supercharge /// ess or vf engineering

[Verify]

If the most important thing to you is what happens when you take the kit off, then maybe ANY s/c kit isnt the right fit for you, as its meant to be a long term item, and that is what's important, enjoyment and performance while having it.

Also, FYI, some "trimming" is required to install the cooler for any s/c out there, and only 2 kits, AA and G-power require new pieces. knowledge comes from more than hearsay

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SickeM3

I respectfully disagree. Are you saying you dont want to put them on the road and test head to head where they will be true equals?

Sure put them on the road together. But if you want a test that should be the closest you can come to being scientifically valid and answer the question of better torque in the Rotrex, then continue reading.

There's too many variables even on roll racing events. 1-2 MPH different starting speeds, 50 millisecond different reaction time, and where you punch the gas on the roll race will affect the outcome and render any video comparison invalid. I have a program that will eliminate ALL of these variables. vBox Racer is perfect for eliminating ALL of these variables. It will perfectly align the speeds to each other, then generate a video of the actual race as if there were no errors or differences between speed, reaction time, and where you punch the gas. Here's a sample:

As you watch the video take note of the G-Force graphs moving across the screen. This is how you would tell who is accelerating faster than the other at that instant in time. Anywhere the line turns green, that car is accelerating faster than the other. When the line is red, the car isn't accelerating as fast as the other.

If the Rotrex has greater midrange torque, and the Vortech has greater top end, then this would easily be reflected the type of video this program would generate. Suppose I could find a vBox file of a Vortech powered S65 that was identical to LM's. I would expect the car with the Rotrex to show green in the lower RPMs of the gear, then switch to red in the upper RPMs of the gear.

Dont want to put them on a $50k machine calibrated to test the most subtle differences and use complex algorithms to correct each to equal conditions?

You have made it a science to do exactly that, and now all of that goes out the window because a newer system has different characteristics that are more appropriately applied to an S65?

That is correct, and I'm here to help apply a similar "scientific" expertise to this problem. Dyno charts and roll racing can't answer this question. But a program that eliminates the human variables can. I'm a naturally curious person who just happens to have the ability to solve problems like this. I'm offering to help you solve the problem for your own benefit, and for all the people like me who are genuinely curious about the outcome.

You would rather use a gps based box, that doesnt record atmospherics, used on an immeasurable amount of in/declination on roads from one another?

By the time you collect data on the vBox, atmospherics no longer matter. The moment you collected the vBox data, atmospherics already played their role when the power was put to the pavement. We're trying to figure out if that dyno graph really translates to more useable midrange torque than the Vortech. As far as I know, only the vBox can do that. The vBox Racer program will do exactly what you want. By changing colors from green to red, it will graphically show where one car is accelerating faster than the other and visually see if the Rotrex really does have better midrange torque.

Since LM's 60-130 is at -2.85% slope, there's really no point in bringing this up because he's already at the maximum slope allowed. There's also no point in bringing up atmospherics when they don't even matter for this type of test. But if they did, I'll bet the weather on a cold January morning in NJ favored LM's car much better than a warm summer morning in California. And there's no point in bringing up traction because vBox graphs very clearly show traction issues, and LM's 7.04s run had no traction issues. So even if any of this mattered (which I don't think it does except traction), LM's run will be favored anyways. So it will be a great way to see if there really is increased midrange torque on the Rotrex or not.

I haven't checked with the owner, but I think I can get him to donate his vBox file for the test. I'd be offering a vBox file from a Vortech supercharged M3-DCT that hit 7.06 seconds on the 60-130. That's almost identical to LM's 7.04s and should be as perfect as one could get for this test. I would send you the vBox file, and expect LM's 7.04s vBox file in return. I would generate the vBox Racer video, and I would send you all of the output data logs for verification purposes to ensure one vBox file wasn't swapped for another. I don't think I could make this any more fair or verifiable for all parties than what I've suggested. But if there is something more fair than what I've already offered, then I'm definitely open to other suggestions. Or if you have a differnt vBox file from a Vortech that you want me to use, I'm open to that suggestion as well.

Here's the graph from the vBox file I'm suggesting.

You could probably get a vbox and dyno file if you asked, I cant see why not. It shouldnt be that hard. I would suggest asking and not threatening though

I am asking; that's exactly what I'm doing. And I'm offering to contact the owners of the other vBox files and see if they'll reciprocate. If I were in your shoes, I wouldn't be fighting this...I'm be running as fast as I can to do this and prove what is true and what is not.

I'm not sure what threat you're talking about that I supposedly made. I'm only interested in answering this question and helping you answer it. If you want my help, then we can work together for the benefit of the community at large. If not, then no biggie for me, as I'm sure the question will eventually get answered...they always do.

[JEllis]

Originally Posted by SickeM3

If the most important thing to you is what happens when you take the kit off, then maybe ANY s/c kit isnt the right fit for you, as its meant to be a long term item, and that is what's important, enjoyment and performance while having it.

Also, FYI, some "trimming" is required to install the cooler for any s/c out there, and only 2 kits, AA and G-power require new pieces. knowledge comes from more than hearsay

First, I love my ESS 550. But there are some realities about installing SC kits that are often not discussed.

I have had both ESS intercooled and non intercooled SC kits, the front clip is no longer the same after install. Some shops even cut off the lower portion of the front clip for better fitment of the heat exchanger. I have some serious OCD and cut up my first front clip the minimum amount possible. I still have it sitting next to my house.

While I agree with you, the required evasiveness of an SC kit should not be the only deciding factor, for many here it is still A factor. I plan on keeping my E92 M3 for a very long time but there are many on this forum that see themselves switching cars every few years. Any experienced dealer/independent is going to recognize a cut up front clip.

I installed my SC kit myself. Since most here did not, there are probably some that are not even aware of what was required to fit all the parts. Especially the intercooler/heat exchanger.

Here is my front clip trimmed the least amount I felt possible for the ESS heat exchanger. Keep in mind some shops chop off the whole bottom portion of the front clip.



Next is a picture of a front clip modified for an ESS VT2 kit next to a bone stock front clip. See those little holes going around the lower portion. That is for the intake shroud that directs air to the oil cooler to mount. With the lower portion removed, which many shops do, the shroud has no place to be secured.



Now lets look at what a front clip looks like after being modified for an air to air intercooler.



Yep, the whole front of the clip has been removed.

Now should this be the only deciding factor? No, but some of us maybe just don't like the idea of a cut up front clip. Or maybe some of us are planning on selling the car in a few years and so maybe an intercooled SC kit is not worth the pain of replacing the front clip. In any case, I think anyone thinking about purchasing an SC kit should factor in the evasiveness of the install.

Finally, the front clip replacement is only the tip of the iceberg for some kits on the market. Personally I would want to see a set of instructions before I purchased a kit.

For me the factors list would go something like this:

1. Reliability (includes reliable power output/drivability)
2. Customer Service
3. Required maintenance
4. Evasiveness of the installation (what needs replacing if I want to go 100% stock again and pass a PPI)

Non intercooled kits are less evasive than intercooled kits. I believe VF and ESS are the only non intercooled kits available. Truth be told, they are also the least powerful.

All intercooled kits will require a new front clip to be converted 100% back to stock. And, if we are getting technical, a few brackets, wires, dust/water boot covers for the ECU ect... depending on the make of your kit.

Can you get away with a cut up front clip? Yes, you should, in most cases, be able to remove your intercooled SC and mount the bumper. If your missing the lower half of your front clip due to heat exchanger install, you will probably have difficulty reinstalling the intake shroud for the oil cooler.

How difficult is it to remove and replace a front clip. Its painful.
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=886184

[SYZ]

^^ with my VF kit, I didn't cut all the way through the shroud. It was heavily trimmed to allow room for the coolant lines, but it's still all intact. Was it absolutely necessary to cut all the way through the shroud for the ESS kit?

[JEllis]

Originally Posted by SYZ

^^ with my VF kit, I didn't cut all the way through the shroud. It was heavily trimmed to allow room for the coolant lines, but it's still all intact. Was it absolutely necessary to cut all the way through the shroud for the ESS kit?

The ESS VT2 kits do not re-use the shroud, its removed. I assume your talking about the oil cooler shroud. If your talking about the lower portion of the front clip, there are probably numerous ways to trim it and make it work. I had to cut through the ends to get the coolant lines where I wanted them without rubbing. Other installs I have seen simply remove the whole lower portion of the clip. Which is probably the best way to get good fitment with the heat exchanger behind the bumper, but I was not willing to go that drastic.

[REDBULL]

Originally Posted by Longboarder

I've had an ESS kit (started with 625 and upgraded to 650) and I have beat the crap out of my car with many hard track and airstrip miles. I've never had one issue with the car. Not one check engine light, not one code, not one problem. Nothing. Just a fantastic reliable product that kicks ass. I'll just leave you with a couple vids:



Best of luck with your decision.

Did you upgrade the bearings to the coated ones as well?

[BobS]

Hey regular guy, thats a lot of detail and explanation for something we already know. There is just to many variables in the vbox times.... you ask for vbox for a evolve/rotrex car, you get it, its a impressive time...then you talk about max slope, weather conditions, etc. to say its not comparable. Thats obvious...which is why it really can't be used for comparison. The same thing can be said for dynos, roll racing, etc. So we're just wasting time here.

That program you have is pretty cool, but in the end, i'm not going to spend over 10K based on a program with vbox times plugged into it. I'm going to spend my money to make my m3 faster, with a smooth power curve and if i can...get MORE tq, because even though the s65 is quick and has wonderful gearing, deep down inside, I don't think any e9x m3 owner would turn away the option to get some more low end tq.


I get it, its winter and we are all bored so this discussion is fun but if you really want to answer the question of whether or not a rotrex provides more low end tq, go drive a vortec SC M and a Rotrex SC M (notice i didn't mention a kit)... you'll feel the difference.

[Verify]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Sure put them on the road together. But if you want a test that should be the closest you can come to being scientifically valid and answer the question of better torque in the Rotrex, then continue reading.

There's too many variables even on roll racing events. 1-2 MPH different starting speeds, 50 millisecond different reaction time, and where you punch the gas on the roll race will affect the outcome and render any video comparison invalid. I have a program that will eliminate ALL of these variables. vBox Racer is perfect for eliminating ALL of these variables. It will perfectly align the speeds to each other, then generate a video of the actual race as if there were no errors or differences between speed, reaction time, and where you punch the gas. Here's a sample:

As you watch the video take note of the G-Force graphs moving across the screen. This is how you would tell who is accelerating faster than the other at that instant in time. Anywhere the line turns green, that car is accelerating faster than the other. When the line is red, the car isn't accelerating as fast as the other.

If the Rotrex has greater midrange torque, and the Vortech has greater top end, then this would easily be reflected the type of video this program would generate. Suppose I could find a vBox file of a Vortech powered S65 that was identical to LM's. I would expect the car with the Rotrex to show green in the lower RPMs of the gear, then switch to red in the upper RPMs of the gear.



That is correct, and I'm here to help apply a similar "scientific" expertise to this problem. Dyno charts and roll racing can't answer this question. But a program that eliminates the human variables can. I'm a naturally curious person who just happens to have the ability to solve problems like this. I'm offering to help you solve the problem for your own benefit, and for all the people like me who are genuinely curious about the outcome.



By the time you collect data on the vBox, atmospherics no longer matter. The moment you collected the vBox data, atmospherics already played their role when the power was put to the pavement. We're trying to figure out if that dyno graph really translates to more useable midrange torque than the Vortech. As far as I know, only the vBox can do that. The vBox Racer program will do exactly what you want. By changing colors from green to red, it will graphically show where one car is accelerating faster than the other and visually see if the Rotrex really does have better midrange torque.

Since LM's 60-130 is at -2.85% slope, there's really no point in bringing this up because he's already at the maximum slope allowed. There's also no point in bringing up atmospherics when they don't even matter for this type of test. But if they did, I'll bet the weather on a cold January morning in NJ favored LM's car much better than a warm summer morning in California. And there's no point in bringing up traction because vBox graphs very clearly show traction issues, and LM's 7.04s run had no traction issues. So even if any of this mattered (which I don't think it does except traction), LM's run will be favored anyways. So it will be a great way to see if there really is increased midrange torque on the Rotrex or not.

I haven't checked with the owner, but I think I can get him to donate his vBox file for the test. I'd be offering a vBox file from a Vortech supercharged M3-DCT that hit 7.06 seconds on the 60-130. That's almost identical to LM's 7.04s and should be as perfect as one could get for this test. I would send you the vBox file, and expect LM's 7.04s vBox file in return. I would generate the vBox Racer video, and I would send you all of the output data logs for verification purposes to ensure one vBox file wasn't swapped for another. I don't think I could make this any more fair or verifiable for all parties than what I've suggested. But if there is something more fair than what I've already offered, then I'm definitely open to other suggestions. Or if you have a differnt vBox file from a Vortech that you want me to use, I'm open to that suggestion as well.

Here's the graph from the vBox file I'm suggesting.





I am asking; that's exactly what I'm doing. And I'm offering to contact the owners of the other vBox files and see if they'll reciprocate. If I were in your shoes, I wouldn't be fighting this...I'm be running as fast as I can to do this and prove what is true and what is not.

I'm not sure what threat you're talking about that I supposedly made. I'm only interested in answering this question and helping you answer it. If you want my help, then we can work together for the benefit of the community at large. If not, then no biggie for me, as I'm sure the question will eventually get answered...they always do.

So, what happens when the road has different slopes throughout the entire course of the run, a .7% incline here vs a .05 decline there, then a .6 incline for 12 feet for the other car, etc etc etc..? See what Im saying, your trying to take direct head-head, on equal surface, and negate it by saying a 1-2 mph start difference. OK, that could be a factor, a lot of things could be, but if the cars are as equal as possible, weight the same, same trans, same fuel from same station, well, its down to driver. If both are competent and trying to win, thats an easy comparison.

Then, for any other variable to be taken out, they both hit the same dyno, preferably on the same day. Because that is taking the weight, road, driver differences out. Your method just exaggerates all the tiny variables. And im still shocked your not brushing them to the side as if they were of no importance the last 4 years of data you have been collecting and producing.

its not just about total slope declination when talking vbox #'s.



Look at a VT3 decline, surely that drop is more aggressive than the Evolve's, but only .2% difference. Thats because of the slight uphill at the very end.

See how the numbers can so easily be skewed by no fault of your nor anyones elses, but its an inherent fault in the 60-130 process.

[Longboarder]

Originally Posted by REDBULL

Did you upgrade the bearings to the coated ones as well?

No I haven't touched the bearings. I just have my oil changed very frequently.

[SYZ]

Originally Posted by JEllis

The ESS VT2 kits do not re-use the shroud, its removed. I assume your talking about the oil cooler shroud. If your talking about the lower portion of the front clip, there are probably numerous ways to trim it and make it work. I had to cut through the ends to get the coolant lines where I wanted them without rubbing. Other installs I have seen simply remove the whole lower portion of the clip. Which is probably the best way to get good fitment with the heat exchanger behind the bumper, but I was not willing to go that drastic.

Weird. I'm pretty sure I was able to stuff the heat exchanger in there without removing any shrouds. I only trimmed away enough of one for the coolant lines to fit. It was a little tricky, but I got it to work. I also did not use the metal mounts supplied for the heat exchanger... that might have necessitated the removal of a shroud as they required a lot more room/clearance. I opted for the ziptie method. I wonder if you could mount the ESS heat exchanger in the same fashion. I imagine they are very similar in size. VF uses a Hella branded exchanger.

[tom @ eas]

Originally Posted by JEllis

The ESS VT2 kits do not re-use the shroud, its removed. I assume your talking about the oil cooler shroud. If your talking about the lower portion of the front clip, there are probably numerous ways to trim it and make it work. I had to cut through the ends to get the coolant lines where I wanted them without rubbing. Other installs I have seen simply remove the whole lower portion of the clip. Which is probably the best way to get good fitment with the heat exchanger behind the bumper, but I was not willing to go that drastic.

Originally Posted by SYZ

Weird. I'm pretty sure I was able to stuff the heat exchanger in there without removing any shrouds. I only trimmed away enough of one for the coolant lines to fit. It was a little tricky, but I got it to work. I also did not use the metal mounts supplied for the heat exchanger... that might have necessitated the removal of a shroud as they required a lot more room/clearance. I opted for the ziptie method. I wonder if you could mount the ESS heat exchanger in the same fashion. I imagine they are very similar in size. VF uses a Hella branded exchanger.

Both ESS and VF use identical heat exchangers behind the bumper. ESS provides mounting brackets, VF does not (may have changed since).

SickeM3 is referring to a support bracket for the factory airbox that is driller out in order to provide clearance for the VF intake tract. ESS does not require this.

[VF-Engineering]

This is the bracket in question.

Originally Posted by tom @ eas

Both ESS and VF use identical heat exchangers behind the bumper. ESS provides mounting brackets, VF does not (may have changed since).

SickeM3 is referring to a support bracket for the factory airbox that is driller out in order to provide clearance for the VF intake tract. ESS does not require this.

Tom, you had one of the first kits on your car way back in the day. All of our kits have come with the frame bracket as seen below.

[tom @ eas]

Originally Posted by VF-Engineering

Tom, you had one of the first kits on your car way back in the day. All of our kits have come with the frame bracket as seen below.

Thanks for clearing that up, these brackets were not yet available when we were installing the kits (had to be zip-tied in place).

[JEllis]

Originally Posted by SYZ

Weird. I'm pretty sure I was able to stuff the heat exchanger in there without removing any shrouds. I only trimmed away enough of one for the coolant lines to fit. It was a little tricky, but I got it to work. I also did not use the metal mounts supplied for the heat exchanger... that might have necessitated the removal of a shroud as they required a lot more room/clearance. I opted for the ziptie method. I wonder if you could mount the ESS heat exchanger in the same fashion. I imagine they are very similar in size. VF uses a Hella branded exchanger.

There are probably a dozen ways to mount the heat exchanger with varying levels of trimming/cutting. At a minimum I believe both systems require you to cut the vanes off in the center. Beyond that, there are definitely different ways to go about routing the hoses ect...

[Top_Gear]

Originally Posted by SouthShoreM3

My VF540 kit I bought in 2012. It had about 1500-2k miles and spent all in with labor over 9k. It took over 3 months to sell it and I could barely give it away and ended up taking 3k.

In my experience with VF and ESS, ESS was the only one to provide exact compliance for my MA STATE INSPECTION. I could not achieve it with the lower level VF kit. In addition, with stock cats in place I pass smog compliance as well with the ESS and the VF. But again the VF at the time (this was last April to almost July) it could not be achieved because of their software.

SouthShoreM3: Thanks for posting this (I never saw your previous posts). The fact that you chose to take a big hit on your VF kit and replace it with the ESS speaks volumes for me. Much appreciated.

[Top_Gear]

Originally Posted by BobS

Check out the link in post #49

I have driven both a ess car and evolve. I am currently waiting for my evolve kit to be shipped . The evolve kit does have a advantage in tq down low, this is my opinion, that i have come to after driving a evolve car.... take it or leave it. I could have ordered any kit....and chose the evolve.

Thanks Bob, please provide some feedback on this forum once you get your Evolve kit installed. I am surprised you could tell Evolve had an advantage over the ESS kit just by butt feel during your test drives. I have not heard as much about this company as I have about ESS & VF. Do you know how many kits Evolve has sold in the US so far?

Regarding post #49 by Lost Marine I do see a small advantage in the graph he posts of Rotrex-vs-Vortech but definitely not the vast superiority of Rotrex that he claims. I also cannot tell if the data under comparison have been normalized for conditions.

[SflBimmer8484]

Originally Posted by SilentAttack

My vote goes for Active. That is who I will be using once I get the funds to drop on a SC. The main reason is the kit looks great and every kit is intercooled!!! On top of that I will be moving to FT. Lauderdale in the next 1.5 years and Miami is already my second home

[abood//M]

Originally Posted by SilentAttack

My vote goes for Active. That is who I will be using once I get the funds to drop on a SC. The main reason is the kit looks great and every kit is intercooled!!! On top of that I will be moving to FT. Lauderdale in the next 1.5 years and Miami is already my second home

+1

[BobS]

Originally Posted by Top_Gear

Thanks Bob, please provide some feedback on this forum once you get your Evolve kit installed. I am surprised you could tell Evolve had an advantage over the ESS kit just by butt feel during your test drives. I have not heard as much about this company as I have about ESS & VF. Do you know how many kits Evolve has sold in the US so far?

Regarding post #49 by Lost Marine I do see a small advantage in the graph he posts of Rotrex-vs-Vortech but definitely not the vast superiority of Rotrex that he claims. I also cannot tell if the data under comparison have been normalized for conditions.

I'll be sure to post up a review of the kit and my experience as i get some miles on the car. I don't know how many kits are in the US, i do know Evolve is a well established company that tunes many other bmw platforms such as the e46 m3, e39 m5, etc. I'm not worried in the least bit about support.

Don't get me wrong here....im not saying the Rotrex turns your s65 powered m3 into a stump pulling tq monster....but yes it does give you more tq down low. I don't think any s65 owner minds that BTW active offers the rotrex as well...

[W Cole]

Originally Posted by JEllis

First, I love my ESS 550. But there are some realities about installing SC kits that are often not discussed.

I have had both ESS intercooled and non intercooled SC kits, the front clip is no longer the same after install.
While I agree with you, the required evasiveness of an SC kit should not be the only deciding factor, for many here it is still A factor.

I read your original post on this a few months ago. Thanks for the detailed review. It was surprising to me that you were the first person to bring this up after so many years of these kits being on the market. Maybe its because everyone pays a shop to do the install so they have no idea how badly their car is being hacked up. Ignorance is bliss I guess.

Personally I would be furious if someone installed a VF kit on my car and did all of those irreversible modifications without asking me. And if they asked me beforehand the kit would be going back to VF.

Originally Posted by JEllis

Personally I would want to see a set of instructions before I purchased a kit.

I am currently in the market for a supercharger and have read both the ESS and VF directions. It was not until reading VF's instructions did I find out they drill out the rivets and remove the air box mount. This is completely unnecessary as ESS has proven.

You can judge a lot by the quality of a company's directions and comprehensive directions are very important for a DIYer like myself. The VF directions are terrible compared to ESS.

[MilehighM3]

Originally Posted by W Cole

Personally I would be furious if someone installed a VF kit on my car and did all of those irreversible modifications without asking me. And if they asked me beforehand the kit would be going back to VF.

You can judge a lot by the quality of a company's directions and comprehensive directions are very important for a DIYer like myself. The VF directions are terrible compared to ESS.

If you purchased a kit without doing the research and then got mad at the shop for installing it as directed, why would you be mad at the shop?
ESS's instructions leave a lot to the imagination or experience level of the installer. Active's instructions are much more comprehensive IMO.

[8k3]

Originally Posted by MilehighM3

If you purchased a kit without doing the research and then got mad at the shop for installing it as directed, why would you be mad at the shop?
ESS's instructions leave a lot to the imagination or experience level of the installer. Active's instructions are much more comprehensive IMO.

Not to mention both ESS and VFs kits are nearly identical and require very similar modifications to the car. Get over it, this is a mod, not designed by the manufacture, no matter who you go with it will require modifications. That's why we pay someone reputable to do the job. The car can be returned to stock in the end.