HeritageBruce
GT Owner
Until someone has a fix, the temporary solution is to drop a Viagra in the tank with each fill up and that would stiffen up all the limp hoses. :banana
whipple 4.0
- Thread starter kumar
- Start date
While I think that a CF piece - especially with Kip's fine craftsmanship would look great, I would seriously doubt that we will see any measureable HP improvements. I have seen numerous GT on dynos and have stood right next to the air inlet boot and I have never seen any propensity for the (reinforced) boot to collapse under maximum HP - sometimes in excess of 750-800HP.
I know some tuners have gone so far as to temporarily install a sensitive vacuum gauge within the boot and no vacuum was witnessed. Even John's (Accufab) testing of his much larger dual-blade throttle body yielded very modest performance results.
I hate to be the naysayer, but in my opinion the OEM boot accompanied by the Accufab stiffener is not restrictive to the boosted HP that we are seeing. So, if you want a pretty CF inlet you will no doubt be satisfied with another great product from Kip. However, do not expect any practical HP gains.
Additionally, and I think it was Clint that pointed it out, the path from the OEM airbox to the throttle body cannot be rigid as there needs to be compliance for the movement and vibrations of the engine.
I know some tuners have gone so far as to temporarily install a sensitive vacuum gauge within the boot and no vacuum was witnessed. Even John's (Accufab) testing of his much larger dual-blade throttle body yielded very modest performance results.
I hate to be the naysayer, but in my opinion the OEM boot accompanied by the Accufab stiffener is not restrictive to the boosted HP that we are seeing. So, if you want a pretty CF inlet you will no doubt be satisfied with another great product from Kip. However, do not expect any practical HP gains.
Additionally, and I think it was Clint that pointed it out, the path from the OEM airbox to the throttle body cannot be rigid as there needs to be compliance for the movement and vibrations of the engine.
Fubar
Totally ****** Up
I have not seen the results of testing like this but I would be very interested in seeing the vacuum before and after the filters.
So car was on the Dyno today. No apparent problems fingers crossed!
Made 810hp (imperial so 821hp DIN) at 6700rpm and 950Nm ( 700 lb ft) of torque at 5450rpm (flywheel figures)
Roush say this is 90hp more than they would usually see with the previous gen II Whipple (such as the "Mirage 720") and 130Nm ( 95 lb ft) more torque.
They also said it is " really, very, VERY fast!!"
Car has Whipple 4.0 litre with 19 Psi pulley, Ford racing headers, Heffner Bumper delete exhaust, Accufab TB, and accufab stiffener with stock also.
Car was running on "Super Unleaded" pump gas (97/98 Euro "RON" octane - which is equivalent I think to 93 US "PON" octane?)
Made 810hp (imperial so 821hp DIN) at 6700rpm and 950Nm ( 700 lb ft) of torque at 5450rpm (flywheel figures)
Roush say this is 90hp more than they would usually see with the previous gen II Whipple (such as the "Mirage 720") and 130Nm ( 95 lb ft) more torque.
They also said it is " really, very, VERY fast!!"
Car has Whipple 4.0 litre with 19 Psi pulley, Ford racing headers, Heffner Bumper delete exhaust, Accufab TB, and accufab stiffener with stock also.
Car was running on "Super Unleaded" pump gas (97/98 Euro "RON" octane - which is equivalent I think to 93 US "PON" octane?)
Last edited:
BlackICE
GT Owner
Pretty stout numbers! :thumbsup :cheers
Interesting that you are the 1st one I know of that has a gen 3 installed without any fuel, or air intake issues that needed addressing.
Interesting that you are the 1st one I know of that has a gen 3 installed without any fuel, or air intake issues that needed addressing.
Yeah - I guess we knew about the air tube issue - so that was one less thing to deal with - we also fitted brand new air filters - maybe we will see issues arise once filters clog up a bit? (by which time there will be another solution I hope!)
..plus it's a hell of a lot cooler here in the UK - so a denser charge??
Still early days...a few hundred road miles should uncover any issues!!
Namor
GT Owner
Dealmaker, stunning no's. where do I apply! I shall get ordering quick. even if they make a further update one day I think that'll definitely do me.
Delighted to hear you didn't get any fuelling problems.
I have a strong suspicion some Hoosiers may be called for with over 800hp at the flywheel!
have you driven her yet?
I heard the gearbox was good up to about 850. not sure about the clutch. where's an enzo/carrera gt when you need one.
Delighted to hear you didn't get any fuelling problems.
I have a strong suspicion some Hoosiers may be called for with over 800hp at the flywheel!
have you driven her yet?
I heard the gearbox was good up to about 850. not sure about the clutch. where's an enzo/carrera gt when you need one.
- Aug 25, 2006
- 4,436
Certainly I am very happy for your results and am sure that you will enjoy the new power.
My only other comment is; at 800 flywheel HP this equates to roughly 700-710 HP at the wheels depending on calculated driveline loss of 10-12% as such the numbers are similar to the Gen II; did I miss something?
Thank you
Shadowman
Fubar
Totally ****** Up
I am very glad to here that your install went smoothly. As Shadowman stated... the crankshaft number seems low but if it is 90hp higher than pervious generation Whipple, I suspect we are missing something in the translation.
Congrats. :cheers
OzGT
GT Owner
Yeah I'm also scratching my head. Why would they not give you RWHP figures? For a min I was excited because this was the first other 'outside US' comparison I've seen. However, it's hard to use without a RWHP figure.
More air please.
Nota4re,
I am not a supercharger engineer but there is an enormous body of evidence that shows very measurable HP gains on supercharged engines when intake restriction is reduced. The evidence is beyond debate. Tremendous effort is expended by Whipple, Kennie Bell, and other SC makers on this and the resultant measurable HP gains are beyond question. A simple less restrictive air filter setup for the GT500 sold by Ford Racing that incorporates a new tune to take advantage of the extra air yielded an 8% increase in HP!!!!! I put that less restrictive air cleaner setup on my GT500 and the difference was huge. :thumbsup Stock air filter enclosures are compromised because they must also control/limit intake noise.
If there is no vacuum in the intake tube, why does the stock rubber intake tube collapse? When the Accufab hard plastic support is inserted into that rubber tube, it is only flexable on the ends and experience shows that amount of play is sufficient. A CF intake tube with rubber mounts on each end could provide the same amount of give.
The performance gain would not come from a CF intake tube anyway which would be purely cosmetic. The performance gain would come from a less restrictive air box/air cleaner assembly. Perhaps when Kip Ewing does a bench flow analysis on the stock airbox/cleaner he will determine it to be completely non restrictive and optimum.......but I wouldn't bet on that.
I don't think the FGT airbox/air cleaner setup is even close to optimum. I look forward to Kip's analysis. Cheers! :cheers
Chip
Nota4re,
I am not a supercharger engineer but there is an enormous body of evidence that shows very measurable HP gains on supercharged engines when intake restriction is reduced. The evidence is beyond debate. Tremendous effort is expended by Whipple, Kennie Bell, and other SC makers on this and the resultant measurable HP gains are beyond question. A simple less restrictive air filter setup for the GT500 sold by Ford Racing that incorporates a new tune to take advantage of the extra air yielded an 8% increase in HP!!!!! I put that less restrictive air cleaner setup on my GT500 and the difference was huge. :thumbsup Stock air filter enclosures are compromised because they must also control/limit intake noise.
If there is no vacuum in the intake tube, why does the stock rubber intake tube collapse? When the Accufab hard plastic support is inserted into that rubber tube, it is only flexable on the ends and experience shows that amount of play is sufficient. A CF intake tube with rubber mounts on each end could provide the same amount of give.
The performance gain would not come from a CF intake tube anyway which would be purely cosmetic. The performance gain would come from a less restrictive air box/air cleaner assembly. Perhaps when Kip Ewing does a bench flow analysis on the stock airbox/cleaner he will determine it to be completely non restrictive and optimum.......but I wouldn't bet on that.
I don't think the FGT airbox/air cleaner setup is even close to optimum. I look forward to Kip's analysis. Cheers! :cheers
Chip
Yes I think HP is measured very conservativley here - we never see the numbers that are tossed around in the USA. One constant however is the difference between set-ups from the datum - we are seeing a genunie 90BHP improvement with the 4.0 ltre over the numbers usually produced by the Gen II. (As an example the famous "Mirage 720" developed by Roush for Europe makes 720HP with the GEN II and all the other mods)
I don't know how to get a PDF to display - but here is the Dyno chart showing the AFR. How does it look????
Last edited:
soroush
Ford Gt Owner
- Aug 8, 2007
- 5,256
Fubar
Totally ****** Up
It looks a little lean toward the higher rpm's. I'd think I'd add some fuel.. just my two cents.
HeritageBruce
GT Owner
+1, high especially on forced induction cars like ours. Add fuel or dial the baby back or tick... tick... tick...
OzGT
GT Owner
I def agree with you about it being hard to replicate the numbers achieved in the US mainly on dynojet gear. Mind you I am super keen to see some results off the new dyno dynamics that I believe it was hennesey posted about.
So looking at your PDF, I've not seen a dyno computer automatically subtract drivetrain loss and spit out a calculated BHP measurement instead of RWHP? Very odd. Pity, it would be nice to get an actual RWHP straight from the dyno. Surely in UK they still do that as standard like everywhere else I've come across?
Yeah I'd agree here too. My car is also setup so it's richer on deceleration to keep engine cooler after coming of high boost.
Whipple Charged
Well-known member
- Dec 9, 2005
- 106
There really was only 1 that had the fuel issue, and as I've seen, you get a momentarily dip in fuel psi, but you don't see it in the actual AF. The fuel system is fine for these power levels. There is no question its close to max, especially if there are some miles on the pumps and they've been run empty or close to empty before.
Not sure what others are doing, but as I said before, were working on a new air intake system for this application. A carbon tube would help the flow since it doesn't need dual supports inside, but this will be small gains, the biggest restriction is the airbox and filters.
Dustin
Not sure what others are doing, but as I said before, were working on a new air intake system for this application. A carbon tube would help the flow since it doesn't need dual supports inside, but this will be small gains, the biggest restriction is the airbox and filters.
Dustin