Thoughts on the new Odin TVS blower making less then Whipple TQ?

[gimmie11s]

Do you agree or disagree that a car making double the torque will accelerate at double the rate, all else being equal, or not?

At equal rpm sure. However there are 0 ICE powered vehicles that operate that way so argument is dumb and means absolutely nothing.

Torque at RPM is what wins. Torque at RPM is also known as HORSEPOWER.

Sponsored

 

[engineermike]

...But the bit that seems to be confusing people is the part where 600tq at 3000rpm (342Hp) is producing more thrust than 500tq at 6000rpm (571Hp)...

If you assume the two cars are going the same speed, then the one making 500 ftlb will accelerate faster than the one making 600. Actually, the one making 500 ftlb will accelerate 67% harder because of the torque multiplication the gearing gives you since the engine is spinning twice as fast.

Apologies for the confusion re: stroker kits.
I was talking more in terms of sizeable displacement increases. I wouldn’t waste my money on it for a 10% displacement increase.
Typical stroker kits over here in Oz take a 308Ci and make it 355 or 383Ci. More like a 25% increase in the big boy kit.
I realise this would be ludicrously expensive for the Coyote, if even possible at all.

The coyote has some geometric constraints that even money can’t fix. You can only do so much with a 100 mm bore center and 227 mm deck height. Even to get 5.4 liters requires shortening of the rod from stock.

 

[Platinum_5.0]

When watching the video my ear was trained to the excessive whine, and my eyes turned to the throttle body...None???...what!

I don't know what VMP is doing here, but this is a very misleading advert on their ground braking design supercharger.

Look at minute 2 where he goes into detail explaining how this car is basically stock and makes this great power on 93 and Boostane.

I like VMP, but this makes me wonder about them and ODIN...and why they had to remove the entire intake and run open throttle body with boostane and a volumetric efficiency type air fuel calibration to produce those numbers.

Agree 100% alot seems to be going on here. Just wait until real customers start getting this kit and see what the results are. It's definitely down on TQ regardless even compared to the Edlebrock.

 

[Cory S]

Intake/exhaust cam tuning in the tune is usually why torque numbers vary so much. Some tuners set them up to pull high RPM power which lowers avg/peak torque. You can tell by the HP curve, the cam tuning is calibrated for high RPM power.

 

[Burkey]

I'm not sure honestly. I'll leave it up to you to make the calculations!

Cool, I love a challenge.

Here’s a dyno chart showing two different blowers.

Ignore the fact that it’s Whipple and Edelbrock, it’s irrelevant to the argument.
(For those who are going to insist that it matters, the Edelbrock car was pre modular inlet and running the stock TB. Whipple was Gen 2 or maybe Gen 3, 132mm TB, rest of the basic setups unknown)
Apologies for the metric units, Again, it’s irrelevant to the point of torque being the dictator of acceleration rate.

Below the dyno charts are the raw numbers used for the plots (for those who really care)

Below that are the acceleration curves.

And finally, the raw numbers for acceleration.

In closing, there’s 50rwkw (65rwhp) separating those two vehicles.
The one with the higher hp wins the race but at NO POINT whatsoever does it produce as much push in the back as the “slower” car.

You’ll also notice that peak acceleration occurs at peak torque, Hp having absolutely nothing to do with it.
Hence, a good race car will produce its maximum torque toward peak rpm (creating more Hp) while a good street car doesn’t need to, preferably it will be easily accessible without you having to look like a boy racer trying to find it.

@gimmie11s
@engineermike

Anyone want to try and argue with physics or are we done here?

 

[Platinum_5.0]

Cool, I love a challenge.

Here’s a dyno chart showing two different blowers.

Ignore the fact that it’s Whipple and Edelbrock, it’s irrelevant to the argument.
(For those who are going to insist that it matters, the Edelbrock car was pre modular inlet and running the stock TB. Whipple was Gen 2 or maybe Gen 3, 132mm TB, rest of the basic setups unknown)
Apologies for the metric units, Again, it’s irrelevant to the point of torque being the dictator of acceleration rate.

Below the dyno charts are the raw numbers used for the plots (for those who really care)

Below that are the acceleration curves.

And finally, the raw numbers for acceleration.

In closing, there’s 50rwkw (65rwhp) separating those two vehicles.
The one with the higher hp wins the race but at NO POINT whatsoever does it produce as much push in the back as the “slower” car.

You’ll also notice that peak acceleration occurs at peak torque, Hp having absolutely nothing to do with it.
Hence, a good race car will produce its maximum torque toward peak rpm (creating more Hp) while a good street car doesn’t need to, preferably it will be easily accessible without you having to look like a boy racer trying to find it.

@gimmie11s
@engineermike

Anyone want to try and argue with physics or are we done here?

Nobody arguing with physics and the theroy that a car making more TQ will accelerate harder is quite obvious. The issue here is that the comparisons being used are so minimal that it's laughable. The average graph shows a TVS car making 20-30 torque more at a specific rpm over a twin screw at same boost, similar setups. You really think that is such a difference in "snapping people's head back" with that difference? Lol...it's quite amusing as to how far you go trying to prove how awesome a TVS is over anything else...lol...yes we get it, you're a HUGE TVS fanboy but the 566tq my Whipple made compared to my friends Edlebrock at 579 or something like that feels NO DIFFERENT...lol...when I made 540tq and he made 560? Felt no different! It definitely isn't the neck snapping BS you keep going on about. Just let it go man. Yes, TVS makes a small amount of TQ down low to a twin screw, NO it isn't no neck snapping difference...lol

 

[80FoxCoupe]

@Burkey so the slower car accelerates faster? Counterintuitive don't you think? It's def possible that it does so over a short distance. But where is the calculation that shows the higher hp car accelerating harder over the length of a quarter mile (making it the quicker and harder accelerating car)?

 

[SolarFlare]

I’m speechless...

 

[80FoxCoupe]

I’m speechless...

T0rK3 is quicker but slower

 

[Burkey]

Nobody arguing with physics and the theroy that a car making more TQ will accelerate harder is quite obvious. The issue here is that the comparisons being used are so minimal that it's laughable. The average graph shows a TVS car making 20-30 torque more at a specific rpm over a twin screw at same boost, similar setups. You really think that is such a difference in "snapping people's head back" with that difference? Lol...it's quite amusing as to how far you go trying to prove how awesome a TVS is over anything else...lol...yes we get it, you're a HUGE TVS fanboy but the 566tq my Whipple made compared to my friends Edlebrock at 579 or something like that feels NO DIFFERENT...lol...when I made 540tq and he made 560? Felt no different! It definitely isn't the neck snapping BS you keep going on about. Just let it go man. Yes, TVS makes a small amount of TQ down low to a twin screw, NO it isn't no neck snapping difference...lol

Great. So we agree that the physics is sound. Fantastic.
Now show me where I said the TVS car was superior.
Handy hint: I went to GREAT lengths to tell you to NOT read anything into it, and yet somehow you did.
Does this make you the #1 Whipple FanBoy?

 

[markmurfie]

I'm up for arguing physics. The problem with this is you are using acceleration= force/ weight. OR written another way Acceleration = (mass times acceleration)/ (mass times gravity). So you can see you are converting torque(force) directly to acceleration as a fraction of gravity. It tells you nothing about what you will feel. Look at the acceleration curve on a draggy performance report, it looks nothing like a torque or HP curve as acceleration starts highest at lower speeds and falls off.

If you really want to see the acceleration of a car, you need to use the (distance over change in time)(m/s^2) or (change in distance over time)(m^2/s). Gear ratio effects this greatly, that is why a first or second gear hit feels faster than a third or fourth, because it is. A basic supercharged coyote setup will increase 105mph in the first 1/8 mile, the next 1/8 mile it will increase only 30 MPH, all while making the same engine torque and power.

Horsepower is a representation of torque over time as it factors in RPM or how fast the torque is being applied. Compare the horse power curves, and you will see which car will most likely accelerate faster, given they are the same weight using the same gear ratios all the way down to the tire size. And when the majority of most races is spent 5000 RPM+, thats what you should be looking at for the faster car. If you are tuning the car, look at the torque curve, if you are racing the car look at the HP curve. That being said, what you will feel between the two in the example provided, down low will not be that much of a difference like platinum_5.0 said, up top above 5252 you will probably not feel it, but you would see it as the higher HP car pulled ahead of the other car.

Time is a hard thing to grasp for most people. A high school math problem shows that. You travel 100 miles, the first 50 you go 100 miles an hour, the last 50 you go 50 miles and hour. Your average speed is not going to be 75miles an hour. You spent more of the time at the slower speed bringing the average down to a value a lot less than what most people think.

 

[engineermike]

Cool, I love a challenge....Anyone want to try and argue with physics or are we done here?

There is no “try” because you bungled the physics. First of all the correct equation is Acceleration=Force/mass not weight. You seem to have substituted mass for weight so the two errors actually cancelled each other out. Secondly, you substituted “moment” for “force” into your equation. Unfortunately these are not the same thing so the result is incorrect. Finally, the units for acceleration are m/s^2 not m/s. If you had kept track of units in the equation you would have arrived at m^2/s^2 for acceleration which would have been a clue that something in the math was erroneous.

Another issue is that you assume only one gear is available. These aren’t boat motors so we have 6-10 different gears available. If your foot is to the floor with an A10 the engine speed stays above 5500 rpm nearly the entire time. The only place your assumptions would be technically valid is if you had an M6 and refused to downshift. But at least you listed your assumptions.

 

[Burkey]

@Burkey so the slower car accelerates faster? Counterintuitive don't you think? It's def possible that it does so over a short distance. But where is the calculation that shows the higher hp car accelerating harder over the length of a quarter mile (making it the quicker and harder accelerating car)?

Look more closely at the rate of accel during the rpm where racing occurs and you’ll soon see why the lower torque car is faster over the 1/4 mile.
Whilst the higher torque car has the highest rate of accel PERIOD, it doesn’t have that advantage in the “racing rev range”.

 

[80FoxCoupe]

Look more closely at the rate of accel during the rpm where racing occurs and you’ll soon see why the lower torque car is faster over the 1/4 mile.
Whilst the higher torque car has the highest rate of accel PERIOD, it doesn’t have that advantage in the “racing rev range”.

I'm just gassing you up man. I appreciate your efforts though. I'll definitely look this back up when I'm shopping for a new tow rig.

 

[Platinum_5.0]

Great. So we agree that the physics is sound. Fantastic.
Now show me where I said the TVS car was superior.
Handy hint: I went to GREAT lengths to tell you to NOT read anything into it, and yet somehow you did.
Does this make you the #1 Whipple FanBoy?

Show you? All anybody has to do is read your countless posts where you leave these ridiculous, long, drawn out responses to anybody who dare say negative against a TVS...lol... using all your science and physics calculations to justify how much harder a tvs supposedly is on launch against a Whipple car...lol... I'm far from a fanboy of any product. You know how I got my Whipple? I flipped a coin. I'm a supporter of all platforms. I love the Paxton's as well. And because I'm not a fanboy you don't see me posting the ridiculous posts like you. Seems like you're a little insecure or something? Lol..I just accept the facts. What are they? Well, TVS makes more TQ down low, yup, old news. Whipple pulls harder up top. The 20-30 or so TQ that the TVS makes? Almost impossible to feel the difference and sure as hell isn't neck snapping anymore then a twin screw . Edlebrock and VMP should hire you...lol...I would. Just don't endorse the Odin because it's making less HP and TQ then a Whipple.

Sponsored