Whipple or Pro Charger ?
 

Was going to buy a Whipple charger then did some more research and I have almost decided to change and get a Pro Charger. The Pros;The ;Pro Charger is half the cost, also a 3yr. Warranty vs. 1yr. and the Pro Charger is making more power at a lower rpm (765hp @5200rpm w/m-3sc @5lbs.). Overall I feel the Pro Charger is running much more efficient due to the large cooler. They claim that the reason they do not need to change the ecu is that they do not need to retard the timing because the intake charge is so cool (more than 3 times the cooling cap.). Pro Charger also claims that Whipple is retarding the timing because the intake charge is hotter and is needed for detination. Whipple is also taking thier HP reading at 5700 vs. Pro Charger at 5200. Why should I spin the engine excessivly to get the same HP?
I have a 02 29' Fountain fever single Hp500efi and because of the space available to me I feel that the Pro Charger is my best choice ; am I missing the boat ? I do not mind spending the extra money for the Whipple but do not want to if I do not need to .Yea the Whipple looks cooler...... Experts please help me make a decision. M-3SC vs. Whipple stage 1

Thanks , Chris

Whipple does a much better job on EFI motors managing the fuel in my opinion.

I bought my boat with twin 500EFI Procharged motors....M3SC at 8 PSI. They were reported to make 830hp, I talked to a shop that had set up a number of them on a dyno and claimed they would see about 790 out of that set-up....no way 5 PSI is making over 700 hp.
If you really spend the money to set each one up properly both should be reliable......this means putting the motor on a dyno and having it tuned properly....I also believe that the Procharger setup will take them longer to set up correctly.

If you just bolt this stuf on and run it.....chances are the Procharger will grenade you motor twice as fast as the Whipple (might take a few years, but will hapen faster)

The procharger is a more efficient blower in and of itself. Also, since the blower, intercooler, and intake manifold isn't all stuffed in on the top of the V, the intake and intercooler can also be much more efficient. The end result will be that the procharger will make more power with less boost. The compressor itself will also be more durable.

Having said that, the procharger will also not make boost as low in the rpm band. I would also hesitate to run ANY blower configuration without a recal. Any change of that magnitude really does need it. yes, it may run and make power without recaling, but it will not be optimum for power, fuel econ or engine life.

I think "some" people still run whipples and roots type blowers because they look a lot cooler. If you don't need the low end torque (the procharger will catch up around 4000rpm), and don't care that you blower looks like an A/C compressor, the procharger is the way to go

If you are limited to using a centrifical supercharger I would highly recomend the Vortech supercharger system. I have one on my 502mpi for about 100 hrs now and it has been very dependable and turnkey with no issues. I would be surprised if any system could be used without some type of ECU remaping.[/I]

WHIPPLE!! Even though the procharger looks cheaper at first it will end up costing the same or more then a Whipple by the time you have it all set up, installed properly and tuned. I like prochargers and Vortech and have seen them make awesome reliable power, but there is not a more comprehensive kit then the whipple. Look at motors from Teague, Eddie Young, Merc racing.. etc. Those guys are all using screws for a reason.. :drink:

No expert here but where do you want your power top or low to mid.

Contact Mark at percision marine He did a procharger for me and he also dyno it 8lbs boast made 820 hp great EFI motor he also does whiple he also will give ayou a deal on eighter one.


http://pmefi.com/

Running prochargers on hp500 carb motors and they work good . But they are NOT a bolt on and go item !!!!!!!!! Unless you have your own dyno .

I have an engine built by Eddie Young and it has a procharger. I happened to already have one so he used it to save me some money. He does use whipples on engines he typically offers and they are easier to tune. They also look cool.

What these guys are saying is true. It is all in the setup. You can make great power with both. On entry level stuff you can do it cheaper with a procharger. The out of the box whipple stuff is better though. If you are building an expensive engine the price difference is not that much in the end.

Whipple all the way! Procharger has a sh!tty fuel management strategy. Well it is good at melting stuff down anyway.
A custom tune is the best way to go along with a new fuel system.

I have put about 75 hrs on my Vortechs on 500 EFI's w no problem at all. I have ran with guys with whipples and ProChargers. I can assure you, if installed correctly, you won't be disappointed.

I have seven seasons on my Procharger Efi with no problems,
they All need good fuel systems and proper tuning to live.

A centrifugal is not more efficient, simply not true. If you compare size vs. size, the positive displacement always has a much broader curve so if you wanted to plot a usable rpm range for blower efficiency, the twin screw would be far higher. Centrifugals have one major advantage though, but this also leads to other issues, they get to push through a throttle body while twin-screws suck through. It's easier to push. When your pulling throught the throttle blades, there's some slight loss. If everything is right, it's less than .1%, but in some cases, especially cars, this can be an issue. But we supply our own TB's for this reason, we give it the maximum amount of air available.

The reason many go to a screw or roots now is the throttle response and torque. Although some say it's similar, it's clearly not, and the bigger the power, the bigger the difference. Example, on the 496, at 3000rpm, there is nearly 150lbs of torque difference. Boost for boost, they'll make close to the same power, when you have AF and timnig the same, but PC does zero to the PCM, and your depending on the factory computer to have the same calibration, even though there's well over 100 different calibrations now. The fuel and spark tables are all different. Then you get into codes, PC, if you stay in boost for longer than 30 seconds, you set the MAP HI code, which goes into a default map based off of TPS, this doesn't work, runs bad, detonates, breaks pistons and gaskets. Now your rebuilding motor. Some have tried a bypass loop around the MAP sensor so it doesn't see full boost, but this puts you in a lower load cell, which gives less fuel and more spark, which is dangerous. Some make it, and this can be based off your driving habits, maybe it's overly rich, could be early programming which is safe and cautious, maybe your propping and boat doesn't put much load on it, etc.

Dustin

I always hate discussions where neither side wants to take the time to dig out the data :) It's been a long time since I've done any work with these, so I have to admit, I'm not really willing to do the digging. Dustin?

Compressor efficiency is definately not a simple topic. For instance, conventional roots blowers can be very efficient at very low boost levels (~2-4psi), but who runs them there???

Yes, you are correct, if you look at the boost (efficiency??) over the torque curve, the whipple does look good, but it really depends on the application. I have a limited perspective on boat torque curves, but to date, I haven't been in a single boat where the torque below 3500rpm mattered all that much (the area where a whipple will produce more boost than a centrifugal). I've never seen an any data to indicate a whipple will have anywhere near the efficiency up top, especially at higher boost levels.

You are correct about the tradeoff between before vs. after throttle. Any time the compressor is further up the air path, there will be some throttle response loss. I have never felt it was at all significant in a car. I'll have to rely on others as to whether it is objectional in a boat.

I still think that most (including manufacturers) stick with roots type blowers because they look cool, as well as my statement that trying to package everything in the V compromises airflow and intake tunning, as well as intercooler efficiency more than one would think. Yes, you can always just "turn up the boost" but EVERYTHING works better when you can make the same power at lower boost.

You said twin? You can’t put two superchargers in something dude unless it has two mo
 

you said twin? Are you talking about twin turbo? Cause I don’t think you can put two superchargers on something dude. You can put a supercharger and a turbo. It’s called twin charged when it has both. BMW has done it before. Then they have twin turbo which is two turbos.

Sheesh, I read thru most all of this thinking it all sounds familiar until I realized I read it 20 some years ago!

16 years actually

I know they work better with non carburetor applications that's Pro Chargers I'm talking about?

Whipple has been doing it for 20yrs, dude. And Torqustorm does it.
.
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.off...e3eb10ba30.jpg
.
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.off...198859a48d.png

Boostpower has done twin superchargers WITH twin turbos as well.

BOOSTPOWER USA – Marine Racing Engines

It's still interesting reading to see how it all evolved and how technology has/is constantly changing.