^^ 6-8hps according to the UR...

 

Dyno jet #'s are mroe accurate in my opinion, but then again a dyno is nothing more then a scale. If youw eigh yourself on 2 diff scaled and get 2 diff results, which one do u follow? Neither, until you try to lose that 20 lb's you've been talking about forever. Then you re weigh yourself and if u lost 20 lb's it will reflect it. Doesnt matter if it says 100 lbs or 300 lbs, if u look good who cares!!!

IMO like dyno jet #'s better. I think mustang dynos read extremely LOW. but if i had a mustang and i wanted to see increases in specific parts then that would be fine. a 298 hp RWD G35 coupe doesnt lose 85 hp through the driveline. Thats a 25% loss. ITS BS. 245 is definitely a more realistic #.

 

^^^This is smart. I will be going to the same dyno every time. It doesn't matter that I got 245 or even 399, it a scale to base my next Mod's on........... that's all. As for you patting my back, or any other part of me Mechee, Don't bother.......... I didn't post for that reason. If I needed that kind of re assurance, I wouldn't leave the mirror in the mornings! Just how do you make it through the door way????

 

BTW chilibowl............ I already have it, but I plan on doing something else with it. If it works I'll post it, hopefully with successful numbers.

 

I bet you like dynojet numbers better, because they're higher. But what part of accelerating an imaginary load that is not representative of any real-life load makes it a good measurement?

Sorry, but I datalogged vehicle speed versus time and back-calculated to get accurate power curves, and they matched up pretty exactly with my Mustang numbers. They really do have that much loss, which is ridiculous.

 

dude, in all honesty I wouldnt care if my car made 100whp. If it ran 11.5 in the 1/4 with a ****ty 60ft, i'd be completely satisfied. I jsut think a dynojet is more accurate to what the car "should" be making.

eg. i had a 2005 evo before this. car had 276 cracnk hp as stated by dealer. on a mustang dyno, they would make 180-195. No 180whp 3300lb car is running 13.1-13.3 bone stock. It just doesnt sound right. I got the car up to 380whp on pump gas/stock turbo and ran 11.9@117 spinning all 4 through all of first gear. 60ft was decent at 1.77, but a 1.6 is totally attainable. car woulda went 11.7 if I got down to a 1.65. My car on a mustang dyno would have been around 290-300whp. again, i just dont think it sounds right.

I Think dynojets are good if u just wanna see what your car makes once. I think BOTH dynos are good for what they were really created for, and thats to see increase in power. The 2 best things to see increase in power is trap speeds and dyno #'s.

 

BS. If that was the case you wouldn't have gotten your panties all bunched up when I enlightened you as to what numbers your car is actually putting down on the street. I'm sure if I told you you were actually putting out 260 whp, you would have been all happy. You're in love with your dynojet numbers, as are most people. I don't have anything against dynojet inertial dynos, I just wish they'd remove their fudge factor that inflates the numbers so heavily.

 

Relative gains and tuning, that's about what they're useful for.

 

Sorry but the guy above is right. Dynojet is the king of Dynos out there and there is a reason for that. They are more accurate in what the actual #s are. My car dynoed 253 hp and 230-231 stock on a dynojet here. That is exactly what it should have done for 298 hp etc.



Mustang #'s are extremly low and they are known not to be the best dyno to use.

PS, again you like to argue with everyone like the guy said above.

 

MechEE is another 99atlantic, him and his Rustang bullsh*t

 

MechEE please do me a favor. Don't respond in any of me threads please. Thank you. Your "opinion" is not welcomed. Have a great day!!! See that was politically correct

 

Dynojet inertial dynos are the "king of dynos" because their are the least expensive and easiest to use, not because they are the most accurate. If you knew anything about how either dyno worked, or had done any real characterization of your car's power on the street, you'd quickly understand why the Dynojet numbers don't make sense. I've spoken with engineers at both Dynojet and Mustang Dyne about this in great detail.

For those that are in love with their Dynojet numbers and will cry if I smash their dreams, stop reading now. For cars with reasonable power levels, the average Dynojet inertial roller load is less than the load applied on the Mustang dyno. So your car actually accelerates at a higher rate on the Dynojet, so your inertial losses should be greater than that on the Mustang, and thus your car should put out lower numbers. Yet Dynojets consistently put out much higher numbers, almost always by a set percentage, than the Mustang dynos. I was curious why this was from a technical standpoint, so I called up engineers at both companies and spoke with them for a while. Dynojet acknolwedged this fact that their pure measured power numbers are actually less than that on the Mustang dyno generally, and they internally add a fudge factor to try and account for the increased inertial losses to give the higher numbers that people expect. Mustang on the other hand doesn't add any fudge factors, and simply measures the true power output at the rollers for the given loading, which is why you measure very similar numbers to that of the Mustang dyno when measuring power on the street.

And why do you think that 230-231 hp is what your car "should" have dyno'd for 298 crank hp? Because that's about what Dynojets put out for that configuration, and Dynojets are so commonly used. If Mustang was the standard then you would have expected less. Personally, I'd rather have a better estimate of what my car is truly putting down at the wheels, rather than a fudged number to make me feel happy inside.

From a gain-measuring standpoint, any dyno will work for small gains (once you get to power that depends heavily on load, like boosted motors, it's a different story). Just make sure to scale the gains relative to the stock crank numbers so everybody is working with the same 1 hp = 1 hp scale.

 

Hmmm, well where is this info to back your opinion up? Give us some links please.

 

Good luck finding any published data on this. I looked for a while when trying to find out why the Dynojets were reading higher and came up dry, which is why I resorted to calling them up directly. I had to try back multiple times before I was able to sneak my way in to talking to the technical staff.

Back-calculating power or torque from the acceleration rate of a load is easy. Some simple math can convert the inertia of the common Dynojet drums to an equivalent vehicle weight and drag for comparison with Mustang loading. Whichever has the higher load will measure the larger pure power numbers before manipulation (less loss to parasitic inertias).

 

^+1