Whippled DA Engine Makes 851 hp/870 torque at the wheels on 91 octane/17 lb boost

[nota4re]

All dynos produce varying numbers and are not directly comparable.

Absolutely the case. There is a multitude of input parameters as well as output correction factors to be considered - even when everyone is trying to play fair. Using the same dyno consistently (assuming none of the set-up parameters are changed inbetween) is a reasonable way to assess the impact of modifications. Comparing dyno charts from one dyno to another is really not very precise. Tests that are "same day, same time, same dyno" can be very revealing on differences between different cars and set-ups. However, so can venues that tend to mitigate driver skill. Not ideal, but the standing start mile venues align pretty well with HP. We have only one - potentially imperfect fast run with your car which puts it just a hair SLOWER than a 19 psi Gen 2 Whipple dyno'd locally at a mere 695 RWHP. Based on that datapoint, I would say your car was in the same ballpark and, if further, I knew that you were down 2 psi of boost, I would say it was a good result.

So, Ed, you should feel "special". All of this "discussion" is because your numbers are just so far out of the norm that they generate a lot of interest, to say the least. The good news is that this is often the case with genuine break-throughs where initially there are a lot of doubters, stone throwers, and non-believers.... but they are eventually put to rest!

I just say to you as straightforwardly as I can..... that given our experience with the GT and a multitude of GT engine configurations and forced induction methods, rarely do we see something that is such a leap-frog ahead of everything else. I'll be the first to eat crow when and if we have some objective substantiation of these claims.... followed immediately by a multitude of questions for you and John about just what the heck is going on inside this engine! Until then, I remain quite skeptical - and none of that is a reflection on you. If my best friend comes to me saying - 1) massaged GT engine + 2) 17 psi boost + 3) 91 Octane fuel = 850 RWHP, then my first reaction is to say that something is amiss with the instrumentation. So, please turn on the oven as I don't like crow at all but it is probably worse when cold!

 

[Mullet]

Shadow

can you do the graph WITH smoothing?

the reason I say is my GT did 1073 hp without smoothing but when smoothing was used on the graph it came out to 1026. Isn't it kinda "normal" to do graphs with smoothing?

 

[B.M.F.]

Like Jason said. Is this Std correction or Sae? No one uses std correction. Also what compression does this motor have? And does it have a stock air box or something fabricated? Is this a 3.4 or 4.0 whipple?

Thanks Dan

 

[Shadowman]

Shadow

can you do the graph WITH smoothing?

the reason I say is my GT did 1073 hp without smoothing but when smoothing was used on the graph it came out to 1026. Isn't it kinda "normal" to do graphs with smoothing?

Hi Mullet

I asked Sean earlier today if we had smoothed the chart out because I wanted to make sure that it was not on "5" or ? this so I could get a firm handle on the A/F line; now I just asked again and was told that it is presented as "1" smoothing.

Takes care

Shadowman

 

[Triheart7]

Ed also has a Flux Capacitor!

 

[Mullet]

so it had smoothing. Cool. great number.....attaboy!!!!!!

 

[Triheart7]

so it had smoothing. Cool. great number.....attaboy!!!!!!

I do not know what smoothing means?

 

[Shadowman]

Absolutely the case. There is a multitude of input parameters as well as output correction factors to be considered - even when everyone is trying to play fair. Using the same dyno consistently (assuming none of the set-up parameters are changed inbetween) is a reasonable way to assess the impact of modifications. Comparing dyno charts from one dyno to another is really not very precise. Tests that are "same day, same time, same dyno" can be very revealing on differences between different cars and set-ups. However, so can venues that tend to mitigate driver skill. Not ideal, but the standing start mile venues align pretty well with HP. We have only one - potentially imperfect fast run with your car which puts it just a hair SLOWER than a 19 psi Gen 2 Whipple dyno'd locally at a mere 695 RWHP. Based on that datapoint, I would say your car was in the same ballpark and, if further, I knew that you were down 2 psi of boost, I would say it was a good result.

So, Ed, you should feel "special". All of this "discussion" is because your numbers are just so far out of the norm that they generate a lot of interest, to say the least. The good news is that this is often the case with genuine break-throughs where initially there are a lot of doubters, stone throwers, and non-believers.... but they are eventually put to rest!

I just say to you as straightforwardly as I can..... that given our experience with the GT and a multitude of GT engine configurations and forced induction methods, rarely do we see something that is such a leap-frog ahead of everything else. I'll be the first to eat crow when and if we have some objective substantiation of these claims.... followed immediately by a multitude of questions for you and John about just what the heck is going on inside this engine! Until then, I remain quite skeptical - and none of that is a reflection on you. If my best friend comes to me saying - 1) massaged GT engine + 2) 17 psi boost + 3) 91 Octane fuel = 850 RWHP, then my first reaction is to say that something is amiss with the instrumentation. So, please turn on the oven as I don't like crow at all but it is probably worse when cold!

To respond to your quote;

"I just say to you as straightforwardly as I can"

Now I will be candid and say that IMO your support or better put lack of it is obvious to me as well as several others that have contacted me.

With regards to his participantion at the mile event; I dare say that you have no idea how she was operating at that time so again you tossed odd comments into an otherwise "awesome" thread.

I quickly state that there is "no" doubt that when comparing a Whipple'd gal versus a Twin Turbo gal for a standing mile that the Turbo has the mechanical advantage.

The bottomline and the reason for this thread was because Ed wanted to share his gal; she makes him smile as such she makes me smile too.

This is likely my last post within this thread because it is no longer a fun thread but rather full of sour milk.

All the best

Shadowman

 

[Shadowman]

I do not know what smoothing means?

Simply; it is the process of removing the peaks and lows thus creating a smooth line; one can define the amount of smoothing to apply when viewing the charts. For A/F you want to see the peaks and lows so you can properly tune the gal however when presenting a HP and torque curve most like a flat/smooth line.

Shadowman

 

[Triheart7]

Simply; it is the process of removing the peaks and lows thus creating a smooth line; one can define the amount of smoothing to apply when viewing the charts. For A/F you want to see the peaks and lows so you can properly tune the gal however when presenting a HP and torque curve most like a flat/smooth line.

Shadowman

I was wondering if it was done in the graphing process or by tuning the set up.

 

[Shadowman]

Yes; my mistake Mullet

She is a beast and yet because of the Whipple versus Twin Turbos the discharge air temps will always be a factor at events such as the Standing Mile and yet a fricken blast !!! to exercise.

Thank you

Shadowman

 

[Shadowman]

Let's get this thread back on target; Ed a great forum member presented his wonderful gal once again.

For those that care here is a link to some of the projects that have been completed that make this Ford GT Ed's including much of the work as completed on her heart.

http://www.discovery-automotive.com/portal/module.php?id=project_WhiteLightening

Takes care

Shadowman

 

[Shadowman]

I was wondering if it was done in the graphing process or by tuning the set up.

It is done via the dyno software and "only" alters that which you see oon the graph; it does "not" alter the collected data

Takes care

Shadowman

 

[SYCO GT]

There is still something fishy going on.

If you take a close look at the paperwork:

The Ford GT that was on the Dyno clearly belongs to a mysterious "ED SIMMS" and not the "Ed Sims" that we know and love on the forum.

Haha. Enjoy your awesome GT - Mr. Ed "single m" Sims!

 

[JAYGT]

Awesome numbers congrats must be a blast to drive.:thumbsup What’s up with the gal, heart, massaging, exercising.:ack I’m I missing something are we talking about cars or a happy ending in a massage parlor?????????????????

 

[Triheart7]

It is done via the dyno software and "only" alters that which you see oon the graph; it does "not" alter the collected data

Takes care

Shadowman

Thanks for clarifying!

 

[RPM217]

There is still something fishy going on.

Enjoy your awesome GT - Mr. Ed QUOTE]
Here lies the answer to all the questions. Mr Ed is a horse, a talking horse, but a horse none the less, thus the "extra horsepower". It's obvious now how the #'s are so good!!!

 

[nota4re]

I quickly state that there is "no" doubt that when comparing a Whipple'd gal versus a Twin Turbo gal for a standing mile that the Turbo has the mechanical advantage.

Only you could try to twist my words into making this a TT vs Whipple debate. Who said anything about a TT comparison? As for me, I was comparing a Gen2Whipple (which is almost identical to 3 other Gen 2 Whipples dyno'd on the same machine) to Ed's Gen 2 Whipple.

According to you the differences are due to the internal mods within the engine (thanks to Accufab). Wow! I don't know what your expectations were but getting 175-200 RWHP attributed to those internal mods is f'n remarkable!! Right? I can see a lot of owners who would like to consider this route - and I'd love to be an advocate. I just could not have imagined this level of power. 40, 50, maybe 60 HP difference, maybe. But, 175-200 ?? Astonishing! Clearly, there's so much more I need to understand.

Our "experiences" to date:

Gen 2 Whipple; 19 psi; Stock internals = ~695 RWHP (+/- 5-7HP across 3 almost identical cars)
Gen 2 Whipple; 17 psi; Stock inetrnals = 620 RWHP ??? (Estimated)
Gen 2 Whipple; 21 psi; Stock internals = 750 RWHP (Aggressive timing; Edge of fuel limitations)
4.0L Whipple; 19 psi; Stock internals = 745 RWHP (Aggressive timing; Edge of fuel limits)

Ed's car:

Gen 2 Whipple; 17psi; Accufab mods = 850+ RWHP

So, at the risk of oversimplifying.... internal mods + headers = 230ish RWHP ???

Great accomplishment!

 

[jaxgt]

My Gen 2 Whipple made about 735 +/- rWHP. That is with no internal work, reportedly conservative 91 octane tune, Ford Racing muffler and more than 90 degrees temperature out in sunny Florida. I was pretty psyched.

Only you could try to twist my words into making this a TT vs Whipple debate. Who said anything about a TT comparison? As for me, I was comparing a Gen2Whipple (which is almost identical to 3 other Gen 2 Whipples dyno'd on the same machine) to Ed's Gen 2 Whipple.

According to you the differences are due to the internal mods within the engine (thanks to Accufab). Wow! I don't know what your expectations were but getting 175-200 RWHP attributed to those internal mods is f'n remarkable!! Right? I can see a lot of owners who would like to consider this route - and I'd love to be an advocate. I just could not have imagined this level of power. 40, 50, maybe 60 HP difference, maybe. But, 175-200 ?? Astonishing! Clearly, there's so much more I need to understand.

Our "experiences" to date:

Gen 2 Whipple; 19 psi; Stock internals = ~695 RWHP (+/- 5-7HP across 3 almost identical cars)
Gen 2 Whipple; 17 psi; Stock inetrnals = 620 RWHP ??? (Estimated)
Gen 2 Whipple; 21 psi; Stock internals = 750 RWHP (Aggressive timing; Edge of fuel limitations)
4.0L Whipple; 19 psi; Stock internals = 745 RWHP (Aggressive timing; Edge of fuel limits)

Ed's car:

Gen 2 Whipple; 17psi; Accufab mods = 850+ RWHP

So, at the risk of oversimplifying.... internal mods + headers = 230ish RWHP ???

Great accomplishment!

 

[Shadowman]

Only you could try to twist my words into making this a TT vs Whipple debate. Who said anything about a TT comparison? As for me, I was comparing a Gen2Whipple (which is almost identical to 3 other Gen 2 Whipples dyno'd on the same machine) to Ed's Gen 2 Whipple.

According to you the differences are due to the internal mods within the engine (thanks to Accufab). Wow! I don't know what your expectations were but getting 175-200 RWHP attributed to those internal mods is f'n remarkable!! Right? I can see a lot of owners who would like to consider this route - and I'd love to be an advocate. I just could not have imagined this level of power. 40, 50, maybe 60 HP difference, maybe. But, 175-200 ?? Astonishing! Clearly, there's so much more I need to understand.

Our "experiences" to date:

Gen 2 Whipple; 19 psi; Stock internals = ~695 RWHP (+/- 5-7HP across 3 almost identical cars)
Gen 2 Whipple; 17 psi; Stock inetrnals = 620 RWHP ??? (Estimated)
Gen 2 Whipple; 21 psi; Stock internals = 750 RWHP (Aggressive timing; Edge of fuel limitations)
4.0L Whipple; 19 psi; Stock internals = 745 RWHP (Aggressive timing; Edge of fuel limits)

Ed's car:

Gen 2 Whipple; 17psi; Accufab mods = 850+ RWHP

So, at the risk of oversimplifying.... internal mods + headers = 230ish RWHP ???

Great accomplishment!

Thank you for sharing your in house experiences albeit different in many areas from mine.

It is sad IMO that you ask about what pellets he is using to make the numbers, then you say you are not calling him a liar, and then you come back with another round of statements none of which as shared were based on your understanding of that which we continue to do with Ed's gal. It would be wonderful is you did not sway like a branch in the wind. If you decide to participate then stand by that which you say instead of back peddling; all can see this.

In my world If I do not know I ask rather than insinuate that what I am being told is not true.

Ed's motor is "extreme" and the internal tweaks are far more than most would entertain and yet Ed wanted to share the results so folks could see that which can be accomplished.

Within her heart is the best crank swinging the best rods moving a custom set of 10.1 CR pistons sealed with thicker stainless steel rings, modified oiling, custom cams spun using only the best custom chains and tensioners, flowed and ported heads with over sized custom valves, ATI balancer and lightened flywheel, ARP hardware throughout, and the list goes on.

At this time she has no more fuel; in fact for her to migrate through a mile event this will have to be addressed because it is one thing to have a strong gear blast and very much another to have a extended pull at such power levels; we know and have discussed this.

John aka AccuFab is a good man and a friend and we have done cool stuff together; this motor is another such an example. I was reluctant to bump the CR however in the end it was the perfect decision and she is a phenomenal gal to exercise.

Now as for bringing twin turbo’s into the thread; I did so in part so folks would understand that like horsepower does create the basis for like kind exercising; the Whipple’s gal and the twin turbo gals play well together and yet find their strong points in different arenas.

Takes care

Shadowman