VMP vs Roush vs Whipple vs Edelbrock ??

[Burkey]

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.

“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”.

I agree 100%. I don’t even think that’s debatable.

“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”.

I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t understand the PCM’s determinations well enough to predict its reactions to variables. However...
Are you suggesting that Whipple didn’t select or at least attempt to optimise the conditions for the data they’re producing? Could they have picked up 50-100hp if they’d played the game differently? Or are you suggesting that each and every one of those Edelbrock cars are making 50-100hp more than they would’ve on the same day, same dyno as the Whipple?

I think the solution here is to try and find Dynojet sheets from other Gen 5 18-19 cars on stage 2 setup and see where it goes.
As you said previously, numbers matter.
You weren’t willing to accept my seat of the pants experience, or my datalogs, so I presented dyno sheets. Then they come into dispute...
We know that we can’t use the drag strip to demonstrate the difference in torque at anything under roughly 6000rrpm, so the dyno is literally the only tool we have left at our disposal.
I’m off to try and find Dynojet sheets for Gen 5 cars

Sponsored

 

[Burkey]

@engineermike
I might have to leave it to you to find comparable data from a Whipple equipped car.
I’m struggling. Found this from PBD on their Dynojet though..
18-19 A10 stage 1 and stage 2 (car was upgraded) and stage 2 on both Whipple and PBD tune.
A couple of % lower than the figures published by Whipple, but completely within the realm of what we consider natural variation of course.

 

[Burkey]

@engineermike another Whipple. 18-19, A10 stage 2, 93 octane with cat deletes and PBD tune.
I see a pattern forming..
It’s not conclusive of course but that’s a fair amount of data.
It’s also the exact same pattern I saw when I was looking at trying to not spend money on swapping out my Whipple (because who wants to spend money right?)

 

[sigintel]

Ranked based on current fastest 18+ SC passes:

1. Edelbrock - 8.7 - @Evolution Performance
2. Whipple - 8.8 - @Midnight Performance
3. Roush - something in the 9's

See you are in Saudi. Used to live in Al Khobar in late 70s. Hope you went Whipple.

There is only one choice for single source tune and kit with OEM level support, reliability and experience:
1. Whipple

Rank based on lowest risk for 650 to 750 rwhp:
1. Whipple

If I ever needed an supercharger setup outside the US I would ONLY go with Whipple. They are masters of the entire customer experience including reliability and addressing tune issues.
Edelbrock guys needing help have a 100+ page thread of them struggling to try and sort out the crap base tune with crap support from Edelbrock. If you like stress, or like customer support telling you to go outside and play a game of hide and go fuck yourself: Edelbrock.

 

[Sighlense]

See you are in Saudi. Used to live in Al Khobar in late 70s. Hope you went Whipple.

There is only one choice for single source tune and kit with OEM level support, reliability and experience:
1. Whipple

Rank based on lowest risk for 650 to 750 rwhp:
1. Whipple

If I ever needed an supercharger setup outside the US I would ONLY go with Whipple. They are masters of the entire customer experience including reliability and addressing tune issues.
Edelbrock guys needing help have a 100+ page thread of them struggling to try and sort out the crap base tune with crap support from Edelbrock. If you like stress, or like customer support telling you to go outside and play a game of hide and go fuck yourself: Edelbrock.

Meh, i have seen just as many say they have no problem with the EB tune. Not that i am defending it, as i personally will go custom tune. You sound bitter and uninformed.

 

[Burkey]

See you are in Saudi. Used to live in Al Khobar in late 70s. Hope you went Whipple.

There is only one choice for single source tune and kit with OEM level support, reliability and experience:
1. Whipple

Rank based on lowest risk for 650 to 750 rwhp:
1. Whipple

If I ever needed an supercharger setup outside the US I would ONLY go with Whipple. They are masters of the entire customer experience including reliability and addressing tune issues.
Edelbrock guys needing help have a 100+ page thread of them struggling to try and sort out the crap base tune with crap support from Edelbrock. If you like stress, or like customer support telling you to go outside and play a game of hide and go fuck yourself: Edelbrock.

Are you familiar with how Whipple do business in some markets outside the US?
Using Australia as an example, we have Yella Terra as the sole importer. Meaning, if you want warranty on your bits, you need to buy through them. Catch is, they charge EXORBITANT amounts for the kits and parts... yes, you can still deal with companies in the US (like I did) and seek warranty, but freight/import charges kill the equation very quickly. That’s the risk you take.
Edelbrock (for example) aren’t tied to this arrangement. They have dealers all over the country and warranty is easy. If only the tech support was as easy (as you stated).
I’m not sure of the situation in Saudi but if it’s anything like it is here in Australia, it’s crap.
In defence of Whipple, their customer support is pretty damn good. I won’t deny that. Quick response times, relatively good information on the first contact etc etc.
I can’t comment on their tune issue support (never used it) but I’m sure it’s also fantastic, as is the quality of the kits they produce.
Without knowing if Saudi operates under a sole importer deal like Australia does, I don’t think anyone could say one way or the other if Whipple is “the only choice”.

 

[engineermike]

@engineermike
I might have to leave it to you to find comparable data from a Whipple equipped car...

Like this?

 

[Burkey]

Like this?

“Manufacturer produces the most optimistic data to be found on the internet, nobody is shocked”

Let’s be completely real here. I’ve given Whipple the benefit of cat deletes and custom tunes, I’ve submitted numbers for Eddy cars on 91 octane as well. I’m even going to grant you the benefit of the manufacturers figures....the highest figures found to date.
Let’s plot them against each other shall we?
This is all four of the Edelbrock cars plotted against the Whipple chart.
A different colour was used for each sheet, only one dot used if the data was too close to separate.

Even the absolute worst of them is still ahead of the Whipple...

 

[engineermike]

I like how you left out the part where the Edelbrock fell 125 hp short.

 

[Burkey]

I like how you left out the part where the Edelbrock fell 125 hp short.

That wasn’t the argument taking place here..
I stated originally that the Edelbrock SMASHES a Gen 2 Whipple at the bottom end.
Knowing that Whipple have improved their efficiency over the generations and inverted the blower and added longer ports, I figured I’d compare like-for-like TO GIVE WHIPPLE A FIGHTING CHANCE.
I then granted you THE single most optimistic chart that you can find, plotted it against cars that are on 91 and 93 and STILL the Edelbrock continues to show EXACTLY what I said in the beginning..
I’m not sure which part of my original comment you didn’t understand?
I’m not trying to be a prick. You wanted data, I supplied it. I even gave Whipple EVERY SINGLE ADVANTAGE I can think of, yet the Edelbrock consistently proves my point.

 

[Burkey]

I like how you left out the part where the Edelbrock fell 125 hp short.

No, I didn’t leave it out....I included a data sheet that was quite clearly terrible.
If that’s cherry picking data, I can’t win here.
I’m being as Whipple friendly/Edelbrock critical as possible here. If you can’t see that, I don’t know what to say.

 

[engineermike]

I stated originally that the Edelbrock SMASHES a Gen 2 Whipple at the bottom end.
Knowing that Whipple have improved their efficiency over the generations and inverted the blower and added longer ports, I figured I’d compare like-for-like TO GIVE WHIPPLE A FIGHTING CHANCE.
I then granted you THE single most optimistic chart that you can find, plotted it against cars that are on 91 and 93 and STILL the Edelbrock continues to show EXACTLY what I said in the beginning.....I even gave Whipple EVERY SINGLE ADVANTAGE I can think of, yet the Edelbrock consistently proves my point.

...I included a data sheet that was quite clearly terrible.
If that’s cherry picking data, I can’t win here.
I’m being as Whipple friendly/Edelbrock critical as possible here. If you can’t see that, I don’t know what to say.

If all of the above is true, then why did you leave out the dyno graph straight from Edelbrock that I posted in post #96? You claimed your dyno sheets were "quite terrible" and that you gave Whipple "EVERY SINGLE ADVANTAGE", yet left off the one dyno chart, which happens to come straight from Edelbrock, that didn't support your point. In fact, if you overlay the sheet I posted in #96 on top of the one I posted in #112, you'd see the Whipple making more torque across the entire rpm range. And, according to Edelbrock, that was on 93 octane

Something else to consider is that Edelbrock stage 2 2018 owners seem to be reporting 13-14 psi boost, as compared to 11 on the Whipple. That's something like 40-60 ftlb difference right there. That's not so much a fair comparison, methinks.

Honestly, you seem very passionate about this and I'm rather bored with it. Enjoy your car; I know I enjoy mine almost daily.

 

[Burkey]

If all of the above is true, then why did you leave out the dyno graph straight from Edelbrock that I posted in post #96? You claimed your dyno sheets were "quite terrible" and that you gave Whipple "EVERY SINGLE ADVANTAGE", yet left off the one dyno chart, which happens to come straight from Edelbrock, that didn't support your point. In fact, if you overlay the sheet I posted in #96 on top of the one I posted in #112, you'd see the Whipple making more torque across the entire rpm range. And, according to Edelbrock, that was on 93 octane

Something else to consider is that Edelbrock stage 2 2018 owners seem to be reporting 13-14 psi boost, as compared to 11 on the Whipple. That's something like 40-60 ftlb difference right there. That's not so much a fair comparison, methinks.

Honestly, you seem very passionate about this and I'm rather bored with it. Enjoy your car; I know I enjoy mine almost daily.

I left out Edelbrocks claim because we don’t know if it was produced on a Dynojet... to include it would be ridiculous.
I can show you much lower figures for a Whipple if you want to start inserting Mustang dynos etc etc...but that wouldn’t be very scientific now would it?
As to boost pressure, ok, fine. Why not ask the reverse question?
Why don’t Whipple use the same boost pressure?
I have theories as to why, but I’m quite sure you wouldn’t accept that a twin screw produces more heat than a TVS when out of boost (street driving) on a like-for-like boost level. Ergo, is it possible that if Whipple ran the same boost pressure, the IATs would be worse than they are currently for a Street driven vehicle...and the thing would fall over completely on the third hit..
I don’t have any proper evidence to assert that with 100% confidence, so I won’t. I’m not going to speculate but rest assured, if Whipple thought it could be done, it would be done. Is it even relevant? If you can’t run the same boost on your Whipple whilst on 91/93 why is that Edelbrocks fault?
Now, take a look at post #100 (pic below) where I even submitted a STAGE ONE KIT which STILL made 550 torque at 3750 despite not having a large TB or the extra boost pressure. (Sample size of one isn’t very scientific, I’ll agree).
Honestly, these were the only KNOWN Dynojet sheets I could find.

I’m glad you’re happy with your car. Me too.
I just hate it when people make assertions that they can’t back up with data....and then cherry pick the best data they can find to support their conclusion...and then still get proven wrong and then fail to acknowledge it.
Go ahead and find more Whipple cars making the numbers Whipple are claiming, I sure as hell haven’t been able to which is PRECISELY why I didn’t upgrade to a Gen 5 from my Gen 2.
Needs to be Dynojet though, I’ll wait.

Rant complete.

 

[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.

My apologies, I’m unable to find a Dynojet sheet for a 15-17 Edelbrock car on longtubes, custom tune, smaller pulley and 94 octane to compare it to.
Where did you find your data for the comparison?

 

[sigintel]

Are you familiar with how Whipple do business in some markets outside the US?
Using Australia as an example, we have Yella Terra as the sole importer. Meaning, if you want warranty on your bits, you need to buy through them. Catch is, they charge EXORBITANT amounts for the kits and parts... yes, you can still deal with companies in the US (like I did) and seek warranty, but freight/import charges kill the equation very quickly. That’s the risk you take.
Edelbrock (for example) aren’t tied to this arrangement. They have dealers all over the country and warranty is easy. If only the tech support was as easy (as you stated).
I’m not sure of the situation in Saudi but if it’s anything like it is here in Australia, it’s crap.
In defence of Whipple, their customer support is pretty damn good. I won’t deny that. Quick response times, relatively good information on the first contact etc etc.
I can’t comment on their tune issue support (never used it) but I’m sure it’s also fantastic, as is the quality of the kits they produce.
Without knowing if Saudi operates under a sole importer deal like Australia does, I don’t think anyone could say one way or the other if Whipple is “the only choice”.

I've never had a problem shipping a kit to friends in Australia. No one else I know has either. The only rules are there are no rules: go around any hurdles in your way instead of thru them if possible.

Meh, i have seen just as many say they have no problem with the EB tune. Not that i am defending it, as i personally will go custom tune. You sound bitter and uninformed.

I am a little bitter:
I planted 1000 tress, saved a damn forest, do they call me enviro man? No
I saved 10 kids from a burning building, do they call me a hero? No
but if you touch a goat, even once, its "goat fucker" the rest of your life...
Maybe a little bitter after my mother in law got drunk and drove off a cliff in my Stang.
But still, I'm not as bitter as Hillary.

Dunno, I measure time and money spent vs stress and entertainment.
1. Whipple as a single phone call solution and consistently delivers above par.
2. Paxton via Beefcake Special.
3. Anything else from Beefcakes best sellers page.

Sponsored