Hi guys,

I wanted to get your take on the dyno plots I have posted on my website.

My background is engineering. I worked as a rocket scientist for Boeing and Marquardt for many years before starting up Motordyne. Hence the background.

Now that I am working as Motordyne I still use the same engineering standards for product design and data analysis. ...And a perfect example of the data analysis standards can be seen in the dyno plots on my website.

http://www.motordyneengineering.com/dynos.htm

My question is "Can most people understand what the heck all these different plots mean?"

For any engineer at Boeing, it would look like a great analysis, but what does it mean to the non "rocket scientist geek"? ...A normal person.

Is it pointlessly overboard? Does it make any sense at all?

I don't know of any other automotive part manufacturer that does dyno analysis like this. But at least for me, it really zero's in on exactly what the parts do.

This analysis took me a while to put together in Excel and has lots of good info, but does it work for you?





Or how about the A minus B plots below? I really like A-B plots.
It shows nothing but the actual change in power (compared to stock) at any specific RPM.
Note: This is not the usual way of showing dyno results but it is trecerously explicit.




Thank you for your feedback!
Tony

 

All the lines are a bit confusing to the eye at first glance. But if you look closely, you can see where the MD products really shine over the rest

If people would take a minute or two to actually process and take in the information you're providing, they'll see the results very clearly!

Keep up the good work Tony!
-GP-

 

Tony, which versions of the Kinetix and Crawford plenums did you test? The V, the V+ / V4.1 or V4.2?

 

Makes perfect sense.

 

It was the latest version of the Crawford plenum and second to last version of the Kinetix.

IMPORTANT EDIT: It wasn't my test. It was Sport Z Magazines test. (now Nissan Sport Magazine)


.

 

They look great Tony! Great colors and backgrounds too. I had to look at your dyno graphs a few times (on your site w/ multiple dynos for the spacers) but I got it after a few. I mean, if you take all that time to generate the graphs, the least we can do is take more than a glancing look at it.
One question. On your spacer dyno I assume C=Crawford and K=Kinetix. But can you clarify which versions? Thanks

 

Are you hiring Mechanical Engineers?

 

Makes good sense to me. In the first graph provided, would it be accurate if we, for instance, looked at the graph and concluded that that curve is the actual gains over stock at "x" RPM for any gear?

Thank you for your contribution to the VQ crowd Tony!

.

 

^That's exactly what it is.

 

Thanks. I just noticed. Who was spacer A? BTW Tony, the manner in which you research, post your results and reply to questions is one BIG reason everyone here has 100% confidence in any of your great products. I'm currently not a product owner but I always respected your products/company

 

I can definately agree on that.

You are missing out

.

 

Tony, you are not wearing your seatbelt in that dyno plot!

Honestly, very nice work, and extremly thorough.

 

Not at this time. Thanks.

 

Okay. I've been interested in seeing the difference between the second to last version of the Kinetix and the latest version. I have run both versions in the past 6 months and did notice a difference between them. As most people know, Kinetix isn't honest with their dyno charts that they post on their site. Just looking at their charts (especially for the SSV) just makes me want to laugh (not trying to turn another thread into a SSV is bogus thread). They claim the same gains from the newest version as they did with the older version and I have to raise my flag for them on that. They do not state their products exact performance honestly as you do with your products.

 

Wearing my setup?...