Mustang vs. Dynojet
06-14-2005, 06:26 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NJ
Posts: 4,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mustang vs. Dynojet
Hey guys, I got up on a Mustang dyno today and had some pretty crappy numbers in comparison to everyone else on here (mostly Dynojet). I've heard the conversion from Mustang to Dynojet is 15%, if that's true, I did pretty decent for a car with just a popcharger installed....
06-15-2005, 06:54 AM
#3
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NJ
Posts: 4,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I only did 229/210
My torque curve looks something like this:
------------------------------------------
So, even with just a 10% adjustment that comes out to 252/231, which is on the higher end of the spectrum of VQ motors, but my tuning shop and various other people are under the impression that I have a factory freak...
My torque curve looks something like this:
------------------------------------------
So, even with just a 10% adjustment that comes out to 252/231, which is on the higher end of the spectrum of VQ motors, but my tuning shop and various other people are under the impression that I have a factory freak...
Last edited by DomZ; 06-15-2005 at 07:00 AM.
06-15-2005, 09:46 AM
#4
Stock, my best was 255hp on a Mustang Dyno, but the load mechanism was disabled so it ran MOL like a dynojet.
Also consider that I will have slightly less drivetrain loss with the manual (mostly shows in the torque) and I'm on 17's. Don't know what size wheel you run, but on the same dyno, the Z's with 18's consistenly dynoed around 5 rwhp less.
And all this is meaningless...you really can't compare your pull to other Z's unless they're on the same dyno the same day. Didn't he have any other Z pulls stored in the computer for you to compare with? I'd be surprised if you were the first. If so, go find someone who does.
Also consider that I will have slightly less drivetrain loss with the manual (mostly shows in the torque) and I'm on 17's. Don't know what size wheel you run, but on the same dyno, the Z's with 18's consistenly dynoed around 5 rwhp less.
And all this is meaningless...you really can't compare your pull to other Z's unless they're on the same dyno the same day. Didn't he have any other Z pulls stored in the computer for you to compare with? I'd be surprised if you were the first. If so, go find someone who does.
06-15-2005, 10:45 AM
#5
So, even with just a 10% adjustment that comes out to 252/231, which is on the higher end of the spectrum of VQ motors, but my tuning shop and various other people are under the impression that I have a factory freak...
Stock, my best was 255hp on a Mustang Dyno, but the load mechanism was disabled so it ran MOL like a dynojet.
Sounds like you both have about the same HP . I would think a Mustang dyno with the load disabled would read JUST like a dyno jet . Alot of stock Z's and G's are making ...190 to 200whp on a Mustang dyno...LOADED of course
Stock, my best was 255hp on a Mustang Dyno, but the load mechanism was disabled so it ran MOL like a dynojet.
Sounds like you both have about the same HP . I would think a Mustang dyno with the load disabled would read JUST like a dyno jet . Alot of stock Z's and G's are making ...190 to 200whp on a Mustang dyno...LOADED of course
06-15-2005, 03:34 PM
#7
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NJ
Posts: 4,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow 190-200 makes me feel a lot better, maybe I'll ask them to disable the load next time.....
I'm adding headers/high flows/aam spacer/ts l-spec reflash before I go to the dyno next
NA powwwaa
I'm adding headers/high flows/aam spacer/ts l-spec reflash before I go to the dyno next
NA powwwaa
Trending Topics
06-15-2005, 11:49 PM
#9
that fact that its a load dyno alone is not what makes the number lower then a dynojet... that doesnt make sense. In a situation like this where every machine is reading different numbers, then I would think you would consider consistency and repeatability as all you can use to measure accuracy.
Mustang setups typically read lower then Dynojet, most dynos typically read lower then dynojets... other dynos can be be configured in ways to read the same or higher then a dynojet... you never really know what your getting if your on a user configurable dyno... just what you look for is before and after on the same dyno to find out what power you have gained... but you certainly cannot try and compare it to dynojet readings... the one thing about a dynojet is that you never have to worry about how one dynojet compares to another dynojet cause there is no operator settings... so its comparable... trying to compare any other dynos to any other dynos or to a dynojet or even compare it to itself with different settings doesnt work.
Tune it on a load dyno (if you can, takes longer if you dont)... compare it on a dynojet.
BTW: many of you guys are not specifying what type of dynojet when you speak of them... many facilities are installing the new 224xlc dynojet that is eddy current load controlled... the US standard comparison dyno is easily the intertia only Dynojet 248c... which is still the most popular but slowly on its way to extinction... when thats gone, you probably wont be able to compare any 2 dynos.
Mustang setups typically read lower then Dynojet, most dynos typically read lower then dynojets... other dynos can be be configured in ways to read the same or higher then a dynojet... you never really know what your getting if your on a user configurable dyno... just what you look for is before and after on the same dyno to find out what power you have gained... but you certainly cannot try and compare it to dynojet readings... the one thing about a dynojet is that you never have to worry about how one dynojet compares to another dynojet cause there is no operator settings... so its comparable... trying to compare any other dynos to any other dynos or to a dynojet or even compare it to itself with different settings doesnt work.
Tune it on a load dyno (if you can, takes longer if you dont)... compare it on a dynojet.
BTW: many of you guys are not specifying what type of dynojet when you speak of them... many facilities are installing the new 224xlc dynojet that is eddy current load controlled... the US standard comparison dyno is easily the intertia only Dynojet 248c... which is still the most popular but slowly on its way to extinction... when thats gone, you probably wont be able to compare any 2 dynos.
Last edited by phunk; 06-15-2005 at 11:53 PM.
06-16-2005, 12:19 AM
#10
On average, the Mustangdyne and the Dynodynamics dynos will read somewhat inline and are usualy lower than the dynojet and much lower than dynapacks. However I say on average because many dynos are configured differently, so you may have wide variations from dyno to dyno. Basically comparing numbers from dyno to dyno is fairly meaningless unless you have a wide sample of stock cars to compare against.
On another note non-loading dynos (like dynojets) or dynos with load turned off cannot simulate real world conditions, so the HP numbers are essentially meaningless. Case in point on a particular 350Z (Greddy T/T) there was over a 40whp difference and a full 1.5 A/F difference between having load turned on and off.
Furthermore, when load is not induced, the car generally runs far richer, which causes the factory computer to both trim fuel and advance timing. This is why tuning on a non-loading dyno can often be dangerous business. I personally have seen 11:1 AFR on a dynojet, only to have the AFR be 12.5 on the street. This was on a stand-alone ECU that was locked to disallow fuel and ignition trim.
Cheers,
Gary
Gruppe-S
On another note non-loading dynos (like dynojets) or dynos with load turned off cannot simulate real world conditions, so the HP numbers are essentially meaningless. Case in point on a particular 350Z (Greddy T/T) there was over a 40whp difference and a full 1.5 A/F difference between having load turned on and off.
Furthermore, when load is not induced, the car generally runs far richer, which causes the factory computer to both trim fuel and advance timing. This is why tuning on a non-loading dyno can often be dangerous business. I personally have seen 11:1 AFR on a dynojet, only to have the AFR be 12.5 on the street. This was on a stand-alone ECU that was locked to disallow fuel and ignition trim.
Cheers,
Gary
Gruppe-S
you so crazy, gary... you so crazy.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
B Esquire
Autocross/Road
0
09-24-2015 07:52 AM
