UGOTSMOKED

A lot of people who dyno tune thier cars on Dyno paks, usually see higher rear wheel horsepower and torque numbers because the wheels (weights) are taken off to connect to the pak. IMHO not very accurate, but how much of a percentage is it off by compared to if it were on a 'real dyno'? 5-10% or something? ('real dyno'-stationary test/tuning, but using vehicle weight and load like in everyday driving)

Mr_pharmD

iTrader: (48)

dynos are a tool to estimate hp/tq so dont say it's not a "real dyno" just bc it's a dyno pak. If that was true then the only real dyno out there would be the mustang one bc that gives out the lowest readings compared to all.

Zivman

iTrader: (19)

IMO, the dynopack is conservative in the numbers it puts out. It may bolt to the hubs eliminating the loss of spinnng the wheels, but it is also a load based dyno. I consider a dynojet as the standard measure of HP/TQ numbers. In comparison, I think the numbers a dynopack reads is about 5% less than a dynojet.

bsp

iTrader: (2)

The Dynapak should in fact read lower. Like Zivman said, it is a load based dyno. Usually what I tell our customers is if they want to see higher horsepower numbers to try to run on a Dynojet, but for tuning we would definitely always recommend a load based dyno. They are the best when it comes to tuning. I wouldn't be surprised to see anywhere from 5% to 15% difference from a Dynojet.

UGOTSMOKED

But even though it is load based, you would have to compensate for the size/weight(17"-18"19"rim/tire) of the rims still right? I wish I knew. I think the dyno pak was made for a number of reasons, while still doing its job. It was probably made for time saving strapping a car to the rollers(actually maybe not), it was made for budget and space constraints. I want to learn more about them, even though Im most likely gonna use a dyno dynamics. I understand dyno jets are what the industry typically uses, but your basically just spinning a weighted drum, and results in high rwhp/torque numbers.
I hate being curious.

Zivman

iTrader: (19)

Takes longer to put a car on a dynopack than it does to strap one to a dynojet. Space constraints can be, but most likely ar not an issue. I have/had my car tuned at GRD on a dynopack. they use a lift in order to get the car setup on the dyno, so that basically takes up any additional room that the dynopack might have saved.

Here is a Link that should better answer your question

UGOTSMOKED

thanks

Gary King

iTrader: (19)

In regards to budget, I've found that the initial investment cost for a All Wheel Drive System from either Dyno Dynamics or Dynapack is fairly similiar, both costing over $100,000.00.

If anyone has experience with using both systems could you please share your impressions.

phunk

iTrader: (21)

i think it will depend heavily on how the dyno is calibrated. A friend of mine had a car that made like 75hp MORE on a dynapak than it did on a dynojet. But I have also seen cars make more power on the dynojet then they do on the dynopak... guess it all depends on the calibration of the dyno.

Brandon@Forged

https://my350z.com/forum/forced-induction/123014-dyno-comparison-thread.html

Zivman

iTrader: (19)

I thought I covered that one:

Sharif@Forged

iTrader: (92)

From my experience, dynopaks, dyno dynamics, and mustang all read a little bit lower than a typical dynojet. Many load based dyno operates will add a 10-13% correction factor, in order to estimate dynojet numbers. Like it or not, DynoJet numbers are the industry standard number in the USA today, so that's what customer like to see.

UnderPressure

iTrader: (4)

Yeah, what he said, I said.

phunk

iTrader: (21)

all that information on that thread is misleading and inconclusive.

There is no % for calculation comparison, because there are far too many factors involved. The posted comparison of one car going on a few different dynos does no justice to the true factors that need to be considered... not to mention it is the classic epitome of the misleading and far overly inconclusive data that plagues these type of forums with misinformation and uneducated members. If everything was just that simple... a nice little % based multiplication algorithm and all the questions in life are answered... if your lucky you will forget everything you read in that thread.

UnderPressure

iTrader: (4)

Ding Ding Round 3

Ok, we've gone over this before Charles.

Those numbers are a general rule of thumb not absolute. If you were to ACTUALLY READ the thread you would have noticed this.

How about jumping off that high horse of yours to defend your novel idea that your toys are better than everyone else’s (he use to own a DJ) and actually contribute something of intellectual value.

phunk

iTrader: (21)

Dont call me biased, your the one that sells dynos. I sold mine last year and couldn't care less what dyno someone likes.

If you know the information is wrong, then dont post it. In that thread you post admitting saying that there are tons of factors and you cannot just calculate it. Then you go ahead and start listing percentages (wtf? why post it if its useless?). Once again the epitome of misinformation that floats around these forums, now we got guys taking dyno numbers and using your little conversion percents there... great stuff... i eagerly await your next technical update to that thread... any more completely useless "rules of thumb"?

I have personally run vehicles that i built on different dynos, and I have seen then display more, less, and nearly indentical. There is no conversion, and all the dynos that have their "CORRECTION FACTOR" to try and simulate another dyno is complete junk.

Run what you brung, and measure it before and after. Otherwise, there is no comparing.

Sharif@Forged

iTrader: (92)

Charles, there are some generalizations that I think are fair. Ask anyone that has operated or dynoed their car on a Dyno Dynamics machine, WITHOUT additional correction. They consistenly read lower than a dynojet. I dynoed 320 on a Mustang dyno, the day after pulling 412whp on a DynoJet. Just another piece of data. Booger mentioned he also dynoed extremly low on a dynojet. The number really means nothing, but the poster asked the question. The most important piece is before/after on the same dyno. Nothing else really matters.

phunk

iTrader: (21)

OK.... that is exactly what i just said. Different people have had far too many different results, some high some low on various dynos... so there are no fair generalizations. Generalizations are what spread bullcrap and people slowly start to use them as facts.

This thread went off topic before I went off... the answer to the original questions is NOTHING, there is no change... the dynapak reads dynapak HP and its engineered to do that without the wheels/tires.

davidv

iTrader: (2)

deleted

Sharif@Forged

iTrader: (92)

That is not what you said...or what I meant. A DynoDynamics dyno uncorrected will always read lower than a dynojet....its about as factual a statement as I can make....it's not misinformation. Ask the DynoJet/Dynodynamics employees and they will tell you the same thing. It's a well know fact in the industry.

Charles, I think you are mistaking "misleading generalizations" with something called an opinion, or an observational trend. Some things are black and white, but lots of this stuff is a little grey.

BTW, UnderPressure is a rep for DynoDynamics, and he probably has more experience with the various dynos that anyone else on this board. He isnt pushing his dyno in this thread....just pointing out some of his experiences.