mustang ** dynapac ** dynojet dynos
07-10-2011, 03:07 PM
#21
consider the Australian MAINLINE DYNO here, you absolutely cannot adjust anything at all. the operator has no control at all.
even if you make a change to the load type. 4 cycle applied to a v8 base load. the dyno stops and will not run. amazing.
even if you make a change to the load type. 4 cycle applied to a v8 base load. the dyno stops and will not run. amazing.
07-12-2011, 07:53 AM
#22
Registered User
What was your ET? I'm @456whp on the dynapac and hopefully fri it's not raining for street legals so I will post to compare traps
07-12-2011, 09:09 AM
#23
Hi, mate my best 1/4 so far was 12.63@119.60 this was with no launch and poo street tires!
I'm looking forward to hearing how you do! Bear in mind I've only had 8 runs up the strip so far! Lol
07-12-2011, 09:19 AM
#24
Not like numbers matters as has been explained but IMO DP's read higher because they give you hub hp, not wheel hp, the weight of wheels/tires is significant and isn't accounted for.
WHP and dyno type to trap speed correlation in my Z's history. I can post times if you want that as well.:
240whp Dynojet - 101mph
262whp Dynojet - 107mph
380-390whp Dynojet - 116mph
490whp Dyno Dynamics / 525 whp DJ = 126mph letting off, I think 128mph was easily possible but cant prove it now
Ive seen the same day as my 126mph run a 600whp DJ Z - 132mph trap on an "avg run"
WHP and dyno type to trap speed correlation in my Z's history. I can post times if you want that as well.:
240whp Dynojet - 101mph
262whp Dynojet - 107mph
380-390whp Dynojet - 116mph
490whp Dyno Dynamics / 525 whp DJ = 126mph letting off, I think 128mph was easily possible but cant prove it now
Ive seen the same day as my 126mph run a 600whp DJ Z - 132mph trap on an "avg run"
07-12-2011, 09:25 PM
#25
Registered User
Not like numbers matters as has been explained but IMO DP's read higher because they give you hub hp, not wheel hp, the weight of wheels/tires is significant and isn't accounted for.
WHP and dyno type to trap speed correlation in my Z's history. I can post times if you want that as well.:
240whp Dynojet - 101mph
262whp Dynojet - 107mph
380-390whp Dynojet - 116mph
490whp Dyno Dynamics / 525 whp DJ = 126mph letting off, I think 128mph was easily possible but cant prove it now
Ive seen the same day as my 126mph run a 600whp DJ Z - 132mph trap on an "avg run"
WHP and dyno type to trap speed correlation in my Z's history. I can post times if you want that as well.:
240whp Dynojet - 101mph
262whp Dynojet - 107mph
380-390whp Dynojet - 116mph
490whp Dyno Dynamics / 525 whp DJ = 126mph letting off, I think 128mph was easily possible but cant prove it now
Ive seen the same day as my 126mph run a 600whp DJ Z - 132mph trap on an "avg run"
07-15-2011, 11:23 PM
#26
Registered User
This run was on a 2.36 60' I had another run that i managed a 1.95 60" but 3rd gear locked me out and had to go into 4th
Guess I'll try again once I get a new trans in the spring :/ Best I could muster was a 13.1@111 2200" track elv
Last edited by etownz33; 07-15-2011 at 11:43 PM.
07-16-2011, 01:35 PM
#27
Glad you had fun at the strip though mate, shame about you gear box though. My best 60' time was 2.27 sec IIRC so If you had nailed that run with a 1.9 60' you would have had a great time! You must have a better suspention/tire set up for dragging than me because I spin like **** if a try and launch! lol..
07-16-2011, 02:27 PM
#28
Registered User
Im running Stock suspension, and 4.08 final drive. Tires are fat heavy 285/30/20's Nt555's. I've had considerable track experience with my 2 previous vehicles just not the Z. Had a blast and will just have to plan for next year
07-17-2011, 07:10 AM
#29
New Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: terre haute, IN; STL, MO
Posts: 6,457
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
6 Posts
Wow, I can't believea thread about which dyno to tube on had nothing to say but which produces numbers.
Personally I think the only way to tuner is on a load based dyno like a dynodynamics. It is the closest thing to getting a true street tune becuz the cart can new loaded independant of speed. Inertia dynos do nothing but hammer down the gas and tune whatever cells load cells are used. Thats why a good tuner on s dynojet has to do a street tune afterwards.
Ive nrver seen a giant roller on the street so id rather not use that method to tune my cars drivsbility. They will do a good job at wot tuning but thats about 5% of all of my driving.
Personally I think the only way to tuner is on a load based dyno like a dynodynamics. It is the closest thing to getting a true street tune becuz the cart can new loaded independant of speed. Inertia dynos do nothing but hammer down the gas and tune whatever cells load cells are used. Thats why a good tuner on s dynojet has to do a street tune afterwards.
Ive nrver seen a giant roller on the street so id rather not use that method to tune my cars drivsbility. They will do a good job at wot tuning but thats about 5% of all of my driving.
07-17-2011, 05:07 PM
#31
Heres my personal take on this.... but I would gladly stand corrected if anything has changed over the last few years of which i havent been operating a dyno or in the big horsepower race.
Inertial dynojets (248c, non-load-based), are the only dynos that you can really compare graphs created on one versus another. These dynos only offer like 5 or so difference standard correction values that are based STRICTLY on environmental conditions. All you need to know is STD reads a little higher than SAE (not a TON, maybe 20hp on a 500 hp car or something like that). The graph should say which was used on it. Ive noticed over the years that tuners usually use SAE, and people trying to sell you something use STD.
Now, its been debated that dynojets read higher than real proper horsepower. OK, i cant argue one way or the other on that... if its true its true, whatever. I still say at least you know what you are looking at with their graphs.
Other dynos, be it a mustang, dyno dynamics, dynapac, etc... its all up in the air. You never really know exactly what you have. The reason for this is, regardless of any environmental correction factors they have to choose from... they (VERY VERY UNFORTUNATELY) have a operator defined correction factor. This means they can simply just STACK ON 10% if they want.
This creates a lot of problems. Because instead of just being able to say MUSTANG READS LOWER THAN DYNOJET, DYNO DYNAMICS READ LOWER THAN DYNOJET... you cannot say that. Because while it MAY read lower than dynojet without an operator defined correction factor being set... many dyno operators CHOOSE to add a STATIC percentage to what they believe will equal a dynojet number.
Even much much more unfortunate than that, these other brands of dynos do not display the operator defined correction on the actual graph so that people know what they are looking at.
So now what we end up with is, every single friggin guy to ever use a dyno that is not a dynojet, posts his graph and absolutely positively MUST include a caption about how much more they think it would be on a dynojet, or they will at least say "on this LOW READING DYNO", or at the very bare minimum they have to throw in the phase "heartbreaker".
But when they say that, its has no value. Not because there is anything about those people that makes their statements worth less than others... but just because there is no telling what operator defined factors that graph was filtered through, and for all we know its actually much higher than a dynojet.
as for dynapac all i can say is that every car that i ever personally knew to dyno on a dynapac, the dynapac was quite optimistic (i believe quite a bit more so than a dynojet). But then again, thats probably after the operator stacked on some ******** 25% or something thinking that there is actually a static value that will create a dynojet number out of a xxxxx number.
its the same thing with the guys who use altitude correction factors. dont ever buy it. I know that the guys up at the top of the rockies suffer a lot of power loss due to air density. Sure... but those guys are hilarious they use the most rediculous and exageratted "corrections" on their timeslips and dyno graphs, and when they bring their car down to altitude is when they experience the real heartbreaker.
Lastly, I do not want to discredit other dynos at ALL. I believe that the load based dynos are all better tuning tools than the old dynojet 248c, for sure. I just personally dont ever take a graph to heart if it didnt come from a dynojet.. i honestly usually dont even look at them anymore. because I just cant base it off anything at all when I do not know how much the operator decided to stick on top. im sure plenty of shops dont add anything at all.... but until these other brand dynos display ON THE GRAPH, ALL APPLIED CORRECTION VALUES, then i just dont care to read them.
Inertial dynojets (248c, non-load-based), are the only dynos that you can really compare graphs created on one versus another. These dynos only offer like 5 or so difference standard correction values that are based STRICTLY on environmental conditions. All you need to know is STD reads a little higher than SAE (not a TON, maybe 20hp on a 500 hp car or something like that). The graph should say which was used on it. Ive noticed over the years that tuners usually use SAE, and people trying to sell you something use STD.
Now, its been debated that dynojets read higher than real proper horsepower. OK, i cant argue one way or the other on that... if its true its true, whatever. I still say at least you know what you are looking at with their graphs.
Other dynos, be it a mustang, dyno dynamics, dynapac, etc... its all up in the air. You never really know exactly what you have. The reason for this is, regardless of any environmental correction factors they have to choose from... they (VERY VERY UNFORTUNATELY) have a operator defined correction factor. This means they can simply just STACK ON 10% if they want.
This creates a lot of problems. Because instead of just being able to say MUSTANG READS LOWER THAN DYNOJET, DYNO DYNAMICS READ LOWER THAN DYNOJET... you cannot say that. Because while it MAY read lower than dynojet without an operator defined correction factor being set... many dyno operators CHOOSE to add a STATIC percentage to what they believe will equal a dynojet number.
Even much much more unfortunate than that, these other brands of dynos do not display the operator defined correction on the actual graph so that people know what they are looking at.
So now what we end up with is, every single friggin guy to ever use a dyno that is not a dynojet, posts his graph and absolutely positively MUST include a caption about how much more they think it would be on a dynojet, or they will at least say "on this LOW READING DYNO", or at the very bare minimum they have to throw in the phase "heartbreaker".
But when they say that, its has no value. Not because there is anything about those people that makes their statements worth less than others... but just because there is no telling what operator defined factors that graph was filtered through, and for all we know its actually much higher than a dynojet.
as for dynapac all i can say is that every car that i ever personally knew to dyno on a dynapac, the dynapac was quite optimistic (i believe quite a bit more so than a dynojet). But then again, thats probably after the operator stacked on some ******** 25% or something thinking that there is actually a static value that will create a dynojet number out of a xxxxx number.
its the same thing with the guys who use altitude correction factors. dont ever buy it. I know that the guys up at the top of the rockies suffer a lot of power loss due to air density. Sure... but those guys are hilarious they use the most rediculous and exageratted "corrections" on their timeslips and dyno graphs, and when they bring their car down to altitude is when they experience the real heartbreaker.
Lastly, I do not want to discredit other dynos at ALL. I believe that the load based dynos are all better tuning tools than the old dynojet 248c, for sure. I just personally dont ever take a graph to heart if it didnt come from a dynojet.. i honestly usually dont even look at them anymore. because I just cant base it off anything at all when I do not know how much the operator decided to stick on top. im sure plenty of shops dont add anything at all.... but until these other brand dynos display ON THE GRAPH, ALL APPLIED CORRECTION VALUES, then i just dont care to read them.
This doesnt directly answer the OP question but this was a post i made on another forum when people were asking about dyno #'s, so I thought i would copy and paste it...
The Main difference from a numbers standpoint between Mustang and dynojet, is that with Mustang you can change a Value to either make it read higher or lower. Mustang has this power/coast down procedure that u perform several times thats gives you a value. You take those values and then average them out and thats the value you are suppose to use in the Mustang software. Now if you maunually make that value higher or perfrom the power/coastdown procedure wrong and it gives you higher numbers...the dyno will read higher. Same is true with lower values
Now with a dynojet, that number isn't adjustable, that's why its the industry standard and everybody compares them. Now we have both, and they both work great for what they do. If we are talking about a accurate numbers and repeatability stand point, its no doubt that the dynojet is more accurate. If we are talking about a load control and variable tuning tool, no doubt the mustang is better.
Quick story, we used to do alot of Porsche product testing. Specifically on the 997 Carrera 4. Company was making intakes and exhaust on a already pretty well engineered N/A 3.6 liter. Long story short, is that no matter what this company did they couldn't make any more power with there products. They got everybody involved including current and previous Porsche engineers. Through this process with them being here they had brought all the factory calculated drivetrain loss figures (from Porsche R&D), stating that there was a 13% drivetrain loss on that vehicle. Well with 340BHP, we consistently got 293-296 WHP on over a half dozen Carrera 4's.
So that is one specific instance of the accuracy of dynojets numbers. When you compile that with the 100's if not 1000's of stock NA cars that we have done with the information that is out there, dynojet numbers always seem to be on par with what is expected to see HP at the wheels....
The Main difference from a numbers standpoint between Mustang and dynojet, is that with Mustang you can change a Value to either make it read higher or lower. Mustang has this power/coast down procedure that u perform several times thats gives you a value. You take those values and then average them out and thats the value you are suppose to use in the Mustang software. Now if you maunually make that value higher or perfrom the power/coastdown procedure wrong and it gives you higher numbers...the dyno will read higher. Same is true with lower values
Now with a dynojet, that number isn't adjustable, that's why its the industry standard and everybody compares them. Now we have both, and they both work great for what they do. If we are talking about a accurate numbers and repeatability stand point, its no doubt that the dynojet is more accurate. If we are talking about a load control and variable tuning tool, no doubt the mustang is better.
Quick story, we used to do alot of Porsche product testing. Specifically on the 997 Carrera 4. Company was making intakes and exhaust on a already pretty well engineered N/A 3.6 liter. Long story short, is that no matter what this company did they couldn't make any more power with there products. They got everybody involved including current and previous Porsche engineers. Through this process with them being here they had brought all the factory calculated drivetrain loss figures (from Porsche R&D), stating that there was a 13% drivetrain loss on that vehicle. Well with 340BHP, we consistently got 293-296 WHP on over a half dozen Carrera 4's.
So that is one specific instance of the accuracy of dynojets numbers. When you compile that with the 100's if not 1000's of stock NA cars that we have done with the information that is out there, dynojet numbers always seem to be on par with what is expected to see HP at the wheels....
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
B Esquire
Autocross/Road
0
09-24-2015 07:52 AM
