Do you regret choosing your power adder?

[Wolfys11]

Not everyone says Lund is great. If they were the last tuner on earth, I wouldn't use them. I'd drive the car stock tune.

I didn't say anyone said he was stupid, but I have seen some assertions that he weights IAT2 too much and basses his tunes almost exclusively off of that data, that is patently false. You should see the PID's he had me set-up just to get a handle on one specific issue I was having.

I have seen people in this thread dispute the data he shared as it being only a few data points and not enough to back up what his conclusions are. His data he shared is REPRESENTATIVE of many many more sets of data, and conclusions based off of more data usually make a strong argument for said conclusion versus just of few data sets, would you not agree?

I do agree

However, just like people believe in religion despite science, i still dont believe in the whipple being thermally better than a centri

His data shows support of his argument, i will still argue there is something off in the data. That is between water to air vs air to air cooling argument, and the whipple to ess argument, like he said my “low power” setup isnt creating a ton of heat, but e85 also cools down a majority of heat issues at high boost. Many have water cooled whipples who complain about heat soak, being able to feel a coldly started engine that just warmed up vs an hour after driving the car makes less power, for whatever reason that may be. I in my car dont have that, my power after a 2 hour drive feels the same as it just started and warmed up. Point being i never feel heat soak unless its the difference of 100 degree weather vs 30 degree weather, but theres many claiming heat soak is an issue in various pd setups. Im not an engineer and dont claim to be one, but i do more research and looking into car stuff than most and even with mikes greatly evident argument i just dont believe it to be

Sponsored

 

[Wolfys11]

Thanks for posting this. I was wondering when it would be posted lol. It simply takes more energy to raise the temperature of water than air. Simple physics.

If someone is making a lot of power, air to water, drag racing, intercooling will work for short bursts or runs that way the car can stay cool within that time frame. PD blowers aren't used on tracks for the same reason.

So, OP I have a PD blower, I drag race and I am happy. Do I regret something with the PD power adder? Yes, with PD blower, the more power you make the harder they are to launch due to lots of torque, so you may need a complex system like Motec to manage traction properly and truly take advantage of it in my opinion. Turbos have an advantage in that regard.

To add to this, a centri blower is pretty awful at drag racing as the low end is non existant and makes it hard to launch and not bog down, which means you need a high rpm launch to have enough powerband to get going

 

[HKusp]

To add to this, a centri blower is pretty awful at drag racing as the low end is non existant and makes it hard to launch and not bog down, which means you need a high rpm launch to have enough powerband to get going

So you say a centri is pretty awful at drag racing? That is a sentiment that many people would absolutely disagree with. BTW, science keeps proving a certain religion, but I won't get into that here for sure. I am not being argumentative just for the sake and I agree with some of your assertions as well, just for the record.

 

[robvas]

Lund is a name brand tuner, everyone says theyre great

They have achieved a lot of records etc...

I tuned an ecoboost with them, they tuned the car to a different model than mine so i had sensor issues, they refused to give me any type of checkover of my tune just in case when my motor blew 15 minutes after loading their tune, and then after getting their claimed 50whp gains tune, went to a different tuner and got 100whp gains on a dyno on the same setup. Should i be trusting lund just because theyre good? After an account like this^

You left out the part where you magically made more power than any other ecoboost with the stock motor and 93 on the stock fuel system.

 

[Wolfys11]

So you say a centri is pretty awful at drag racing? That is a sentiment that many people would absolutely disagree with. BTW, science keeps proving a certain religion, but I won't get into that here for sure. I am not being argumentative just for the sake and I agree with some of your assertions as well, just for the record.

For launching its not the best method of boosting. Higher rpms causes its own issues at launching. And yes a certain religion, but i meant as a generality where science and religion clash, people still say science is wrong, their religion is right

 

[Wolfys11]

They have achieved a lot of records etc...



You left out the part where you magically made more power than any other ecoboost with the stock motor and 93 on the stock fuel system.

Sure they made records
They also did a poor job on their tune tuning me for a pp when i wasnt a pp car, didnt give record power on my tune, and refused to even check their tune, if you like i can find the email and show you, they said their tune is good, it must be an issue on my side. They said this before and after revising my tune for their pp mistake

My point being being the best or great doesnt mean you are right or the best in every scenario

As far as my eco goes, what would you like? I gave my dyno sheet, ive never been at an e85 pump before in any car, and never ran any meth, nitro, fuel additives, and ran 94 in my gt once. I dont have any crazy stuff on it, stock turbo stock fuel system, 93 from a shell gas station. It ran up to 27psi. 30k miles on this tune, not even a hiccup. Normal fbo build. What are you trying to insinuate about my eco? That i did a e85 pull and say its 93? Would you like me to post my tune file and see if you can access it to see whats done? Im not a tuner and im not even sure if its openable like that to be able to tell you what was done, i just know the guy who did it works closely with 1 of the 3 usa ecoboost specialist shops, they almost only build and tune the 2.3 from focus, mustang, and the mazdaspeed3

Very hypocritical for you to cry when i dont trust your data, but then do the same when i give you my build and power and say you dont trust mine

Lund and other name brands dont do ecoboosts so they dont push them, they even outright refuse to tune 2018+ 2.3 ecoboosts if im not mistaken

 

[robvas]

So you say a centri is pretty awful at drag racing?

Maybe he doesn't know what a torque converter is (he'll also probably say turbo cars are better for drag racing but fail to realize they are going to need an aftermarket converter as well)

I'd post a 7 or 8 second centrifugal coyote but then he'd say it "doesn't count" because it's a 1000hp+ car

 

[shogun32]

people still say science is wrong, their religion is right

depends if we're talking Science(tm) vs actual science. The hard scienctists have squandered their perch by contaminating their practice with politics, aka gov't religion. Just saying, had they stuck to *actual* facts...

 

[shogun32]

tock turbo stock fuel system, 93 from a shell gas station. It ran up to 27psi

the ford tune is eye-bleeding bad. Getting 100 just fixing that pile of dung is believable, but I would have to check and verify a couple times to make sure it was repeatable and not some spurious error.

 

[engineermike]

What purpose would lying serve? That's just wasted energy.

You made claims that I stated something I didn't, then argued I'm wrong.

I'm only scrutinising your data because it doesn't seem correct. It's part of gaining reliable data,

It didn't seem correct to me either, so I tried proving it wrong myself. I tested the sensor in boiling water plus used a thermocouple, did the same in an ice bath, and several points in between. I used vcmscanner to get the reading the logic is calculating so that the entire loop (sensor, harness, and transfer function) could be tested. I tried to prove the reading wrong, but ended up proving it right. I'm offering again to show you the data I took.

if you believe any data, just because it's in a graph or presented well, it could lead you down many wrong paths...

I doubted my own data that actually supported the point I'm making here and went to significant lengths to prove it wrong. Did you do the same to prove whatever data you have that supports your point?

...it's an example of a different result from yours. My experience and qualifications suggest that your data is wrong.

My preconceived notions were the same, which is why I did the test to begin with. I went in fully expecting to gather data to calibrate the transfer function, so I was rather surprised to find it was accurate and not in need of calibration.

However I might be completely wrong as you may have stumbled on something genius and physics defying.

You keep saying that I'm stating impossible things and trying to defy physics. I've repeatedly said that I am not, and that nothing I've posted is impossible. So now I challenge you to show us what, specifically, I posted that is physically impossible. If you can't, I ask that you drop this argument.

However what I suspect is that your data is skewed, just down to inaccuracies in sensor placement and calibration.

You linked to older GenIV testing that actually supports my point, and GT500 data has been supplied in this thread that also supports my point. Are you saying that all of our data is the result of bad sensor placement and calibration?

This is gut feeling as I have no accurate data to prove (neither do you).

As mentioned, I've tested calibration of my data and found it to be accurate. I can share the data if you like. This is one step further than anyone else has done so far, as far as I know.

I highly doubt your Whipple coolant outlet is as low as 85f with a ambient of 72f and your boost temp at wot only 5f above that while the outlet temp of the supercharger is 200+.

And again, your link to the GenIV data plus the GT500 logs in this thread both show minimal rises in temp even though, in one case, they're pushing discharge temps closer to 300 deg F. Is all of our data bad?

Even if it was a perfect example and doing 70% adiabatic efficiency at 15psi, it would have the same boost start temp as a centrif at 70% which they actually are. Plus you have the added loss of secondary heat induced from the cylinder heads that a centrif doesn't, so the cooler has to work doubly hard in that arrangement and all the while having greatly less space and surface area to achieve this.

For starters, the whipple intercooler isn't picking up as much heat from the heads as you think. I can drive somewhere 30 minutes away in the summer, pop the hood, and put my hand on the intercooler lid and it's near ambient temp. I don't have data on this, but I can get it easily. And once again, I was surprised the first time I learned this.

Secondly, I think it's fair to bring up that the intercooler water is hotter than ambient temp but it also has higher thermal conductivity, higher specific heat, and more resident mass than ambient air, which is the core advantage.

Think of it this way....you heat up a piece of metal to red-hot. You want to cool it down fast. Would placing it under a fan blowing 80 deg air on it cool it down faster or slower than dipping it in 100 deg water? Yes there are a 1000 different complicating factors when comparing to our situation, but this once concept is such a profound difference and difficult to overcome.

Yes the gen 5 Whipple might be one of the best examples of PD, but it can't defy physics and what you are proposing is likely not possible, so it makes me and others question the results.

Please show me where anyone has stated anything that defies physics. If you can't, I ask that you drop this argument.

If you're they type that believes everything on a whim fair enough, continue in your world of blissful obliviousness, however, you won't convince the most eagle eyed with two random data logs comparing such with data accuracy challenges like what you have.

Who posted two random data logs? I posted logs from my own vehicles and those I've tuned. I did post one that was sourced from the hptuners forum, so throw that one out if you like. Other members have posted their own data logs, and they all say the same thing to varying degrees.

 

[cbrtrx]

that is moving sir.

Thanks, yeah it sure was fun. That is equivalent to 152+ traps in the 1/4mile.

 

[cbrtrx]

Here are a few videos I found during my SC research. He doesn’t say exactly how much power the GT500 makes (only that it’s close to 1000 rwhp) at the time of the Dragy run.



This one is the same 2019 GT with the ESS SC dyno’ing the 120MM and 110MM pulleys on the stock fuel system with BAP



Finally, the same 2019 GT 60-130 Dragy run.

Nothing he does performs like it should. Don't base anything too much off of his videos.

 

[wingnutt]

Agreed to all of that, except they indeed are arguing that the whipple is more effecient than a ess.

au contraire…those words were never said by anyone in this thread

 

[Wolfys11]

Maybe he doesn't know what a torque converter is (he'll also probably say turbo cars are better for drag racing but fail to realize they are going to need an aftermarket converter as well)

I'd post a 7 or 8 second centrifugal coyote but then he'd say it "doesn't count" because it's a 1000hp+ car

We are saying its worse because you have to “make it work” with other stuff added, just because you can make it work doesnt mean its a good way of doing it. Il quote you from before, very few record centri setups, one of the reasons is because of the high rpm launch needed

 

[shogun32]

f I could go back, I would have done the t56 swap first

that could be 'interesting' doing it on a Gen3. The Mach1 trans with perhaps some different gearing would/should be plug+play. I gotta say the 3160 is FUN just like the D5 of Gen2. I just wish I could fix 6th.

Sponsored