Go Back   LS1TECH > LS1-LS2-LS3-LS6-LS7 PERFORMANCE > Dynamometer Results & Comparisons
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?
Register iTraderTimeslips Photos Members Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Used CarsVendor Directory
Search

Dynamometer Results & Comparisons
Dyno Records | Dyno Discussion | Dyno Wars

Welcome to LS1Tech.com!
Welcome to LS1Tech.com.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, join LS1Tech.com today!


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-15-2007, 12:55 PM   #1
12 Second Club
1995 Chevrolet Camaro
 
1BadZ95's Avatar
 
Trader Rating: 0
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Corpus Christi, TX.
Posts: 272
Question Mustang dyno vs. Dynojet?

Is it true that Mustang dyno's are more accurate as far as exactly what your putting at the wheels and about a 50-60 hp difference between the two? Dynojet reading a lot higher.
1BadZ95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2007, 01:05 PM   #2
TECH Addict
Garage is empty, add now
 
Ericbigmac83's Avatar
 
Trader Rating: 19
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Owings, Md
Posts: 2,164
Default

Yes more or less, but no about the 50-60 hp difference. dynojets are higher than mustang dyno's by at least 20hp from what ive seen, but that varies. When i got mine tuned at 328 hp the tuner said that it would compare to 345-350 on a dyno that was in the area.

The main point is that a dyno is a tuning tool. What matters is your track times, you can verify hp numbers from there
__________________
1999 NBM Z28 408ci, M6, MWC 9", 3.89's, 244/250 111+3 Custom hood and spoiler...Everything but good heads.. 13mpg
1964 Chevelle SS Vert, 572ci, 5sp, 9" locker w/ 3.89s. Truck arm suspension, Custom everything. 8mpg
1997 Kawasaki Vulcan 750 - 60mpg ------ 10/26/06 RIP John Seaton - Best friend and a great car guy
Ericbigmac83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2007, 02:10 PM   #3
12 Second Club
Garage is empty, add now
 
2000WS6TA's Avatar
 
Trader Rating: 2
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: finksburg, MD
Posts: 395
Default

so far the closest thing to a conversion for the numbers, is take your mustang dyno numbers and multiply by 1.07 and that should give you your numbers on a dynojet within a couple horsepower, works pretty well actually.
__________________
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...000WS6TA-1.jpg
Lid, Pacesetter LTs, TSP duals(with tailpipes), LS6 intake, ported TB, pulley, 30# injectors, Torquer 2 cam, 4.10s, and tuned at F-body Central.
382hp 348tq on a mustang dyno Best 1/4. 12.72@111.6 before the cam @ 323hp.
2000WS6TA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2007, 07:30 PM   #4
TECH Regular
Garage is empty, add now
 
Trader Rating: 1
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Lone Star State
Posts: 414
Default

So you're talking a 7% correction...
__________________
2002 Pewter M6 SS #406: Blackwing Lid, bellows, Magnaflow cat-back, !cags, short stick, Shaner S3, Koni SA's, and a little magic dust...
02SS#406 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2007, 08:14 AM   #5
TECH Addict
Garage is empty, add now
 
Ericbigmac83's Avatar
 
Trader Rating: 19
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Owings, Md
Posts: 2,164
Default

6-7% was going to be my guess as well
__________________
1999 NBM Z28 408ci, M6, MWC 9", 3.89's, 244/250 111+3 Custom hood and spoiler...Everything but good heads.. 13mpg
1964 Chevelle SS Vert, 572ci, 5sp, 9" locker w/ 3.89s. Truck arm suspension, Custom everything. 8mpg
1997 Kawasaki Vulcan 750 - 60mpg ------ 10/26/06 RIP John Seaton - Best friend and a great car guy
Ericbigmac83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2007, 11:18 AM   #6
TECH Addict
Garage is empty, add now
 
30th t/a's Avatar
 
Trader Rating: 43
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Butler, PA
Posts: 2,688
Send a message via AIM to 30th t/a
Default

the guy i bought my motor from dyno'd 463rwhp on a mustang dyno.
463 x 1.07 = 495rwhp? id be EXTREMEMLY suprised if I made 495 on a dynojet. I got his tuned PCM also with the motor so everything is already tuned. plus that was through a 12 bolt. I still have a 10 bolt so add another 12 rwhp for that. let me see here...495 + 12 = holy heck I got 507rwhp, wow!
__________________
2000 Black WS6 Sold LQ9 LS6 cam 380rwtq/380rwtq
2001 NBM WS6 Sold P1SC
1999 30th Anniversary Trans Am Ws6 #428
Forged 347/4L80e/Twin Turbo 14psi 603rwhp/600rwtq
30th t/a is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2007, 12:01 PM   #7
TECH Enthusiast
Garage is empty, add now
 
Trader Rating: 0
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 565
Default

We tell customers to multiply by 1.12 to compare our Mustang numbers to a certain Dynojet close to us which usually comes very close. It will vary from given Mustang and a given Dynojet. We've had customers that have been tuned on the Mustang then run to the Dynojet for numbers. Suggestion, if you ever introduce a new dyno, just make sure it reads the highest.
dynocar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2007, 12:16 PM   #8
TECH Addict
Garage is empty, add now
 
Ericbigmac83's Avatar
 
Trader Rating: 19
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Owings, Md
Posts: 2,164
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dynocar
We tell customers to multiply by 1.12 to compare our Mustang numbers to a certain Dynojet close to us which usually comes very close. It will vary from given Mustang and a given Dynojet. We've had customers that have been tuned on the Mustang then run to the Dynojet for numbers. Suggestion, if you ever introduce a new dyno, just make sure it reads the highest.
Wow, that is a low reading dyno.....or all the dynojets around read really high. Im going go with your 12%, lol
__________________
1999 NBM Z28 408ci, M6, MWC 9", 3.89's, 244/250 111+3 Custom hood and spoiler...Everything but good heads.. 13mpg
1964 Chevelle SS Vert, 572ci, 5sp, 9" locker w/ 3.89s. Truck arm suspension, Custom everything. 8mpg
1997 Kawasaki Vulcan 750 - 60mpg ------ 10/26/06 RIP John Seaton - Best friend and a great car guy
Ericbigmac83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2007, 01:50 PM   #9
12 Second Club
1995 Chevrolet Camaro
 
1BadZ95's Avatar
 
Trader Rating: 0
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Corpus Christi, TX.
Posts: 272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dynocar
We tell customers to multiply by 1.12 to compare our Mustang numbers to a certain Dynojet close to us which usually comes very close. It will vary from given Mustang and a given Dynojet. We've had customers that have been tuned on the Mustang then run to the Dynojet for numbers. Suggestion, if you ever introduce a new dyno, just make sure it reads the highest.
With that calculation that would put me about where a I think I should be with a tune which is 400rwhp. What do you mean by your last sentence?
1BadZ95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2007, 02:39 PM   #10
TECH Enthusiast
Garage is empty, add now
 
Trader Rating: 0
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 565
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1BadZ95
With that calculation that would put me about where a I think I should be with a tune which is 400rwhp. What do you mean by your last sentence?
The last sentence simply means that you will get more business if you have a dyno that reads higher. I know guys that have driven an extra 150 miles passing one DJ for another DJ only because it gives higher numbers. Most consumers could care less about accuracy which invites, stated kindly, optimistic numbers.
dynocar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2007, 09:37 PM   #11
TECH Resident
Garage is empty, add now
 
andereck's Avatar
 
Trader Rating: 0
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1BadZ95
Is it true that Mustang dyno's are more accurate as far as exactly what your putting at the wheels and about a 50-60 hp difference between the two? Dynojet reading a lot higher.
A Mustang dyno (eddy current) can actually load the driveline and measures torque from a deflecting sensor attached to the dyno. Most of the Dynojet models are inertia only and calculate power from the accelleration of the drum. This tends to smoothe the power delivery some and less data points are taken as hp increases due to the very short dyno run.

In general most tuners will prefer or demand an eddy current loading dyno because they are able to specify a specific repeatable (and adjustable) load which is especially important when tuning part throttle. An inertia only dyno has to rely on the drum brake shoes to apply a load which is a negative to the dyno operator because its a wear item and repeatability is iffy.

An eddy current dyno can be programmed for a specific drive cycle that will simulate road driving conditions. This helps to sort out the tuneup. A change can be made and then the exact cycle can be repeated.

I think most parts manfactuers, such as forced induction companies develop their systems exclusively on a Mustang (or any eddy current) dyno. This combined with road and track time helps ensure the canned tune performs as you would expect. The tests are very repeatable and extensible.
When the company advertises their power gains obtained with a Mustang they can be fairly certain that their customers will be able to repeat those numbers in the field. When that system is then dynoed on a Dynojet the customer is then even more pleased as they get the impression they have more power than what they expected.

Now in the converse if products are developed on a Dynojet, or those numbers are advertised there are bound to be people that will be disappointed if their car is tested on a more stingy system.

Both systems can be considered "accurate" in as much that you can generally believe a gain or loss on both systems assuming proper test conditions are adhered to.

A dyno pull on a Mustang generally takes longer than a Dynojet and for my money that's a good thing. More data points mean more information to consider and more opportunities to finesse the tune or system.

Sorry if some of the info wasn't relevant to your question.
__________________
Fight for E85.


Look deep into the avatar and see the light.
andereck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2007, 11:26 PM   #12
12 Second Club
1995 Chevrolet Camaro
 
1BadZ95's Avatar
 
Trader Rating: 0
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Corpus Christi, TX.
Posts: 272
Default

No, thanks for all the info andereck!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynocar
The last sentence simply means that you will get more business if you have a dyno that reads higher. I know guys that have driven an extra 150 miles passing one DJ for another DJ only because it gives higher numbers. Most consumers could care less about accuracy which invites, stated kindly, optimistic numbers.
I guess I could see that. Like my local dyno, it's a land & sea dyno which reads almost exactly on a mustang dyno. Were dynoing cars here and everyone is disapointed. IE, a Magnum thats advertised 425hp from the factory only put down 320rwhp on the dyno here...
1BadZ95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2007, 11:54 PM   #13
TECH Resident
Garage is empty, add now
 
andereck's Avatar
 
Trader Rating: 0
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1BadZ95
No, thanks for all the info andereck!

I guess I could see that. Like my local dyno, it's a land & sea dyno which reads almost exactly on a mustang dyno. Were dynoing cars here and everyone is disapointed. IE, a Magnum thats advertised 425hp from the factory only put down 320rwhp on the dyno here...
You're welcome. The particular example you stated might be more related to it being a Dodge than the testing equipment itself. Their power numbers could be considered "best case" putting it nicely (open nitrous bottle in the corner of the dyno cell?). If you look at the afr it takes a total nosedive at WOT ending in the low mid 10's. I'd bet it didn't when the calibration engineers were deriving the marketing numbers. On the other hand GM is a bit conservative. Case in point LS7's make anywhere from 25-35 more hp than claimed and rwhp numbers average in the mid 460's for a claimed 505hp engine.
__________________
Fight for E85.


Look deep into the avatar and see the light.
andereck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2007, 07:49 AM   #14
TECH Enthusiast
Garage is empty, add now
 
Trader Rating: 0
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 565
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1BadZ95
No, thanks for all the info andereck!

I guess I could see that. Like my local dyno, it's a land & sea dyno which reads almost exactly on a mustang dyno. Were dynoing cars here and everyone is disapointed. IE, a Magnum thats advertised 425hp from the factory only put down 320rwhp on the dyno here...
Actually, that Magnum is on target. If we dynoed it, using our X1.3 multiplier for autos, if unlocked TCC, that gives us 416 net FWHP, there is a 5-10% variance from car to car, he's OK. We have never found any GM cars to be conservatively rated, just the standard mass production variance like all domestics.
dynocar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2007, 08:52 AM   #15
TECH Resident
Garage is empty, add now
 
andereck's Avatar
 
Trader Rating: 0
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 787
Default

Your multiplier might be a bit aggressive, or optimistic depending on how you look at it.
__________________
Fight for E85.


Look deep into the avatar and see the light.
andereck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2007, 12:07 PM   #16
TECH Enthusiast
Garage is empty, add now
 
Trader Rating: 0
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 565
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andereck
Your multiplier might be a bit aggressive, or optimistic depending on how you look at it.
Here's how I look at it, X1.2 for a auto drive train losses plus X1.1 for converting factory's RPM step testing to RPM sweep testing = X1.3. This has worked very well for us for many years for converting SAE RWHP to a known SAE Net FWHP on low and high HP examples. As indicated here, what most call drivetrain losses is only a part of the equation and why many accurate chassis dynos are considered to read too low.
dynocar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2007, 04:30 PM   #17
TECH Regular
1999 Chevrolet Camaro
 
Jefro6996's Avatar
 
Trader Rating: 20
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Macomb, MI
Posts: 499
Default

I got my dyno on a mustang dyno and asked the tuner if he knew an estimate of the difference between mustang dyno number and dynojet numbers. he said they used the same car same day on their dyno and took it to a dynojet and saw a 10% difference. 430rwhp car gaining 45rwhp. I got tune on a mustang dyno and when i get my retune in a month or so i am going to put it on a dynojet to see the difference.
__________________
1999 Black Z28
408 9.95:1, TFS 220cc heads , 243/247 cam, Precision 6766s, 4L80e w/ 3600 MultiDisk Lockup Converter, Moser 9'' 3.25 gear... almost done

2006 Black AWD TBSS. SOLD
Jefro6996 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2007, 04:49 PM   #18
TECH Fanatic
Garage is empty, add now
 
White_Hawk's Avatar
 
Trader Rating: 3
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 1,365
Default

Here is what you do: For the tune, go find a good tuner with a Mustang dyno. Then when he is done, go find a guy with a dynojet and get your bragging rights numbers. There is no quick easy conversion, so you just have to go do it.

-Geoff
__________________
'12 SS - Summer Beater
'11 Silverado - Winter Beater
White_Hawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2007, 09:29 PM   #19
The know it all's know it all
Garage is empty, add now
 
Trader Rating: 0
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 500
Default

dyno jet vs mustang from what I have personally observed. Its disturbing but seems to be true.

MD vs dynojet
200hp x 1.08
300hp x 1.10
400hp x 1.12
500hp x 1.16
600hp x 1.20
700hp x 1.30
800hp x 1.45
900hp FORGET ABOUT IT !

This seems to be the rough average % error I see between dynojets and the mustang I use. You notice the error gets larger with more power. Dont be surprised the dynojet 248c and its variants don't have enough inertia to have that software accurately measure the delta for the acceleration rate.Not to mention that flywheels have this bizzare property about loosing mass as they store inertia an aspect of physics still being explored.

So the more power you make on a dynojet the bigger the error with accurate dynomometers.

Last edited by Sean Collins; 01-17-2007 at 09:34 PM..
Sean Collins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2007, 01:34 PM   #20
10 Second Club
Garage is empty, add now
 
mike c.'s Avatar
 
Trader Rating: 1
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: mi
Posts: 4,039
Default

there was a 25hp difference for me when i went from a dyno jet to a mustang dyno w/no mod changes.
30TH TA- 463hp on a mustang dyno from a wimpy 346ci? i don't believe it.
mike c. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2007, 01:34 PM
LS1Tech
Pontiac Firebird




Paid Advertisement
Reply

Tags
2007, average, converting, current, difference, dyno, dynojet, eddie, gm, horsepower, hp, mustanduno, mustandyno, mustang, numbers


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.5.2
Advertising - Terms of Service - Privacy Statement - JOBS
Emails & Contact Details