ESS G3 60-130 8 psi

[Angrey]

Our head unit has significantly less parasitic loss than you might think. We have achieved this in a few different ways. 12mm wide optimized gears, SKF ultra precision/low friction bearings, a patented oiling system with minimal friction losses. Etc..

This paired with a state of the art impeller/volute design and efficient intercooler and pressure path all make a difference.

I believe from the results Brad has posted we are seeing all of these things come together. With less parasitic loss the engine can produce better results on similar boost levels to what everyone is used to.

I don’t post this to come off arrogant or brag about our product. There are people with genuine questions on how these results are being achieved. All of these things come together and make a difference in the final results.

However, I still ask the golden question.. and would genuinely like to know how these pulleys are being ran safely on pump 91 fuel if they are over boosting by several PSI? Why aren’t tuners having issues with this? And why don’t we see logs showing people having issues with their car pulling timing and detonating like crazy because their 7psi pump gas pulley is actually making 12-14 psi.. ?

You can't escape work. You still have to impart work into the system in order to compress ambient air. In a turbo system, that work comes from "free" energy wasted through exhaust flow and pressure and velocity.

I'm open to new discoveries and developments. But let's be very clear what you're implying here. Fantastical efficiency numbers, not seen or recognized in an industry that's had decades of R&D and hardcore science and engineering all trying to make things more efficient, more effective, etc. These aren't just improvements. These are large leaps.

It's not impossible. But the skeptic in me defaults to much simpler explanations, like the way you're measuring pressure is different. In simplest terms, when you get an outcome you didn't expect or can't explain, first check your instruments and your measurements.

You keep quoting this 91 octane strawman. Plenty of people running around on 91 octane making 750 to the wheels, at higher boost pressures. As I stated several times, the power and torque figures aren't fantastic or implausible. At what boost pressure and therefore what O2 supply is the issue at hand.

Sponsored

 

[Brevin@ESS]

You can't escape work. You still have to impart work into the system in order to compress ambient air. In a turbo system, that work comes from "free" energy wasted through exhaust flow and pressure and velocity.

I'm open to new discoveries and developments. But let's be very clear what you're implying here. Fantastical efficiency numbers, not seen or recognized in an industry that's had decades of R&D and hardcore science and engineering all trying to make things more efficient, more effective, etc. These aren't just improvements. These are large leaps.

It's not impossible. But the skeptic in me defaults to much simpler explanations, like the way you're measuring pressure is different. In simplest terms, when you get an outcome you didn't expect or can't explain, first check your instruments and your measurements.

You keep quoting this 91 octane strawman. Plenty of people running around on 91 octane making 750 to the wheels, at higher boost pressures. As I stated several times, the power and torque figures aren't fantastic or implausible. At what boost pressure and therefore what O2 supply is the issue at hand.

People are not making 14 psi on pump 91. On a gen 3 coyote. Not happening. Please ask any of the major tuners the most boost they recommend on pump gas (especially 91) and they will laugh at you if you suggest 14 PSI. Show me examples of people making 14+ PSI on pump 91 fuel and no octane booster. I’d love to see. We just had a customer attempt to run our 10 psi pulley (revved to 7600 so more like 11-12psi) on pump fuel 93 and his car was not happy and Lund immediately noticed and had him pulley up two sizes. This was on 93 octane even! If your calculations are correct that pulley he tried was making nearly 20 PSI of boost on pump gas and he went WOT several times and the car survived? Explain how?

You seem to be suggesting that a Supercharger company that has been around and developing supercharger systems for more than 25 years on dozens of different models of vehicles has no idea on how to correctly measure boost pressure? And not even in the ball park at that? And conveniently all of the dozens and dozens of dynos and boost gauges have all been consistently incorrect and skewed? That seems like the least plausible answer to me. Or alternatively, years and years and millions of dollars spent on R&D and the best engineers on the planet have come together and made something that works very well.

We are happy to offer to pay on our dime to fly you out to Brad in Alabama and allow you to measure boost and study the car in any way you would like. That is a legitimate offer. We measure boost like everyone else. A straight shot to the manifold. No gimmicks.

 

[Brevin@ESS]

Respectfully, I haven’t seen a 91 octane log along with performance figures yet, so I dont know what load, timing, and power they are accomplishing. FWIW, you can easily run 14 psi on 91 with the right spark timing. Brad’s example was solid but he’s running e30 and 21 deg timing.

14 PSI on 91 doesn’t work out at all. Even if you could pull enough timing out it would be massively counterproductive with EGTs going through the roof eventually melting everything in its way. The engine would hate it and would not even remotely perform well. There is a reason every major tuner runs a certain amount of boost on pump 91 and it isn’t anywhere near 14 psi. We have tried and found the limits for optimal operation on the Gen.3 using pump 91aki and it's ~7-9psi peak. Unless you guys have some magical 91 octane where you live.. We certainly don’t in AZ!

 

[Brad1810r80]

Where would you guys recommend me hooking the boost gauge line to? Mine is t I’m with bov . Pic included

 

[Brad1810r80]

Also what is the normal IAT increase on a 60-130 run for turbo, Whipple, procharger etc… I thought 26 degs from 91 to 117 was pretty good.

 

[Cory S]

Also what is the normal IAT increase on a 60-130 run for turbo, Whipple, procharger etc… I thought 26 degs from 91 to 117 was pretty good.

Too many variables. Boost pressures, cooling hardware, ambient temp, heat soak levels etc.

Could be a 15° rise, could be a 50° rise......

 

[engineermike]

Also what is the normal IAT increase on a 60-130 run for turbo, Whipple, procharger etc… I thought 26 degs from 91 to 117 was pretty good.

26 deg is good for an air/air unit, no doubt.

The following is a Whipple Stage 2 but with the Stage 1 "10 psi" pulley and the standard LTR with no fans.

About 2 weeks ago, I did 3 pulls within 10 minutes. The first was cut short and only 50-120, but the other 2 were 50-130. IAT1 was 84 deg for all 3. The following are the IAT2/MCT numbers.

Pull 1: Started at 94, ended at 96 deg.
Pull 2: Started at 100, ended at 101 deg.
Pull 3: Started at 105, ended at 104 deg.

I actually doubted these, myself, some time back. I removed the sensor and tested it using ice water to boiling water and 10 deg increments in between. To my surprise, it was accurate within a couple of degrees until you got over about 130 deg IIRC.

For comparison, my peak air load was 1.51 vs yours that topped out at 1.69. My MAF topped out at 78 lb/min at 7600 rpm, while yours topped out at 85 lb/min at the same engine speed.

 

[Brad1810r80]

So on a centrifugal car where the iat1 is after the supercharger having the air 26deg hotter is pretty close to what Whipple is at post blower also? Going from your 20 deg difference between iat1 and iat2

 

[Brad1810r80]

Ever come into factory it takes a lot less to turn the ESS kit than Whipple?

What actual boost reading are you getting?

Nobody has answered this either , For fuel I’m running stock pump , bap and 1050 injectors. How much HP do you think that will support?

26 deg is good for an air/air unit, no doubt.

The following is a Whipple Stage 2 but with the Stage 1 "10 psi" pulley and the standard LTR with no fans.

About 2 weeks ago, I did 3 pulls within 10 minutes. The first was cut short and only 50-120, but the other 2 were 50-130. IAT1 was 84 deg for all 3. The following are the IAT2/MCT numbers.

Pull 1: Started at 94, ended at 96 deg.
Pull 2: Started at 100, ended at 101 deg.
Pull 3: Started at 105, ended at 104 deg.

I actually doubted these, myself, some time back. I removed the sensor and tested it using ice water to boiling water and 10 deg increments in between. To my surprise, it was accurate within a couple of degrees until you got over about 130 deg IIRC.

For comparison, my peak air load was 1.51 vs yours that topped out at 1.69. My MAF topped out at 78 lb/min at 7600 rpm, while yours topped out at 85 lb/min at the same engine speed.

 

[engineermike]

@Brad1810r80 to clear up any confusion, what I called IAT1 is upstream of the throttle body. It would be comparable to "Ambient Air Temp" in your log. And what I called IAT2/MCT is what your log calls "Intake Air Temp".

 

[mejohn50]

Also what is the normal IAT increase on a 60-130 run for turbo, Whipple, procharger etc… I thought 26 degs from 91 to 117 was pretty good.

I have a Whipple stage 2 with “oversized” heat exchanger and no other changes. I experience similar findings to @engineermike. IAT2/MCT/post-charge cooler temps rarely increase more than 5° on a pull. I’ve done several 1/4 mile passes, multiple 60-130, and other similar pulls with the same results.

 

[Brad1810r80]

Forgot about this video, this is the 120mm on 50 deg day. Peaked right at 10 psi. Don't mind the camera man 9yr old son little shaky lol.

 

[engineermike]

Ever come into factory it takes a lot less to turn the ESS kit than Whipple?

I don't believe this to be the case. It takes a certain amount of power to compress air. It takes additional power that goes into heat because no compressor is 100% efficient. The whipple compressors are around 80% efficient. I don't know what the ESS compressor efficiency is, but state of the art for centrifugal compressor of that flow and head coefficient are roughly the same. That being the case, they take about the same power to turn, assuming the same boost and flow rate.

What actual boost reading are you getting?

Boost isn't very useful to me for what I do, so I rarely log it. But when I did log boost using an external GM-style 3-bar MAP sensor vs load vs PCM MAP, the following snapshot data is what read out:

Load: 1.7
MAP: 11.9 psig
External 3-bar MAP: 13.0 psig

Note this was not with the same pulley I did the 60-130 pulls I posted above, which is why the load is higher. This is just intended to show the correlation between boost and load.

Nobody has answered this either , For fuel I’m running stock pump , bap and 1050 injectors. How much HP do you think that will support?

I can't answer that, as all of my testing has been on a DW400 with and without a BAP. What I can say is that the BAP made a dramatic difference in mine.

 

[Angrey]

I don't believe this to be the case. It takes a certain amount of power to compress air. It takes additional power that goes into heat because no compressor is 100% efficient. The whipple compressors are around 80% efficient. I don't know what the ESS compressor efficiency is, but state of the art for centrifugal compressor of that flow and head coefficient are roughly the same. That being the case, they take about the same power to turn, assuming the same boost and flow rate.



Boost isn't very useful to me for what I do, so I rarely log it. But when I did log boost using an external GM-style 3-bar MAP sensor vs load vs PCM MAP, the following snapshot data is what read out:

Load: 1.7
MAP: 11.9 psig
External 3-bar MAP: 13.0 psig

Note this was not with the same pulley I did the 60-130 pulls I posted above, which is why the load is higher. This is just intended to show the correlation between boost and load.



I can't answer that, as all of my testing has been on a DW400 with and without a BAP. What I can say is that the BAP made a dramatic difference in mine.

Can we all agree that regardless of whether the ESS units are more efficient, even if it is, it wouldn't be such a drastic disparity as to explain several psi of boost pressure difference at "typical" power levels we've been accustomed to observing over the years.

I guess that's where I'm getting hung up. If a new kit on the market makes the same power and torque on say a pound less, we can all clap our hands and say good job. When it comes in and it's SEVERAL psi less, it begs the question whether the measurements are valid. As you pointed out, it's not like the other players on the market are terribly inefficient and have made big strides over the years in dialing their systems in.

I have absolutely no problems with the power numbers being laid out (and I don't think others do either).

So my next question would be....at what point do the results become so absurd it's undeniable there's a mistake?

8 psi? 6 psi? 4 psi? At what point would everyone go "We're used to seeing about 11 psi to make that power, 4 psi is obviously a mistake."

 

[Brad1810r80]

You don't think 8 psi with 21 deg of timing would make 700whp? With all the supporting mods GT350 intake, LTH headers, Full 3" exhaust. I think it would.

Can we all agree that regardless of whether the ESS units are more efficient, even if it is, it wouldn't be such a drastic disparity as to explain several psi of boost pressure difference at "typical" power levels we've been accustomed to observing over the years.

I guess that's where I'm getting hung up. If a new kit on the market makes the same power and torque on say a pound less, we can all clap our hands and say good job. When it comes in and it's SEVERAL psi less, it begs the question whether the measurements are valid. As you pointed out, it's not like the other players on the market are terribly inefficient and have made big strides over the years in dialing their systems in.

I have absolutely no problems with the power numbers being laid out (and I don't think others do either).

So my next question would be....at what point do the results become so absurd it's undeniable there's a mistake?

8 psi? 6 psi? 4 psi? At what point would everyone go "We're used to seeing about 11 psi to make that power, 4 psi is obviously a mistake."

Sponsored