Do you regret choosing your power adder?

[Forestlump]

You're the one that said we aren't talking about doing 10 pulls back to back. I was just agreeing. I've logged 3 and saw minimal temp rise, but never 10.



It all depends on how the tune is set up. You can run a lot of boost on pump gas as long as the timing is well controlled. Most tuners take the lazy way out and just let it ride a hard limit regardless of load, mapped point, lambda, and even charge temp. If you account for all those plus humidity, you can run a lot more than 8 or 10 psi safely. I'd seen as much as 19 deg timing even at 14 psi boost and 21 deg at 11 psi with zero knock when the conditions were right.



Well under 5 deg rise on these short pulls we're talking about. And I have plenty of datasets from plenty of cars. It simply blows my mind how highly you regard the word-of-mouth qualitative anecdotes that supports your view, while attempting to pick apart detailed data that doesn't. Confirmation bias it is. I was quite surprised by my data as well because of all I had heard and assumed, which is why I went to the lengths I did to test the sensor and transfer function. You can also imagine I was surprised when I first saw data from a centrif setup that showed a rapid temp rise, again because it went against all that is said.

But alas, you have several folks participating in this thread who have owned or even tuned all varieties and they're telling you the same thing I am. When you get actual data and review a couple thousand logs, you start to see patterns.

Just for fun at higher boost levels, and these are cars I've tuned:

For transparency, this is very over-spun VMP Odin, running literally off the compressor map at around 23 psi boost and 60% efficiency, with the single-pass non-counter-flow intercooler (better than Roush but not as good as Whipple). This is what happens when you push a PD too far. Temp rise during the pull was about 23 deg.

This is a Hellion running 21-22 psi boost, 25 deg rise during the pull:

And this is a Whipple 3.8, dual-pass counter-flow intercooler, also around 22 psi boost. Temp rise was about 6 deg.

The ambient temp was the coldest for the Hellion (winter dyno), warmer for the VMP (spring), and hottest for the Whipple 3.8 (early summer).



Lots of people stuck in the old mind-set of yesteryear. I see it all the time. And I don't discount the centrif. It has its advantages...just not the ones you think.

Yes you are right about noticing the patterns, they are different. The whipple does have an almost minute rise, you didn't believe this yourself when you saw it and that led you to investigate by testing the Mapt accuracy. However, that convinced you to believe something untrustworthy.

Like if I put my iat sensor hidden at the back of my manifold, surrounded by a heatsink and cooled by the water cooler, it would also make it numb and skew the readings. It will give a higher reading off boost but also a lower reading in a wot pull. It's working like a capacitor in electronics or an accumulator in hydraulics and smoothing out the signal, which you are reading wrong and believing the data from it to be truthful of what's happening.

That location will make it rise and fall slower compared to the Maf which is reacting much faster. We are talking about a few seconds of heating, the Mapt and it's location is buffered by the aluminium all around it.

You also have to remember that the more the air flow increases through the pull, the less time the boost is sat in contact with the cooler and the more heat is being generated by the supercharger, so you get less and less cooling effect. The speed at which the cooler can conduct heat from the charge is determined by the temperature difference between the boost and coolant (delta T) and the time it's in contact with the cooling fins, which is why you have killer chillers to increase the delta T and make the energy transfer faster, increasing cooling effect.

Heat will only lose energy to something colder. Once you move towards temperature parity, there's no more transfer of heat, no matter how long the boost touches the cooler and at wot 4krpm+ we are talking milliseconds. I know your data says otherwise but you are being fooled by it. It's impossible to cool the boost that fast with such a small cooler and so little delta T. It defies physics. I know your data says different but it's wrong because of how it's being collected.

The only way to have reliable data from the whipple setup is to have a sensor in the intake runner, but noone will want that so if it was me I'd put a coolant temp sensor at the hot side of the whipple coolant pipe (exactly like a boiler or the engines own coolant sensor). It's impossible to have a boost temperature lower than the temperature of the hottest water leaving to cooler.
(think coolant temp Vs cylinder head temp, the coolant is always cooler than the cylinder head it's cooling, to be the other way around defies physics as you go above 100% efficiency and Einstein won't let that happen.)

I know it won't show in real time the temperature rise from a wot pull, but it will give you a better idea of what's happening.

It was a few days ago but there was a thread on here about insulating the whipple from the cylinder heads with a thermal gasket, and another thread about the whipples slow reacting Mapt not giving reliable data, all backing up what's going on here.

There's no doubt Whipple have made great advancements with the gen 5 and the counter flow cooler and the rotor design against the competition but it still has to behave in the realms of physics, it's still working on the principle of a spur gear pump and they can never be 100% efficient because they leak from high side to low. That's why they get worse with higher and higher pressures, the leak gets more and more. It's not an attack on you or the brand, it's physics.

Sponsored

 

[Basspro302]

Yes you are right about noticing the patterns, they are different. The whipple does have an almost minute rise, you didn't believe this yourself when you saw it and that led you to investigate by testing the Mapt accuracy. However, that convinced you to believe something untrustworthy.

Like if I put my iat sensor hidden at the back of my manifold, surrounded by a heatsink and cooled by the water cooler, it would also make it numb and skew the readings. It will give a higher reading off boost but also a lower reading in a wot pull. It's working like a capacitor in electronics or an accumulator in hydraulics and smoothing out the signal, which you are reading wrong and believing the data from it to be truthful of what's happening.

That location will make it rise and fall slower compared to the Maf which is reacting much faster. We are talking about a few seconds of heating, the Mapt and it's location is buffered by the aluminium all around it.

You also have to remember that the more the air flow increases through the pull, the less time the boost is sat in contact with the cooler and the more heat is being generated by the supercharger, so you get less and less cooling effect. The speed at which the cooler can conduct heat from the charge is determined by the temperature difference between the boost and coolant (delta T) and the time it's in contact with the cooling fins, which is why you have killer chillers to increase the delta T and make the energy transfer faster, increasing cooling effect.

Heat will only lose energy to something colder. Once you move towards temperature parity, there's no more transfer of heat, no matter how long the boost touches the cooler and at wot 4krpm+ we are talking milliseconds. I know your data says otherwise but you are being fooled by it. It's impossible to cool the boost that fast with such a small cooler and so little delta T. It defies physics. I know your data says different but it's wrong because of how it's being collected.

The only way to have reliable data from the whipple setup is to have a sensor in the intake runner, but noone will want that so if it was me I'd put a coolant temp sensor at the hot side of the whipple coolant pipe (exactly like a boiler or the engines own coolant sensor). It's impossible to have a boost temperature lower than the temperature of the hottest water leaving to cooler.
(think coolant temp Vs cylinder head temp, the coolant is always cooler than the cylinder head it's cooling, to be the other way around defies physics as you go above 100% efficiency and Einstein won't let that happen.)

I know it won't show in real time the temperature rise from a wot pull, but it will give you a better idea of what's happening.

It was a few days ago but there was a thread on here about insulating the whipple from the cylinder heads with a thermal gasket, and another thread about the whipples slow reacting Mapt not giving reliable data, all backing up what's going on here.

There's no doubt Whipple have made great advancements with the gen 5 and the counter flow cooler and the rotor design against the competition but it still has to behave in the realms of physics, it's still working on the principle of a spur gear pump and they can never be 100% efficient because they leak from high side to low. That's why they get worse with higher and higher pressures, the leak gets more and more. It's not an attack on you or the brand, it's physics.

The iat sensor is in the intake manifold of the whipple. There is no water cooling around it. The sensor probe is insulated from the aluminum case. The iat sensor is functionally the same as the iat sensor in the maf its just rerouted to the intake manifold of the whipple.

 

[Wolfys11]

The iat sensor is in the intake manifold of the whipple. There is no water cooling around it. The sensor probe is insulated from the aluminum case. The iat sensor is functionally the same as the iat sensor in the maf its just rerouted to the intake manifold of the whipple.

I think that the whipple doesnt have a good way of reading boost temps one way or another, the centri gets a true reading post intercooler, the whipple is packaged too closely to the heads of the motor and causes a very tough time getting a comparable reading

maybe if we got some sort of setup to bench test the compression heat loss between the centri vs pd and put both to a tube with a heat sensor instead of a engine, then we can get a true comparison

even just the fact that the sensor reading temp is in one of the 8 cylinders already skews data to a point where we dont really know whats actually going on

 

[robvas]

even just the fact that the sensor reading temp is in one of the 8 cylinders already skews data to a point where we dont really know whats actually going on

So reading the temp of the air and then splitting it into 8 cylinders is different than splitting it into 8 and reading 1?

 

[Wolfys11]

So reading the temp of the air and then splitting it into 8 cylinders is different than splitting it into 8 and reading 1?

So reading the temp of the air and then splitting it into 8 cylinders is different than splitting it into 8 and reading 1?

Its not about the fact you split the air, its the fact that you will have cyl 1 and cyl 7 have different flows and heats due to the air not coming from the center of your manifold. Do you think stock applies perfect dispersion of air? Theres tons of data showing different manifolds not doing the job well

not to mention, the heat dispersion issues will multiply the smaller you make the distance, which in a whipple case, is a couple inches. So little to no space for the air to disperse properly

dont even get me started on the fact that the air is also at the end of the day being compressed, which physically speaking has no difference whether its through centri pd or turbo, the heat is compression heat loss, which in general is similar between the 3, its moreso the other issues like whipple boost leaking through the blades, the cooling properties of each, the radiant heat of things like the motor/coolant, the airflow of fresh air for cooling the compressor of choice, the effeciency as you stated is very similar between our power adders but that disparity between also plays an effect

my point is theres no way a whipple running 16+ psi will run 15degrees charge temp delta and there is a reason why the data shows that, but why could be a list of reasons

A turbo is most effecient, we all know that
A centri is most similar in how it works with a turbo, just add in pully loss. Yet you say a pd which soaks heat from the motor is running twice cooler temps

ridiculous

 

[Angrey]

I'm struggling to try to keep up with what's actually being debated here.

It reads like there's a debate about the thermal efficiency between twin screw and centrifugal setups.

The entire issue is massively complex, especially when you're introducing the intercooling systems/approach into the equation.

Generally speaking, there's decades and mountains of engineering data, professional and peer papers, etc that suggest centrifugal superchargers are slightly more adiabatically efficient than PD blowers.

As far as the real world data on which systems can deliver boost with the least rise in charge temperature, again, you're not just comparing blowers anymore, you're comparing air-water vs air-air intercoolers and the inherent pros/cons and limitations for each.

Then on top of it, you're adding further complexity to comparing a single rip to then heat soaked or repetitive rips. Pile on a bunch of varying real world conditions, variances in total production output and before you know it, you're trying to compare too many variables and jump in and out of focus for particular factors or measurements as it suits the argument.

At the end of the day, I personally believe that centris are a little more efficient (when operated within their optimal compressor curve) but I also think that the air-air intercooling is inferior to even modestly employed air-water. Even with the inefficiency of a heat exchanger, the thermal capacity for a liquid reservoir is orders of magnitude greater than a gaseous stream.

Again, "how much" matters. So while a typical sized air-air intercooler might be effective (or more effective) at pedestrian boost levels, that may or may not be the case the higher in the output range you go. There are simply space and size limitations for air-air systems.

To sum it up, there's way too many variables to effectively get any real answers or comparisons. Throw in this debate about signal/source/data confidence (sensor locations) and you guys might as well be debating about the long term climate and short term weather of Juneau Alaska in the early 16th century vs Panama City last year vs Cairo during the age of the Pharaohs.

 

[robvas]

my point is theres no way a whipple running 16+ psi will run 15degrees charge temp delta and there is a reason why the data shows that, but why could be a list of reasons

So a tuner will tune them differently because even though the IAT says x degrees on a PD and the same x degrees on a centri, they can't run as much timing etc because the IAT's are actually way higher on the PD because the PD IAT's aren't accurate?

 

[Wolfys11]

I'm struggling to try to keep up with what's actually being debated here.

It reads like there's a debate about the thermal efficiency between twin screw and centrifugal setups.

The entire issue is massively complex, especially when you're introducing the intercooling systems/approach into the equation.

Generally speaking, there's decades and mountains of engineering data, professional and peer papers, etc that suggest centrifugal superchargers are slightly more adiabatically efficient than PD blowers.

As far as the real world data on which systems can deliver boost with the least rise in charge temperature, again, you're not just comparing blowers anymore, you're comparing air-water vs air-air intercoolers and the inherent pros/cons and limitations for each.

Then on top of it, you're adding further complexity to comparing a single rip to then heat soaked or repetitive rips. Pile on a bunch of varying real world conditions, variances in total production output and before you know it, you're trying to compare too many variables and jump in and out of focus for particular factors or measurements as it suits the argument.

At the end of the day, I personally believe that centris are a little more efficient (when operated within their optimal compressor curve) but I also think that the air-air intercooling is inferior to even modestly employed air-water. Even with the inefficiency of a heat exchanger, the thermal capacity for a liquid reservoir is orders of magnitude greater than a gaseous stream.

Again, "how much" matters. So while a typical sized air-air intercooler might be effective (or more effective) at pedestrian boost levels, that may or may not be the case the higher in the output range you go. There are simply space and size limitations for air-air systems.

To sum it up, there's way too many variables to effectively get any real answers or comparisons. Throw in this debate about signal/source/data confidence (sensor locations) and you guys might as well be debating about the long term climate and short term weather of Juneau Alaska in the early 16th century vs Panama City last year vs Cairo during the age of the Pharaohs.

^ what im getting at

im claiming ess will beat whipple in heat
As in, auto 800hp vs 800 hp, ess will out run a whipple due to heat loss from whipple at the top end of the run

Why they get good logs for whipple is up for debate, but the supercharger itself speaking centri beats pd for heat

 

[Wolfys11]

So a tuner will tune them differently because even though the IAT says x degrees on a PD and the same x degrees on a centri, they can't run as much timing etc because the IAT's are actually way higher on the PD because the PD IAT's aren't accurate?

Im sorry but are you claiming “boost is boost” so tunes for any boost should be the same???

a tuner doesnt tune based off of a ait brother, he tunes off of more variables than i can list off the top of my head

a pd and centri get tuned differently due to first most, different power/boost bands

Ait is one of the more minor factors to be changing tunes for. Lets start with the torque difference and boost difference from 1000 rpm to 6000rpm, which is night and day for centri vs pd

 

[robvas]

Im sorry but are you claiming “boost is boost” so tunes for any boost should be the same???

a tuner doesnt tune based off of a ait brother, he tunes off of more variables than i can list off the top of my head

a pd and centri get tuned differently due to first most, different power/boost bands

Ait is one of the more minor factors to be changing tunes for. Lets start with the torque difference and boost difference from 1000 rpm to 6000rpm, which is night and day for centri vs pd

you remind me of my ex wife how you bring up fifty different things and try to re-word what I say

 

[cbrtrx]

I'm struggling to try to keep up with what's actually being debated here.

It reads like there's a debate about the thermal efficiency between twin screw and centrifugal setups.

The entire issue is massively complex, especially when you're introducing the intercooling systems/approach into the equation.

Generally speaking, there's decades and mountains of engineering data, professional and peer papers, etc that suggest centrifugal superchargers are slightly more adiabatically efficient than PD blowers.

As far as the real world data on which systems can deliver boost with the least rise in charge temperature, again, you're not just comparing blowers anymore, you're comparing air-water vs air-air intercoolers and the inherent pros/cons and limitations for each.

Then on top of it, you're adding further complexity to comparing a single rip to then heat soaked or repetitive rips. Pile on a bunch of varying real world conditions, variances in total production output and before you know it, you're trying to compare too many variables and jump in and out of focus for particular factors or measurements as it suits the argument.

At the end of the day, I personally believe that centris are a little more efficient (when operated within their optimal compressor curve) but I also think that the air-air intercooling is inferior to even modestly employed air-water. Even with the inefficiency of a heat exchanger, the thermal capacity for a liquid reservoir is orders of magnitude greater than a gaseous stream.

Again, "how much" matters. So while a typical sized air-air intercooler might be effective (or more effective) at pedestrian boost levels, that may or may not be the case the higher in the output range you go. There are simply space and size limitations for air-air systems.

To sum it up, there's way too many variables to effectively get any real answers or comparisons. Throw in this debate about signal/source/data confidence (sensor locations) and you guys might as well be debating about the long term climate and short term weather of Juneau Alaska in the early 16th century vs Panama City last year vs Cairo during the age of the Pharaohs.

Good write up. Speaking of overall efficiency I wonder which blower consumes less power to make power? I know in the end what it consumes doesn't really matter and the boost levels would make a difference as well as to the efficiency and to what it makes but still something to think about.

 

[robvas]

Good write up. Speaking of overall efficiency I wonder which blower consumes less power to make power? I know in the end what it consumes doesn't really matter and the boost levels would make a difference as well as to the efficiency and to what it makes but still something to think about.

Hard to test. I think the most straightforward way would be take a Coyote and put it on engine stand, and pulley both superchargers to make say, 10psi, and see which one dynos higher?

The other thing is you would have to dyno something like a P1SC vs a Whipple 3.0 at 10psi/700hp, but then you'd have to put a big honkin F1 blower on to make a fair comparison to the Whipple at say 24psi

 

[cbrtrx]

Hard to test. I think the most straightforward way would be take a Coyote and put it on engine stand, and pulley both superchargers to make say, 10psi, and see which one dynos higher?

The other thing is you would have to dyno something like a P1SC vs a Whipple 3.0 at 10psi/700hp, but then you'd have to put a big honkin F1 blower on to make a fair comparison to the Whipple at say 24psi

Yeah at lower boost levels say 10 psi like you mentioned I believe the centrifugal will make a little more peak power if peak power was all that mattered but like you said though as the boost is turned up things change. If we had all the different compressor maps that would be interesting to see.

For me what can go the fastest matters and turbos are hard to beat there but reliability is also another very big thing to me. I use to be big into turbos 20 years ago and throughout the years since but even though they can potentially make the most hp and get down the track the fastest I'm actually not a fan of them as much on the coyote platform. Just my preferences.

 

[robvas]

My point was more that they don't make a 'small' whipple that potentially takes less hp to drive or is more efficient at the 700hp level. You can get lots of different centrifugal superchargers but for the current generation Mustang whipple you have the 3.0/3.8 and that's really it

 

[Angrey]

^ what im getting at

im claiming ess will beat whipple in heat
As in, auto 800hp vs 800 hp, ess will out run a whipple due to heat loss from whipple at the top end of the run

Why they get good logs for whipple is up for debate, but the supercharger itself speaking centri beats pd for heat

This is just wildly presumptive from a number of standpoints. First of all, what maximizes a vehicle's acceleration is area under the torque curve. Then further, area under each gear change for torque.

And you start off apples/oranges. Just because a centri peaks at 800 hp, doesn't mean the area under it's curves are equivalent.

You're better off trying to compare comparable airflow/boost. But as we've seen, even that's problematic because the forums are littered with dubious boost pressure claims from ESS nutswingers and stakeholders.

And we haven't even gotten into what type of setup accompanies each, manual? A10? T400?

You've been around the moon and back trying to iceskate uphill against others who have shown real data that suggests this "heat" advantage you're claiming is either non-existent or most likely a non-factor. (for a single cold pull).

For auto x and circuit racing, it's largely accepted that a PD with it's heat exchanger is less preferable to a centri setup, but again, with the right supporting cooling mods, Ford has demonstrated that they can make a roots blower car that will run hard continuously basically until you run out of fuel.

The ESS is formidable for what it is, a value brand/option. But arguing it's better for heat and then moving the goal posts to keep your assertion in the face of data, then discounting the data because you don't like the sensor location, it's starting to become obvious you have your mind made up and there's no changing it.

I'm one of the most unbiased people in the mustang community when it comes to modifications, I really have no hard core loyalties. I would say that unless you're tracking your vehicle for extended sessions or you're on some hardcore fuel limitations, the issue is a non factor anyway (IAT's aren't a problem for whipples on E85). Even then it's being generous assuming that a whipple has to labor at the same levels of a centri setup to produce the same results (many times a PD car makes enough torque to not require you run it at elevated rpms around a track if you adjust the gears).

From a cold dyno setup, at 1100 rwhp, my car never rose more than 105F for a full WOT pull in 96F ambient temps. Again, apples and oranges, the Whipple setup gets the advantage of having a giant liquid heat sink to aid it. So I guess the question becomes, when you're comparing this heat issue. Cold at the track for a single drag pass? I'd say your argument is useless. After 10 continuous rips on the highway in hot ambient temps......MAYBE, but again, that's only a real concern on 93. On E85, there's virtually NO ONE I've run into that argues they're getting timing pulled because of elevated IAT2's. The Roots and the Roush blowers with their anemic intercooler bricks and systems, yeah, it's an issue, but it's just not the myth you're claiming it to be. And I know a LOT of guys with whipple setups in South Florida.

Sponsored