Dallas Morning New Feature On Modded '07 GT500

[WP64]

Anyone know Gary Walker of Longview, Texas?

 

"Sixteen months ago, Mr. Walker, a 50-year-old Longview native and former fishing guide, bought a 2007 Shelby Mustang GT 500 – the one armed with a supercharged 500-horsepower, 5.4-liter V-8 that occupies every inch of space under the hood...That respect cost him roughly $20,000 and included a bigger supercharger with twice as much boost, a huge intake system, more efficient exhaust, lots of tweaks to the computer and other modifications"

 

Read the article here Longview man muscles up his Shelby Mustang

 

And it's in the business section

 

Cool story, but this part is not factual, "Every piece on the car was certified to California emissions standards, so all of the clean-air catalysts and purifying doohickeys are still functional" The "emission" parts may be installed and "functional" but the exhaust, K. Bell SC and the tune are not legal to install on your California car even if the car could pass "California emissions standards", none of those items are C.A.R.B. (California Air Resource Board) approved. But Mr. Walker resides in Texas, so California emission standards don't apply to his vehicle.

 

The words getting out to the general public Boys, be careful out there...

 

WP

[KBTECH]

The "emission" parts may be installed and "functional" but the exhaust, K. Bell SC and the tune are not legal to install on your California car even if the car could pass "California emissions standards", none of those items are C.A.R.B. (California Air Resource Board) approved.

 

Well, Mr. WP64, you may be right about other manufacturers parts like the headers, exhaust not being C.A.R.B legal, but you are dead wrong about our supercharger kit and tune. They sure as Hell are 50 state legal. CARB EO# D-271-16. You need to update your information. We've had this exemption since Feb 2008, and it covers all Mustangs through 2008, including ALL Shelby GT500s.

[WP64]

Well, Mr. WP64, you may be right about other manufacturers parts like the headers, exhaust not being C.A.R.B legal, but you are dead wrong about our supercharger kit and tune. They sure as Hell are 50 state legal. CARB EO# D-271-16. You need to update your information. We've had this exemption since Feb 2008, and it covers all Mustangs through 2008, including ALL Shelby GT500s.

Well, that's great Mr. KBTECH!!! I'll bet you had to get it to sell your supercharger to SAI for the SS package??? Care to comment on that? How much did it cost you? Funny, your company didn't seem to care much about us Californian's and the C.A.R.B. approval requirements B4 you started to sell your products to fabricators such as SAI; but I'm a business man as well and I understand the economics involved in bringing a product to market so I won't harp on you too much about it...

 

The Whipple 3.4 also has C.A.R.B. approval and their soon to be released 2.9 will also have C.A.R.B. approval and the Whipple 2.9 kit will come with GT fuel pumps 2.9 Whipple - No Rumors alleviating the Boot-A-Pump problems that so many of your customers have experienced; I know one GT500/KB owner (RIOFORD) that lost his motor because your BAP's failed, but that's only due to THEM wiring it incorrectly...Riiiight?

 

Perhaps if you talked about your weeks old (Feb. '08) C.A.R.B. approval a little better in your magazine advertising or on the various Mustang oriented Web forums I might not have made my mistake, but I'm sure you'll forgive me... I stand corrected :rolleyes:

 

Oh, welcome to the Team Shelby Forum, considering the profit and free advertising your company is making by selling your supercharger to SAI for their Super Snake and through Scott Drake you should consider becoming a sponsor or at the least a Team Shelby member; but I see you're an authorized advertiser so I guess that's a good start.

 

Lastly, although I do not speak for the forum I have noticed that you get what you put in around here KBTECH, and sometimes in spades... I honestly didn't know about your "weeks old" C.A.R.B. approval, no need to be insolent in your reply. I would suggest you search pnicholson's posts to get some tips from a fellow industry peer on how to respond to a critical post feedback.

 

Kind regards,

 

WP

 

 

EDIT: To make a finer point...

[buddywalk]

Well, that's great Mr. KBTECH!!! I'll bet you had to get it to sell your supercharger to SAI for the SS package??? Care to comment on that? How much did it cost you? Funny, your company didn't seem to care much about us Californian's and the C.A.R.B. approval requirements B4 you started to sell your products to fabricators such as SAI; but I'm a business man as well and I understand the economics involved in bringing a product to market so I won't harp on you too much about it...

 

The Whipple 3.4 also has C.A.R.B. approval and their soon to be released 2.9 will also have C.A.R.B. approval and the Whipple 2.9 kit will come with GT fuel pumps 2.9 Whipple - No Rumors alleviating the Boot-A-Pump problems that so many of your customers have experienced; I know one GT500/KB owner (RIOFORD) that lost his motor because your BAP's failed, but that's only due to THEM wiring it incorrectly...Riiiight?

 

Perhaps if you talked about your weeks old (Feb. '08) C.A.R.B. approval a little better in your magazine advertising or on the various Mustang oriented Web forums I might not have made my mistake, but I'm sure you'll forgive me... I stand corrected :rolleyes:

 

Oh, welcome to the Team Shelby Forum, considering the profit and free advertising your company is making by selling your supercharger to SAI for their Super Snake and through Scott Drake you should consider becoming a sponsor or at the least a Team Shelby member; but I see you're an authorized advertiser so I guess that's a good start.

 

Lastly, although I do not speak for the forum I have noticed that you get what you put in around here KBTECH, and sometimes in spades... I honestly didn't know about your "weeks old" C.A.R.B. approval, no need to be insolent in your reply. I would suggest you search pnicholson's posts to get some tips from a fellow industry peer on how to respond to a critical post feedback.

 

Kind regards,

 

WP

 

 

EDIT: To make a finer point... WP After reading what you wrote, sounds to me that you might have been born without a backbone or spine, everything you say is only as reliable as what you posted initially, once you have been exposed, how can anyone believe any of the crap that you think you now, so your a business man, if that is true ? I suppose that would explain some of the narrow minded views you so eagerly try and share on this forum. Let me guess, your Whipple SC whenever it is available , and whenever it has C.A.R.B. approval, you will have this imaginary SC installed on your $50,000.00+ car by someone who could not grad. from high school and might have difficulty spelling super charger,but not to worry it's a Whipple, it will probably jump strait out of the box, and mount itself, because its already got C.A.R.B. approval, and it's a Whipple !!! I could go on and on with what you wrote about the BAP and whatever else you said was the truth, people like yourself are the very reason I quit becoming involved in Forums like this, instead I think I'll go enjoy my Kenne Bell GT 500, just like I have been, for the last 14 months, it's not a Whipple but it is real.

[WP64]

WP After reading what you wrote, sounds to me that you might have been born without a backbone or spine, everything you say is only as reliable as what you posted initially, once you have been exposed, how can anyone believe any of the crap that you think you now, so your a business man, if that is true ? I suppose that would explain some of the narrow minded views you so eagerly try and share on this forum. Let me guess, your Whipple SC whenever it is available , and whenever it has C.A.R.B. approval, you will have this imaginary SC installed on your $50,000.00+ car by someone who could not grad. from high school and might have difficulty spelling super charger,but not to worry it's a Whipple, it will probably jump strait out of the box, and mount itself, because its already got C.A.R.B. approval, and it's a Whipple !!! I could go on and on with what you wrote about the BAP and whatever else you said was the truth, people like yourself are the very reason I quit becoming involved in Forums like this, instead I think I'll go enjoy my Kenne Bell GT 500, just like I have been, for the last 14 months, it's not a Whipple but it is real.

Well, I must say buddywalk, don't mess with Texas, Texans or Kenny Bell SC owners

 

OK Folks, I will first apologize to my fellow TS members for boring you with this, but buddywalk has questioned my honesty, integrity and mechanical abilities, being a man WITH a backbone and spine I cannot let that stand unanswered...

 

buddywalk, if you want an independent forum members take on my capabilities you can ask txshavers' , a fellow Texan, opinion; with two TS posts under your belt I don't expect you to know how to navigate the forum so here's his profile page for you to contact him txshavers profile page He has been to my 30 year old business in Oakland, CA and there I installed his EVO stage II kit as well as his exhaust mufflers; he also lent me a hand when I reinstalled my rear-end which I pulled during my AP Racing brake install that I did myself AP Racing Brake Install You should also note in this link the pictures of the coil-over suspension mods I did myself.

 

Speaking of my own GT500, everything on it I've installed, modified and tuned by myself and I am fully capable of installing the Whipple 2.9 kit on it and will do so once Justin at Lethal offers it for sale. If anyone would like a list of the mods I've done to my GT500 just ask and I'll PM it to you, it's a loooong list so I won't post it here but buddywalk I will PM it to you once this reply is posted. The only things that I have not done myself on my GT500 is welding (because I can't weld), engine tuning (because I don't have a dyno) and the LT headers install (because I don't have a lift).

 

Now, in regards to my original post in this topic that I started, what did you read to lead you to believe that I am a fraud, what exactly did I write to "expose" myself as a fraud? Afterall, you state, "everything you say is only as reliable as what you posted initially, once you have been exposed, how can anyone believe any of the crap that you think you now,..." ,which I'll assume refers to this, "Cool story, but this part is not factual, "Every piece on the car was certified to California emissions standards, so all of the clean-air catalysts and purifying doohickeys are still functional" The "emission" parts may be installed and "functional" but the exhaust, K. Bell SC and the tune are not legal to install on your California car even if the car could pass "California emissions standards", none of those items are C.A.R.B. (California Air Resource Board) approved. But Mr. Walker resides in Texas, so California emission standards don't apply to his vehicle.

 

buddywalk, you wouldn't happen to be Mr. Gary Walker of Longview, Texas would you or Terry Box who wrote the article for Dallas Morning News?

 

As you can see/read from KBTECH's own post, I am correct about the article not being "factual" regarding Mr. Walker's Texas car not being C.A.R.B. legal, "you may be right [he knows I'm 'right'] about other manufacturers parts like the headers, exhaust not being C.A.R.B legal, but you are dead wrong about our supercharger kit and tune." Amy Boylin, President of Shelby Automobiles, Inc., also agreed that the modifications listed in on Mr. Walker's car wouldn't pass C.A.R.B. "You can also bet that with long tube headers he isn't compliant in CA at all" Amy Boylin's Reply

 

Yes, I was incorrect that Kenny Bell's super charger/compressor has had C.A.R.B. certification for install on the GT500 for the last 10 weeks at the most, a fact that isn't on Kenny Bell's Web site but is vaguely listed by asterisk in the fine print of their price list. I have also done a Google search to see if their 2.8H is mentioned anywhere on the Web as having the certification for install on the GT500, but I could find no such Web listing. Does a fellow TS member have a Lexus-Nexus account that will search this for me there? I'd owe you one if you would lend me a hand.

 

buddywalk, I think you are full of sheott and a slanderous blowhard, the only way you can prove to me that YOU have a backbone is to apologize to me here on the the forum for insinuating that I am a fraud and incapable of working on my own $85,000+ (you got it wrong) GT500 and/or honestly writing about modifications to said vehicle... But I suspect that you won't by your own statement, "people like yourself are the very reason I quit becoming involved in Forums like this" and won't take the time to atone for your slanderous remarks; I for one can only ask that you'll practice some personal restraint before you directly insult, slander and/or insinuate fraud by another Team Shelby member.

 

Lastly, why don't you "go on and on with what wrote about the BAP and whatever else said was the truth" but before you do, contact RIOFORD his personal profile and ask him how much it cost him to replace his GT500 motor after his BAP's failed. Or how about this, do a search in the GT500 Mod Forum on BAP's and read through all the negative post regarding the BAP and why don't you, or anyone else including KBTECH, discuss the virtues of KB's BAP's when compared to replacing the stock GT500 fuel pumps with better fuel pumps that don't have to be overdriven to meet the demand of a larger aftermarket super charger... Come on, show me how much YOU freaking know buddywalk...

 

Now before this post gets pulled by a moderator I'm going to PM it to you, you want a piece of me, give it your best shot... Moderators, if you do pull this post you will be allowing buddywalk to slander me to the forum by insinuating that I am a fraud, which I am not, and if you believe that I should have reported it and not respond to it than every forum member who has read it up until now will/may believe buddywalk's slanderous lies before I have a chance to correct the record.

 

How's that for "backbone [and] or spine" for you buddy?

 

Jay Johnson

President & Owner, Ralph Johnson & Associates (Google Business Listing) This link has my address and 24/7 phone number, I won't hide from you behind the Web or a cowardly fictitious user name which I believe buddywalk is; like Willie Nelson sung about Poncho Villa, I wear my guns on the outside for all the World to see...

 

 

PS Welcome to the TS forum...

 

 

EDIT: Spelling, Sentence Structure and Clarity

[StratGirl]

[KBTECH]

Well, that's great Mr. KBTECH!!! I'll bet you had to get it to sell your supercharger to SAI for the SS package??? Care to comment on that? How much did it cost you? Funny, your company didn't seem to care much about us Californian's and the C.A.R.B. approval requirements B4 you started to sell your products to fabricators such as SAI; but I'm a business man as well and I understand the economics involved in bringing a product to market so I won't harp on you too much about it...

 

Thanks for not harping on us too much. It might hurt our feelings. I hate to spoil your misinformation party, but whether SAI decided to use our kits for the Super Snake or not we would have received our CARB EO, just like we do with all our street kits.

 

The Whipple 3.4 also has C.A.R.B. approval and their soon to be released 2.9 will also have C.A.R.B. approval and the Whipple 2.9 kit will come with GT fuel pumps 2.9 Whipple - No Rumors alleviating the Boot-A-Pump problems that so many of your customers have experienced; I know one GT500/KB owner (RIOFORD) that lost his motor because your BAP's failed, but that's only due to THEM wiring it incorrectly...Riiiight?

 

That's great about Whipple. We wish them all the luck. May the best kit win. Maybe something else you don't know like our CARB EO status is that Whipple certainly would use the Boost-A-Pump if they could, but they are no longer authorized to purchase them - we are the sole distributor of this product. Go ahead and ask them - they used to use them in all their kits too until they lost the deal to sell them. It had absolutely NOTHING to do with reliability of the product. The statement you make about "..so many problems.." is totally false and unsubstantiated. We also know the RioVista Ford customer who blew up their engine because the Boost-A-Pump was simply not hooked up. They ran the car once on the dyno and KNEW it was running lean, yet instead of investigating to see what was wrong, they ran it AGAIN, and yes they caused engine damage. And yes, that's right - it was wired incorrectly. We know more about this story than you do. If the BAP failed, SURELY they would have sent it back to us for repair and or replacement, but they did not because it was not the BAP that was the problem. We have never had a single BAP failure or pump failure from using the BAP. You had better have some real proof of your statements before you make them. One other little tidbit for you. The Ford GT pumps only flow 6% more than the GT500 pumps. Not enough for the ultra high hp these cars will be laying down. Maybe you should read some of the good information we have on our website about pumps and the Boost-A-Pump. You might become more well informed.

 

Perhaps if you talked about your weeks old (Feb. '08) C.A.R.B. approval a little better in your magazine advertising or on the various Mustang oriented Web forums I might not have made my mistake, but I'm sure you'll forgive me... I stand corrected :rolleyes:

 

Sure, we forgive you for that one, but we do not forgive you for any of the other untrue statements you are making.

 

Oh, welcome to the Team Shelby Forum, considering the profit and free advertising your company is making by selling your supercharger to SAI for their Super Snake and through Scott Drake you should consider becoming a sponsor or at the least a Team Shelby member; but I see you're an authorized advertiser so I guess that's a good start.

 

Once again, you should probably refrain from making untrue statements and accusations you know nothing about. Where do you get off making a statement like this? We are not only business associates with SAI, but friends with everyone there as well, and we take serious offense to your crude statement. Not only that, we are a PAID advertiser (read "sponsor"), and believe this a great site for some good information to be shared by the members and vendors alike. The fact that you are making false claims takes away from this goal, and we think everyone suffers because of it.

 

Lastly, although I do not speak for the forum I have noticed that you get what you put in around here KBTECH, and sometimes in spades... I honestly didn't know about your "weeks old" C.A.R.B. approval, no need to be insolent in your reply. I would suggest you search pnicholson's posts to get some tips from a fellow industry peer on how to respond to a critical post feedback.

 

Thanks for the pointers on how to respond, but somehow I think we'll do just fine. If anyone has any objections to us standing up against false statements just let us know.

 

Regards,

 

Ken

[07SHELBY GT]

That's what I call a heated :devil: debate!Back to your corners and come out fighting!

[carnut]

Must be something in the water, can I start something. Please!

[Vogon]

Okay, is it just me or was anybody else impressed with the guy doing the mods in his carport? One look in the engine bay these days has me giving up any hope of doing anything but the most basic things. Sounds like McGyver: give me a shoebox and desk fan, and yes, some duct tape, and I'll have that thing turning your tires to goo in a few minutes.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_probl...ved_by_MacGyver

 

Okay, I exaggerate, but kudos to him...

[Grabber]

Lets all keep a calm and cool perspective of things here. There is no need for insults to one another. If you need to take a chill pill or 2....do it. If the back and forth gets ugly in it's tone between posters, then the thread will be closed. There is no need to take digs on one another.

 

[Michael Morris]

IF WP posted something that wasnt true it was by MISTAKE. He was not running done the Kenne-Bell supercharger. Lets get this back to civil folks. If someone posted something you dont like its VERY easy to respond CIVIL that they have the wrong info and that this is the correct info. NO need to call him a lair with No backbone or spine.

 

I have a KB on my car and really like it. KB has been GREAT everytime I have called customer service. WP was NOT putting down your PRODUCT. He was commenting the the article said that the car was 100% CAFE.

 

michael morris

[68fastback]

I think he cheated ...and used a swiss army knife and a leatherman too

[WP64]

IF WP posted something that wasnt true it was by MISTAKE. He was not running done the Kenne-Bell supercharger. Lets get this back to civil folks. If someone posted something you dont like its VERY easy to respond CIVIL that they have the wrong info and that this is the correct info. NO need to call him a lair with No backbone or spine.

 

I have a KB on my car and really like it. KB has been GREAT everytime I have called customer service. WP was NOT putting down your PRODUCT. He was commenting the the article said that the car was 100% CAFE.

 

michael morris

 

Thank you Michael and Grabber.

 

I will only say this to you Ken, if you had responded to the original topic post in a civil manner and corrected my half-mistake in a friendly "Team" manner and tone I would not have replied in kind... The article was wrong in stating the the Texas gentleman's GT500 was California C.A.R.B. legal, you, Amy Boylan and I know this to be true and I pointed this out in a lighthearted fashion which you took offense to.

 

Lighten up Kenny Bell Tech, you have much more to loose here than I ever will.

 

Here's to the 'Team', Cheers to all :beerchug:

 

Jay Johnson

WP64

[KBTECH]

Thank you Michael and Grabber.

 

I will only say this to you Ken, if you had responded to the original topic post in a civil manner and corrected my half-mistake in a friendly "Team" manner and tone I would not have replied in kind... The article was wrong in stating the the Texas gentleman's GT500 was California C.A.R.B. legal, you, Amy Boylan and I know this to be true and I pointed this out in a lighthearted fashion which you took offense to.

 

Lighten up Kenny Bell Tech, you have much more to loose here than I ever will.

 

Here's to the 'Team', Cheers to all :beerchug:

 

Jay Johnson

WP64

 

I apologize for using the words "sure as Hell" regarding our CARB EO status in my original post. That was not a flame, it was a reaction to something we worked hard to get, and you had it wrong.

 

I will say this: anyone, anywhere who posts unthruths or misinformation about us or our products and we find out about it, we will defend ourselves and post the factual information. If we took it in a personal way, well, we do. If the debate is legitimate, then we don't mind that either.

 

WP64, you sure make yourself out to be the really true blue good guy here. If everyone here could only see what you just PM'd me, maybe they would see another side of you, but I won't expose that side of you.

 

Let's let it go. It takes more time and energy to flame people than it does to discuss the things people really care about.

 

Regards,

 

Ken

[68fastback]

KB tech, can you clarify something for me?

 

Are you saying that DC pumps that were engineered to run at voltage X and flow Y, and then have their input voltage artificially kicked-up via an intervening voltage booster/controller to voltage X+n can thence continuously operate of presure Y+n and that in no way shortens the life of that pump?

 

You objected in your reply to WP64 to the notion that a BAP may have ever caused a pump to fail ...is that correct? Or is that just for lack of customer proof?

 

Would you not allow that whether someone has clinical proof of such happening that it is axiomatic that a BAP *must* in fact shorten the dependent pumps service life even if properly installed? If so, any idea by how much? Is it more a matter of a linear reduction based on cumulative WOT duration? Has that been studied in your lab? It would seem fairly easy to do.

 

When pumps do fail, are the failure syndromes of the BAP+pumps for the tune that comes with the KB 2.8 kit essentially identical failure syndromes to the pumps driven at factory engineered levels with the stock tune? Have such failure syndromes been studied buy the manufacturer or by KB?

 

I guess I'm struggling with the notion of the BAP being somehow transparent to failure rate and/or type which would seem physically impossible. Any stats to allay that concern would be much appreciated, if available.

 

Dan

[KBTECH]

KB tech, can you clarify something for me?

 

Are you saying that DC pumps that were engineered to run at voltage X and flow Y, and then have their input voltage artificially kicked-up via an intervening voltage booster/controller to voltage X+n can thence continuously operate of presure Y+n and that in no way shortens the life of that pump?

 

All the pump flow charts we have been given from the manufacturers go to 18 volts (we stop at 17.2-17.5). The manufacturers we consulted with back in 1997 (yes 11 years ago) and through today have given us the green light to run both positive displacement and turbine pumps up to 18 volts continuously without effecting their longevity. Please also note that PWM (Pulse Width Modulated) pumps on today's cars do not run at 18 volts, even with the BAP installed. The BAP supplies the FPDM (Fuel Pump Driver Module) with a nice clean steady voltage (when activated). No voltage drop = better FPDM performance and less operating duty cycle on the pumps to provide the same pressure. This can extend pump life, not shorten it.

 

You objected in your reply to WP64 to the notion that a BAP may have ever caused a pump to fail ...is that correct? Or is that just for lack of customer proof?

 

Yes, we did object because based on 11 years of service and literally thousands of units out there, we have yet to see a pump come back to us, or a single legitimate complaint that caused a single pump failure. If there ever has been a pump failure, we have not seen it. Why wouldn't our customers send them to us if they did fail so we could determine the cause? That's because it simply does not happen. As long as these units are installed properly, they will function for years and years. When we first designed and built the Boost-A-Pump, we built our own fuel flow bench and subjected every available pump on the market to brutal tests, switching them on and off repeatedly, and running them continuously for hundreds and hundreds of hours, no failures.

 

Would you not allow that whether someone has clinical proof of such happening that it is axiomatic that a BAP *must* in fact shorten the dependent pumps service life even if properly installed? If so, any idea by how much? Is it more a matter of a linear reduction based on cumulative WOT duration? Has that been studied in your lab? It would seem fairly easy to do.

 

See the answer to your last question. We have found no proof whatsoever that the use of the BAP will shorten the life of any fuel pump when properly used and installed. Neither has anyone else to our knowledge. If they have, where is their supporting data? Where are the failed pumps?

 

When pumps do fail, are the failure syndromes of the BAP+pumps for the tune that comes with the KB 2.8 kit essentially identical failure syndromes to the pumps driven at factory engineered levels with the stock tune? Have such failure syndromes been studied buy the manufacturer or by KB?

 

Again, we will ask "Where are all these failed pumps? In as far as we know this "syndrome" does not exist and has never been any issue whatsoever. 11 years of continuous use surely must serve as good, reliable test data?

 

I guess I'm struggling with the notion of the BAP being somehow transparent to failure rate and/or type which would seem physically impossible. Any stats to allay that concern would be much appreciated, if available.

 

Dan, we do not sell products that we do not deem as very reliable and will last for many years when installed properly and not abused or misued. That is not the nature of our business. We do not resell other manufacturer's products that have never been tested or proven. We do all our own engineering and testing in-house and our products are manufactured by us for our customers. Our track record should hopefully speak for itself. We have a lot of good information on pump testing about our Boost-A-Pump on our website at http://www.kennebell.net/accessories/boost.../boostapump.htm for anyone who is interested.

 

We hope this helps.

 

Regards,

 

Ken

[68fastback]

Ken, thanks for the prompt response and insight ...some follow-up after reading over those links, if I may...

 

All the pump flow charts we have been given from the manufacturers go to 18 volts (we stop at 17.2-17.5). The manufacturers we consulted with back in 1997 (yes 11 years ago) and through today have given us the green light to run both positive displacement and turbine pumps up to 18 volts continuously without effecting their longevity. Please also note that PWM (Pulse Width Modulated) pumps on today's cars do not run at 18 volts, even with the BAP installed.

 

I appreciate your point on voltage and pumps/motors -- higher voltage isn't necessarily worse (and can in fact be better). And precise voltage regulation is a significant benefit. Assuming 17.2-17.5 volts is optimum reliability at WOT (because, regardless of paper specs, only one voltage can be failure-rate optimized) why would the manufacturers spec 18v-optimized pump designs for 12-14.7 volt applications? It would seem more logical for OEMs to design for maximum life since that's invariably a key design point. I'm not trying to say 17.5v is suboptimum, just that one or the other must be optimum from a failure p.o.v.. I realize design specifications may have a specific operating range, and manufacturers may warrant performance within that range, and controllers are typically digitally encoded mechanisms and that PWM is merely a convenient mechanism to shift control to the time domain (on-off) from the voltage domain (precisely controlled variability) but the physical world is analog, in which there can effectively be only one optimum point for a fixed set of conditions. So that still makes me wonder which it is, regardless of manufacturers' specs/claims/warrantees. So I wonder if 17.2-17.5 is truly optimal from a reliability p.o.v. or merely within the pump mfgr engineering design spec. I guess only the pump manufacturers would know the asnwer to that, so I don't mean to put this on you -- but I still wonder about it as a valid engineering question.

 

The lab testing KB has done is certainly goodness but does it represent continuous WOT conditions: 90% capacity, elevated output pressures simulating overdriving stock injectors in high-boost Delta envoronments etc... i.e. the worst-case conditions? It's inconceivable to me failure rates under such conditions will be equal or better than stock as those PDFs both state and imply (but with unpsecificed test procedures, etc).

 

The BAP supplies the FPDM (Fuel Pump Driver Module) with a nice clean steady voltage (when activated). No voltage drop = better FPDM performance and less operating duty cycle on the pumps to provide the same pressure. This can extend pump life, not shorten it.

 

I agree that voltage-stabilization adds a real degree of presure/flow consistency beyond stock. I also believe the BAP can do that for the same pressure and flow and at the optimum design point. So let me ask: are the injectors in the kit run at the same pressure as stock injectors? If so, a higher duty cycle at elevated pressures would necessarily shorten pump service life. Output flow resistance (pressure) for a given volume (flow) is the single largest cause of premature pump failure for returnless systems -- or so I've read.

 

Certainly the tune/AFs at WOT affect the injector PWM necesary to sustain the required flow at a given pressure and certainly the BAP at WOT enablea the pumps to flow more (no problem), just asking about the *method* above in the kit -- higher pressures or bigger injectors at injector design-pressures?

 

And, of course, when any additional component is added into an existing system the opportunities for failure increase -- and not tpically linearly either (more connections, another device, more points of potential failure, etc), but that's a conscious decision as well, unrelated to pump service life, but could be a 2.8 kit consideration as well, vs higher capacity pumps -- that admittedly may not exist as direct replacements to fit the mustang tank(s) [dunno] and likely would cost much more than the BAP approach too.

 

However, I can't agree at an engineering level that pumps designed for the higher pressure and flow/duty-cycle would be *less* reliable than the BAP+existing pumps as the PDFs state, unless you have installed kits both ways and compared failure rates and syndromes over extended periods in the lab and/or from field data.

 

Yes, we did object because based on 11 years of service and literally thousands of units out there, we have yet to see a pump come back to us, or a single legitimate complaint that caused a single pump failure. If there ever has been a pump failure, we have not seen it. Why wouldn't our customers send them to us if they did fail so we could determine the cause? That's because it simply does not happen. As long as these units are installed properly, they will function for years and years. When we first designed and built the Boost-A-Pump, we built our own fuel flow bench and subjected every available pump on the market to brutal tests, switching them on and off repeatedly, and running them continuously for hundreds and hundreds of hours, no failures.

 

Well, your giving me an anecdotal answer to an engineering question, so I can neither agree nor disagree with your statement re failure rates based on a lack of pumps coming back to you. That is, whether many or none come back to you is not necessarily related to failure rates/syndromes as much as how owners respond to a failure or perceive component failure and failure esponsibility, etc. Pumps do fail. Still it's good to hear that you've seen not one failure in 11 years with the BAP -- truly amazing!

 

Btw, *every* system has a failure rate and related failure syndromes; I was just trying to get a handle on comparative testing (w/ w/o BAP). In WWII all the planes that didn't come back unfortunately couldn't be analyzed for failure syndromes but they failed none the less, so the Air Force did something truly clever. After all other analyses had failed, they decided to map every bullet hole on every plane that *did* return and, in a matter of weeks, the location with *no holes* was, necessarily, the default point of failure on the planes that didn't come back -- ingenious! It wasn't the expected component failure syndrome (like fuel system, hoses, control surfaces) -- it was bullets hitting a critical unprotected component! All planes where then modified (armored) in that small area and surviveability/return rates soared and was a turning point in the air campaign.

 

To use a lack of failed pumps coming back to you as proof of durability, you'd have to have control over every car and then map every component failure (not just yours) on every GT500 you'd evaluate (customer or not) to see if no failures were attributable to just the addition of the BAPs -- maybe not practical or cost-effective and possibly more complicated than the Air Force example where failures were dominated by a single cause (not random) due to a specific external influence (bullets). Failed GT500s with 2.8 kit installations have most likely occurred but, lacking an analysis to validate a claimed failure-free BAP record, there now way to know if an anecdotal record of no failed pumps being returned has merit or not. Of course that doesn't imply any problems either ...and that's the point -- it's just anecdotal because the premise as proof is flawed to begin with. Still, anecdotal evidence of reliability is better than none at all, just not a valid surrogate for rigorous field failure analysis, imo.

 

See the answer to your last question. We have found no proof whatsoever that the use of the BAP will shorten the life of any fuel pump when properly used and installed. Neither has anyone else to our knowledge. If they have, where is their supporting data? Where are the failed pumps?

 

That's my question too -- see above.

 

 

Again, we will ask "Where are all these failed pumps? In as far as we know this "syndrome" does not exist and has never been any issue whatsoever. 11 years of continuous use surely must serve as good, reliable test data?

 

I don't know where they are either -- you won't either unless you specifically solicit that information from 2.8 kit owners with any kind of failure whatsoever -- whether due to installation error or not and whether S/C failure or major engine failure or TB-irregularities, eor bad-fuel etc. ...whatever -- literally anything! I'm aware of some failures/problems, but have no idea of the root cause or any specific data since I don't keep a list and they're not my cars. You can't be sure failure syndromes don't exist for two reasons: 1) they *always* exist (no such thing as a failure-free physical system), 2) I assume such field analyses have not been done, else you would not be asking me where the data is, etc.

 

Please don't take that the wrong way, it's just based on your observations/comments. Sorry if that sounds like an wise-crack -- I really don't mean it that way at all ...just trying to get some engineering insight on how the BAP does/doesn't affect pump failures or any collateral failures that do/don't result. Failures are inevitable, whether detected or not and whether reported or not.

 

Btw, I don't mean to be picking on the BAP, I have similar concerns for things like MAF-scalers vs a properly-sized MAF, and some other aftermarket products, but they're a different subject.

 

 

Dan, we do not sell products that we do not deem as very reliable and will last for many years when installed properly and not abused or misued. That is not the nature of our business. We do not resell other manufacturer's products that have never been tested or proven. We do all our own engineering and testing in-house and our products are manufactured by us for our customers. Our track record should hopefully speak for itself. We have a lot of good information on pump testing about our Boost-A-Pump on our website at http://www.kennebell.net/accessories/boost.../boostapump.htm for anyone who is interested.

 

I appreciate that -- I'm merely discussing how you've come to deem their reliability. Even if totally not your problem, additional complexity necessarily raises the opportunity for higher failure rates and lacking a NASA-like level of engineering/testing will affect RAS (reliability, availability and serviceability) in some way. There's no magic in quality management, just hard work (again, not directed at you, just a fact).

 

I realize KB has a good reputaion and long-standing track record with many racing customers who rely on your products to compete and win, so I thank you for being willing to discuss this. I should also add that, from what I've heard, you have a great reputation for excellent customer service. Some of the considerations/evaluations I raise above potentially can further enhance that and reduce field-replacement expense as well. Virtually every business invariably have room for significant improvement and it's always cheaper and more effective to do things right the first time (again, not a KB-targeted comment, just a fact).

 

If corporate six-sigma quality programs were rigorously employed in the aftermarket it would be a real distinguisher for those who successfully pull it off. I don't mean that as an aftermarket shot either, only that after many years of corporate life I've never seen a process that can't be improved in a total-system sense and still carry the cost of doing so, either in reduced expense and/or improved profitability -- tho often the consideration becomes a now vs later tradeoff ...a perfectly valid consideration if it's conscious, i.e. knowing precisely what's being traded-off over the product life-cycle and quantifying it in $ -- including all intangeables (like reputation) and opportunity costs/timing, etc, which can often pull in different directions. That's sort of where I'm coming from.

 

 

We hope this helps.

 

Regards,

 

Ken

 

Yes, a little -- I hope the above helps too -- I could be more helpfull if I lived in CA ;-)

 

In retrospect, this might just be too complex a topic to discuss in detail here in a forum -- even the above 1,000' view is a bit tedious -- my appologies for that -- I'm always a sucker for getting at the core of how things *truly* work/interact. Still, I think my initial premise is valid at an engineering level regardless of anecdotal evidence of perfect reliability. I also see some minor discrepancies in those PDF files, e.g. typical voltage is 13.2-14.7, not 12. So BAP capacity increase would seem to actually be 19-32% not 50% (and that's using 17.5v; would be less using 17.2v). Some other anomolies too.

 

Actually, pump capacity increases aside, I see the BAP's voltage regulation, which I assume is functional even when fuel demand is within stock capacity and the BAPis therefore not kicking up the voltage, as an important independent benefit. My preference would be to run it for that reason but not for the flow if it were available via dedicated pumps at reasonable expense (I know, that's the problem <lol>). Still, those charts in the PDFs that state a drop in stock voltage/capacity can potentially imperil the motor would seem just as perilous *if* a BAP+pump installation failed for any reason, would it not? Maybe more so *if* the drop-off were more rapid (for eample, if a rapid voltage drop on a BAP failure were a known failure syndrome -- which I'm not saying even exists (just using as an example).

 

So, I'm saying I haven't seen any indisputable facts yet to cause me to change my fundamental engineering-level concern -- which doesn't *necessarily* indicate any KB problem lacking hard failure facts -- hence my questions to gain a more detailed understanding of the total-system effect of the BAP.

 

Thanks again for your comments.

 

Dan

[Joe G]

Dan,

 

I'm exhausted just reading that.

 

You amaze me with your tech posts.

 

 

 

I don't fully understand them, but you amaze me nontheless.

 

:D

[carnut]

Yep. I agree with Dan, I was wondering the same thing myself.

[HARLEYDEALER]

Yep. I agree with Dan, I was wondering the same thing myself.

OK guys, I don't have a collage degree, but I was born a mechanic (in my book you are given the gift at birth or not, you cannot learn it from books) and with a lot of common sense. Big words or in depth talk on how or why something works don't impress me in fact it bores me! This I do know every thing breaks so it my have a fail rate, and expectable fail rates vary from company to company as it does county to county, if you don't believe me than visit Japan then go to China! The what ifs kill me, some times I think we have the same chance that a plane falling out of the sky on me have about the same odds. The thing is again, I'm sure stock pumps will fail and so will an increase voltage driven pump will fail but have not heard of either one failing and now you may discuss the 1 or 2 out of a thousand or more, I think I have a better chance of drawing 3 aces out of a deck in a single draw, then my pump going bad and believe me, if you have bump your HP up that much! A pump will be the last thing you are going to worry about and that's a FACT! IMO Bill

[68fastback]

Yep. I agree with Dan, I was wondering the same thing myself.

 

;-)

[RStangsOC]

WOW - Spend the weekend at Knotts and come back to a HUGE thread

 

Glad to see this all ended up "friendly" at the end of it all

 

Page

[WP64]

WOW - Spend the weekend at Knotts and come back to a HUGE thread

 

Glad to see this all ended up "friendly" at the end of it all

 

Page

 

It almost ended "frendly" Page, I'm still waiting for buddywalk to find his "backbone" and admit he was wrong, but I'm not holding my breath and as some have PMed me, I'm not going to let rude and defensive people get me down. I suspect he's a regular here and buddywalk is just a way for him to throw stones while hiding his real identity, how "spineless" is that?

 

I made a half-mistake in this topics original post regarding Mr. Bell's compressor and it's recent CARB approval, I said that I was "incorrect" and toasted the 'Team' for the betterment of Team Shelby.

But I will stand by the premiss of my lighthearted comment that the linked Dallas Morning News article was/is not factual.

 

Thanks to all that PMed me and thanks again to Michael and Grabber, and for your well reasoned additions to this thread, I thank you Dan.

 

Back to work, have a good week everybody.

 

WP

 

EDIT: Spelling

[RStangsOC]

It almost ended "frendly" Page, I'm still waiting for buddywalk to find his "backbone" and admit he was wrong, but I'm not holding my breath and as some have PMed me, I'm not going to let rude and defensive people get me down. I suspect he's a regular here and buddywalk is just a way for him to throw stones while hiding his real identity, how "spineless" is that?

 

I made a half-mistake in this topics original post regarding Mr. Bell's compressor and it's recent CARB approval, I said that I was "incorrect" and toasted the 'Team' for the betterment of Team Shelby.

But I will stand by the premiss of my lighthearted comment that the linked Dallas Morning News article was/is not factual.

 

Thanks to all that PMed me and thanks again to Michael and Grabber, and for your well reasoned additions to this thread, I thank you Dan.

 

Back to work, have a good week everybody.

 

WP

 

EDIT: Spelling

 

Hey WP,

 

I suspect you probably wont see much in the way of an admission of being wrong from buddywalk - looks like that was only his second post. You are probably right - a regular that is trying to stir the pot maybe by creating another username to post under. 100% agreed - very spineless.

 

And - you are 100% correct - the original Dallas Morning News article wasnt 100% factual. People read things in the press and take them as gospel. Rarely is this the case though.

 

Page

[68fastback]

OK guys, I don't have a collage degree, but I was born a mechanic (in my book you are given the gift at birth or not, you cannot learn it from books) and with a lot of common sense. Big words or in depth talk on how or why something works don't impress me in fact it bores me! This I do know every thing breaks so it my have a fail rate, and expectable fail rates vary from company to company as it does county to county, if you don't believe me than visit Japan then go to China! The what ifs kill me, some times I think we have the same chance that a plane falling out of the sky on me have about the same odds. The thing is again, I'm sure stock pumps will fail and so will an increase voltage driven pump will fail but have not heard of either one failing and now you may discuss the 1 or 2 out of a thousand or more, I think I have a better chance of drawing 3 aces out of a deck in a single draw, then my pump going bad and believe me, if you have bump your HP up that much! A pump will be the last thing you are going to worry about and that's a FACT! IMO Bill

 

Hi Bill, yes I agree pumps are extremely reliable mechanical components (amazingly so, I think). One of my points to KBTech was that when you design a system that adds components, connections, switches, etc, the total system reliablility can degrade very rapidly while each component, taken individually, may still appear to be highly reliable. Pumps, BAPs, wiring, instructions, etc that don't come back (i.e. complaints that are not made) have no bearing whatsoever on actual system reliability or failure rates.

 

For KBTech and the KB website to make some of the reliability assertions they do, they would have to have done testing, imho, with statistically-significant numbers of various types/brands of stock pumps *and* stock+BAPs (total system installations of pump types and brands) in relevant [WOT?] use scenarios until *all* actually *do* fail (not just cycling them on a flowbench for a couple hundred hours) -- and only *then* calculate MTBF for the stock vs stock+BAP configurations for comparative analysis.

 

Lacking such statistically meaningfull testing (if it's lacking -- dunno), claims of BAP's never failing and/or BAP+pump reliability being higher is mere speculation at best with no proven basis in relevant fact. It doesn't mean the product is or isn't good or reliable, it just means, well, nothing!

 

In at least one case mentioned, the installation was done 'wrong.' Did the installation instructions reliably cover that error or was there a valid interpretation of the instructions that lead to the error? Has someone actually analyzed whether a valid misinterpretation of the instructions occurred? If that's what happened, that's *not* a user error, it's a product defect because even tho no mechanical component failed, what failed is the functioning of the total system as purchased/installed (instructions are part of the product). If the instructions validly excluded a [true] user error, and it was installed wrong anyway, then that's a user error.

 

My understanding is that Federal Trade Commission rules mandate that product claims (for products sold across state lines via mail, phone or other remote order methods) be proven, documented, and such proof maintained on-file prior to first-occurrence of making a related advertising claim. Proof documented after an advertising claim is not considered a valid proof for purchases occurring prior to such documentation being placed on file. Of course, advertising claims have to also be valid. If more than one valid interpretation reasonably exists, the customer's valid interpretation trumps the product provider's and is default grounds for a full refund. That is all in FTC rules.

 

When I look at the PDFs in the links KBTech posted, I see what appears to be overstated capacity (50% vs 19-31% at best, etc) and unproven reliability assertions -- tests that *appear* to not support the stated claims of zero-failures and total reliability of pump(s)+BAP being better than pump(s) alone.

 

Whether those claims are true or not is not the main point, as much as the proof in support of the claims i the materials I read appearing to be largely baseless. But that's just this reader's opinion. Possibly there's a whole lot more 'proof' that isn't published -- in which case it is hopefully on-file for a long time (11 years?). If so it would be good to see it put up on the website too.

 

Dan

[HARLEYDEALER]

Hi Bill, yes I agree pumps are extremely reliable mechanical components (amazingly so, I think). One of my points to KBTech was that when you design a system that adds components, connections, switches, etc, the total system reliablility can degrade very rapidly while each component, taken individually, may still appear to be highly reliable. Pumps, BAPs, wiring, instructions, etc that don't come back (i.e. complaints that are not made) have no bearing whatsoever on actual system reliability or failure rates.

 

For KBTech and the KB website to make some of the reliability assertions they do, they would have to have done testing, imho, with statistically-significant numbers of various types/brands of stock pumps *and* stock+BAPs (total system installations of pump types and brands) in relevant [WOT?] use scenarios until *all* actually *do* fail (not just cycling them on a flowbench for a couple hundred hours) -- and only *then* calculate MTBF for the stock vs stock+BAP configurations for comparative analysis.

 

Lacking such statistically meaningfull testing (if it's lacking -- dunno), claims of BAP's never failing and/or BAP+pump reliability being higher is mere speculation at best with no proven basis in relevant fact. It doesn't mean the product is or isn't good or reliable, it just means, well, nothing!

 

In at least one case mentioned, the installation was done 'wrong.' Did the installation instructions reliably cover that error or was there a valid interpretation of the instructions that lead to the error? Has someone actually analyzed whether a valid misinterpretation of the instructions occurred? If that's what happened, that's *not* a user error, it's a product defect because even tho no mechanical component failed, what failed is the functioning of the total system as purchased/installed (instructions are part of the product). If the instructions validly excluded a [true] user error, and it was installed wrong anyway, then that's a user error.

 

My understanding is that Federal Trade Commission rules mandate that product claims (for products sold across state lines via mail, phone or other remote order methods) be proven, documented, and such proof maintained on-file prior to first-occurrence of making a related advertising claim. Proof documented after an advertising claim is not considered a valid proof for purchases occurring prior to such documentation being placed on file. Of course, advertising claims have to also be valid. If more than one valid interpretation reasonably exists, the customer's valid interpretation trumps the product provider's and is default grounds for a full refund. That is all in FTC rules.

 

When I look at the PDFs in the links KBTech posted, I see what appears to be overstated capacity (50% vs 19-31% at best, etc) and unproven reliability assertions -- tests that *appear* to not support the stated claims of zero-failures and total reliability of pump(s)+BAP being better than pump(s) alone.

 

Whether those claims are true or not is not the main point, as much as the proof in support of the claims i the materials I read appearing to be largely baseless. But that's just this reader's opinion. Possibly there's a whole lot more 'proof' that isn't published -- in which case it is hopefully on-file for a long time (11 years?). If so it would be good to see it put up on the website too.

 

Dan

Dan, I'm sorry you think this way, not sure if there are pills for this but you need to get a grip, we do not need FTC rules or any one policing this forum on how valid any thing is, there is a lot of BS that is talked about but that's just the way these forums are, we put a lot of crap on the walls and you pick which one sticks and works for you, you pick! I put on my own Kenny Bell Stage 3, I had no problems, you should for yourself read the instructions and look at all the cool pictures, then install one yourself, like I did, then if you wish to make an improvement we will all listen. BUT THERE ARE NO PROBLEMS! No one that has came on the many forums that I read which problems with the Kenny Bell instructions or problems with the boost a pump, in fact now other tuners are using the boost a pumps on other blower systems to obtain the proper amount of fuel, and believe me this is now the hot setup for more fuel. I have read many great remarks on how well the KB instructions are and found this MYSELF to be VERY TRUE! Now the increase use of the boost a pump is being accepted. Are we going to blow engines, heck ya! But thats OK, have you ever seen so much horse power easily gotten! So please save the BS and what ifs, again its very boring reading about some rules or regulations, the sky is not falling and go save a tree or something! I'm done, if I have to explain any more you will never understand! Bill

[68fastback]

Dan, I'm sorry you think this way, not sure if there are pills for this but you need to get a grip, we do not need FTC rules or any one policing this forum on how valid any thing is, there is a lot of BS that is talked about but that's just the way these forums are, we put a lot of crap on the walls and you pick which one sticks and works for you, you pick! I put on my own Kenny Bell Stage 3, I had no problems, you should for yourself read the instructions and look at all the cool pictures, then install one yourself, like I did, then if you wish to make an improvement we will all listen. BUT THERE ARE NO PROBLEMS! No one that has came on the many forums that I read which problems with the Kenny Bell instructions or problems with the boost a pump, in fact now other tuners are using the boost a pumps on other blower systems to obtain the proper amount of fuel, and believe me this is now the hot setup for more fuel. I have read many great remarks on how well the KB instructions are and found this MYSELF to be VERY TRUE! Now the increase use of the boost a pump is being accepted. Are we going to blow engines, heck ya! But thats OK, have you ever seen so much horse power easily gotten! So please save the BS and what ifs, again its very boring reading about some rules or regulations, the sky is not falling and go save a tree or something! I'm done, if I have to explain any more you will never understand! Bill

 

Bill, why do you call my carefully thought-out logic "BS?" Do you disagree with it on some rational basis? I think it's you who are not understanding. I was sharing my observations -- my points address KBTech's comments and the related links he posted.

 

If you find my logic and reason boring, I suggest you don't read it. I know BS when I see it and it's not in my posts.

 

My points stand: I find claims by KBtech and on the KB site to be unsupported by the information provided... simple.

 

It's great that you like their stage-3 kit -- many folks do.

 

-Dan

[HARLEYDEALER]

Bill, why do you call my carefully thought-out logic "BS?" Do you disagree with it on some rational basis? I think it's you who are not understanding. I was sharing my observations -- my points address KBTech's comments and the related links he posted.

 

If you find my logic and reason boring, I suggest you don't read it. I know BS when I see it and it's not in my posts.

 

My points stand: I find claims by KBtech and on the KB site to be unsupported by the information provided... simple.

 

It's great that you like their stage-3 kit -- many folks do.

 

-Dan

Dan, I am real sorry, I know you mean well and most likely correct concerning unsupported informatiom. But I ( just me) never have like to talk about the what ifs, I look at something make a fast opion of the product by trying to look at all the possiblilties good and bad, if the good out weights the bad, I jump in with both feet, leaving most others on the bank while they are still thinking. I do not know how you think or even why and the same for you about me, I'm sure. So again I'm sorry and lets move on, I'm sure we can breath the same air and be cool to each other, Thanks for you keeping an cool head! Bill

[WP64]

Dan, I am real sorry, I know you mean well and most likely correct concerning unsupported informatiom. But I ( just me) never have like to talk about the what ifs, I look at something make a fast opion of the product by trying to look at all the possiblilties good and bad, if the good out weights the bad, I jump in with both feet, leaving most others on the bank while they are still thinking. I do not know how you think or even why and the same for you about me, I'm sure. So again I'm sorry and lets move on, I'm sure we can breath the same air and be cool to each other, Thanks for you keeping an cool head! Bill

 

Well that ended better than I thought it would, I'm glad you two can aggressively debate and still be cool to each other, but I'm beginning to think this topic that I started is cursed...