VMP vs Roush vs Whipple vs Edelbrock ??

[Platinum_5.0]

Here we go...
TLDR version:
Comparing results from dyno to Dyno, day to day, car to car is redundant.
How does it compare on the street where it actually matters for 90% of owners?

The long version:
I’ll preface this with an “each to their own” philosophy. My comments aren’t directed at you personally, but rather a broader stroke in the hope that this example might educate someone sitting at home, wondering WTF is going on here. I’m also hoping they won’t get caught up in the hype of the Whipple, unless of course they’re thinking BIG boost, e85, built engine, strip times etc etc. OR if they plan to just use the supplied tune and go with it, in which case, the Whipple may actually be a better proposition. Not sure, haven’t tried it.

With that out of the way...
Dyno’s are nothing more than tuning tools. To take the results from a different dyno/car/day/location/etc and attempt to compare it to another is ludicrous.
I can show you a workshop here in Australia where your 750 wouldn’t even make 600...and it wouldn’t even matter what kind of day you ran it.

Next, a 750rwhp car, at FULL weight (~4200lbs) should (I use that term very cautiously) trap around 139-140mph, assuming the conditions are as per the “standardised day” that the Dyno applied when it was run up and assuming a 17% drivetrain loss, which isn’t entirely unreasonable.
On pump 93 I feel like this just isn’t going to happen, but I’m happy to be proven wrong. So, if the Hp is wrong, so is the predicted torque....

Then we have DynoJet vs (insert other dyno brand here) and the inherent mismatch in the figures Vs Mustang/Mainline/DynoDynamics etc

Meanwhile, I’ve actually taken the time to swap a Gen 2 that was literally measured at 12psi, for an Edelbrock making 12psi or less, and it eats the Whipple everywhere except the 6-8k region, where I can’t feel any real difference between the two. Same car, same setup (other than blower), same tuner, and that’s giving the Whipple the advantage of the cooler winter air.

I haven’t taken it to the dyno, I don’t care what figures it produces.
The logs show the improvement and the passengers all agree. In fact, they nearly shit themselves,
I don’t know what else to say.
Opinions and research are great.
Empirical evidence is better.

That's a super long "I love TVS" rant there...lol...I'm a TVS fan believe it or not. I'm not a fan boy of either the TVS or Whipple. Definitely not enough to go on a rant to defend one or the other. I don't care the dyno number either. My car on a Whipple and pump, full weight PP car, 3.73 rear and at 3200DA traps a 136. Take it for what you will. My point? I haven't seen any EB cars on the street out running any Whipple car with same fuel and boost setups. I guess according to you my car in Australia makes barely 600whp and traps 136? That's pretty cool if you ask me.

Sponsored

 

[Sighlense]

Here we go...
TLDR version:
Comparing results from dyno to Dyno, day to day, car to car is redundant.
How does it compare on the street where it actually matters for 90% of owners?

The long version:
I’ll preface this with an “each to their own” philosophy. My comments aren’t directed at you personally, but rather a broader stroke in the hope that this example might educate someone sitting at home, wondering WTF is going on here. I’m also hoping they won’t get caught up in the hype of the Whipple, unless of course they’re thinking BIG boost, e85, built engine, strip times etc etc. OR if they plan to just use the supplied tune and go with it, in which case, the Whipple may actually be a better proposition. Not sure, haven’t tried it.

With that out of the way...
Dyno’s are nothing more than tuning tools. To take the results from a different dyno/car/day/location/etc and attempt to compare it to another is ludicrous.
I can show you a workshop here in Australia where your 750 wouldn’t even make 600...and it wouldn’t even matter what kind of day you ran it.

Next, a 750rwhp car, at FULL weight (~4200lbs) should (I use that term very cautiously) trap around 139-140mph, assuming the conditions are as per the “standardised day” that the Dyno applied when it was run up and assuming a 17% drivetrain loss, which isn’t entirely unreasonable.
On pump 93 I feel like this just isn’t going to happen, but I’m happy to be proven wrong. So, if the Hp is wrong, so is the predicted torque....

Then we have DynoJet vs (insert other dyno brand here) and the inherent mismatch in the figures Vs Mustang/Mainline/DynoDynamics etc

Meanwhile, I’ve actually taken the time to swap a Gen 2 that was literally measured at 12psi, for an Edelbrock making 12psi or less, and it eats the Whipple everywhere except the 6-8k region, where I can’t feel any real difference between the two. Same car, same setup (other than blower), same tuner, and that’s giving the Whipple the advantage of the cooler winter air.

I haven’t taken it to the dyno, I don’t care what figures it produces.
The logs show the improvement and the passengers all agree. In fact, they nearly shit themselves,
I don’t know what else to say.
Opinions and research are great.
Empirical evidence is better.

I'm willing to bet you've helped Edelbrock sell atleast five kits to date. I know you've pretty much sold me on one, and i appreciate your input. Also looks like you are getting the Whipple crowd bent out of shape.

 

[Torinate]

Oh I don’t know.

The way I read it is that he much prefers the EB. I think this is simply an honest opinion from someone who has had both of them. Neither is a “wrong” or “bad” choice. No one is disputing anything with either of them! They both get the job done.

Just as I’m sure the centri guys and turbo guys will claim what they have is “best”. Burkey strikes me as a guy that if the EB wasn’t working for him, he would drop that too and switch back or to something he would enjoy more. The fact he enjoys one more than the other and the reasons why he does so are very valid. It’s the same as the tunes he has tried from different timers; likely the top 2 tuners on these cars bar none. He prefers one over the other for again, very valid reasons. Neither is wrong.

Every ones mileage may vary on what THEY like and what THEY prefer. Not to sound sexist in any way, but the age old debate about blondes, brunettes and redheads. Which do you prefer? There’s no wrong answer...

I appreciate everyone’s opinions and points they make; whether on Superchargers, headers injectors etc. This is why this forum has thousands of members! Come one come all. Bring you info, bring your expertise and bring your opinions!

I personally would never knock someone for their own opinion and choices. What’s right for one may not be right for another.

I’m just happy unto hear all the opinions and experiences of others and then make MY OWN decisions based on what I want.

I appreciate the banter though...

 

[engineermike]

That's a super long "I love TVS" rant there...lol....

Lots of words and zero numbers, a purely qualitative analysis is unreliable at best. Numbers matter.

 

[Evolution IX]

Lots of words and zero numbers, a purely qualitative analysis is unreliable at best. Numbers matter.

numbers don’t mean s**t. Dynos read differently it’s just a tuning tool. Track times is what matters to me. That tells the story in my opinion.

 

[engineermike]

numbers don’t mean s**t.... Track times is what matters to me..

A track time is a number. He didn't post track times for the comparison either.

 

[Evolution IX]

A track time is a number. He didn't post track times for the comparison either.

your right. Let me rephrase. I prefer to see track times over Dyno numbers.

 

[Beano]

Oh I don’t know.

The way I read it is that he much prefers the EB. I think this is simply an honest opinion from someone who has had both of them. Neither is a “wrong” or “bad” choice. No one is disputing anything with either of them! They both get the job done.

Just as I’m sure the centri guys and turbo guys will claim what they have is “best”. Burkey strikes me as a guy that if the EB wasn’t working for him, he would drop that too and switch back or to something he would enjoy more. The fact he enjoys one more than the other and the reasons why he does so are very valid. It’s the same as the tunes he has tried from different timers; likely the top 2 tuners on these cars bar none. He prefers one over the other for again, very valid reasons. Neither is wrong.

*snip
...

Yep, a very good assessment. I have read both Burkey’s threads, he explained his reasoning very well over there.

It needs to be remembered that not everyone is about dyno-numbers, or ET’s ....for some, it is simply about the joy of driving, tailoring the power-delivery to their needs/expectations.

Cheers,
Beano

 

[brucelinc]

I don't care about dyno numbers at all. I am very interested in drag strip results but I know that any of the superchargers being discussed will give me what I am looking for at the strip.

I really want to maintain smooth OEM levels of drivability.....progressive throttle response and not a toggle between tame and insane. I do not want the level of tune taken to the ragged edge of engine safety. I also want the least amount of noise and vibration. One comparison that would interest me is the amount of HP it takes to spin the supercharger at 7000 engine rpm.

 

[Beano]

Own

I don't care about dyno numbers at all. I am very interested in drag strip results but I know that any of the superchargers being discussed will give me what I am looking for at the strip.

I really want to maintain smooth OEM levels of drivability.....progressive throttle response and not a toggle between tame and insane. I do not want the level of tune taken to the ragged edge of engine safety. I also want the least amount of noise and vibration. One comparison that would interest me is the amount of HP it takes to spin the supercharger at 7000 engine rpm.

Owning a 670hp 2016 Roush setup, it will probably cater for your needs. A very much fun-to-drive road-car, lots on tap in linear torque and acceleration. Sure, it’s no Lund or PBD-tuned 3l Whipple monster with a 1000rwhp, but as a reliable, high-performance car, it provides for heaps of fun.

It is all relative of course, but for a reliable road-car, this is as good as it gets, from my humble POV.

 

[Stymee]

Own



Owning a 670hp 2016 Roush setup, it will probably cater for your needs. A very much fun-to-drive road-car, lots on tap in linear torque and acceleration. Sure, it’s no Lund or PBD-tuned 3l Whipple monster with a 1000rwhp, but as a reliable, high-performance car, it provides for heaps of fun.

It is all relative of course, but for a reliable road-car, this is as good as it gets, from my humble POV.

But it also needs to ET, now lately I’ve thought to myself if the upcoming P2 would run 10.70@129 and do all the things your talking about I think I would be very happy.

 

[engineermike]

....for some, it is simply about the joy of driving, tailoring the power-delivery to their needs/expectations...

True, but keep in mind that the power delivery at part throttle is largely dependent on the cal. Whipple tends to get kits on the market earlier than the others but the early cals leave something to be desired. Take the 3 minutes to update the cal once in a while and the later ones are much better. I just updated to the current Whipple cal and it’s far better than the rev0 I started out with 18 months ago. I say this because some who don’t like the Whipple “kit” may be actually be referring to some non-optimal characteristic of the earlier cals.

 

[Beano]

@Stymee: Again, if drags are important to you, you might need a bit more....but there probably is a lot to be had from getting the car to launch hard and proper, as that’s where ET’s are made or break....in the old days, we had 4-link or ladder setups with 9” Ford differentials, with 36-spline axles and tall slicks to get traction out of the hole...

Nowaydays, with modern Stangs, the IRS is a different kettle of fish....I would luv to see a launch from 7,500rpm, with the car rocketing out of the hole....should make for a pretty decent ET, even with only 650rwhp, I would say.

‘But it has been to long since I had fun on a drag-strip, never that quick anyway, the frequent weekend-rumble down the local highway enough fun-factor for me. But I still luv a strong pull from say, 50-60kmh, up to 220-240, on the local track back-straight.

I am desperately trying to avoid the ‘must-have-moar’ where hp is concerned. 650-700 on the wheels would be enough to keep a solid respect for Mr. Moostang.

Edit: @Mike: Good points ;)

 

[Stymee]

Again, if drags are important to you, you might need a bit more....but there probably is a lot to be had from getting the car to launch hard and proper, as that’s where ET’s are made or break....in the old days, we had 4-link or ladder setups with 9” Ford differentials, with 36-spline axles and tall slicks to get traction out of the hole...

Nowaydays, with modern Stangs, the IRS is a different kettle of fish....I would luv to see a launch from 7,500rpm, with the car rocketing out of the hole....should make for a pretty decent ET, even with only 650rwhp, I would say.

‘But it has been to long since I had fun on a drag-strip, never that quick anyway, the frequent weekend-rumble down the local highway enough fun-factor for me. But I still luv a strong pull from say, 50-60kmh, up to 220-240, on the local track back-straight.

I am desperately trying to avoid the ‘must-have-moar’ where hp is concerned. 650-700 on the wheels would be enough to keep a solid respect for Mr. Moostang.

I agree with you, 600-650RW is all I’m after and if the Roush P2 would get me there, drive nicely with good street manners, I’m sold, all I’m after is 10.70ish at 127-130

 

[brucelinc]

The problem with the phase 1 Roush is heatsoak as we all know. They might do one decent pass in really cool weather and then they are done.....until they cool off again. The jury is still out on phase 2 but it is hard to imagine that the heatsoak issue has been fixed.

Sponsored