Has anyone tried setting up a 2 step on ripps kit or is it even possible id like to do it to my 2013 jk ripp super charged
Printable View
Has anyone tried setting up a 2 step on ripps kit or is it even possible id like to do it to my 2013 jk ripp super charged
A 2 step in it as like launch control you would set the rpms at like 4500 for launching in 1st gear
Well, I see what you mean... Personally, I would go with a Supercharger with a clutch then after 4500rpm use a turbo-supercharger to make up the rest of the boost. this way you get immediate response with the supercharger then the turbo-supercharger picks up the power when the exhaust gases are at peak pressures and volumes.
A twincharger system (supercharger + turbo) sounds awesome in theory, but good luck implementing it well and getting all the transitions to happen smoothly for a good daily driver without more than doubling the cost of the vehicle. That kind of stuff requires good electronic control over the clutch, bypass valve, and wastegate, integrated with the rest of the engine control systems. No one makes such a kit, so it would be a totally custom system.
A sequential twin turbo setup is more realistic than twincharging, but even that would be very expensive as a one-off custom system and may suffer from some daily driving compromises with purely vacuum/spring controlled valves, etc.
It doesn't seem worthwhile to discuss theoretically optimal setups that are vastly different than what is available on the market, unless you have the money/skills necessary and plan on building and tuning a custom system.
Not really... Useless Pickles-- the Detroit Diesel two-strokers were all supercharged for low rpm idle to 650-800 up to about 1200-1300rpm and turbocharged after 1300rpm for normal use. You cannot make a two-stroke diesel and not use a supercharger for scavenging. The system has been around for decades. You're correct it does add complexity-- but you don't need electronic controls to do it. A simple clutch either mechanical or electromechanical can be used to disengage the supercharger. The bypass valve is basically just a very large waste gate and that be operated via the clutch. And waste gate itself doesn't really have anything to do with it. You operate it with or without one. The Detroits used run about 18psi of manifold pressure and they had no waste gates on them. The used to run on the big series engines like the 16V71's two supers and four turbos. So you could get 800hp at 2100rpm and 2000ft-lbs of torque-- where the maximum would be at 1600rpm and be like 2150ft-lbs. Two Stroke Diesels are incredibly flat with their torque curves.
Sequential is good. In fact International offers Sequential turbo charging on their DT series engines as does Detroit on the smaller models but their bigger models use a Compound System.
None of it is theoretical is all practical and has been done for decades. A lot of the pioneering work for turbocharging actually started during the end of WWI.
It's all theoretical for application on the Jeep Wrangler. Getting a one-off complex system like that custom built and tuned as an add-on is impractical.
Well, if you stick with stuff from kits and boxes then you will never really know the joy of blazing a new trail. But if you want a bolt on kit to increase your turbo's power, fuel economy, and overall performance from pump gas-- Snow Products Methanol-Water Injection system. It will set you back about $1K plus tax and shipping-- but it will give you about 80Hp and 50-80Ft-lbs of torque in the max settings in addition to your turbo ratings--plus in the eco-setting an increase in fuel economy of about .15-.25mpg.
So if your kit gives you 120Hp and 100Ft-lbs of torque extra adding MW-50 to the system can put you up to 200hp extra 150-180ft-lbs of torque depending on application.
I call it WEP-- as in Wartime Emergency Power-- I'm putting on a CAT 3116 engine I'm installing in my baby. Cruise power with MW-50 will go up from about 170hp to 210hp and max power right about 300hp at 2700rpm. Torque will be about 620ft-lbs max at 1550rpm and cruise torque right about 320ft-lbs at 2400rpm with the Methanol injection operating.
Being an early adopter of a new turbo kit is enough trail blazing for me. Water/meth injection added onto a Pentastar turbo/supercharger kit might not be that simple. I think we're at the point where another major jump in power will require supporting internal engine upgrades to be reliable. I'll sit back and let Prodigy risk blowing up an engine or two as they develop their stage 3 kit :)
You're putting that CAT engine in your Wrangler? Create a new thread for that! :) That could get interesting. That thing is HEAVY!
Dry weight: ~1500 lbs
+7.4 GALLONS of water for the cooling system (~62 lbs)
+6.6 GALLONS of oil (~48 lbs)
Wet weight: ~1610 lbs!!!!
For comparison, the Pentastar...
Dry weight: ~325 lbs (based on finding the 3.8 weighs 413 lbs, and Pentastar is claimed to be about 90 lbs lighter)
+10.5 quarts of water for the cooling system (~22 lbs)
+6 quarts of oil (~11 lbs)
Wet weight: ~358 lbs
That CAT engine weighs 1250 lbs more than the Pentastar! That's going to require some heavy duty front suspension upgrades to support that weight, and will make the vehicle very front-heavy. That could be dangerous. And your predicted crank HP with water/meth injection added is not much more than what the stock Pentastar already puts out. All that low RPM torque will allow you to crawl over anything without touching the gas pedal, but daily driving performance on the street will be worse than the stock engine.
All that "low rpm" torque doesn't really mean that much when the engine only revs up to 2800 rpm. If you gear it to give it similar road speed range in each transmission gear as a stock Wrangler with a Pentastar, then it would be equivalent to having a peak torque of 267 ft-lbs at 3600 rpm, and only 137 ft-lbs torque at 5600 rpm. The stock Pentastar already has 250+ ft-lbs torque from about 2000 rpm all the way through 5400 rpm. But you probably wouldn't gear the vehicle that tall (probably not physically possible... would require something like 1.60:1 axle ratio), so you'd end up with VERY short gears, with tons of torque at very low speeds. The first few transmission gears would probably be useless for street driving in 2HI, and 4LO would be useless except for the slowest of slow rock crawling.
These low-revving, huge low-rpm torque diesel engines are designed continuous high-load work in construction equipment, or getting very heavy loads moving from a stop (loaded up semi trucks, etc).
Just want to make sure you understand what you're getting yourself into.
CAT's output numbers are what I based my figures on. What it really produces I won't know until I dyno the engine.
Is this a "Shootout" thread? seems off topic
This thread needs a do-over. We need a very rich person to donate several identically equipped Wranglers and one of each of the forced induction kits so that a full and fair comparison can be done on everything from the install difficulty to performance :)
Its hard to keep everything equal when testing power mods. Realize, we got each about a year apart. All the jeeps are 4.10 geared manual trans rubicons. The turbo was a 2door, the two SCs, on 4drs.
BB had a lift and duratracs when the SC came on. Sweet Pea was bone stock. They were tested as evenly as we could have done it.
True, I am surprised that the RIPP pulls that well at the bottom, however, the Magnuson seems to have more power where i generally use it between 2,000 and 4,500 RPM. I drive a manual, and generally do not spin the motor up to redline when shifting. Daily Driver purposes, the Magnuson appears to be the winner; on paper anyways.
Just curious as to whether Sweet Pea and Black Beauty have had MPG recorded regularly since their respective supercharger installations? I use Fuelly myself, and am really curious to figure out not only which is better $ per torque/hp, but also which has better overall fuel economy.
I would guess that RIPP would win the MPG battle. Has anyone been keeping decent hand-calculated MPG records?
Not gonna happen. Different Jeeps with different tires/gears driven by different people, etc. Any MPG comparison would be completely meaningless. You would need someone to run two otherwise identical Jeeps with the two different superchargers through a controlled test (like EPA fuel economy test procedure) to get a valid comparison.
Look at the hundreds of discussions of MPG on Jeep forums for an example of how meaningless it is to compare actual real world MPG of two different people. I've seen people report anywhere from 14 to 21 MPG average with stock Jeeps.
I thought that Black Betty and Sweet Pea are pretty similar: both Manual Transmissions, 4.10 rears, probably both have relatively big tires and equivalent lifts; unless all of this was just temporary for Dyno and 0-60 times during the shootout?
I do not think that recording real-world MPG over time is meaningless. Threads on MPG tend to become meaningless because owners read the "lie-o-meter" and do not hand-calculate and note fuel type, mods, top-off, hard top, type of driving, etc.
I figure this is JeepLab, so cost per HP/Torque is as valid as average cost per mile. Not trying to do some scientific EPA-like study, just what guys are actually averaging over time, which includes WOT accelerations, wheeling, commuting, or whatever else they're doing.
Am I the only guy using Fuelly? I find that it is a very good tool for many things, especially knowing what it costs per mile to drive, which really gives an idea of the true cost of ownership along with maintenance, repair, and modification spreadsheets.
Still pretty meaningless. All descriptions of type of driving, etc, are all still quite relative/subjective. People drive differently, and the way you drive can have a big impact on MPG. Yes, tracking your own fuel economy can be helpful for budgeting, indications of engine problems, etc. But comparing your MPG to someone else with different mods tells you nothing about how that mod affected MPG. There's no way to know how much personal driving patterns/habits are contributing to differences.
The best you could aim for is asking people whether they noticed a change in MPG after installing their supercharger. But the problem here is that we're talking about major performance mods that are likely to cause you to change the way you drive. how much are the results impacted by changes in driving habits caused by the availability of more power? And will the same mod cause you to change your driving habits the same way? Probably not.
The point is that there are so many factors involving location, and personal driving habits/patterns that you are not going to get any valid information about which supercharger has better fuel economy by asking people on the Internet unless there are extreme differences. The only way to find out would be to do specific comparison that involved a procedure that removed as many variables as possible. but even then, the results are only valid for that particular procedure. If one supercharger gets 3 MPG better in the comparison, the same supercharger could just as easily get 3MPG worse for your particular driving patterns/habits. And you don't even know what your new driving habits will be with the additional power.
Every driver, Dyno, road, fuel, mod, type of driving are all different. Some Jeepers, like me record fill-ups and MPG-pertinent data, and I am hoping this may be the case with Black Betty and Sweet Pea.
I simply want to know what kind of average MPG these two Jeeps have been getting, that's all. If there is no data on them, no worries.
I am not trying to go for an empirical study. The testing that has been done in the shootout is also by no means a study; it is just an idea of how the mods perform on two similar vehicles.
So I am no trying to figure which supercharger is overall better. I am just curious.
new to this site. I have a 2011 JKU sport, 4.88's 35x12.5x18. RIPP gen 2, with RIPP headers, and AFE hituck. I have the latest RIPP tune(2 weeks ago) generally speaking, I love the RIPP. for me there are not alot of rocks here in CT, but north there are plenty of trails that keep me and my family entertained. I have been thinking about adding the hi altitude pulley and somewhere in this thread(just read all of it) there was a point where JL was going to install the smaller pulley? but then it got sidetracked. I was just wondering if any of the RIPP guys on here have the smaller pulley and if it was worth the upgrade. as a said I really cannot complain about my current set up, i do experience "lift to shift" occasionally, other than that its pretty stable.
I did get sidetracked. Here's why -
1. I had the SC apart when Id the clean out, and I couldn't get the standard pulley off.
2. BB is a rocket, I really didnt feel the need for more power. It made 328 hp at the rear wheel.
Another guy in the forum Deola, had the high alt pulley and his review was positive. With the 3.8 i wouldnt hesitate to crank it up. That is a very tough motor.
Has anyone tried the hi alt. pulley on a 3.6 at sea level conditions?
I've had the smaller pulley on for awhile, pretty much as soon as they came out with it. On the gauge it shows about 3lbs more boost wound out and shows the boost coming on at a much lower rpm. This is a 3.6 manual btw. In the seat of the pants you do feel a difference and worth the few bucks. As for changing the pulley, it's pretty easy. Just use a puller and it takes about a minute.
No sound bytes, don't have'm. Wrench? I didn't think I would have to go from beginning to end here. Nuts and bolts is all but if you really need the details then an impact wrench is a must. Spin the nut off. Put the puller on and crank it to until the pulley comes off. Carefully tap the pulley down with a piece of wood and use a thread locker when u re-torque the nut. Re-install and possibly reprogram. It's that simple. Now if you want to get really crazy install a catch can too. You won't believe the amount of oil you get going into your intake. The catch can install will probably take longer to do. Good luck
I'd like to change to the smaller pulley but being afraid lifting the head or spinning a bearing or worse blowing a rod. As far as a catch can I have one, if you install one be sure to plumb it into both pcv lines from the left bank and right bank on the engine
I really don't see the extra 3lbs of boost being too much of a future problem, if it does detonate the motor than an excuse to drop a 5.7 would almost be legit. Damn that's almost not funny. Anyway, the double catch can I think would be excessive and more hoses. I'm not happy now with the cob web around the motor. As for the plumbing in is pretty simple. I believe somewhere in these forums is what I used as a diagram. I should probably post a pick because I didn't put mine where most put their can. Mines in the front beside the alternator. If I wasn't ashamed of my hosing I probably would
The 5.7 hemi isn't really worth the money for the conversion from the 3.6 Pentastar, especially if you're coming from a supercharged Pentastart. 5.7 Hemi only makes about 230 hp at the wheels in a Wrangler. Only about 40 hp more than the stock Pentastar, and substantially less than a supercharged Pentastar. That would be a $20k downgrade from a supercharged Pentastar. If you're going to do a V8 conversion, go for a 6.2 LS or 6.4 Hemi.
I agree that a single catch can (on the make-up air hose! not the PCV hose!) is perfectly adequate, to reduce oil vapors going into the intake during high engine load/boost conditions.
N Haha no I'm in no hurry to put a smal block in. Financially or even want to tackle it. Let's just say if the 3lbs of boost makes it blow than the 2 door jeep is gone and a 4 door will show up in the garage.....which isn't cheaper but damn at this point stock and untouched would be less stressful.
Well that's the reason why I want to triple check before I up the boost. If the motor does let go I'm screwed out a vehicle being this jk is my daily