a lot of attention to detail. The rest of the hardware has to be optimized and belt slip must be controlled. That.. is where it get's really tricky. The step up ratio of 7.5 on these blowers and the standard crank pulley size of just 120mm makes life very very difficult to avoid belt slip.

[Sal@Evolve]

Another test of the Rotrex C38-91 vs Vortech V3Si on the same car
Car - BMW E39 M5
Evolve 4-1 Tubular Headers
Evolve High Flow 200 CELL CAT's
Evolve X Pipe and rear exhaust



This is the closest test we could run. The next Rotrex pulley size takes boost to 8 PSi. Did not have Vortech pulley to hand to test so this is as close we could get it.

You can see again, it's very close. You can clearly see if it was possible to take the Rotrex up another 0.5 PSi with a custom pulley the power and boost are matched.

Both blowers are about the same percentage through their max rpm's.
Rotrex is at 81000 / 90000
Vortec is 46000 / 52000

This particular engine setup requires way more airflow to make decent boost. The headers are massive (double in volume of the Supersprint design) and drop the boost levels dramatically as the stock headers are highly restrictive.

Notes:
Vortech was tested with 4 degC ambient temps
Rotrex was tested with 14degC ambient temps
Similar free flowing intake design
Standard Plenum

That's two major platforms now with evidence. If anyone else has proper evidence like this on the same dyno under controlled conditions (we can show this) comparing Vortech vs Rotrex then please post it up rather than make an assumption.

All of this backs up the comparative compressor maps and shows their theory works quite well but can show a variance depending on the type of engine used.

Interesting point to note - boost curves are far more similar in shape on this engine than on S65. Discuss....

I will be able to show results of S54 on both too.

Maybe S85 if I can find the time.

[Roman@ESS]

Originally Posted by Sal@Evolve

And just when we thought the little stupid pesky Rotrex could do no more....
Smaller pulley. The boost curve remains the same shape but just goes up everywhere.

7.75 PSi



More Notes:

Yes we are showing flywheel figures. Just look at the delta. Purposefully didn't put up wheel figures because everyone forgets that Dyno Dynamics read a good 13-15% lower than Dynojet.

Correction Factor - 0.997

............. and it has more to come. Just change the pulley again. It gets even more angry.

Can it match a Vortech?

Yes.

Why?

1134 CFM vs 1150CFM. Just got the make sure you use the right pulleys to put that CFM at the engine RPM you want.

Anyone want to see Vortech vs Rotrex on an E39 M5 in the exact same car under almost exact same conditions?

I have loads of data...

According to your math Sal on the correction difference between your Dyno Dynamics and a Dynojet your customers will see about 600 whp on a Dynojet with your kit as the whp numbers you have posted for your kit on your dyno are around 520. You just posted that a Dynojet will add another 15% to that number. I look forward to these customer independent 600 whp dyno's on Dynojets as that would be very impressive IMO for the Rotrex with only 7.75 psi. According to the dyno below done of the Rotrex C38 by Active you would need 10 psi and water meth to get to around 550 whp on a similar air/air supercharger system. There must be something you are doing that is very different than Active is or your using different math, please keep us posted.

Independent dyno files "one direct from Active" below not a vendor made dyno comparison. Same correction factor used on both, ambient temps 10 degrees lower on the vortech dyno. This is the only independent data that exists until more files are made available.


Blue Vortech V3 @ 8.5 psi Red Rotrex C38 @ 10 psi with water / meth.

[VCMperformance]

I could be wrong but the active run was on a low compression motor that was in beta testing.....

[biglare]

In for my daily dose Nom Nom Nom....

[pbonsalb]

Originally Posted by Sal@Evolve

Another test of the Rotrex C38-91 vs Vortech V3Si on the same car
Car - BMW E39 M5

You can see again, it's very close. You can clearly see if it was possible to take the Rotrex up another 0.5 PSi with a custom pulley the power and boost are matched.

Both blowers are about the same percentage through their max rpm's.
Rotrex is at 81000 / 90000
Vortec is 46000 / 52000

That's two major platforms now with evidence. If anyone else has proper evidence like this on the same dyno under controlled conditions (we can show this) comparing Vortech vs Rotrex then please post it up rather than make an assumption.

All of this backs up the comparative compressor maps and shows their theory works quite well but can show a variance depending on the type of engine used.

Discuss....

As you noted above, peak potential CFM on a compressor map does not mean the same power is made on all engines. It may well be that to the 550 rwhp range, the Rotrex and Vortech are pretty similar on the S65, but that does not mean they will necessarily be pretty similar after that. The compressor maps probably are not identical.

AA, for example, gave up on the Rotrex because it could not flow enough on a low compression S65. On the other hand, ESS has run the Vortech to 645 rwhp on a low compression S65.

It may well be that for more efficient stock compression motors making 550 to 600 rwhp, the Rotrex works just as well as the Vortech. We will have to see some dynojet comparisons at some point.

One thing I did not notice from the Rotrex C38-91 dyno comparison to the Vortech is any indication the big Rotrex has any torque advantage over the Vortech. I had been wondering whether the big Rotrex would sacrifice that. But daily drivability cannot be seen on the dyno, which is constant full throttle in one gear. Hopefully, on the road, the Rotrex offers some advantage over the Vortech.

[Andrew@ActiveAutowerke]

Originally Posted by VCMperformance

I could be wrong but the active run was on a low compression motor that was in beta testing.....

For the 4th time... Then again we did make 501 whp (mustang dyno) just by throwing a rotrex on our stock engine car *No tuning changes*. This is exactly the same whp that our low compression car made on our dyno.

Difference: 20 whp more than our hks unit at the same psi and more tq as well.

I'll have some data on how they stack up with a little less boost later on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit: Here are the numbers: Stock engine- no cats- Dct-93 oct+ meth Dyno jet correct 1.1


Mustang Dyno-
535 @ 11 psi
505 @ 9.5psi
425 @ 6psi

Dyno jet using conversion -
589 @ 11 Psi
556 @ 9.5psi
467 @ 6 psi

Swapped the 20'' wheels for stock and instead of 425 @ 6psi it made 455 whp back to back. We will have to do the same for 9.5 to see if any increase can proven.

[Mike Benvo]

Wow @ this thread is right... Too much s/c drama.

Originally Posted by Sal@Evolve

Oh, and get your gear calculations right. The stock car revs to 8300rpm in the real world, not 8400rpm. Simple stuff....
Just log a car with a stock RPM limit and you will see what it actually does.

Sal, without going back and re-reading - I'm just trying to clarify your statement about a stock car revving to 8,300 RPM.

Are you saying that stock cars on the road do not exceed 8,300 at the crankshaft?

[Roman@ESS]

Originally Posted by Andrew@ActiveAutowerke

For the 4th time... Then again we did make 501 whp (mustang dyno) just by throwing a rotrex on our stock engine car *No tuning changes*. This is exactly the same whp that our low compression car made on our dyno.

Difference: 20 whp more than our hks unit at the same psi and more tq as well.

I'll have som data on how they stack up with a little less boost later on.

Cool

Hopefully someone can post a Rotrex making the 600 whp Evolve claims on a dynojet. Drew made 600 whp at close to the same boost you had Andrew on your beta low CR motor, he also has a beta low CR motor so thats about as close a comparison as it gets.

BTW Andrew why did you guys stop using Rotrex in your kits and switch to HKS? Did you find that the HKS performed better at lower boost?

[m3an]

lol at guys mentioning heat soak of a front mount from a car on a dyno... Really??

[Andrew@ActiveAutowerke]

Originally Posted by Roman@ESS

Cool

Hopefully someone can post a Rotrex making the 600 whp Evolve claims on a dynojet. Drew made 600 whp at close to the same boost you had Andrew on your beta low CR motor, he also has a beta low CR motor so thats about as close a comparison as it gets.

BTW Andrew why did you guys stop using Rotrex in your kits and switch to HKS? Did you find that the HKS performed better at lower boost?

We use Rotrex with all of our kits as standard with the Hks being a option if the customer chooses. With the S65 kit I don't believe the 91-92 trim's were easily available at the time.

From what I have seen the Rotrex makes even more hp and tq throughout the graph at lower boost.

Originally Posted by m3an

lol at guys mentioning heat soak of a front mount from a car on a dyno... Really??

Yeah I left that one alone..

[DLSJ5]

Originally Posted by Roman@ESS

Cool

Hopefully someone can post a Rotrex making the 600 whp Evolve claims on a dynojet. Drew made 600 whp at close to the same boost you had Andrew on your beta low CR motor, he also has a beta low CR motor so thats about as close a comparison as it gets.

BTW Andrew why did you guys stop using Rotrex in your kits and switch to HKS? Did you find that the HKS performed better at lower boost?

Roman, I made 645WHP SAE, at ~11psi. The AA development Stage 3 car made 560whp at ~10-11psi, so that's quite a difference ~85whp at roughly the same psi, both cars with lowered compression. I'm wondering why a few people in some circles claim the Vortech #'s are underwhelming, but yet had no comments on the Rotrex results.

[Roman@ESS]

Originally Posted by Andrew@ActiveAutowerke

We use Rotrex with all of our kits as standard with the Hks being a option if the customer chooses. With the S65 kit I don't believe the 91-92 trim's were easily available at the time.

From what I have seen the Rotrex makes even more hp and tq throughout the graph at lower boost.

Yeah I left that one alone..

Glad to see you found a better option. I was not aware that you switched over to Rotrex as the standard over the HKS.

[Roman@ESS]

Originally Posted by DLSJ5

Roman, I made 645WHP SAE, at ~11psi. The AA development Stage 3 car made 560whp at ~10-11psi, so that's quite a difference ~85whp at roughly the same psi, both cars with lowered compression. I'm wondering why a few people in some circles claim the Vortech #'s are underwhelming, but yet had no comments on the Rotrex results.

Sorry Drew I was not aware that it was that big of a difference.

It is hard to deny how good the vortech blower really is. Considering all of the performance records on the E9X M3 are dominated by Vortech powered kits I think the results speak for themselves.

[Top_Gear]

Some questions for you guys:

(1) Is there such a thing as "Holiday Pricing" for SC kits? Looking to score a good deal over the coming holidays and I am in on any "group buy" for anything offered that's worthwhile (I am 100% stock).

(2) Both the VF620 and newly announced ESS-VT625 use the Vortech SC, they are the least expensive, and appear to have similar cooling. Are they about the same in performance and reliability? The free install offered for the VF620 has me very interested but the VT625 has a wider installed base and no reported problems.

(3) For me the most important thing is throttle response and how quickly the power comes on from lower RPMs and up. I have not been able to figure out which kit has the edge in this regard.

It seems very hard to get a true comparison of these kits as there is too much bias in these forums.

Just waiting for a good holiday deal ...

[F16RCE]

Originally Posted by Top_Gear

Some questions for you guys:

(1) Is there such a thing as "Holiday Pricing" for SC kits? Looking to score a good deal over the coming holidays and I am in on any "group buy" for anything offered that's worthwhile (I am 100% stock).

(2) Both the VF620 and newly announced ESS-VT625 use the Vortech SC, they are the least expensive, and appear to have similar cooling. Are they about the same in performance and reliability? The free install offered for the VF620 has me very interested but the VT625 has a wider installed base and no reported problems.

(3) For me the most important thing is throttle response and how quickly the power comes on from lower RPMs and up. I have not been able to figure out which kit has the edge in this regard.

It seems very hard to get a true comparison of these kits as there is too much bias in these forums.

Just waiting for a good holiday deal ...

im with you on this bud....

The technical geniuses and current sc owners are so busy arguing about data etc that they have forgotten some of us more simple folk that just need some straight forward advice. Which sc will provide us with best throttle response and increase in power at the lower rev range in the most consistent and safest way.....whoever can answer this question will get my vote and very possibly my money!

I drove a e92 with the VT650 kit a few days ago and must say i was very impressed with how it felt in lower gears and lower rev range. The one problem that seems to be consistent is traction... Too much gas in lower gears and it just spins the tyres.....

[Donbona]

Originally Posted by DLSJ5

Roman, I made 645WHP SAE, at ~11psi. The AA development Stage 3 car made 560whp at ~10-11psi, so that's quite a difference ~85whp at roughly the same psi, both cars with lowered compression. I'm wondering why a few people in some circles claim the Vortech #'s are underwhelming, but yet had no comments on the Rotrex results.

Drew stop posting here... You don't play fair. Your car is on a different level

[Donbona]

Originally Posted by Top_Gear

Some questions for you guys:

(1) Is there such a thing as "Holiday Pricing" for SC kits? Looking to score a good deal over the coming holidays and I am in on any "group buy" for anything offered that's worthwhile (I am 100% stock).

(2) Both the VF620 and newly announced ESS-VT625 use the Vortech SC, they are the least expensive, and appear to have similar cooling. Are they about the same in performance and reliability? The free install offered for the VF620 has me very interested but the VT625 has a wider installed base and no reported problems.

(3) For me the most important thing is throttle response and how quickly the power comes on from lower RPMs and up. I have not been able to figure out which kit has the edge in this regard.

It seems very hard to get a true comparison of these kits as there is too much bias in these forums.

Just waiting for a good holiday deal ...

How are you a new member?

[Sal@Evolve]

Originally Posted by Roman@ESS

According to your math Sal on the correction difference between your Dyno Dynamics and a Dynojet your customers will see about 600 whp on a Dynojet with your kit as the whp numbers you have posted for your kit on your dyno are around 520. You just posted that a Dynojet will add another 15% to that number. I look forward to these customer independent 600 whp dyno's on Dynojets as that would be very impressive IMO for the Rotrex with only 7.75 psi. According to the dyno below done of the Rotrex C38 by Active you would need 10 psi and water meth to get to around 550 whp on a similar air/air supercharger system. There must be something you are doing that is very different than Active is or your using different math, please keep us posted.

When people start using the STD correction method with positive upwards correction it is indeed around 13-15%. This optimistic method has almost become the norm now. That is what I am referencing. I should not need to reference every single thing I say but if I have to then so be it.
If my maths is wrong on this then I guess we will just find out. I'm not afraid to be wrong.

When both dyno's are used properly without trying to prop up the numbers and using SAE when it's not over or under correcting too much we see them much closer together but still there is a difference.

NO OUR SUPERCHARGER KIT IS NOT GOING TO MAKE 600WHP UNLESS WE GO 9PSI WHICH IS NOT GOING TO BE RELEASED FOR STOCK MOTORS.

There are lots of ESS cars making 550-590+ STD (especially in the early days) where this was being achieved with low boost.

The actual point I am trying to make is not being understood here. My posts are not about my kit, your kit, etc etc. This is not the relevance here.

Blower 1 vs Blower 2. I am showing how they differ in their compressor maps and that a Rotrex vs Vortech gives the same power at 6.5 PSi on the S65 and then also spun to approx the same percentage out of their max speed on the S62 on the exact same setup.

It shows how one one platform they differ quite qlot but give similar HP and on another they give about the same pretty much everywhere.

The point here is that they are similar and this theory of the Vortech being so superior is simply not true on stock engines.

If the mind set is not to believe it then there is nothing I can say to convince and nor am I bothered. I have put the information up, it is up to the readers to make of it what they see fit.

Originally Posted by Roman@ESS

Independent dyno files "one direct from Active" below not a vendor made dyno comparison. Same correction factor used on both, ambient temps 10 degrees lower on the vortech dyno. This is the only independent data that exists until more files are made available.

Over so many years now our dyno delta's from our own machine have been exactly that of what independent tests. This can be seen time and time again on multiple forums and many models of car. You can verify that for yourself.
It makes absolutely no sense for us to create 'hype' and then it won't deliver.
The graphs I have put up were data tests for us only. We could have put this up ages ago in these debates. However, after being convinced that there is nothing wrong with putting data up we decided it's fine.


Blue Vortech V3 @ 8.5 psi Red Rotrex C38 @ 10 psi with water / meth.



You are still comparing apples with oranges on this example with respect to the type of blower.
Two different dyno's, different correction factor (method maybe the same but that is still irrelevant) and two totally different setups.

This is so far from a definitive test of Rotrex vs Vortech.

The test in the dyno's I have posted with boost logs are far more of a better comparison.

I have also made one thing very clear which again people seem to miss.
The setup and how the blower is used.
Try to setup a Rotrex like a Vortech and the Rotrex will fail... miserably.
I have already explained why in an earlier post. The Rotrex takes way more attention to detail due to it's much higher step up ratio (this is not a positive feature btw).

My comparisons above are between two setups which are very close in their efficiency - placement of filter, internal smoothness of inlet tract etc etc, minimal belt slip.