2022 Mustang Mach 1 Whipple Stage 1 Supercharger Dyno

[Zach@Granger]

This is long overdue, but I wanted to post some information regarding a couple of Mustangs we had in our shop recently. I'm not sure that we do a great job advertising it, but we are a Whipple Superchargers vendor and have had a good amount of demand with Whipple supercharger son the Mach 1. We installed a couple of Whipple Superchargers on Mach 1s here recently. Before we completed the install we did a Dyno test on the Mach 1 stock. This produced results between 395-400 hp to the wheels. This equals a drivetrain loss of approximately 15% from the advertised 470 crank horsepower.

Our technician does a great job on these installs and has done stage 1 and stage 2 installs. Our stage 1 comes with a 3 year 36,000 mile warranty and is our most popular option. The biggest difference between the two kits is the stage 2 comes with a bigger fuel pump (rather than a boost-a-pump), whipple throttle body, and a smaller supercharger pulley for more boost. Here are some pictures of the Mustangs, both are equipped with the handling package.

Once the supercharger install was wrapped up, we took it back to the dyno to see the results on the stage 1 package. I was extremely impressed with the driving characteristics of the car. I could put my wife in the car and she wouldn't have any idea that the car was not a stock configuration for the Mach 1. Whipple's tune has been great on the little bit of driving that I have done. Here are the final results on the Dyno:

The kit produced 575 horsepower and 470 Ft/lbs of torque. This is slightly lower than what Whipple advertised I believe. We used 91 Octane as 93 octane is hard to find in Iowa, so that may have had a small effect. But overall, I was really impressed with the performance and driveability of these cars. Both are for sale currently on our website and we charge $10,995 for the package installed. Certainly not the all-out horsepower that a GT500 has, but for those who want to row their own gears, the Handling package, Tremec transmission, and horsepower that the Mach 1 with a whipple supercharger provides is a great option! You also don't have to worry about paying ADM.


Zach

Sponsored

 

[Bulutt]

That US$11,000 is Aus $15,500. But here the Whipple costs around $25,000+.

 

[Zach@Granger]

That US$11,000 is Aus $15,500. But here the Whipple costs around $25,000+.

That is an expensive endeavor for sure!

 

[DrZed]

... always appreciate your posts Zach. Sorry to hijack. Best to you and your biz.

 

[Solarhermit]

I have been delving into the before/after dyno runs from last summer on my '19 Bullitt w/M6 and a newly installed Whipple Stage 1 3.0L Gen5. Before /after numbers are: 352/513 #ft WTQ @ 5000rpm, 393/568 HP @ 6500rpm.

Comparing to Whipple's numbers of 775CHP & 630#ft CTQ, I was interested in where the difference in numbers between crank (flywheel) and wheel values.

1. ALTITUDE LOSS - The dyno was done in Calgary, Alberta at Dale Adams, a Shelby certified shop where they build Super Snakes and have also installed about 50 Whipples on 'stangs. The formula is: 300' elevation gain above sea level= 1% hp/tq loss. Calgary is 3000' elevation, so = 10% loss. OK, where i live has reduced my 'real world' numbers down to 90% output.

2. DRIVETRAIN LOSS - There is much discussion on this number but I am relying on the Shelby shop's experience to use a drivetrain loss of 10% for a Getrag manual tranny coupled through an IRS to get wheel numbers. So, I take my 90% output number and apply the 10% loss to that to get CHP/CTQ = 0.9 x 0.9 = 0.81 WHP/WTQ.

3. PEAK RPM - This doesn't affect my peak TQ (@5252rpm, by definition) but it affects the top-end HP. The '19 Bullitt redlines at 7400rpm and the shop only revved it to a conservative 6500rpm. So, I took the dyno chart an extrapolated (very roughly) from 6500 to 7400rpm.

4. CHP/CTQ to WHP/WTQ - I then took the dyno numbers and applied the aforementioned to calculate 781CHP/633CTQ. Now that is a close correlation to Whipple's advertised numbers of 775CHP/630CTQ! Considering that temperature and humidity of the test would have a very minor influence on the result, I ignored those. Likewise, I did not take into consideration the difference that may be attributed to gasoline octane numbers. I was running fresh 91 octane.

5. DYNO ACCURACY - I then began to question the accuracy of the dyno numbers based on the measuring device, that is, the dyno manufacturer. Mine was done on a Dynapack (wheels off).

I found the following post on fordgt500.com by Mustang Loco which nicely details the possible differences:

· Dec 20, 2014

..."People seem a bit confused about the different types of dyno's and what numbers to expect out of them. So let's clear them up.

There are 3 types of chassis dyno's you'll run into in the USA. Dynojet, Dynapack, & Mustang. They all spit out slightly different HP/TQ numbers when you compare one brand to another (i.e. Dynojet vs Dynapack), but they are all 100% consistent if you stay on the same dyno every time. So if you are tracking your mods as you add them, go to the same shop every time.

95% of the shops in the USA are running one of these three dyno's:

1. Dynojet - most popular in the USA. Considered the "standard" here in the states since most shops utilize them. For our theoretical "car", the Dynojet will read 100 rwhp, & 100 ft/lbs of torque.

With this dyno you drive up to the rollers, they strap the car down, and do a full throttle pass in 3rd or 4th gear. The dyno will calculate the power based on how fast the car will spin the rollers. This is called an inertia based dyno.

For WOT power passes that you can compare to each other on the internet, Dynojet's are perfect. They're everywhere! But most do not have any sort of load simulating capability. Since 2005 more and more Dynojet's sold have their eddy current loading device. So you can ID them, Dynojets are typically red or black.

2. Mustang Dyno's - not as nearly as popular as the Dynojet's, but all performance shops that have Mustang dyno's DO have the capability to simulate load on the car to map ECU's. These are also great dyno's, are very accurate, simulate load very well, and are repeatable every time. They are also inertia based dyno's where you'll drive the car up on the rollers, strap the car down, and make a 3rd or 4th gear pass.

These dyno's will always read ~12% LOWER than a Dynojet, which is our standard here in the states (unless the shop has messed with the gearing settings in the computer). Because of this, lots of the internet folk don't like to use them. They come on the internet, share their results and everyone says "why didn't you make more power with mod XX". So our theoretical car will show 88rwhp on the Mustang dyno.

These dyno's will always be blue.

3. Dynapack - These are the red headed step children here in the states. Not as common as the Dynojet or Dynapack, but these are the standard in Japan. These are fundamentally COMPLETELY different that the inertia type dyno's.

With the Dynapack (my favorite), you remove the rear wheels, attach the hubs of the car to the "pods", and make your pass.

The load is simulated on the car via a hydraulic pump. Because these are effectively inertia-less, they will read HIGHER than the standard Dynojet numbers by 8-10%. That number will vary depending on how "fast" your dyno run lasts (sweep time), but as a rule of thumb, they'll read ~8-10% higher. So with this dyno our car will now read ~109rwhp on average.

The pods are always red, but these are easiest to ID. If they are taking off your wheels, it's a Dynapack!

And understand one thing when it comes to dyno graphs and product claims! Every dyno graph can be cheated by dishonest individuals/companies. All of them. So always take every dyno claim with a grain of salt. If they are cheating their tests, the truth eventually comes out (usually). Be a smart consumer!"..

 

[noac]

Seems pretty down on power.

 

[noac]

Should this be about 650-660

 

[Stage_3]

Wow, these Mach 1 HP cars looks so amazing.
Beautiful.

 

[Solarhermit]

Just for you, noac, how about if I adjust for the altitude, test to 7400rpm and report to all the poorly informed that the dyno = 703 WHP. I know this is rocket science but lower horsepower at a higher altitude and a lower test rpm does make sense if you take a moment to think a bit.

 

[Zach@Granger]

Seems pretty down on power.

The 775 horsepower advertised by Whipple is generous in my opinion for the stage 1 supercharger.

I think 700 HP at the crank is a more accurate number.

 

[Solarhermit]

The 775 horsepower advertised by Whipple is generous in my opinion for the stage 1 supercharger.

I think 700 HP at the crank is a more accurate number.

Why?

 

[Zach@Granger]

Why?

Our stock car dynoed at a 15% driveline loss exactly based on the factory rating, then if you translate that same loss to our Whipple Mustang it equals 678 horsepower.

 

[Solarhermit]

What about the altitude difference between you and the factory test site...if any?

 

[Zach@Granger]

What about the altitude difference between you and the factory test site...if any?

This was independent tests we did on both at the same altitude.

 

[Solarhermit]

This was independent tests we did on both at the same altitude.

What altitude were the tests done at? And, were both tests done on the same machine or at least the same manufacturer..Dynojet or Dynapack?

Sponsored