Whipple done pretty good power came with it

[sir-blah]

Got the whipple on and dyno'd on a mustang dyno. This dyno gave me about 345 hp with the eaton and a 2.93 with a max boost of 12.8x psi. That came out to about 431 hp on the dynojet at Xtreme.

With the whipple on and a max of 12.7psi I ran 439 HP on the mustang dyno. Pretty good I think. Almost a 100HP difference on a mustang dyno is nothing to be ashamed of. :burnout:

 

[CobraBob]

Looking at your curve, how does the Whipple feel from 2000-4000 compared to your Eaton?

 

[shelbycobra]

whipple charger

what model cobra do you have,i thought they didnt make one for the 96-98.please let me know.

 

[BBriBro]

Re: whipple charger

Originally posted by shelbycobra
what model cobra do you have,i thought they didnt make one for the 96-98.please let me know.

I read "03 Sonic Blue Cobra Vert" :shrug:

 

[nj7703]

I'm sorry to seem a bit confused here but, don't those #'s seem low, even for 12 lbs and a Mustang dyno? The #'s i ran below are on a non ported Eaton, and just a 2.95, catback, and CAI, and a Mustang Dyno too. :shrug:

 

[Juiced-03]

Why did you start the pull so late??? I love the engine bay BTW!! You going to spray on top of the Whipple?

So what would those numbers be on a Dynojet? Sorry, Mustang Dyno numbers are Japanese to me

 

[MyT-Mouse]

So what are you putting down with the Spray?

 

[florida03]

Wonder whats going on, those #s do look alittle low
even on a Mustang dyno. You should get that thing on a dyno jet
so you get a good read on your car.

GL

 

[Wilson & Co]

the thing that looks most strange is the tq..... for a mustang dyne

 

[03soniccobra01]

Not all that good on top it seems??

 

[mike79]

Those numbers look right on the money to me. Thats around 548rwhp (dynojet numbers) Break that thing in, slap it up to around 15lbs, and let the no2 rip! Nice setup man!

 

[sir-blah]

Well, the numbers might seem low, most people are used to a dynojet type dyno. We used a rolling weight of 4000lbs. That is only 250more than that graph so I don't know, it was 115 degrees outside. I really don't know how to explain them. Also, sorry the graph starts so late, this was a tuning graph.

As for 2000-4000rpm's it feels like a tire shredder.It feels like all of my gears got a bit shorter. I put in a shift light and its like it never turns off.

The N20 is set for a 75 shot, but I don't know that I will be using it any time soon. I was sending it through the Eaton no problem, but now making more power with the whipple than I was with the Eaton + N20 I don't know that I want to push my luck just yet. I know I will though at some point.

shelbycobra: Its a 2003 Cobra

 

[Juiced-03]

Hey sir-blah,

Does the whipple feel stronger than the 75-shot + the Eaton? Cusrious to hear your impression!

 

[florida03]

Originally posted by sir-blah
Well, the numbers might seem low, most people are used to a dynojet type dyno. We used a rolling weight of 4000lbs. That is only 250more than that graph so I don't know, it was 115 degrees outside. I really don't know how to explain them. Also, sorry the graph starts so late, this was a tuning graph.

The heat is deffinatly a killer and I was M/dynoed at
3600 pounds and around 80 outside so I know my numbers are alittle high.
All I know is you have the set up I whant in the worst way:beer:

 

[Snake40]

If it's ok to ask, what did it cost to get to this point including tuning?

 

[dgussin1]

Originally posted by Snake40
If it's ok to ask, what did it cost to get to this point including tuning?

the whipple cost $3100 + shipping + a tune.

 

[DynoDan]

A few thoughts on this "my car made xxx on a Mustang dyno, what should it make on a Dynojet dyno" dilemma.

Since the Mustang dyno uses a torque cell / strain gauge to measure torque, there are potential sources of error. This would apply to any "loading type dyno" that uses eddy current load control and a strain gauge / torque cell. The strain gauge needs to be calibrated to make it consistent and repeatable. Once the strain gauge is calibrated properly, the only other way the numbers would "float up or down" is from user / operator input. This would include the vehicle frontal area, coefficient of drag, and vehicle weight.

So, in any case, there are a couple ways that even when testing on the same model Mustang dyno, the numbers are subject to a few variables. These variables are ultimately responsible for the power numbers reported from the testing.

All Dynojet dynos have a mass / load that is the same day to day. This mass doesn't change........ever. The variances between Dynojet dynos is quantified in the software that accompanies each dyno. This is why you can go to 15 different Dynojet dynos in a day, and as long as the vehicle hasn't changed (from tire pressure to spark advance), then the results will be damn near dead nuts the same. The ONLY way the power numbers can be affected on a Dynojet dyno is if there is a mechanical failure (bearing drags, dragging brakes), or the atmospheric conditions are skewing the corrected numbers. Since it's very rare to have mechanical failures, and since the atmospheric conditions are reported automatically (not a user defined input), the numbers are super consistent, repeatable, and can be compared from Dynojet dyno to Dynojet dyno.

Then the argument comes out, "well, I need to tune my car on a load type dyno". This is not necessarily the case, I'd be more concerned with the ability of your tuner / calibrator. A car that needed a "ground up mapping session", ie. complete development on a stand alone system or "zero map", then a loading dyno would be VERY beneficial. When you do testing on a loading type dyno, ask your "tuner" to supply you with a plot of calculated load, along with as many other parameters you can get your hands on (spark advance, MAFv, etc). Log these types of parameters on loading dyno, and then on an inertial dyno and let me know what you find out. Arming yourself with this type of info is much more important than concerning yourself about which dyno you should run on.

I do work for Dynojet, but I hope that my reply was fairly objective.

Oh, and BTW, we (Dynojet) have released an eddy current load control unit for the Model 224x. Dynos equipped with this technology will be subject to the same variables as any loading dyno (ie. calibration routines, user defined inputs). I'll assure you, on a properly calibrated 224xLC dyno , the numbers will still be comparable to inertia only runs. If you find they aren't, then pull out that log sheet of parmameters I mentioned above and I'll show you why. ;-)

 

[sir-blah]

Update

OK, I put on my pump gas tune today and went to the mustang dyno that I was tuned on and then to the Dynojet. Here are the results between the two dyno's:

Mustang Dyno:

Dynojet:

405.6 HP 371.2 TQ on the mustang dyno and 515.0 HP and 445.2 TQ on the dynojet. (On the dynojet ignore the blue line, we turned on the nitrous with only the fuel solenoid to check something and went super rich) That is more than a 100 HP difference between the two dyno's.

Juiced-03: The Whipple vs the Nitrous is hard to compare. The Whipple is nice and smooth, you don't feel that kick like with the nitrous. I know I will eventually hit the N20 with the whipple but for now I prefer the whipple's power to the nitrous. It does feel stronger but it doesn't all come on at once like the N20 does.

 

[Wilson & Co]

Originally posted by DynoDan
A few thoughts on this "my car made xxx on a Mustang dyno, what should it make on a Dynojet dyno" dilemma.

Since the Mustang dyno uses a torque cell / strain gauge to measure torque, there are potential sources of error. This would apply to any "loading type dyno" that uses eddy current load control and a strain gauge / torque cell. The strain gauge needs to be calibrated to make it consistent and repeatable. Once the strain gauge is calibrated properly, the only other way the numbers would "float up or down" is from user / operator input. This would include the vehicle frontal area, coefficient of drag, and vehicle weight.

So, in any case, there are a couple ways that even when testing on the same model Mustang dyno, the numbers are subject to a few variables. These variables are ultimately responsible for the power numbers reported from the testing.

All Dynojet dynos have a mass / load that is the same day to day. This mass doesn't change........ever. The variances between Dynojet dynos is quantified in the software that accompanies each dyno. This is why you can go to 15 different Dynojet dynos in a day, and as long as the vehicle hasn't changed (from tire pressure to spark advance), then the results will be damn near dead nuts the same. The ONLY way the power numbers can be affected on a Dynojet dyno is if there is a mechanical failure (bearing drags, dragging brakes), or the atmospheric conditions are skewing the corrected numbers. Since it's very rare to have mechanical failures, and since the atmospheric conditions are reported automatically (not a user defined input), the numbers are super consistent, repeatable, and can be compared from Dynojet dyno to Dynojet dyno.

Then the argument comes out, "well, I need to tune my car on a load type dyno". This is not necessarily the case, I'd be more concerned with the ability of your tuner / calibrator. A car that needed a "ground up mapping session", ie. complete development on a stand alone system or "zero map", then a loading dyno would be VERY beneficial. When you do testing on a loading type dyno, ask your "tuner" to supply you with a plot of calculated load, along with as many other parameters you can get your hands on (spark advance, MAFv, etc). Log these types of parameters on loading dyno, and then on an inertial dyno and let me know what you find out. Arming yourself with this type of info is much more important than concerning yourself about which dyno you should run on.

I do work for Dynojet, but I hope that my reply was fairly subjective.

Oh, and BTW, we (Dynojet) have released an eddy current load control unit for the Model 224x. Dynos equipped with this technology will be subject to the same variables as any loading dyno (ie. calibration routines, user defined inputs). I'll assure you, on a properly calibrated 224xLC dyno , the numbers will still be comparable to inertia only runs. If you find they aren't, then pull out that log sheet of parmameters I mentioned above and I'll show you why. ;-)

DynoDan,

THought that might be you... I talked to you a while ago on the phone about my wideband commander and you answered some questions for me. We slung the BS a little... Anyway the car is at JDM's right now and hope to have some #'s with the 60# injectors by middle of the week..

Oh well, thanks for the informative post!

Roger

 

[WS6JJP]

it always seem that unless you spin the crap out of these aftermarket blowers (whipple,KB that are spun to 17+ PSI) that you just cannot match the torque output of the factory eaton. Im sure it is nice to have all the extra horsepower but i for one would sure miss all that torque.