VMP vs Roush vs Whipple vs Edelbrock ??

[Stymee]

The problem with the phase 1 Roush is heatsoak as we all know. They might one decent pass in really cool weather and then they are done.....until they cool off again. The jury is still out on phase 2 but it is hard to imagine that the heatsoak issue has been fixed.

We can hope, lololol

Sponsored

 

[Evolution IX]

I agree with you, 600-650RW is all I’m after and if the Roush P2 would get me there, drive nicely with good street manners, I’m sold, all I’m after is 10.70ish at 127-130

I should have let you drive my car. You would have bought the Whipple already if I did.

 

[Stymee]

I should have let you drive my car. You would have bought the Whipple already if I did.

No doubt I’m sure I’d be sold but if I could keep a warranty and run 10.70@129

I’d probably go roush

 

[brucelinc]

No doubt I’m sure I’d be sold but if I could keep a warranty and run 10.70@129

I’d probably go roush

I would be shocked if their upcoming phase 2 wouldn't run a 10.7 in good air. What I am not sure about is if would do it in summer heat or even if it could do it more than once in good air without a long cool down period.

 

[Burkey]

Again, I have to see this massive down low TQ difference the Edlebrock makes over the Whipple. I just don't see it. My Whipple makes over 520tq by 2700rpm...climbs to 580 by 4500-5000rpm and never drops below 500tq right to 8000rpm. This is just 11psi and pump gas. Very basic stuff.

I thought I’d share some data with you in the interest of perhaps changing your mind.
Below you’ll see Whipple’s very own published data for the Stage 2 Gen 5 kit on 93.
You’ll also see two Edelbrock stage 2 cars, both on 91, both on stock exhaust etc.
All are A10, all are on Dynojet.
Whipple makes nearly 550tq at 5k
One of those Edelbrock cars is making 10% more than that at 3500.
10% more peak torque, available much earlier.
The gap at 4k is more like 20%. I wouldn’t call them “similar”
NA guys are chasing 10% extra when they go e85 and will happily tell you how much stronger the car feels.
Now put the Edelbrock’s on 93.
@engineermike what is your take on this?

 

[engineermike]

That’s weird because Edelbrock published this graph for the stage 2:

 

[Burkey]

That’s weird because Edelbrock published this graph for the stage 2:

Yeah I agree, it is weird. Particularly weird is that the hp figure is almost identical between Edelbrock’s figure and the figure I shared.
Was that on a Dynojet? I can’t tell by looking at it.
I notice that it appears to be MT82 rather than A10.

 

[Burkey]

That’s weird because Edelbrock published this graph for the stage 2:

Here’s another one from a Dynojet. That’s 3 from 3 with the outlier being a dyno of as yet unknown origin...

 

[Braski]

That’s weird because Edelbrock published this graph for the stage 2:

I'm not sure how Edelbrock goes about getting their hp numbers. The 1586 kit is advertised a 690 hp to the fly wheel but yet it only put down 530 rwhp.

 

[Burkey]

That’s weird because Edelbrock published this graph for the stage 2:

And a STAGE ONE on 91 and 93. Again, Dynojet, so like-for-like in as much as it’s possible without using the actual same dyno on the same day.

 

[96gt4.6]

Idk if it helps or hurts the argument any, but here are my results.

Whipple Gen 3, Stage 1 9psi (around 7.5-8 at this altitude), 750hp advertised flywheel kit. 2017 A6 car fully stock otherwise.

93 Octane

 

[Burkey]

I'm not sure how Edelbrock goes about getting their hp numbers. The 1586 kit is advertised a 690 hp to the fly wheel but yet it only put down 530 rwhp.

You’re talking about a 2300, stock TB on a previous Gen car of course.
On what breed of dyno did it produce 530whp? Where were the results published? Curious for more info.

 

[engineermike]

I believe there is a reason these dyno numbers are all over the map. The correction factors account for air density changes but they can not account for things the PCM calibration changes at different conditions or the way the engine reacts to those changes.

At 12/1 compression and 10+ psi boost, the ignition timing is running at half of MBT. Someone smarter than me has reported that every 8 deg F inlet temp increase requires retarding the timing by 1 deg if you’re at the threshold of knock. When you are already 15 deg below MBT, that 1 deg really hurts power and torque, while the corrrction factors can not know and account for what’s going on in the PCM and how it affects torque output. For instance, if you dyno at 100 deg F and sea level, the correction factor will be something like 1.03 which will add about 20 hp to the readout. However, your ambient air is 23 deg over the SAE and 40 deg over STD conditions. That means you will be running 3-5 deg less ignition timing than the correction factor assumes, which could mean an error of 60-100 hp.

Some time back, one of the Whipple f-150 guys dynod summer vs winter. The difference was 50 hp IIRC and both we’re corrected to the same standard.

Normally, I am a proponent of dyno numbers but in the case that a) we are controlling timing to the threshold of knock and b) we are far away from MBT, you have to be extra cautious when corrections are involved. I see where one of the sheets has a correction of 1.25. The SAE standard even states that anything over 1.03 shall be disregarded and that’s not even considering the special case of the 12/1 supercharged coyote.

 

[Stang 19]

If it helps, the advertised stage 2 Edelbrock is run on Ca 93 pump to achieve 686 rwhp and is the real deal. If you run Ca 91 pump with the 91 tune you are at 642 rwhp. Hope this helps. My car ran an average of 642 rwhp on Ca 91 with a max run of 645. This was on the Edelbrock dyno set up at their facility.

 

[Braski]

You’re talking about a 2300, stock TB on a previous Gen car of course.
On what breed of dyno did it produce 530whp? Where were the results published? Curious for more info.

Dynojet 530-546 rwhp. Search Edelbrock 1586 kit on here for a graph or 2. EB published 690 flywheel on their advertisement. I personally never dyno my car but I can tell you it is not making 690 at the flywheel! A generous 15% loss would put it at 586 rwhp. Even with a aftermarket tune that base kit struggles to hit 590 rwhp. Also Brenspeed has some good YouTube videos of EB kits on his dyno.

Sponsored