the first person to get an Edelbrock SC on a 6.2!

Chris · July 31, 2014

Magnussen which I believe supplied the tvs 1900 to Lingenfelter got 414 for hp for the 2014 5.3 l.

the Magnuson unit is also a smaller displacement and should be a little more snappier down low.

calgator73 · July 31, 2014

now that I have had a few minutes to compare it's interesting, the edelbrock 5.3 made 445hp and 421 tq where as the lingenfelter made 398 HP & 425 ft lbs of torque with 7 psi boost.

I don't know the boost of the Edelbrock but assuming it's the same as my 6.2 at 6.5 psi

in fact they advertise it to be a 475 hp package. edelbrock made nearly that at the wheels of the 5.3

also I just came across something kinda cool! here are the installation instructions for the 5.3 and 6.2! so now I know what was actually done to my truck. if you look carefully at the pictures anything with red paint was the 5.3L Silverado that edelbrock owns in their shop. anything with black paint is MY truck. you can even see the top of my Colorado plates on one of the pictures!

looks like they have to make only minimal modifications to the truck to install and it looks pretty straight forward.

http://www.edelbrock.com/automotive/misc/tech-center/install/1000/1569.pdf

I'm torn between a maggy and eb. My towing is done right around 2k rpm on flat land and up a grade at 60 I'll bump to around 2500. Comparing their dyno charts (5.3) it looks like the maggy makes more down low at a lower rpm but there are not enough details. Folks at maggy tell me that their power tour truck always has 7kish trailer behind it with no problems. How either stands up to a sustained 6% grade before heat soak sets in is more than a passing curiosity. Wish they advertised their HP/tq that low in the range.

bass mechanic · July 31, 2014

I can't speak for the Maggie but I feel that EB has the best intercooler by far, it flows nearly 2x the rate of anyone else and has more total fluid quantity. Based on those 2 facts I would say if your worried about heatsoak the EB will do a better job and with a 2300 cc unit you'll get less parasitic drag and less heat, less chance of knock, which allows more timing and likely better mpg because it doesn't have to turn as fast.

The boost levels and hp results are a clear indicator to me that EB has the more efficient design

Look at the install instructions and you'll see the intercooler covers the entire radiator! It's not going to get any better than that

thetruck454 · July 31, 2014

Aainst the older designed enforce where the runners crossed under the blower, they had huge heat soak issues, worse than the Maggie. This new design though is exactly what all the OEMS are going to like the vette zr1 and camaro zl1, dodge 6.2 helcat. It makes me think if they are going this way it must be for a reason. The only issue is the 2300 is a little big for a stock engine, the 1900 will start to boost earlier in the rev range where as the 2300 will be a bit more lazy. If edglebrock made a 1900 version it would be the cats meow. One more thing I've noticed is the eforce appears to have more belt wrap on the charger drive pulley which should make belt slip even more of a non-issue. I still haven't made up my mind which one either though, I need to wait and see what others have for experiences

Not to argue about hp numbers but you have to take into account two different dynos can give completely diffierent numbers for the same car. They are more useful to compare before and after runs on the same dyno.

Boombastic · July 31, 2014

Aainst the older designed enforce where the runners crossed under the blower, they had huge heat soak issues, worse than the Maggie. This new design though is exactly what all the OEMS are going to like the vette zr1 and camaro zl1, dodge 6.2 helcat. It makes me think if they are going this way it must be for a reason. The only issue is the 2300 is a little big for a stock engine, the 1900 will start to boost earlier in the rev range where as the 2300 will be a bit more lazy. If edglebrock made a 1900 version it would be the cats meow. One more thing I've noticed is the eforce appears to have more belt wrap on the charger drive pulley which should make belt slip even more of a non-issue. I still haven't made up my mind which one either though, I need to wait and see what others have for experiences

Not to argue about hp numbers but you have to take into account two different dynos can give completely diffierent numbers for the same car. They are more useful to compare before and after runs on the same dyno.

I agree about about the horsepower numbers. I will definitely be taking mine to the drag track and see what she can do. My best is 9.4 second in the1/8 mile and 14.7 in the 1/4. Any plans Bass Mechanic to go to the track? It would be nice to see other setups.

bass mechanic · July 31, 2014

Aainst the older designed enforce where the runners crossed under the blower, they had huge heat soak issues, worse than the Maggie. This new design though is exactly what all the OEMS are going to like the vette zr1 and camaro zl1, dodge 6.2 helcat. It makes me think if they are going this way it must be for a reason. The only issue is the 2300 is a little big for a stock engine, the 1900 will start to boost earlier in the rev range where as the 2300 will be a bit more lazy. If edglebrock made a 1900 version it would be the cats meow. One more thing I've noticed is the eforce appears to have more belt wrap on the charger drive pulley which should make belt slip even more of a non-issue. I still haven't made up my mind which one either though, I need to wait and see what others have for experiences

Not to argue about hp numbers but you have to take into account two different dynos can give completely diffierent numbers for the same car. They are more useful to compare before and after runs on the same dyno.

i agree the numbers can be different, but to my point there is no question the maggie is running more boost and has less hp than the eb kit there is no denying that fact. and i believe it has a lot to do with lower AIT's

bass mechanic · July 31, 2014

I agree about about the horsepower numbers. I will definitely be taking mine to the drag track and see what she can do. My best is 9.4 second in the1/8 mile and 14.7 in the 1/4. Any plans Bass Mechanic to go to the track? It would be nice to see other setups.

i don't plan to make a race truck out of it by any means, but i do want to know the numbers.

the thing is i live at 6500 feet ASL and my numbers may not impress many.

but i do have a 1/4 mile application on my phone i plan to get a couple road side runs in on my way home from cali, and a speedo tach video for you guys to see.

i really wish i could do a 4wd launch to see what the 0-60 is but i am afraid to do it at seal level. once i get home depending on how much power it has i may try it because ill be making less power here.

thetruck454 · July 31, 2014

i agree the numbers can be different, but to my point there is no question the maggie is running more boost and has less hp than the eb kit there is no denying that fact. and i believe it has a lot to do with lower AIT's

.

Not to start a pissing contest, just trying to clarify things but per your earlier posts you stated. "The boost data was taking with logging software from the MAP sensor, not the dyno. Boost at 4500 6.25psi, 5500 7.5psi, and 6000 8 8.5psi.". On the mahnacharger website they have a dyno saying only 7.6 psi max for the 5.3. I can't find a magnacharged 6.2 to compare. Assuming the 5.3 kits runs the same boost and given that the enforce is more boost than the Maggie its not surprising it makes more HP. I do agree the new enforce intercooler/heat exchanger setup looks to be a better system which may allow more ignition timing.

Jennabear · July 31, 2014

Depends, I run 10psi on my 2300. I ran 11psi with the old Radix on my 04 5.3. A lot will have to do with the pulley and the tuning.

WendysOrBust · August 5, 2014

It might of been stated somewhere here, but does anyone know what the kit for the 5.3 will go for?

Chris · August 5, 2014

It might of been stated somewhere here, but does anyone know what the kit for the 5.3 will go for?

About the same price

WendysOrBust · August 5, 2014

About the same price

So around $7.5k with taxes?

Not gonna lie, thats pretty steep. Guess if someone can justify this it makes sense. As cool as I think it would be to supercharge my 5.3 just the kit with the install would be a bit shy of $10k. With what I paid for my truck I would much rather buy a 2014 FX4 EB and get a tune on it. Would yeild better numbers overall.

To each their own I guess.

Chris · August 5, 2014

So around $7.5k with taxes?

Not gonna lie, thats pretty steep. Guess if someone can justify this it makes sense. As cool as I think it would be to supercharge my 5.3 just the kit with the install would be a bit shy of $10k. With what I paid for my truck I would much rather buy a 2014 FX4 EB and get a tune on it. Would yeild better numbers overall.

To each their own I guess.

id rather have a 5.0 than EB, and the 5.0 is a pain to work on with no front clip. It is in my garage right now. No one wins when it comes to Ford

Crf450r420 · August 6, 2014

I'm thinking Ecotec3 Boost. If you can get better milage from a 5.3L than a V6, but it takes turbo to make power on the V6. What happens when you turbo the 5.3L? Shouldn't lose MPG with your foot out of it, but you should lose everyone with your foot in it. LOL Price will be similar, but it will be a lot more work. In the end it will make more power though.

bass mechanic · August 6, 2014

So around $7.5k with taxes?

Not gonna lie, thats pretty steep. Guess if someone can justify this it makes sense. As cool as I think it would be to supercharge my 5.3 just the kit with the install would be a bit shy of $10k. With what I paid for my truck I would much rather buy a 2014 FX4 EB and get a tune on it. Would yeild better numbers overall.

To each their own I guess.

its actually around 6500