2018 whipple cal. pulley experimenting

[Tommy V]

I.dont think those iat's were high enough to.pull.any timing,so it sounds like a good idea to run the octane booster with how the car is setup now.

Sponsored

 

[Ruiner46]

I assume the IAT you are referencing is IAT1 on the dash gauge. IAT1 is pretty much not relevant to the tune since it doesn't tell you post intercooler temps. IAT2 is post intercooler, but you will need something with the capability to datalog it.

Also, I'm not sure about the 2018+ Whipple tune, but on my 2016, you won't see any timing get pulled due to IAT until post intercooler temps reach 150+. Highest IAT2 I've ever seen was 145 and that was stuck in standstill traffic for an hour with 95-100 ambient temps.

So, lower IAT should give you a cooler denser charge generally, which is more load. If the load gets high enough, the higher ends of the timing table get used, which results in lower total timing. It's hard to tell what KR is really doing at this point. Higher load with negative KR could end up being the same total timing as lower load and positive KR. To really tell what is going on, you need to log several things, and take several pulls and interpret the logs.

 

[engineermike]

I don’t have the ability to log post blower iat. I included iat because someone smarter than me told me that every 10 deg f moves the threshold of detonation about 1 deg.

My “load” has been 180 +/- 1% ever since I changed to the 3.75” pulley. Based on that, I doubt the commanded timing changed much. In fact, I went back and figured the commanded timing based on actual minus KR and found it was 16-16.5 on top end during every run. Therefore, whether you look at KR or timing, the result is the same.

 

[Ruiner46]

The KR value might be already included in the logged timing value. I believe it is when I log timing advance with Hp Tuners, or even the SAE OBD2 PID with something like the Torque android app, or an OBD2 scanner. By the way, I can log IAT2 with the Torque app, although the number it gives is really just a reference point for the tune, the actual temperature transfer function is not that accurate.

My statements about the load were just based on the variability I see over wide temperature swings. You're probably right, that it is pretty consistent for you and the KR difference is due to adding boostane. I'm just saying that your data doesn't prove anything without a doubt unless you log more parameters. (That's the annoying engineer in me speaking)

I live at around 5000ft altitude and have a 2016 tune, so my load numbers will be very different from you. I see around 135 peak during a full throttle run in the summer. A few weeks ago we had some cold 30 degree weather, and my peak load was in the upper 160's. I was pretty shocked by the difference.

 

[engineermike]

Just following up with more logging/testing:

Yesterday, I saw up to 4 deg timing added in the mid range but 2 taken out over 7000 rpm. Peak timing was 16.5, dropping to 14.5 deg before the shift. That was 3.75 on 93. I would say the smaller 3.75 pulley might actually make less power than the 3.875 based on that timing retard.

Today, I dropped to the 3.625 pulley. I added half a bottle of boostane to half a tank of gas. It added (negative KR) 2 deg through the power range, then slacked off to adding 0.6 above 7200 rpm. Peak timing at WOT was 18, dropping to 17 before the shift.

To summarize, I dropped from 3.75 to 3.625 and added the equivalent of 1 bottle of boostane to a tank of gas. The result was that it added about 2 deg timing. Ambient was about 15 deg hotter as well.

 

[Platinum_5.0]

Not an 18 but on why 15 I've done a lot of testing different pullies on 91-93 race gas and Boostane and meth injection. had a lot of conversations with Dustin on this and he's always told me you will make more power with max timing, taking advantage of fuel octane limits over boost. Just look at the power the E85 guys make. I have 2 friends who went E85 and both ran a 3.65" and 3.5" pulley on 15 Mustangs on 91 cali fuel and they had a hard time to see 18 max timing with this pulley and octane level. One ran a 3.5" pulley on 91 octane for along time and it was always had some positive knock, and he made mid 670's wheel like this. When they swapped to E85 and Lund tune commanding 22* at full song they both made 790 wheel on a 3.5" pulley and no more positive knock. Like Dustin said timing is King. 4 or 5 degrees of spark advance is a lot of power as you can see. Always so tempting to pulley down but if your loosing peak timing than you will loose peak HP like this most likely. Pulleying down may feel stronger on the hit because peak torque should increase until spark knock starts trimming power.

Sorry but I was just reading this and all those numbers don't seem to add up at all. A 15 car on E85 with 22* timing and a 3.5 pulley only made 790WHP? And a 3.5 pulley on Cali 91? I can see why he only made 670WHP, he's engine must have been knocking like crazy! Am I wrong or missing something here? Why is the the one car making such low power on E85? and why in the world would the other guy run such a huge risk to his engine with a 3.5 pulley for ZERO gain? Almost every car I've read about or heard of in a 15-17 year with a stage 2 whipple kit made around 650 - 670WHP, on the Gen 3 anyway. The Gen 2 was still around 630 - 650, SAFELY on 91 with the 3.75 pulley and whipple cal.

 

[engineermike]

The whipple 2018 manual says that you can use the 3.625" pulley with 95 octane. Based on my last log, I would tend to believe a can of Boostane to 15 gallons 93 raises the octane to well over 95. The manual also says that you can run the 3.5" pulley with 98 octane.

 

[engineermike]

Just to put the results in one updated post. Keep in mind that the following timing numbers are with the knock-retard figured in. AKA, that is actual timing after knock adjustment, not programmed timing. The car is 100% stock except the supercharger kit, thermostat (Test 3 and on), and pulley swaps. I bolded everything that changed from one test to the next.

Test 1: 3.875 pulley/stock tstat, 93 octane, 86 deg IAT, Max KR: 0.9, Max timing: 18, timing at 6500: 17.5, timing at 7400: 15.5

Test 2 (new cal): 3.875 pulley/stock tstat, 93 octane, 82 deg IAT, Max KR: -0.4, Max timing: 17.5, timing at 6500: 17, timing at 7400: 17.5. Car seems pretty happy on 93 with this pulley and cal.

Test 3: 3.75 pulley/160 tstat, 93 octane, 95 deg IAT, Max KR: 0, Max timing: 17, timing at 6500: 17, timing at 7400: 16.5. Note that IAT was hotter than test 2 and boost higher, but only lost 1 deg.

Test 4 (new cal): 3.75 pulley/160 tstat, 93 octane, 85 deg IAT, Max KR: 2.2, Max timing: 16.5, timing at 6500: 15.5, timing at 7400: 14.5. IAT was cooler so I wonder if this was a bad tank of gas.

Test 5: 3.75 pulley/160 tstat, 6 oz Boostane to 16 gallons 93, 90 deg IAT, Max KR: 0, Max timing: 17.5, timing at 6500: 17.5, timing at 7200: 16.5. Clearly, it was happier than test 4.

Test 6: 3.75 pulley/160 tstat, 12 oz Boostane to 16 gallons 93, 77 deg IAT, Max KR: -0.9, Max timing: 18, timing at 6500: 18, timing at 7400: 17.5. Seems like doubling the Boostane helped.

Test 7 (new cal): 3.75 pulley/160 tstat, 93 octane, 85 deg IAT, Max KR: 1.7, Max timing: 17.5, timing at 6500: 17, timing at 7400: 15. KR up and timing down due to no Boostane and higher IAT. Very similar to Test 4, as it should be, because only the cal changed since then.

Test 8: 3.75 pulley/160 tstat, 93 octane, 55 deg IAT, Max KR: 2.1, Max timing: 16.5, timing at 6500: 16.5, timing at 7400: 14.5. This was intended to be a baseline for the tank of gas before Test 9 changes. It was very close to test 7 in spite of 30 deg colder IAT.

Test 9: 3.625 pulley/160 tstat, 32 oz Boostane to 16 gallons 93, 70 deg IAT, Max KR: -0.6, Max timing: 18, timing at 6500: 17.5, timing at 7400: 17.5. Clearly, the large dose of boostane more-than-offset any increase in knock due to the pulley change. Note timing is 1.5-2.5 deg higher in spite of the smaller pulley and hotter IAT.

Test 10: 3.625 pulley/160 tstat, 16 oz Boostane to 16 gallons 93, 56 deg IAT, Max KR: -0.4, Max timing: 18, timing at 6500: 17.5, timing at 7400: 18. Surprisingly, with this pulley it looks like the car was just as happy on 16 oz as it was on 32 oz Boostane. This is just the info I was after with this test. Also note these results were very similar to Test 6, which makes sense because Test 6 was about 1 psi less boost and less concentration of Boostane.

This data pretty much matches the Whipple manual's recommendations. I would extrapolate (based on these result) that one could actually run the 3.5" pulley at least with a whole can of Boostane as the manual suggests.

Anyone want to loan out a 3.5" pulley for the greater good?

 

[Roh92cp]

Just to put the results in one updated post. Keep in mind that the following timing numbers are with the knock-retard figured in. AKA, that is actual timing after knock adjustment, not programmed timing. The car is 100% stock except the supercharger kit, thermostat (Test 3 and on), and pulley swaps. I bolded everything that changed from one test to the next.

Test 1: 3.875 pulley/stock tstat, 93 octane, 86 deg IAT, Max KR: 0.9, Max timing: 18, timing at 6500: 17.5, timing at 7400: 15.5

Test 2 (new cal): 3.875 pulley/stock tstat, 93 octane, 82 deg IAT, Max KR: -0.4, Max timing: 17.5, timing at 6500: 17, timing at 7400: 17.5. Car seems pretty happy on 93 with this pulley and cal.

Test 3: 3.75 pulley/160 tstat, 93 octane, 95 deg IAT, Max KR: 0, Max timing: 17, timing at 6500: 17, timing at 7400: 16.5. Note that IAT was hotter than test 2 and boost higher, but only lost 1 deg.

Test 4 (new cal): 3.75 pulley/160 tstat, 93 octane, 85 deg IAT, Max KR: 2.2, Max timing: 16.5, timing at 6500: 15.5, timing at 7400: 14.5. IAT was cooler so I wonder if this was a bad tank of gas.

Test 5: 3.75 pulley/160 tstat, 6 oz Boostane to 16 gallons 93, 90 deg IAT, Max KR: 0, Max timing: 17.5, timing at 6500: 17.5, timing at 7200: 16.5. Clearly, it was happier than test 4.

Test 6: 3.75 pulley/160 tstat, 12 oz Boostane to 16 gallons 93, 77 deg IAT, Max KR: -0.9, Max timing: 18, timing at 6500: 18, timing at 7400: 17.5. Seems like doubling the Boostane helped.

Test 7 (new cal): 3.75 pulley/160 tstat, 93 octane, 85 deg IAT, Max KR: 1.7, Max timing: 17.5, timing at 6500: 17, timing at 7400: 15. KR up and timing down due to no Boostane and higher IAT. Very similar to Test 4, as it should be, because only the cal changed since then.

Test 8: 3.75 pulley/160 tstat, 93 octane, 55 deg IAT, Max KR: 2.1, Max timing: 16.5, timing at 6500: 16.5, timing at 7400: 14.5. This was intended to be a baseline for the tank of gas before Test 9 changes. It was very close to test 7 in spite of 30 deg colder IAT.

Test 9: 3.625 pulley/160 tstat, 32 oz Boostane to 16 gallons 93, 70 deg IAT, Max KR: -0.6, Max timing: 18, timing at 6500: 17.5, timing at 7400: 17.5. Clearly, the large dose of boostane more-than-offset any increase in knock due to the pulley change. Note timing is 1.5-2.5 deg higher in spite of the smaller pulley and hotter IAT.

Test 10: 3.625 pulley/160 tstat, 16 oz Boostane to 16 gallons 93, 56 deg IAT, Max KR: -0.4, Max timing: 18, timing at 6500: 17.5, timing at 7400: 18. Surprisingly, with this pulley it looks like the car was just as happy on 16 oz as it was on 32 oz Boostane. This is just the info I was after with this test. Also note these results were very similar to Test 6, which makes sense because Test 6 was about 1 psi less boost and less concentration of Boostane.

This data pretty much matches the Whipple manual's recommendations. I would extrapolate (based on these result) that one could actually run the 3.5" pulley at least with a whole can of Boostane as the manual suggests.

Anyone want to loan out a 3.5" pulley for the greater good?

Nice work on this and my car is up for the winter getting mass work in many areas. Gen 4, new heat spacers for testing with my new 1" lines and intercooler heat exchanger setup, all custom work by myself and Dept of Boost.

I'll lend you my 3.5" just PM me if interested.

 

[olaosunt]

Thank you for being so methodical and documenting everything.
I never tried adding less than a can of boostane (as wanted to be safe) when I ran the whipple tune /3.625 pulley but it’s nice to know you don’t need that much .

I did run 260 GT(98 octane),MS109(105 octane),
5 gallons 260 GT plus a can of boostane (should be about 109 octane ) and did not see any additional timing gains.
It will be interesting to see how much octane is needed to run the 3.5 pulley safely .

With PBD both the “octamium” and MS109 tunes added -3KR on the street with max timing of. 22-23* running my usual mix of 98 octane plus boostane . The tunes have a about the same timing as the E85 tune .
I am going to see what the car makes running MS109 with the 3.625 pulley and then drop down to a 3.5 pulley . If it should knock I have my “trusted mix” ready to go
It’s still cheaper than straight MS109 as 98 is $7 dollars a gallon -$ 35 for 5 gallons plus $ 15 for can of boostane =$50 vs $72 for 5 gallons of MS109.

 

[PC 2015]

Wow Mike great info. Thanks for your work. Now who wants to sell me a 3.65 pulley haha. If so please PM me..

 

[engineermike]

Wow Mike great info. Thanks for your work. Now who wants to sell me a 3.65 pulley haha. If so please PM me..

You got a 3.5 you want to swap for one?

 

[PC 2015]

You got a 3.5 you want to swap for one?

If I did I would. I only have a 3.875. If i can find one I'll let you know.

 

[Redrocket2018]

when changing pulleys is it necessary to change tunes?

 

[engineermike]

No, the maf measures the increase in airflow and compensates for it, plus It runs in closed loop at WOT.

Sponsored