Whipple: What Ford Shoulda Done From the Start?

[w. mitty]

I was conversing the other day with a brother from the Forum who had recently had the Whipple surgery performed. He commented that after driving the car, he felt that the car performed the way it should have from the get go. I found myself agreeing.

I wonder how many of us who have either had the Whipple installed, or ridden in/driven a Whip'lized car have a comment on the veracity of this comment.

My experience, beyond the obvious brute acceleration (which is fun but has its limits in real world traffic), is that the car is more responsive and driveable at all speeds and in all situations. Everything just feels "easier", like watching a pro basketball player do lay ups before the game -- you know the guy can dunk from the way he cruises. Factor in the thought that the Whipple is a more efficient unit as far as parasitic load and heat soak goes, and the whole ideas just keeps gettin' better.

One theory: even assuming that Ford and Whipple would have come together in pre-production and Ford sourced the supercharger from Whipple, would the elevated power level have been more than Ford would have wanted to unleash on the public, considering the, ahem, questionable driving ability of the lowest common denominator? (As evidence, your Honor, I would submit the ever increasing number of GTs that have been wadded into a ball). Would there have been other transaxle or warranty issues with all that power on tap? Who knows.

What I can say for sure is that when I had the chance to drive a stock GT again after driving the Whipple car for several months, it felt like a different car than I remembered. This is absolutely NOT a dig against the stock car -- I sometimes feel a pang of envy when I see a completely stock GT still in the wrapper. And then I get over it. I'm just observing that the Whipple transforms the GT into a different animal.

Anyway, for those who have experienced both, I wonder if I am the only one who feels this way...

 

[californiacuda]

It's just incredible that the stock engine and tranaxle can handle so much power.

 

[mardyn]

There's a limit on what you can sell to the general public and get away with... in stock form, the GT is far too detuned for my pleasure. In fact, I was somewhat disappointed initially, but the GT ( at least to me) is about more than just brute acceleration, and it absolutely accels in every other arena..

Ford had to consider warranty costs and repairs, so a slightly detuned package didn't surprise me too much. Probably some liability issues as well, after all, they're already selling a (detuned) car capable of 200+ mph, would an extra 20 mph make that much difference? Hmmm, I don't know.

Anyway, I did the Heffner pulley & reflash on mine, and now, it feels about like I thought it should feel in stock configuration. I suspect it's got about 575 RWHP now, and that's been pretty acceptable to me so far.

If the Whipple boosts it up to say 700 RWHP, I think that's too much to turn loose to Joe Blow on the street. We've already seen many GTs wadded up in stock form, how many more would be destroyed with the extra power available with the new Supercharger.

and yea, I probably need some more power now, I'm loving me some of that black cased Whipple as pictured on here a few weeks ago... but I'm also liking the Stage 6 turbo set up @ about 750 RWHP or so.

Isn't it wonderful to have so many choices?

Thank you,

please drive through...

mardyn

 

[B O N Y]

YES, it should have had the Whipple, high performance exhaust, transmission cooler and breather, Mac sub woofer relocate, fire system and extingusher, short throw shifter standard plus a list of options, ... but,... it didn't.

Ford did a fine job considering their corporate limitations. I wonder if they can even repeat the FGT project again? I doubt they made one dollar on the FGT, but it has proven to be a magnificent halo car, the pace car for the company and their 100 year celebration.

The Whipples commented to me yesterday that they are amazed that so many owners are willing to modify their cars. Something which they did not expect. There have been 50 Whipple kits built so far, a $10k+ mod. Many of us have spent thousands in adjusting the FGT to our own specs.

Obviously we live in a politically correct world, when you buy a Ferrari you know what that company does, make ultra high performance cars. When you buy a Ford, it could be a truck, tractor, econobox, or supercar, a real identy crisis for the brand.

 

[PHXGT]

It is great to read all of your passion for your Whippled cars. A couple of questions, what ever was determined about the Whippled car in Arizona that had power loss / heat soak problems? Was it determined that the Whipple generates more heat soak and should not be considered for AZ summers? Also, have there been any final conclusions about the half shafts to withstand the Whipple over the long haul?

Thanks.

 

[w. mitty]

It is great to read all of your passion for your Whippled cars. A couple of questions, what ever was determined about the Whippled car in Arizona that had power loss / heat soak problems? Was it determined that the Whipple generates more heat soak and should not be considered for AZ summers? Also, have there been any final conclusions about the half shafts to withstand the Whipple over the long haul?

Thanks.

It seems that the jury is still out on both issues, especially trying to gauge the heat soak issue between modified and stock. It seems a universal problem, but has the Whipple made it better or worse? I have yet to push long enough and hard enough to find out. We all know that the stock cars have trouble on the track after a given amount of time. I'll report what happens with the Whipple after a round and Miller Motorsports Park.

The half shafts worry me. I don't do abusive launches, however, more out of fear of the clutch.

The word warranty also frightens me. But then I drive and forget about it. :wink

 

[cobrar1339]

I have a bone stock GT for now. Yep I plan to upgrade too. BUT....

I also have a C5 Z06 making 395 RWHP. The feel of speed in the Z06 is evident. It kinda squats and you sink into the softer seats as it thrusts forward. The longs tubes give it wonderful sound. At my favorite tuning spot I hit 95 form my 5mph roll. It feels fast...Sounds fast, Revs quick...etc

I get in the GT and did the same thing back to back. The GT feels slow, no drama at all, no sound, no soul. But damn if the same run didn't produce 105 mph, be it while I was adjusting the volume on the radio. I just did not feel the speed, the seats are firm and you don't squish back into them, the car is sooooo much different than any other car I have owned. To top it off, I redlined the Z but was shifting the GT at between 4.5 and 5k on the GT.

I also did a run last night where I got on it a bit on a safe stretch of off road pavement. It was at 145 without breathing hard. The Z in the same spot has you feeling like you are going 200.

The point is, I think it takes a lot to make this car ( chassis) FEEL fast. In bone stock form it is still one of the fastest production cars on the planet. I think this lack of drama is why Clarkson continues to praise the GT for it's road worthiness.

Just my .02 cents

"You know you have enough horsepower when you can make two black lines from the apex of one turn to the apex of another" Mark Donahue:thumbsup

 

[dbtgt]

Balance

Boy, this is a really subjective subject - but - I've gotta chime in about balance when it comes to HP and the car's chassis. If you have ever driven a formula car or a go-cart that you could literally steer with the gas pedal, you know there is a balance between HP and chassis. There are cars that have that absolute balance that are a joy to drive and those that are a handful with too much HP. It depends on what you want to accomplish. I prefer to cut my butter wit a chainsaw - but that doesn't necessarily make for a balanced car. Ford (IMHO) erred on the conservative side, but I think the car with a pulley and tune is pretty balanced. You should be able to steer with your right foot.:banana

 

[50 BMG]

It probably could have come with a 3.4L whipple instead of a 2.3L whipple...

Same power could have been acheived from the factory longblock, approximately 575 crank horsepower, but would have been on less boost to acheive the same output vs. the 2.3L.

A pulley swap and retune would entail exactly the same amount of work if the car came OEM with a 2.3L, a 3.4L, or a 5.0L blower. The 2.3 is beyond capable...it just takes a few seconds longer to get you in trouble over the 3.4 :lol

 

[dbk]

I can tell you exactly why the car came as is...the limit of repeatable and reliable performance the stock car has simply isn't achievable with the Whipple.

I was at Ford Racing's HQ the other day and we were talking about their forthcoming pulley/tune (which will finally see the light of day), the Whipple (which they were originally going to market), and various other odds and ends. In discussing the Whipple, one thing that was clear was that heat soak on a Whipple car and the precipitous power drop simply isn't acceptable for a production vehicle. Now of course, most people don't run their cars WOT in 90* most of the time, but those are the rigors that the company has to put up with. Even a stock car is day and night in the heat, but in the context of the drop from power level a to b, the bigger blower can cause a situation where it feels like the blower has been removed. That's not acceptable for a car that will be road raced (or just a car in general that has to be beat on by magazines, dealt with by dealers used to screwing with focuses, passed through federal agencies, Kalifornia, etc).

Ford could have run with a smaller pulley, but that's about it. It would have made the car reliably Enzo-fast, but significantly more dangerous in the wrong hands. At stock power level the motor is good for ~250 hours of WOT operation (which most cars would never see in ten lifetimes). That drops significantly with every 100rwhp.

That's not to say the Whipple isn't ideal for pretty much everyone that owns one. In the context of normal street driving, the hard sprint here and there, drag racing, or just the general beating over the normal life of a car, these problems largely don't exist. But when you have to adhere to all the various driveability and reliability mandates, it just can't be done.

 

[w. mitty]

I can tell you exactly why the car came as is...the limit of repeatable and reliable performance the stock car has simply isn't achievable with the Whipple.


That's not to say the Whipple isn't ideal for pretty much everyone that owns one. In the context of normal street driving, the hard sprint here and there, drag racing, or just the general beating over the normal life of a car, these problems largely don't exist. But when you have to adhere to all the various driveability and reliability mandates, it just can't be done.

Points well taken -- I tend to agree that there are no free lunches when it comes to "easy" power. Got to have versatility in all kinds of situations when selling to the general public through a massive network of dealers. I guess that's the beauty of owner chosen modifications, as long as said owner takes into account the ALL of the ramifications...its all about the cost/benefit equation that dictates any well-reasoned decision.

 

[Fast Freddy]

I can tell you exactly why the car came as is...the limit of repeatable and reliable performance the stock car has simply isn't achievable with the Whipple.

I was at Ford Racing's HQ the other day and we were talking about their forthcoming pulley/tune (which will finally see the light of day), the Whipple (which they were originally going to market), and various other odds and ends. In discussing the Whipple, one thing that was clear was that heat soak on a Whipple car and the precipitous power drop simply isn't acceptable for a production vehicle. Now of course, most people don't run their cars WOT in 90* most of the time, but those are the rigors that the company has to put up with. Even a stock car is day and night in the heat, but in the context of the drop from power level a to b, the bigger blower can cause a situation where it feels like the blower has been removed. That's not acceptable for a car that will be road raced (or just a car in general that has to be beat on by magazines, dealt with by dealers used to screwing with focuses, passed through federal agencies, Kalifornia, etc).

Ford could have run with a smaller pulley, but that's about it. It would have made the car reliably Enzo-fast, but significantly more dangerous in the wrong hands. At stock power level the motor is good for ~250 hours of WOT operation (which most cars would never see in ten lifetimes). That drops significantly with every 100rwhp.

That's not to say the Whipple isn't ideal for pretty much everyone that owns one. In the context of normal street driving, the hard sprint here and there, drag racing, or just the general beating over the normal life of a car, these problems largely don't exist. But when you have to adhere to all the various driveability and reliability mandates, it just can't be done.

so you are saying that a 3.3 L whipple with 12 lbs of boost creates more heat soak then the stock supercharger at the same boost level? i find this hard to believe. at stock boost levels or any level higher for that matter the whipple supercharger should have less heat soak.

 

[50 BMG]

at stock boost levels or any level higher for that matter the whipple supercharger should have less heat soak.

Yep. The only drawback to a 3.4 is it takes more power to turn (which is negated cause it makes more rwhp/psi). I don't know if Ford made the 2.3L on the GT or farmed it out, but 4000+ 3.4L blowers could only have been marginally more cost per unit than the 2.3L...at least thats what it seems like to me.

IMO, swapping a 2.3L TS blower to a 3.4L TS blower is one of the last things I'd do to lower my IAT1 and IAT2 temps (unless you're running 20+ PSI).