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

[Burkey]

I think that statement is a bit disingenuous since it’s clear every comparison you “set up” is an attempt to demonstrate some perceived superiority of the Edelbrock unit.

Anyway, I went ahead and applied some physics and even used the torque curves you posted in post #35. My assumptions were 3.55 gear, 4200 lb total weight, no aerodynamic drag, maximum sustainable acceleration is 1.0 g (generous on street tires), WOT is used, and the 10r80 ratios. The attached is the Whipple vs Edelbrock acceleration in G’s vs speed. This is what pushes you back in the seat.

It was actually a fun exercise and I plan on refining the model and adding more capabilities. View attachment 455427

Ok, firstly, thanks for taking the time to try and explain it and I’m glad you’re enjoying the challenge. Seriously.
Honestly, I’m not trying to be disingenuous. I think you and I are talking about two very different things and this is where the issue lies. Based on what you’ve shown on the chart, you’re interested in which of these loses acceleration the least as rpm climbs. I’m interested in which one produces the most acceleration, in g,s PERIOD. I literally don’t care at what rpm that peak happens but we do need to see the whole rpm spread WITH traction available.

I could probably argue that your chart is somewhat disingenuous...but I don’t think it’s deliberate.

Your chart shows me that:
Both cars were producing the same peak acceleration
Peak acceleration was limited by grip, not torque
Acceleration decreased as the cars moved past their torque peaks
The Whipple was better at not losing acceleration (which is precisely how racing works).

Maybe raise the grip factor of the tyres and repeat the experiment, or, put the cars in a gear where they don’t have enough torque multiplication to overcome the tyres. On a 10r80 you’d need to be looking at 5th gear at a minimum. Either will do.
This should highlight that peak acceleration is achieved at peak torque.

Being better at losing less acceleration as revs climb isn’t exactly the same as producing MAXIMUM acceleration.
I’d encourage you to do the chart again in fifth or sixth gear.

Sponsored

 

[Bear_Stang]

Ok, firstly, thanks for taking the time to try and explain it and I’m glad you’re enjoying the challenge. Seriously.
Honestly, I’m not trying to be disingenuous. I think you and I are talking about two very different things and this is where the issue lies. Based on what you’ve shown on the chart, you’re interested in which of these loses acceleration the least as rpm climbs. I’m interested in which one produces the most acceleration, in g,s PERIOD. I literally don’t care at what rpm that peak happens but we do need to see the whole rpm spread WITH traction available.

I could probably argue that your chart is somewhat disingenuous...but I don’t think it’s deliberate.

Your chart shows me that:
Both cars were producing the same peak acceleration
Peak acceleration was limited by grip, not torque
Acceleration decreased as the cars moved past their torque peaks
The Whipple was better at not losing acceleration (which is precisely how racing works).

Maybe raise the grip factor of the tyres and repeat the experiment, or, put the cars in a gear where they don’t have enough torque multiplication to overcome the tyres. On a 10r80 you’d need to be looking at 5th gear at a minimum. Either will do.
This should highlight that peak acceleration is achieved at peak torque.

Being better at losing less acceleration as revs climb isn’t exactly the same as producing MAXIMUM acceleration.
I’d encourage you to do the chart again in fifth or sixth gear.

I think there is an "Engineering Explained" episode that might help you. Browse through his catalog a bit.

 

[Burkey]

I think there is an "Engineering Explained" episode that might help you. Browse through his catalog a bit.

Yeah, I might have to go back to school and learn how less g’s means more acceleration.

 

[markmurfie]

I agree with the shape, Edelbrock is shifting late other wise it would be right there with the whipple. I don't think in the real world the late shift would be as of a dramatic difference.

you don't accelerate more the faster you go.

Acceleration and G's are the same thing. Gravity is an acceleration, 9.8m/s^2 on earth, less on less dense objects, more on more dense objects. thats 22MPH per second to think about it easier.

0-22mph in one second, that seems doable.
22-44mph in one second, thats harder
44-66mph in one second, thats hard
66-88mph in one second, very hard
88-108mph in one second, thats some race car shit.
108-130MPh in one second, WOW. Most mild boosted coyote setups take the entire back 1/8mile to do this ~4 seconds.

 

[Burkey]

I agree with the shape, Edelbrock is shifting late other wise it would be right there with the whipple. I don't think in the real world the late shift would be as of a dramatic difference.

you don't accelerate more the faster you go.

Acceleration and G's are the same thing. Gravity is an acceleration, 9.8m/s^2 on earth, less on less dense objects, more on more dense objects. thats 22MPH per second to think about it easier.

0-22mph in one second, that seems doable.
22-44mph in one second, thats harder
44-66mph in one second, thats hard
66-88mph in one second, very hard
88-108mph in one second, thats some race car shit.
108-130MPh in one second, WOW. Most mild boosted coyote setups take the entire back 1/8mile to do this ~4 seconds.

The way I read it, the Eddy was shifting early because it had to (power was falling off too quickly). The charts Mike is using were the charts I used a few years ago when trying to decide on Whipple vs TVS. I picked the Whipple because the TVS drop-off up top was too much for a car that sees the strip. None of this is news of course.
As we know, the 10r80 does a better job of keeping the engine much nearer peak power most of the time.
Looking at the original chart, the Whipple would be producing it’s best average horsepower from around 6k - 7k
The TVS in this example makes its best average power between 5500-6500 or thereabouts, hence the TVS makes its first shift at 55mph and the Whipple a little over 10% later.
In other words, Mikes analysis shows us the g’s at peak power, not peak torque.
The only time you’ll see peak accel at peak power is if peak torque occurs at the same rpm, which I have never seen happen. If it did, the race car driver would rev it harder so he can hold onto the better torque multiplier for longer....
Minimising the rate of loss of acceleration isn’t the same as increasing the maximum amount available.

 

[markmurfie]

No one races by saying stay in your high gear from 40-130.
No one ever floors it in high gear and says "yeah feel that torque and acceleration. Its head snapping." That's done in lower gears at high RPMs. if the tires spin you don't feel acceleration.
Stop being so dense and come back to reality. What Mike posted is a far closer representation of reality, than what you are trying to sell with those BS dyno G's.

Ill give you first gear at peak torque will be the cars maximum acceleration point, but second gear at peak torque is not going to be more acceleration, its going to be far less. Not many people can get traction with a PD supercharged coyote on street tires in 2nd. 1st, with radials and a prepped surface is difficult to get tire to surface traction and tire to rim traction. Shift points are centered on peak power and not peak torque for a reason.

 

[engineermike]

@markmurfie is dead on, as usual.

 

[Meatball]

Wow. This is interesting. Engineermike’s graphs show longitudinal g’s dropping within each gear as the engine revs. I guess Burkey’s correct that it’s instantaneous torque that shoves you in the seat not hp, since the engine is climbing in hp but dropping in torque, again within each gear.

I saw a dyno of a ‘19 ZR1 that made about the same rwhp as my car, which is cool but it makes a crapload more torque at mid revs. So if you’re on the street in mid revs and punch it, assuming traction, the ZR1 would make a lot more torque/hp at that rpm, even if they ultimately made the same power.

Aside from racing, I guess it comes down to what you want on the street. If there’s traction, the more torquey car will just feel more powerful around town. But a more rapidly dropping torque curve with revs isn’t great either. It’s sweet to rev up and just get crazy fast at high rpm with no let-down, when your passenger is starting to shout obscenities and clawing for the door grab

 

[engineermike]

Keep in mind also that I have never registered more than 0.75 g on my car running ps4s tires. And the funny thing is that I did that when the car was stock. That’s right, even with 40% more torque, I’ve never eclipsed the peak acceleration the car did stock. Why? Because it’s traction-limited to the same value either way. Now look at my graph again with that in mind.

If you want peak g’s, traction is what you need more than torque. I’m pretty sure an ecoboost f-150 4wd will hit a higher number than any mustang on street rubber.

 

[Meatball]

Keep in mind also that I have never registered more than 0.75 g on my car running ps4s tires. And the funny thing is that I did that when the car was stock. That’s right, even with 40% more torque, I’ve never eclipsed the peak acceleration the car did stock. Why? Because it’s traction-limited to the same value either way. Now look at my graph again with that in mind.

If you want peak g’s, traction is what you need more than torque. I’m pretty sure an ecoboost f-150 4wd will hit a higher number than any mustang on street rubber.

Yeah, understood. When my base GT 6M was stock (=235 all seasons) I could floor it and it would keep traction (TC not interfering) and my son in the back seat would say “that was awesome!”. Now I have to do that in third, even with 285s (non-DRs), which isn’t quite the same. But third is of course way, way, way more fun now and lasts longer. Anyway, I wouldn’t go back. But it seems like the choice is between a (relative) kick-ass midrange and tremendous but waning top end power, and a good midrange with a stonking top end. Both have their place I guess.

Nobody ever seems to talk about roots vs ts anymore. There MUST be some advantages/disadvantages to each for midrange vs top end power

 

[Meatball]

* and I can’t rev high in third with my kid in the car, too fast for where I live. First and second were fine on most onramps.

 

[Bald Menace]

But me personally I love torque

absolutely, Torque is what makes a car fun to drive everywhere but the track

 

[engineermike]

I don’t think this is getting across...if anything over 500 ftlb just results in tire spin, then what’s the difference between 520 and 540?

 

[Stymee]

I don’t think this is getting across...if anything over 500 ftlb just results in tire spin, then what’s the difference between 520 and 540?

Nothing

 

[80FoxCoupe]

#FKTQ

Sponsored