Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
RAM TRX - TRX-Forum.com
Bronco Raptor - BroncoRaptorForum.com
Forums
GEN 2 (2017-2020) Ford F-150 Raptor Forums
Ford Raptor Engine Discussion and Performance Mods
Whipple Stage 1 Kit Feedback Thread!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="jmrekieta" data-source="post: 1235250" data-attributes="member: 25199"><p>Good question. Though I do hope Whipple (working with ford engineers) would not sell a purely superfluous, sound-generating only intake. I have read many times that the stock intakes are well made and support some tuning. I think the larger airflow only comes in when substantially tuning the vehicle thereby requiring the additional airflow. Or it could be a situation that Whipple believes that the airflow generated by the intake will always be sufficient in all conditions. Unbeknownst to us Whipple may have tested conditions in which the stock might fail to provide adequate flow to optimize the tune. Since they work so closely with the manufacture and the tune is sufficient for OEM reliability this would make sense to me. Set it and forget it type of thing. I have studied this forum sufficiently enough that I cannot remember any type of code being thrown by this particular intake. I believe others have thrown codes. </p><p></p><p>However, the website says it flows 132% more than stock. If you take that literally it means it flows 2.32 times more than stock. Way overkill I think. Now if you make the mistake that many people do then 132% actually means 32% more than stock. I might be wrong, but this mistake is quite common. For instance, many people believe that doubling flow of any liquid/gas is an increase of 200% which in reality it is just 100%. </p><p></p><p>That said in my opinion the 32% overstock makes more sense because the boost that the tune generates could require 1/3 more airflow. According to my numeric analysis earlier in this thread the tune makes around 30% more horsepower and torque, so the numbers are in line with the additional intake flow. </p><p></p><p>Regardless, I do hope that the intake serves a needed purpose. But I’m not an engineer either.<span style="color: Red"></span></p><p><span style="color: Red"></span></p><p><span style="color: Red"><span style="font-size: 9px">---------- Post added at 05:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:51 PM ----------</span></span></p><p><span style="color: Red"></span></p><p><span style="color: Red"></span></p><p></p><p>I just checked their website. The dyno results provided were with 91 octane purchased at a Chevron. The ambient air temperature was 93.</p><p></p><p>From what I read it’s never a great idea to install DP with no cats. From what I remember many people have done this. A code appears very often in this situation. Sometimes down pipes that do have cats also throw codes.</p><p></p><p>People have used O2 extenders to remedy this with varied success. Both with cats and no cats on the DP’s.</p><p></p><p>But in terms of the torque gains as reported on the website as compared to the numbers I ran earlier. I would like an answer for this as well. Things just don’t add up for the torque. And I can’t figure out how they could get those numbers.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jmrekieta, post: 1235250, member: 25199"] Good question. Though I do hope Whipple (working with ford engineers) would not sell a purely superfluous, sound-generating only intake. I have read many times that the stock intakes are well made and support some tuning. I think the larger airflow only comes in when substantially tuning the vehicle thereby requiring the additional airflow. Or it could be a situation that Whipple believes that the airflow generated by the intake will always be sufficient in all conditions. Unbeknownst to us Whipple may have tested conditions in which the stock might fail to provide adequate flow to optimize the tune. Since they work so closely with the manufacture and the tune is sufficient for OEM reliability this would make sense to me. Set it and forget it type of thing. I have studied this forum sufficiently enough that I cannot remember any type of code being thrown by this particular intake. I believe others have thrown codes. However, the website says it flows 132% more than stock. If you take that literally it means it flows 2.32 times more than stock. Way overkill I think. Now if you make the mistake that many people do then 132% actually means 32% more than stock. I might be wrong, but this mistake is quite common. For instance, many people believe that doubling flow of any liquid/gas is an increase of 200% which in reality it is just 100%. That said in my opinion the 32% overstock makes more sense because the boost that the tune generates could require 1/3 more airflow. According to my numeric analysis earlier in this thread the tune makes around 30% more horsepower and torque, so the numbers are in line with the additional intake flow. Regardless, I do hope that the intake serves a needed purpose. But I’m not an engineer either.[COLOR="Red"] [SIZE=1]---------- Post added at 05:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:51 PM ----------[/SIZE] [/COLOR] I just checked their website. The dyno results provided were with 91 octane purchased at a Chevron. The ambient air temperature was 93. From what I read it’s never a great idea to install DP with no cats. From what I remember many people have done this. A code appears very often in this situation. Sometimes down pipes that do have cats also throw codes. People have used O2 extenders to remedy this with varied success. Both with cats and no cats on the DP’s. But in terms of the torque gains as reported on the website as compared to the numbers I ran earlier. I would like an answer for this as well. Things just don’t add up for the torque. And I can’t figure out how they could get those numbers. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
IIAWAH808
BBLV
alockbox
jekyll537
Trail_Rider
Sever18
Jojo17
kevo_lo
ToadSmasher2K1
DLaw0522
HORN HIGH ACES
uncc0:
kto
ChevyLee
Reptar854
Swacer_2
JeepSRT8
thatJeepguy
HookEm
RaptorJamo
LayinWatts69
mario500
pavendort
brettmess24
Robert Wright
Yukon Joe
loganl86
CleverGirl_
Bruichladdie
Tigmandick
GaoKS
Specialtyperformanceparts
Mrjoshiba
FP_RPTR
scsponger31
FloridaRaptor4me
XSTNKT
snt505
Skai
Teamwest
Hard R
kirkb
harvell326
Derrick Hernandez
HOLLYWOOD 1
mobob
mprice1234
pat247
raptordoke
jhamiltonak
... and 36 more.
Forum statistics
Threads
93,206
Posts
1,955,964
Members
56,485
Latest member
bjorn-dpc
Forums
GEN 2 (2017-2020) Ford F-150 Raptor Forums
Ford Raptor Engine Discussion and Performance Mods
Whipple Stage 1 Kit Feedback Thread!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top