Whipple Stage 2 with 3.625 first time at the track results

Need some input from those with a Whipple 6R80 running Whipple tune on flight control


Car – 2015 FB Premium fully loaded 6R80 (3.15 gears) with a stage 2 , 3.625” pulley , dual fans , LTrunning on 305/40/18 MT SS ( 27.60”) 17 psi
Ran on 93 oct with 5 gallons of 100 oct Sunoco

Car made 638/ 512 on a Mustang Dyno ( Stocks read like 325 on that dyno). Pull in 4th with same 93/100 mix

1 pass just with RPM set on max
11.55@ 123 with 1.72- 60’ 1/8 -7.51

Second pass changed tire rev per mile to 730 (was at 765 default with stock 265/30/20 which is shorter (27.3”)??
Aslo turned off every nanny on the left
11.54@ 123 with 1.72 -60’ 1/8- 7.50

Repeated
11.48@ 123 with 1.71- 60’ 1/8- 7.45

Seems slowwwww to me at the power level
Calculated DA at 1600

My 2013 ran 11.9 @ 115 with 1.6- 60’ 1/8- 7.6with just 420 on a Mustang dyno and short shifting on 1/2

I have some more juice on the 60’but the 220 HP difference should account for more that 0.5 sec
Was expecting trap around 130

Drivability on this tune is superb and the flight control features + auto tune adjustments is great . The car pulls strong and felt faster than the numbers


What could I be missing?

The Whipple tune has a lot of built in protections. For a good time conditions will have to be very good IMO.

any knock? I ran my fastest time in 85* air on a sunny hot Sunday with 1200' DA with my Paxton 6R80

It was running smoothly.

The car also ran the same with and without the guardian on
I ran 1rst and 3rd pass with a 2012 GT500 and it trapped 108
Saw a GT500 2013 trapping 118 and a Boss 302 103

All seems also low to me

I will have to try it at night in the 1/8 quarter track close to my work place to compare

ramirj2 said:

Car – 2015 FB Premium fully loaded 6R80 (3.15 gears) with a stage 2 , 3.625” pulley , dual fans , LTrunning on 305/40/18 MT SS ( 27.60”) 17 psi
Ran on 93 oct with 5 gallons of 100 oct Sunoco
Car made 638/ 512 on a Mustang Dyno ( Stocks read like 325 on that dyno). Pull in 4th with same 93/100 mix

Click to expand...

Yeah,.....you're right. That does seem off. I would think with your power level, which is probably closer to 700hp and 580tq, you would be quicker and have a higher MPH.
Maybe you need some suspension upgrades?

For some reason the whipple tune seems to lay down awesome dyno numbers but the ET and MPH numbers at the track don't match up to the dyno sheet? It was discussed in another recent thread also.

Need4Speed15 said:

For some reason the whipple tune seems to lay down awesome dyno numbers but the ET and MPH numbers at the track don't match up to the dyno sheet?

Click to expand...

Agree my last car only dyno-ed 652 RWHP and ran 10.40 @ 131 all day. Same weight??

Seems strange but I still love it, no complaints here...

That thing is a slug. On pump gas mine went 129.97, on 109 octane race gas went 134.98. Whipple tune, 3.75, stock everything else.

Weather doesn't seem terribly bad, no reason it shouldn't trap 128+. Any way to datalog?? Did your sit in staging lanes for a long time? What were IATs when you rolled up to the line?

IATs is a big reason I went centri after being 150% sure I wanted a PD blower.

I wonder if the traction and stability control are pulling power.

i have zero experience with this besides simply wanting one and reading a shitload about it, but have noticed what [MENTION=13182]Need4Speed15[/MENTION] said seems to happen sometimes. i'd love to know why and hope ya get it figured out OP

Stage_3 said:

Yeah,.....you're right. That does seem off. I would think with your power level, which is probably closer to 700hp and 580tq, you would be quicker and have a higher MPH.
Maybe you need some suspension upgrades?

Click to expand...

Suspension is not his problem even if the car is spinning it will still have the MPH. Suspension mods will provide better traction thus lowering the 60 ft time and dropping over all et.

Let's break it down like this :

You said the car made 325 rwhp stock on that MD dyno so if you add in a 7% factor to a Dynojet you would end up at 347 rwhp which is bang on for an automatic factoring in a 20% drivetrain loss. So your 638 rwhp is more like 682 rwhp and 547 tq on a dynojet, I believe I saw LT which I assume are long tube headers which should add 30 rwhp so Imo you should be around 710 rwhp so you are a little low based on the manual cars with 11 psi and full exhaust making 750 rwhp, there should be about a 40 rwhp difference between auto and manual. Your time slip didn't show your 330 or 1/8 mph going off a estimated 28 mph back half that would put your 1/8 mph @ 95 mph which is very weak judging from your 1/8 mile et you ran exactly what you should have. It would be interesting to compare your 330 ft to other cars to see what they are running as I believe your problem for the weak et and low mph to the 1/8 lies there. In the back half of the track the car is doing what it's supposed to if my 1/8 mph estimate is correct if so your problem lies between the 60 ft and 1/8 mile the car is not making power in that zone hence to low mph to the 1/8. If you don't have the ability to data log with the whipple software that is useless Imo as you don't know what is going on with the timing, IAT2, throttle angle etc for all you know the car could be slow due to over octane and the computer may not be adding the timing advance required to burn that slower burning fuel to make the extra power. I also want to state that my calculations are estimates which I feel are pretty close to real world conditions I know that comparing dyno numbers and for that matter different types of dyno's is pointless as there are too many variables however based off the information given I believe there are some valid points to be considered. Do you have your 330 and 1/8 mph numbers ?

That car should be running +10MPH faster and mid 10s in the quarter
I would think w 700+RWHP....

Just something I noticed, but you said you are running 3.15 gears, but the Flight control shows 3.30.....

If that is off, could be a major hiccup.