More whipple numbers

kenewagner

Registered User
Drove the car to Lincoln yesterday........Yes I did say drove:D A couple of guys were going to dyno and tune there cars. Almost like a miny meet:cool:I put the car back on the dyno for a couple of pulls to just see what the changes might be for numbers. Changes were
1 Bigger exhaust
2 100 octane gas
3 no Knock sensor
4 new tranny with non locking TQ converter

Car pulled clean and made 339 HP and 387 TQ with its present boost. Im sure the converter is loosing me TQ on the dyno. On the other hand when comparing my new sheets to old sheets I see the TQ band is way higher and extends over the course of the pull vs a huge spike and dropping off off like an eaton. Still have some unanswered questions. And car is not tuned other than it has a fairly good AFR so Im sure there are still tweaks that could be made. I am discussing options with my tuner and will decide where to go from here based on his recommendations. While I want to get good numbers from my combination before the Shoot out, it probably will not get me the numbers I want and I will have to wait for a better foundation for the whipple to shine. We will see;)

Ken
 
Drove the car to Lincoln yesterday........Yes I did say drove:D A couple of guys were going to dyno and tune there cars. Almost like a miny meet:cool:I put the car back on the dyno for a couple of pulls to just see what the changes might be for numbers. Changes were
1 Bigger exhaust
2 100 octane gas
3 no Knock sensor
4 new tranny with non locking TQ converter

Car pulled clean and made 339 HP and 387 TQ with its present boost. Im sure the converter is loosing me TQ on the dyno. On the other hand when comparing my new sheets to old sheets I see the TQ band is way higher and extends over the course of the pull vs a huge spike and dropping off off like an eaton. Still have some unanswered questions. And car is not tuned other than it has a fairly good AFR so Im sure there are still tweaks that could be made. I am discussing options with my tuner and will decide where to go from here based on his recommendations. While I want to get good numbers from my combination before the Shoot out, it probably will not get me the numbers I want and I will have to wait for a better foundation for the whipple to shine. We will see;)

Ken

Sounds great, nice to hear some good news for a change. :D Congrats!
 
You're probably giving up some horsepower running that fuel over a lower octane fuel. Unless your cylinder pressures require it, and your ignition is setup for it, you'll often find lower power with high octane fuel.

It's harder to ignite and it takes longer in the cylinder to burn which provided the anti-knock advantage, but does require changes to ignition timing to keep power up.

Overall though, it looks good. It always feels good to drive to the dyno lay down about 1.5hp per cubic inch, and drive the car back home without a problem.
 
Ken,

It sounds like your headed in the right direction. So it didn't do any of that goofy stuff it was doing the last time you dynoed ? How much boost ?

David
 
Last edited:
Car did not doing anything goofy this time. It idles well and drives good. I had no belt slip at this time. Could be the huge 3.8" pulley on the blower:rolleyes:
Boost was in the 18 lb range so I have ordered another pulley to increase it somewhat:D Looks like the autometer gauge is off 2 to 3 lbs of boost. I am running 24 degrees of timing at this time and the higher octane is to insure there is no detonation to get it trouble with since there is no knock sensor protection. I will have to make plans to tune it cuz everone know the tune is important. My goal will be to get it running as best as possible for the shootout. After that the new engine will be the priority. Trying to work out all the bugs with everything now. Takes me a lot of time to get everything working together right:rolleyes:

Ken
 
So do you think the m112 had more in her? and what happened to it anyways?..The m112 that is

I think the M112 actually came on harder from the start but the whipple has a lot stronger band of power which just makes it feel a lot more powerful. I have to agree with Daves accesment that the longer rotors and still having to spin it 15% overdrive took away its superiorty because the rotors just dont fill all the way, being so long. Spinning it slower and staying in a lower boost it is a great blower but it didnt really outdo a 25% overdriven MPX. So for a lot of work it is a nice nolvelity for someone who wants something diffrent but not the kind of overall superiority everyone perdicted. It tore up the rotors last time it seized and although I repaired them it never made more than 16 lbs of boost due to having to big of clearances. It would require a new or rebuilt rotor pack and it would need a custom fit upper IC tube to match another car. It had its share of problems so I put it on a shelf in a box where it sits today

Ken
 
Im running out of ideas for you Ken. Good numbers Ken. But dayum your engine is a hard cookie to get numbers out of. You are running 100 octane and the snow or did you take that out? That timing and the race fuel seem to be a conflicting combination.

But dont worry I might be sitting in the sidelines just like you with high expectations.

Keep up the work. Dont spent too much effort though if you are changing things next year. It will all be mood if you do.
 
Im running out of ideas for you Ken. Good numbers Ken. But dayum your engine is a hard cookie to get numbers out of. You are running 100 octane and the snow or did you take that out? That timing and the race fuel seem to be a conflicting combination.

But dont worry I might be sitting in the sidelines just like you with high expectations.

Keep up the work. Dont spent too much effort though if you are changing things next year. It will all be mood if you do.

It is hard to get things right. I beleive the headers limit me some. I am hopeing for some added ponies with a little more boost. Maybe some added timing, a few tweaks in the tune. I will let Dave figure that out as he knows what works. I would like to get some tuning before the shootout. If not than I wont sweat it and will wait till the next generation engine goes into the engine compartment:D. I will continue to work toward the right combination untill then. I am still running the snow system as I dont see a reason not to.
The non locking TQ converter limits magic on the dyno and I would have gone with a locking one but it came with the tranny:rolleyes: I am going to run 12s this year at the shootout and maybe 11s next year, who knows:D:D

Ken
 
There's not much if any more to be had with the current combination. Better heads, more camshaft, headers, more OD, all that will help move the ante up.
 
I was just remembering you had issues other then the m112 and teh combo of head/cam will ultimately be a ceiling point.

I noticed the same thing however going from my S port to the AR. Loss of Low end but greater top end....Which is just fone for me
 
Can you run your complete setup again, your member page doesn't show your injector size, brand of MAF, fuel pressure, SC drive ratio, your engine mods, cams, porting, red line RPM, complete exhaust breakdown. What are you using for tuning? can you post a log? what is your wideband reading?

I can't find your old thread but I think I posted that the bypass was not the best choice, did you make sure that it was sealing at the higher boost levels, they may have a 30 lb spring but are not designed for SC setups.

I think you should be putting more down, can you verify the voltage your getting out of your MAF?
 
If your running a 3.8" pulley and not knowing your jackshaft size and assuming a 5500 rpm limit the drive ratio is about 2.28, multiply by 5500 rpm, blower spins at 12540rpm so a 2.1L/rev is producing 930 CFM.

At 5500 a 231 cubic engine requires 368 CFM (CID*RPM/3464)

930 cfm - 368 cfm = 562 cfm excess

with a 80% VE, .8(562/368)*14.7psi

gives you 18psi
 
Can you run your complete setup again, your member page doesn't show your injector size, brand of MAF, fuel pressure, SC drive ratio, your engine mods, cams, porting, red line RPM, complete exhaust breakdown. What are you using for tuning? can you post a log? what is your wideband reading?

I can't find your old thread but I think I posted that the bypass was not the best choice, did you make sure that it was sealing at the higher boost levels, they may have a 30 lb spring but are not designed for SC setups.

I think you should be putting more down, can you verify the voltage your getting out of your MAF?

The M112 is custom set up to bolt on to my car, so it would bolt right on should I ever decided to do that. It is not in the same class as a 2.3 Whipple though. My member page has injector size, exhaust size and configuration, gear ratio etc etc. The cam is a small .491 lift cam 210/220 duration. Car is not tuned. It is running on the tune for the M112. It will take a while to get everything sorted out and get the combination worked out. I hope to have a chance for Dave to work with it, to tune it before the shootout. The AFR is really good so I am not concerned about going lean. The by pass is woorking just fine since I change vacuum to a return port. I am not fluctating on boost numbers at the dyno. All in all I think there is more in the engine to be had as I will bolting on a smaller SC pulley tomorrow. With the higher octane gas there is some room for my timing. When I get it tuned, Im sure the tuner can make those calls. Regardless a new engine will be taking its place late this year making a new set of varaibles. I look at this way, there are no whipple powered SC cars running out there like mine (top outlet with FMIC) so I have to figure out what works and what doesnt by trial and error. Basicly 340 HP with no tuning is not a real bad start, its where it finishes that matters:D
I do feel the numbers should be higher, but dont we all feel that way about our SCs;)

Ken
 
If your running a 3.8" pulley and not knowing your jackshaft size and assuming a 5500 rpm limit the drive ratio is about 2.28, multiply by 5500 rpm, blower spins at 12540rpm so a 2.1L/rev is producing 930 CFM.

At 5500 a 231 cubic engine requires 368 CFM (CID*RPM/3464)

930 cfm - 368 cfm = 562 cfm excess

with a 80% VE, .8(562/368)*14.7psi

gives you 18psi

Jackshaft pulley is a 5% pulley. boost was in the 18 psi range on the dyno.
New pulley will be 3.5"

Ken
 
Doh, for some reason I thought you had a 2.1, anyway a 2.3 should give you 21psi.

Still can't find out what 76mm MAF your running,if its a C&L, they make two 2021 kg/hr and a 1246 kg/hr. I mean how do you know your tuner didn't use a fuel multiplier with the smaller MAF because it may be reading 4 inches of vacuum losing you a few pounds of boost.

I think if your running a 12:1 on your wideband w/ 24 degree's timing, tuning it make eek you a bit more so I'm thinking somewhere else may be holding it back, I emailed whipple regarding the efficiency date versus rpm from 3000-13000 rpm, wonder if you underdriving this thing has pulled you way out of the efficiency range and is robbing the setup. Although I think most twin screw's will stay at 80% VE throughout the entire RPM range.

Still think this thing should be making more because this is my next setup too.
 
I emailed whipple regarding the efficiency date versus rpm from 3000-13000 rpm, wonder if you underdriving this thing has pulled you way out of the efficiency range and is robbing the setup. Although I think most twin screw's will stay at 80% VE throughout the entire RPM range.

I made this point a while back while we were discussing if the larger blower was necessary. But other variables are playing here, this might not be the only thing happening.
 
Back
Top