West TX GT
Well-Known Member
I wonder when stage 2 while finally drop and how much it will be. Will fueling upgrades be involved?
Sponsored
Sponsored
olaosunt
Well-Known Member
Thanks . I am considering a kit as a replacement for the 8 rib KB kit in one of my 15’s.
The KB is now making mid 900’s on sleeved 5.2 but is lifting the GT heads on the dyno despite ARP studs /JE pro seal gaskets .
Hoping it stays together so I can have at least one more shot at that 9 rowing my own gears (tremec ) after getting close a year ago (10.03).
I was planning to swap in another sleeved 5.2 long block (GT 350 heads /cams ) I had built over year ago (just assembled) in preparation of selling the car hopefully after I get the 9 and would love put in the new motor all dressed up with the edelbrock
I think it would make it a nicer “street car“ since I could go back to the stock motor mounts (with the ones needed for the KB to clear there is a lot of NVH)
No plans to race it with the new motor since I will be ooking to sell but I am sure the Edelbrok would be 9 second capable as well (dalton@evolution is already close at 10.04)
Probably also a lot more fun as street car with all the torque .
I could market it as “poor man’s” GT 500 since it will also have a “5.2 and 2.65 blower “
Lol
ckendri
Well-Known Member
I’d volunteer for that. I’ve got a chunk of 7075 sitting around and a mill begging to be used.So they’ll be using CNC machined billet housings in future?
aleccolin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2017
- Threads
- 30
- Messages
- 745
- Reaction score
- 256
- Location
- VA
- Website
- www.CarClubVT.com
- First Name
- Colin
- Vehicle(s)
- 2016 GT PP
Cool! Now I've got some part numbers for 15-17, wonder how long it'll take before they start shipping? Can't even find a price on them right now.
The Edelbrock has more boost than 16psi in that graph you shared. You know it had 16psi because the article stated it has 16psi? It flat lines significantly early in the pull, why? It's out of airflow capacity on the inlet side. Put a small TB on ours and pulley down to get it to same boost, guess what? Torque goes up and HP flat lines once the airflow stalls. Maybe we should come out with a 103mm TB so we can make extra torque and flat line that horsepower....Thought I might just add this to the conversation. Feel free to discuss/dispute any of my findings. I’m always happy to learn something new.
Whipple Gen 5 with all the gear at 16psi vs Edelbrock E Force modular inlet/103mm TB at 16psi.
The Whipple car is manual, the Edelbrock is auto. You can read into that whatever you want.
Yes, different dynos vary on different days etc. We all know this and that’s why we don’t race on dynos.
The numbers I’ve provided aren’t intended to be “perfect” but they do provide some food for thought and hopefully some discussion.
3k - *read below* Edelbrock 480hp (20-40% gain, read below)
4K - Whipple 525hp Edelbrock 625hp 19% gain
5k - Whipple 710hp. Edelbrock 810hp 14% gain
6k - Whipple 840hp Edelbrock 935 Hp 11% gain
7k - Whipple 920hp. Edelbrock 950 Hp 3% gain
7.5k - Whipple 960hp. Edelbrock 961 Hp
8k - Whipple 978hp. Edelbrock ????
* I predicted the Whipple’s output based on the shape of the torque curve which would suggest approximately 600ft/lb at 3k (342hp), giving a 40% gain to the Edelbrock.
Even if we were to assume that the Whipple was making 700ft/lb at 3k (it isn’t), this would give 400hp, a 20% gain to the Edelbrock. The truth of it is somewhere between those numbers.
Now, even if we were to assume that the dyno was favouring the Edelbrock by 10% (I cant comment on that), It’s still abundantly evident that the Edelbrock is still in front all the way to 5k and basically level at the 6k mark.
@Brent Davis I borrowed your dyno sheet, hope you don’t mind.
Sponsored
Kona 18
Well-Known Member
Wouldn't a 103mm just keep your same low end torque you make now and just flatline it up top, meaning, you wont see 869wtrq like the Edelbrock does by swapping your 132 for a 103, you'd see the same torque you do with just less power up top due to pressure drop across the TB? The smaller TB won't add torque or power down low, it will just change the angle of your torque curve.
The Edelbrock isn't changing the angle of the torque curve to make more torque, it actually makes more torque down low and then drops to about 720wtrq by 7500rpm due to what we are all assuming is pressure drop across the TB. How ever this just proves the r2650 rotor pack is indeed a monster, hell the torque it makes at 7500rpm is still on par with the torque the whipple is making at that same RPM even though it has a 132mm TB on it, how ever the 2650 it has the benefit of making a lot more torque down low end before leveling out with your kit up top.
I also can't speak to the boost on that car, it's not mine, how ever I do plan to do the stage 2 ugrade when it becomes available and hitting the dyno again to see how it does, will prob still rev it out to 8200rpm just to see the shape of the curve when revved out that high.
Burkey
Well-Known Member
Join the queue!,
We only have the word of those who did the testing.
I chosemto gloss over the fact that the Whipple was actually making slightly over 16psi.
I’ve yet to see a single dyno chart showing that a Whipple on the 132 TB loses anything at all to the stock TB.
And yes, if the smaller TB theory works, maybe you should promote the idea for those who prefer their SC to deliver power that way...or at least publish graphs showing that gap.
I’d grab the data myself but Whipple seem to have updated the dyno charts on their website recently, making it impossible to find the data.
Instead, here’s a chart from PBD.
93 octane 18/19 car, swapping from stock TB to 132mm.
Strangely, I don’t see any real change in torque in favour of the Stock TB, yet somehow a larger one (103mm) would somehow deliver better bottom end torque... .
EDIT: Google images FTW
Last edited:
Burkey
Well-Known Member
I’m very keen to see how it performs at high rpm with a boost level that is consistent with 93 octane fuel. Really though, even if it fell flat on its face at 7500, would it even matter?
Kona 18
Well-Known Member
The stage 1 made 10pi on my car with the included 3.25" pulley, I do plan to go back with the same exact pulley, 93 octane, and the 103mm TB and stage 2 intake to see how much we make. After that I wont be able to do as straight forward comparison bc I will be installing a set of LTH long tubes, fuel system, and going to e85. Will prob pulley down or do their 8 rib set up with OD lower, the goal is 900+whp, ideally 950-1000 just like their local car...I doubt I'll daily it on that pulley combo, but it's what I'll use when racing.
Sponsored
aleccolin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2017
- Threads
- 30
- Messages
- 745
- Reaction score
- 256
- Location
- VA
- Website
- www.CarClubVT.com
- First Name
- Colin
- Vehicle(s)
- 2016 GT PP
So the Whipple 132mm "roval" throttle body has an approximate area of 102 cm^2 and claimed max flow of 2000 cfm. The Edelbrock 103mm throttle body has an approximate area of 83 cm^2 and a claimed max flow of 1700 cfm. The theoretical output for either would be WELL over 2000 HP, so it's pretty clear once you get to a certain size the TB is not a significant limiting factor. Measuring pressure drop across would bear that out.
Measuring or comparing boost (manifold pressure) is dumb, because it's a function of ambient conditions. Boost is so highly variable that normalizing for it in comparison across different setups is fatally flawed. Theoretically SAE correction factors will adjust for this, but it depends on the standard used (or reported) and on a chassis dyno the entire rest of the car is in play. Chassis dynos are all over the map too, by age/type/manufacturer, etc.
The elephant in the room is this: The output that matters is torque, not horsepower, when comparing identical engines with respect to power adders. Assuming two identical engines, with identical brake specific air consumption (BSAC), at any specific RPM the engine making the most torque, is most efficient. What does that mean? Well since engines with identical BSAC will have an identical engine CFM which is a constant at a given RPM, it means the engine with the highest torque output at that RPM is consuming more MASS FLOW (lbs/min) of air than the other engine. What determines the MASS FLOW rate is not boost, it's intake Manifold Air Density (MAD). Everything between the throttle body and the cylinder either increases or decreases the MAD, so in this case the engine with the blower SETUP that increases the MAD the most, will have the highest torque output. The setup includes the throttle body, blower, intercooler, plenum design, runner design, harmonics, etc. Racers pay attention to density altitude (DA) because everything you can make on a given day is a function of the air available, and what you do to it.
The design of a roots/TVS rotor pack and a twin screw rotor pack are inherently dissimilar, since the roots is just a PD pump and the twin screw is actually a compressor. You could normalize for all environmental factors and still get unusable data because they're different displacement, have different efficiency curves and RPM ranges, etc. So the back and forth is great and all, but solves nothing.
To know what's really going on you would need one engine, an engine dyno, controlled conditions, and slap one setup on, then the other, and see what you get. That would be a reasonable comparison. At any point along the curve (any given RPM) if the torque number is higher, that power adder is most efficient i.e. providing the highest MAD and greatest mass flow to the engine, regardless of what the boost gauge reads. The setup with the greatest area under the curve is overall the most efficient, and will be fastest.
SO: If the Eddy setup makes more torque down low, that means it's more efficient down low. If the Whipple setup makes more torque up high, then it's more efficient up high. If you want to compare peak HP to area under the curve, be my guest, but for a street car I'd rather have greater efficiency in the normal operating range than peak numbers. Most OEMs would agree, hence there are many more roots/TVS blowers in OE applications. There's also a good reason why most OEMs, Edelbrock, and now Whipple have gone to the upside-down blower setup - longer runners mean greater efficiency at lower RPMs = more torque.
Measuring or comparing boost (manifold pressure) is dumb, because it's a function of ambient conditions. Boost is so highly variable that normalizing for it in comparison across different setups is fatally flawed. Theoretically SAE correction factors will adjust for this, but it depends on the standard used (or reported) and on a chassis dyno the entire rest of the car is in play. Chassis dynos are all over the map too, by age/type/manufacturer, etc.
The elephant in the room is this: The output that matters is torque, not horsepower, when comparing identical engines with respect to power adders. Assuming two identical engines, with identical brake specific air consumption (BSAC), at any specific RPM the engine making the most torque, is most efficient. What does that mean? Well since engines with identical BSAC will have an identical engine CFM which is a constant at a given RPM, it means the engine with the highest torque output at that RPM is consuming more MASS FLOW (lbs/min) of air than the other engine. What determines the MASS FLOW rate is not boost, it's intake Manifold Air Density (MAD). Everything between the throttle body and the cylinder either increases or decreases the MAD, so in this case the engine with the blower SETUP that increases the MAD the most, will have the highest torque output. The setup includes the throttle body, blower, intercooler, plenum design, runner design, harmonics, etc. Racers pay attention to density altitude (DA) because everything you can make on a given day is a function of the air available, and what you do to it.
The design of a roots/TVS rotor pack and a twin screw rotor pack are inherently dissimilar, since the roots is just a PD pump and the twin screw is actually a compressor. You could normalize for all environmental factors and still get unusable data because they're different displacement, have different efficiency curves and RPM ranges, etc. So the back and forth is great and all, but solves nothing.
To know what's really going on you would need one engine, an engine dyno, controlled conditions, and slap one setup on, then the other, and see what you get. That would be a reasonable comparison. At any point along the curve (any given RPM) if the torque number is higher, that power adder is most efficient i.e. providing the highest MAD and greatest mass flow to the engine, regardless of what the boost gauge reads. The setup with the greatest area under the curve is overall the most efficient, and will be fastest.
SO: If the Eddy setup makes more torque down low, that means it's more efficient down low. If the Whipple setup makes more torque up high, then it's more efficient up high. If you want to compare peak HP to area under the curve, be my guest, but for a street car I'd rather have greater efficiency in the normal operating range than peak numbers. Most OEMs would agree, hence there are many more roots/TVS blowers in OE applications. There's also a good reason why most OEMs, Edelbrock, and now Whipple have gone to the upside-down blower setup - longer runners mean greater efficiency at lower RPMs = more torque.
Last edited:
Stymee
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2019
- Threads
- 59
- Messages
- 3,366
- Reaction score
- 1,696
- Location
- Delray Beach, Fl.
- First Name
- Joel
- Vehicle(s)
- 2019 Mustang GT
Seems beefcake, lethal and Evolution r doing the best deals
Sponsored