Kenne Bell vs Whipple

[mikepage0007]

Originally Posted by 94guy

any track numbers?

made 4 runs last night, got to track @ 6.30 and set up tires, and spent 45 minutes getting ready..so car was pretty cool..my mech could not show , so gave me his laptop and crash course on hptuners..lol...each run was fairly consistant..ambient tamps were between 83-87 degrees{ very humid} as the night set..all 5 runs were approx 30 minutes apart...at the tree i was 67c or 152f each run and between 170 -180 and hit a high of 191....gave my mech laptop and he reviewed all saved runs friday mrng...this was his evaluation of runs.he then asked me what happen at tree? he said car dropped or went of the charts...told him , i couild not hook , either i was to soft on the launch{bog} or to high rpm and wheel spin...i can,t hook this damn thing...i think this is proving more of a challenge then high iats..only good thing was the gforce 9inch ran well...and i have possibly resolved wheelhop issues i was having...i know what my tree temps were as i looked at screen b4 final stage light...driving off track my iats were back down to 67c... kb has some power..lol..looks like slicks are my next mod..gonna run tomorrow again and mech will def be there, he will be logging g200 @600rwhp with a chiller and also a maggie with 650rwhp..torq may also be there with a whipple...we have about 20-30 camaro,s coming...will try to get logs after the weekend..also jim belle called me and wanted to know how i did, and explain some things that they were looking into...further testing , as he is , i believe genuine interested to see if the kb is really that hot or if others are really that cool...words like calibration and sensors and placement of certain components came up...honestly..way over my peabrain..so i believe there will be a post sometime soon from kb that might help clear some issues...it will be interesting to see how others run in the real world with very similar rwhp...at same track...same temps...

[94guy]

what mph did you run?

[mikepage0007]

Originally Posted by 94guy

what mph did you run?

was running 116-118...1st time @ a florida track...ran sgmp in valdoista and ran between 121 & 124 mph...car has lots more, but unable to lay it down..g200 was running his kb with me and he was consistant 5 times 11.3 between 116-119..damn automatics with slicks..lol..had a souped up viper who said he was running 700rwhp and he could not get into 11,s either..made me feel better..humidity must really pull power...i even felt slow..

[Matt@KB]

Originally Posted by WhoMadeWho

It increases from from 109 to 115 over the pull, not much movement. That's one reason I triple checked the sensor, seemed a little odd. Whipple says they use the same IAT sensor as comes stock on the LS3/L99. I presume it's calibrated correctly, here is my IAT sensor calibration table:

Never presume or assume anything. The "stock" LS3/L99 IAT sensor is a part of the MAF and cannot be relocated. They are using a sensor from another application (coincidentally the same as ours) Delphi P/N 12160244. If the sensor is not the same, chances are the transfer function is not the same. That causes erroneous readings. You have the stock transfer function in your tune. So does the "other" kit's tune. This means the IATS will read lower (significantly lower) all the way along the function. The lower the temperature the more the error towards a "colder than reality" reading.

CORRECT IAT TEMPERATURE

If you are unsure your transfer function is correct, try this simple test: Wait until the car is completely cooled (24 hrs minimum). This will stabilize the temperatures of both the ECT and IAT so they should match. Put both the IAT and ECT parameters in your PID list and do a simple key on. DO NOT START THE CAR. Just take data. If the IAT transfer function is correct, you will see the ECT and IAT both match (within a degree like below).

INCORRECT IAT TEMPERATURE

However, if the 12160244 sensor is used and the STOCK transfer function is used (as in your case and the "other" kit), you will see the following error (13 degrees LOWER in this case):



As you can see, using the STOCK transfer function with the 12160244 sensor will cause the temperature to be read considerably lower than reality.

For those interested in correcting their transfer functions, we have supplied the following corrected function for the 12160244 sensor:

Ohms Value C Value F
48 150 302
60 140 284
78 130 266
101 120 248
133 110 230
178 100 212
242 90 194
283 85 185
334 80 176
395 75 167
469 70 158
559 65 149
671 60 140
809 55 131
980 50 122
1195 45 113
1465 40 104
1806 35 95
2240 30 86
2795 25 77
3511 20 68
4441 15 59
5658 10 50
7263 5 41
9399 0 32
12261 -5 23
16120 -10 14
21371 -15 5
28582 -20 -4
38583 -25 -13
52594 -30 -22
72437 -35 -31
100865 -40 -40

We have not seen or tested any other Camaros (mfg tune or re-tuned) with the IATs corrected. Even the brand new one we tested today. We hope this will help show a more “realistic” view of actual temperatures. We are exploring other reasons why the “other” kit may show lower that reality readings and will report our findings for those interested.

More to come.......

[DarricSS]

Edited:

I will stay out of a 1 sided technical battle...

[mikepage0007]

nice info matt, someone is staying up late and doing homework it appears.. and the drama never dies...if all this checks out, and i hope someone unbiased will actually do it and report back...i,m about as technical as a muffler bearing and a sphincter shaft...so i will sit by and watch..another page in the chapter of fi...i think matt is trying to point out that maybe other sc,s don,t run as cold as they appear and we are comparing kb as a abnomally, to other sc,s..when in fact , it could be possible that other sc,s run near as hot...just an thought, trying to remain unbiased and open minded..

[Revolution]

Originally Posted by Matt@KB

Never presume or assume anything. The "stock" LS3/L99 IAT sensor is a part of the MAF and cannot be relocated. They are using a sensor from another application (coincidentally the same as ours) Delphi P/N 12160244. If the sensor is not the same, chances are the transfer function is not the same. That causes erroneous readings. You have the stock transfer function in your tune. So does the "other" kit's tune. This means the IATS will read lower (significantly lower) all the way along the function. The lower the temperature the more the error towards a "colder than reality" reading.

CORRECT IAT TEMPERATURE

If you are unsure your transfer function is correct, try this simple test: Wait until the car is completely cooled (24 hrs minimum). This will stabilize the temperatures of both the ECT and IAT so they should match. Put both the IAT and ECT parameters in your PID list and do a simple key on. DO NOT START THE CAR. Just take data. If the IAT transfer function is correct, you will see the ECT and IAT both match (within a degree like below).

INCORRECT IAT TEMPERATURE

However, if the 12160244 sensor is used and the STOCK transfer function is used (as in your case and the "other" kit), you will see the following error (13 degrees LOWER in this case):



As you can see, using the STOCK transfer function with the 12160244 sensor will cause the temperature to be read considerably lower than reality.

For those interested in correcting their transfer functions, we have supplied the following corrected function for the 12160244 sensor:

Ohms Value C Value F
48 150 302
60 140 284
78 130 266
101 120 248
133 110 230
178 100 212
242 90 194
283 85 185
334 80 176
395 75 167
469 70 158
559 65 149
671 60 140
809 55 131
980 50 122
1195 45 113
1465 40 104
1806 35 95
2240 30 86
2795 25 77
3511 20 68
4441 15 59
5658 10 50
7263 5 41
9399 0 32
12261 -5 23
16120 -10 14
21371 -15 5
28582 -20 -4
38583 -25 -13
52594 -30 -22
72437 -35 -31
100865 -40 -40

We have not seen or tested any other Camaros (mfg tune or re-tuned) with the IATs corrected. Even the brand new one we tested today. We hope this will help show a more “realistic” view of actual temperatures. We are exploring other reasons why the “other” kit may show lower that reality readings and will report our findings for those interested.

More to come.......

This greatly impacts so much of the calibration.. it's about time it gets caught.. this is one of the reasons I have seen issues with IAT with whipple's in high heat.. interesting find indeed. I plan on staying tuned.

[WhoMadeWho]

I just tried this, here's what I found on my Whipple.

Ambient Temp: 85 degrees
ECT: 86 degrees
IAT: 72

[honeybucket99]

So, what do you think? Are you calibrated right? It would be interesting to see if you change your resistance table to the values provided by KB to see if your IAT and ECT match. Can you try it?

[WhoMadeWho]

I've been suspicious of the Whipple IAT's from the start, and I must thank Kenne Bell for confirming my suspicions. So, is this temperature delta linear across the resistance spectrum?

[WhoMadeWho]

Originally Posted by honeybucket99

So, what do you think? Are you calibrated right? It would be interesting to see if you change your resistance table to the values provided by KB to see if your IAT and ECT match. Can you try it?

I've got to hand it to them for doing this research. I've asked Whipple about this, but they said the stock IAT calibration table is accurate.

Yes, I'll plug their values in and report back.

[mikepage0007]

make you go hmmmmm

[MJ]

Very interesting....

[Revolution]

Not to poke at a bear going to sleep but.. All of a sudden the tides have changed in this thread... amazing what some real R&D turns up.. instead of RIP off and Duplicate... since I have noticed that a whole lot of a certain companies kit ends up looking all too much like the Original kit I saw being prototyped..