2022 Mustang Mach 1 Whipple Stage 1 Supercharger Dyno

[Prodigal]

How did the stage 2 perform?

Sponsored

 

[Cory S]

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.

That's what correction factors are for with dynamometers.

Uncorrected #'s will definitely show differences in the density altitude though yes....

 

[Solarhermit]

Jeez, if I went back and read your prior posts, I could answer my stupid questions. Of course they were both done on your Dynojet...duh. Why is there more fog in the morning?

And your location in Granger, IA has an elevation of 900' above sea level. So, 3% loss due to altitude and 12% attributable to driveline loss. That sounds better. My Dynapack results are known to be high and easily accounts for my lower driveline loss of 10%. So, if my Dynapack results are higher, that would then support the conclusion that Whipple advertised numbers are also high.

Thanks for your patience Zach.

 

[Zach@Granger]

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?

Des moines is about 1000 feet above sea level and it was done on the same dyno.

 

[beetle6986]

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.

Your numbers still seem extremely low. I get the impact of the lower RPM and higher altitude, but I'm having trouble following your logic.... If I read correctly, both of your dyno runs were on the same dyno (same altitude) and both up to 6,500 RPM. Given this information I would expect both of your runs to have a similar percentage of driveline loss. Your stock dyno was 352 RWHP which is about 27% loss from 480 crank HP due to lower RPM, altitude, etc. If your whipple stage 1 is rated at 775, I would expect close to the same driveline loss of around 27% since most other variables are the same. This should still give you around 565 WHP from the rated 775 crank HP assuming the same 27% lose. However, WHP was over 150 HP less??? That just doesn't make sense. Even accounting for all the variables it doesn't make sense that your car somehow had 50% driveline loss with the Whipple vs only 27% when stock. Maybe I missed something else??

 

[wazslow]

Your numbers still seem extremely low. I get the impact of the lower RPM and higher altitude, but I'm having trouble following your logic.... If I read correctly, both of your dyno runs were on the same dyno (same altitude) and both up to 6,500 RPM. Given this information I would expect both of your runs to have a similar percentage of driveline loss. Your stock dyno was 352 RWHP which is about 27% loss from 480 crank HP due to lower RPM, altitude, etc. If your whipple stage 1 is rated at 775, I would expect close to the same driveline loss of around 27% since most other variables are the same. This should still give you around 565 WHP from the rated 775 crank HP assuming the same 27% lose. However, WHP was over 150 HP less??? That just doesn't make sense. Even accounting for all the variables it doesn't make sense that your car somehow had 50% driveline loss with the Whipple vs only 27% when stock. Maybe I missed something else??

He made 393hp/352 ft lbs before the blower and 568hp/513 ft lbs after the blower. He wrote it a little strange.

So 480 stock at the flywheel made 393hp at the tire. That's an 18% loss. If you applied that 18% loss to the 775 advertised Whipple rating, he should have made around 635 at the tire with the Whipple.

 

[Solarhermit]

He made 393hp/352 ft lbs before the blower and 568hp/513 ft lbs after the blower. He wrote it a little strange.

So 480 stock at the flywheel made 393hp at the tire. That's an 18% loss. If you applied that 18% loss to the 775 advertised Whipple rating, he should have made around 635 at the tire with the Whipple.

thanks for clarifying wazslow

 

[beetle6986]

He made 393hp/352 ft lbs before the blower and 568hp/513 ft lbs after the blower. He wrote it a little strange.

So 480 stock at the flywheel made 393hp at the tire. That's an 18% loss. If you applied that 18% loss to the 775 advertised Whipple rating, he should have made around 635 at the tire with the Whipple.

Thanks. That makes more sense. 18% loss when only revving to 6500 RPM sounds reasonable for the stock numbers assuming the Ford 480 rating is accurate. However, as you said, using that same 18% should have gotten 635 to the tires with the Whipple (revving to the same 6500 RPM) if the 775 crank HP was accurate. So like the OP said, the 775 seems a bit optimistic.

 

[Solarhermit]

Whipple also states 630 #ft CTQ, while using 18% loss, equates to 516 #ft WTQ and my Dynapack reported a test of 513 #ft. My torque number is more accurate compared to Whipple's number as it occurs at less than redline rpm and thus, the rpm level of the test has no effect.

But the 18% loss for horsepower is valid at redline and horsepower is reduced at a reduced test rpm. Extrapolate the results up to 7400rpm redline for my Bullitt and my WHP is 640 hp with CHP = 781 = confirms Whipple's number. See points 3 and 4 of my prior #5 post.

 

[Slopoke]

Looking at the dyno chart above. The power numbers are quoted at 7340 rpms, with 91 octane fuel. Whipple quotes their HP numbers using 93 octane fuel and it doesn't state at which rpm they got their numbers from.

I know that the stage 2 rpm numbers are taken at 7,740 rpms, but I don't know if the stage 1 has the HP numbers taken at a similar rpm or not. I would suppose that taking it up to around 400 more rpms and using 93 octane fuel, would net more HP. Can those two factors bring the HP numbers close to what Whipple claims, I have no clue.

 

[Marketplaza]

I’m curious as I have a 19 gt with a vortech jt and it’s the basic one that has its own oil. So I didn’t have to tap my oil pan. I’m making 682rwhp, I don’t have any other mods besides 4.09 gears. But shouldn’t a whipple make more hp than a vortech? I’m thinking the tune is very conservative. Mine was done by Lund.

 

[beetle6986]

Whipple also states 630 #ft CTQ, while using 18% loss, equates to 516 #ft WTQ and my Dynapack reported a test of 513 #ft. My torque number is more accurate compared to Whipple's number as it occurs at less than redline rpm and thus, the rpm level of the test has no effect.

But the 18% loss for horsepower is valid at redline and horsepower is reduced at a reduced test rpm. Extrapolate the results up to 7400rpm redline for my Bullitt and my WHP is 640 hp with CHP = 781 = confirms Whipple's number. See points 3 and 4 of my prior #5 post.

I disagree. The 18% loss isn't realistic in a scenario running to redline. That's way too high for these cars. I was using the 18% loss due to only revving to 6500 RPM in both your stock and Whipped dyno. Your stock and supercharged dyno was an apples to apples comparison because they both only revved to 6500. The 18% loss was what we came up with on the stock run given Fords rating. With the Whipple you were showing much more than 18% loss with the same scenario on the dyno. You should have had the same 18% loss putting you at 635WHP @ 6500 rpm if the 775 rating is accurate.

 

[HKusp]

I’m curious as I have a 19 gt with a vortech jt and it’s the basic one that has its own oil. So I didn’t have to tap my oil pan. I’m making 682rwhp, I don’t have any other mods besides 4.09 gears. But shouldn’t a whipple make more hp than a vortech? I’m thinking the tune is very conservative. Mine was done by Lund.

I ABSOLUTELY think that the Whipple tunes are really really conservative and that has all but certainly been corroborated by many on here that started with a Whipple tune and then went to a custom tune afterward. There is a lot left on the table between Whipple warrantying their stuff and C.A.R.B. compliance.

 

[Marketplaza]

I ABSOLUTELY think that the Whipple tunes are really really conservative and that has all but certainly been corroborated by many on here that started with a Whipple tune and then went to a custom tune afterward. There is a lot left on the table between Whipple warrantying their stuff and C.A.R.B. compliance.

They probably are really conservative with their tune. If you went with Lund or pbd you would get a lot more power. The 3.0 whipple is pretty big so you should get a min of 750 rwhp. At least you’d think you would considering the price and how long you got to wait for it to be shipped to you. I would have gotten that instead of my vortech if I didn’t have to wait 6 months. But I’m honestly happy with the vortech. I like the way it delivers power.

 

[engineermike]

The stage 1 tune might be conservative but the stage 2 certainly is not. And none of them do 750 rwhp on true pump gas, at least in typical conditions. The best most can expect from a stage 2 is upper 600’s. Add octane boosters, headers, no cats, ideal conditions, dyno tricks, etc and that’s where the 750 rwhp numbers are coming from.

Sponsored