820/548 with a whipple gen 3 on 93

[GNBRETT]

timing has to be low on 93 pump gas so that limits anyones ability to make big TQ at low boost. that cross plane crank is something I'm not familiar with so that may play a role as well.

although I plan on running straight 93 myself. I'm hoping for similar numbers as far as HP but TQ should be 750 or better. TQ is what matters.

its why the old Fox body seemed so fast back in the 80's cause for what it was it made a lot of TQ and it felt faster then cars with more HP cause it was faster. TQ gets u going HP keeps u going....

I was under the impression low torque numbers are the way they are to save the cylinder walls.
Can anyone confirm or deny this?

 

[Weather Man]

timing has to be low on 93 pump gas so that limits anyones ability to make big TQ at low boost. that cross plane crank is something I'm not familiar with so that may play a role as well.

although I plan on running straight 93 myself. I'm hoping for similar numbers as far as HP but TQ should be 750 or better. TQ is what matters.

its why the old Fox body seemed so fast back in the 80's cause for what it was it made a lot of TQ and it felt faster then cars with more HP cause it was faster. TQ gets u going HP keeps u going....

750 TQ on 93 is a grenade waiting to go off. You are a brave dude.

 

[GNBRETT]

Naaaaah thats nothing.... cars making far more then that on 93 pump. all comes down to ur combo. heads, cams, intake, car weight, timing, etc and the motor to handle it.

on a stock setup that would surely be a grenade. I will be running methanol but not as fuel just as insurance. mite tune for methanol later but trying not to stir that hornets nest.

with Turbo Buicks you NEED the methanol to make power cause that little V6 doesn't cut it so u need more boost.

most Turbo Buick guys that are running around on the street ALL use an Alky kit to make more boost and all run 25-30 lbs of boost but pumps fail and there is always that risk even with all the safeguards against it so thats why I'm trying to get it done on straight 93.

and then there is which Dyno are you referring to? cause 750 TQ on a dynojet aint much at all. thats high 6's on a mustang dyno.

750 TQ on 93 is a grenade waiting to go off. You are a brave dude.

 

[Voltwings]

timing has to be low on 93 pump gas so that limits anyones ability to make big TQ at low boost. that cross plane crank is something I'm not familiar with so that may play a role as well.

although I plan on running straight 93 myself. I'm hoping for similar numbers as far as HP but TQ should be 750 or better. TQ is what matters.

its why the old Fox body seemed so fast back in the 80's cause for what it was it made a lot of TQ and it felt faster then cars with more HP cause it was faster. TQ gets u going HP keeps u going....

You're not wrong about torque being important, but not entirely right either. HP is mathematical, based on RPM and torque. The Reason a fox body needed so much torque was because they didn't rev for shit. The GT350 revs to 8000 easy, and if you look at that dyno graph they took it right up there. At 8000 rpms, you only need about 520 wtq mathematically to make 800 whp.

My point is, use the gearing and the rpms. Why do you need to start a pull in 3rd gear at 4000 rpms (for example) when you could start it in 2nd at 6000 ... Torque in the mid range is very important, but when you got THAT much rpm to work with, who cares.

 

[GNBRETT]

who cares? the guy that spent $10,000 if not more to add a blower and a fuel system to pick up 120 ft lbs of TQ? no one really cares how much rpm a motor can pull if it can't make any TQ. its a very inefficient combo.

the old Fox body make 300 TQ at 3200 RPM's! this GT 350 pulls to 8000 RPM's and makes 548 TQ.

so it has a LOT more to do then having RPM's and it really demonstrates that this motor was not designed to handle boost. it was designed as a NA motor and even that is weak. 429 TQ is just weak for a modern day muscle car.

everything u FEEL and experience in a fast car comes from TORQUE! HP is just a calculation its not real. TQ is REAL and what makes u fast. I can get a lot of HP from a lawnmower but without TQ its wasted energy.

You're not wrong about torque being important, but not entirely right either. HP is mathematical, based on RPM and torque. The Reason a fox body needed so much torque was because they didn't rev for shit. The GT350 revs to 8000 easy, and if you look at that dyno graph they took it right up there. At 8000 rpms, you only need about 520 wtq mathematically to make 800 whp.

My point is, use the gearing and the rpms. Why do you need to start a pull in 3rd gear at 4000 rpms (for example) when you could start it in 2nd at 6000 ... Torque in the mid range is very important, but when you got THAT much rpm to work with, who cares.

 

[ANGREY]

The low(er) torque numbers are because the engine breaths so well and doesn't have sufficient backup pressure down low to build low end torque.

Wanna low end torque monster? Take the stock headers off and throw a manifold on it. It'll have lots of torque. Won't breath for shit up top or make gobs of power, but it'll pull stumps out of the ground.

That's why it's never smart to put long tube headers on a rock crawler. Off road trucks and such aren't meant to be at high rpm and need low end torque. The GT350 is the opposite end of the spectrum. It's not designed to grunt from a dig or tow stuff, it's designed to operate up high (and breath) going in and coming out of turns, ripping down straightaways, etc.

Throwing charge (boost) on the engine will help, but you can ONLY do that so much with a stock compression at 12:1.

Wanna make big torque down low with the 350? Swap the heads (and/or pistons) out and lower the compression to say 9.5:1, then you can take the pulley down really small and crank the spin of the blower up so that it boosts up down low to like 12-15 psi, then you'll see big low end torque.

But again, who would want that? All you're going to do in an IRS car with massive low end torque is create an undriveable stat warrior who looks good on paper, but does shitty on the street.

Which is EXACTLY why you see so many idiots racing from a roll. They don't have the suspension or the gearing or the tire to race from a dig (or the skill) and racing from a roll is much easier and doesn't require any skill or any other systems to be great.

Not only will you not have a driveable street car, now you'll also have problems upping gears and not spinning the wheels at the track. You'll have a car that's the worst of all worlds, shitty from a dig, shitty around the track and slightly more weight on the front to upset the balance (although that's a minor issue).

The only place it will remotely shine at that point is these new age half mile roll races, and to be competitive there you'd better drop $100k and have like 4 turbos and full on race fuel and lexan.

700-800 rwhp and 500 ft-lb is more than enough for the suspension and tires on the 350 and what it's made to do.

And not for nothing, we could debate all day long about the safety of 93 (or how it isn't safe) and the benefits of running E-85 or even race fuel. We could talk about the safe/reasonable limitations of the stock 350 internals and even with a nice fat/safe tune what they're REASONABLY able to handle.

Any stock engine, even with powdered cast parts can make a boatload of power if tuned out very nicely with no disagreement, no bad fuel, no hiccups. The reason you use forged and billet components is to have way more yield strength capacity than needed, so that a bad batch of fuel, some unhappy conditions, etc, don't stress the internals beyond their limits.

You can make 700-800 rwhp without unsafely stressing the stock compression ratio, or the "forged" internals (with aluminum pistons) and without making the blower pulley so small that you need 1000 lbs of force on the tensioner to run without major belt slip (and cranking the snout so badly it totally strains the balance of the motor).

Anything above all that and one of these challenges is going to eventually come into play.

It's no different than a 5'4" man shooting up with steroids trying to bench press 600 lbs. His size and frame isn't made for it and although he's grown his muscles (unnaturally), his joints, tendons, ligaments and bones are all not grown commensurate with his strength and eventually something is going to break.

 

[Voltwings]

who cares? the guy that spent $10,000 if not more to add a blower and a fuel system to pick up 120 ft lbs of TQ? no one really cares how much rpm a motor can pull if it can't make any TQ. its a very inefficient combo.

the old Fox body make 300 TQ at 3200 RPM's! this GT 350 pulls to 8000 RPM's and makes 548 TQ.

so it has a LOT more to do then having RPM's and it really demonstrates that this motor was not designed to handle boost. it was designed as a NA motor and even that is weak. 429 TQ is just weak for a modern day muscle car.

everything u FEEL and experience in a fast car comes from TORQUE! HP is just a calculation its not real. TQ is REAL and what makes u fast. I can get a lot of HP from a lawnmower but without TQ its wasted energy.

The 2011 BMW m3 makes 100 less ft/lbs of torque than a 2011 5.0, yet they run virtually identical 1/4 times and trap speeds. Reason being is the BMW revs to 8000 stock and the 5.0 revs to 6500 stock; RPM, gearing, and a broad powerband are a very useful substitute to just gobs of low end torque. I like torque, don't get me wrong, but your saying this setup sucks because it "only" makes 5xx wtq is just not true in my opinion.

 

[GNBRETT]

bro the BMW thing is apples to oranges. two totally different cars and motors and how their geared, tuned etc. the Mustang has totally different variable cams that are tuned totally different. again, apples to oranges.....

if u think spending $10k to get 120 ft lbs of TQ is good then thats ur opinion but if that was me id be sick to my stomach!

The 2011 BMW m3 makes 100 less ft/lbs of torque than a 2011 5.0, yet they run virtually identical 1/4 times and trap speeds. Reason being is the BMW revs to 8000 stock and the 5.0 revs to 6500 stock; RPM, gearing, and a broad powerband are a very useful substitute to just gobs of low end torque. I like torque, don't get me wrong, but your saying this setup sucks because it "only" makes 5xx wtq is just not true in my opinion.

 

[jvandy50]

you could've got that kit for around $7400 on black friday

 

[GNBRETT]

ur forgetting a fuel system, labor and final tuning. aint gettn that for $7400!

 

[ANGREY]

bro the BMW thing is apples to oranges. two totally different cars and motors and how their geared, tuned etc. the Mustang has totally different cams that are tuned totally different. again, apples to oranges.....

if u think spending $10k to get 120 ft lbs of TQ is good then thats ur opinion but if that was me id be sick to my stomach!

You're agreeing with and missing his point.

Torque is only one part of the equation. As Randy Probst said it best "torque is how much you're thrown back in the seat. Power is how long it keeps you there."

You can get away with low torque if you have lots of power, gear and rpm to makeup for it. Furthermore, for "track" cars, it's better to have long gears and high revving than it is to have low end torque.

The GT350 isn't a muscle car as much as it is a sports car or a track car. For a muscle car that's only concerned about going fast from a dead stop in a straight line, yes, torque is crucial. For a car that needs to accelerate (from many different speeds) brake and turn and do that cycle over and over, torque is less important than power and rpm and wide gears.

Using your logic, I should be able to drop a Cummins diesel that redlines at 2500 rpms in a Ford Mustang and beat the world. Great for pulling trailers up mountains or pushing blades through dirt or cars along a rail and great for getting a car moving from a dead stop quickly, but not good for things like trap speed or track lap times.

There's a difference (semantics) in the world of racing between fast and quick. If you want trap speeds, you need power. Both are important for different aspects of racing. If you don't have one, you'd better have the other (and have the appropriate drive train to compensate for the lack of one/other)

 

[jvandy50]

ur forgetting a fuel system, labor and final tuning. aint gettn that for $7400!

i think that system comes with injectors and was 15% off. and you don't pay labor if you put it on yourself. i guess a custom tune would be a little more, but you could also delete the flare tool and take a couple hundred more off.

 

[ANGREY]

i think that system comes with injectors and was 15% off. and you don't pay labor if you put it on yourself. i guess a custom tune would be a little more, but you could also delete the flare tool and take a couple hundred more off.

As someone who's shopped these kits quite a bit as of late and plan to do one, the differences between the kits is as clear as mud. Whipple and their vendors haven't done a very good job communicating the differences.

I've seen everything from just a "whipple kit" to a "tuner kit" to a "stage 1" etc.

I know that carbon fiber finish is an optional upgrade as well as the twin fan cooler.

I think* they're supposed to be marketed as a bolt on yourself kit (with can tune) and then a more flexible "tuners kit" where you're custom tuner decides which flash and which squirters to use.

 

[GT Premi]

The hp they are getting just bolting a Whipple on a Voodoo engine running pump gas is pretty phenomenal. I would think people would be jumping on this like it's open bar at the Ritz, it would make for the ultimate Mustang EVER! I don't recall 1 supercharged GT350 build thread on this site. Blower swaps on the Terminator and early GT500's fell from the sky like rain and still do. Why no blower GT350 that would make for some great threads on this site?

I think for most of us, it's less about a fear of breaking the engine and more that a blower would mess up the character of the engine. When enough of them hit the used market, you'll start seeing people throwing blowers on them because they're buying the car for the name and not for what it is, IMO.

... As Randy Probst said...

I wonder if Randy Pobst, championship winning race car driver and Motor Trend hot shoe, gets tired of people mixing his name up with Jeff Probst, host of CBS's "Survivor" television show.

 

[Ninjak]

Honestly if I was going to do this, go F/I I would go turbos. I was a click away from doing a twin turbo setup. Then I remembered all of the spinning and having to have DR on my 11 Shelby. So I decided to go the N/A route, and see how it went. No regrets.