Dyno Jet or Mustang???
03-25-2006, 06:42 AM
#1
12 Second Club
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Orlando, Fl
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which is better? DynoJet or Mustang??? Hey guys, which dyno is better for tuning and accurate hp ratings and such? Basically which of the two is better?
Last edited by leftme4dead; 03-25-2006 at 07:58 AM.
03-25-2006, 07:47 PM
#2
TECH Addict
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: VA
Posts: 2,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like the DynoJet interface alot more. Dynojet are more user friendly. Mustang used to be better because they can load the car so tuning on the dyno will be as close as possible when you run the car on the streets.
Now Dynojet have Eddie Current loader which will bascially make it load the car like a mustang dyno does. IMO this will make the Dynojet alot better than a mustang dyno even in tuning as well as all the other area.
Mustang dyno usually show 5-7% lower numbers than a dynojet which could annoy some people who are looking for higher numbers.
So at the end which one would I prefer. I would take the Dynojet with Eddie Current any day over a Mustang dyno.
Now Dynojet have Eddie Current loader which will bascially make it load the car like a mustang dyno does. IMO this will make the Dynojet alot better than a mustang dyno even in tuning as well as all the other area.
Mustang dyno usually show 5-7% lower numbers than a dynojet which could annoy some people who are looking for higher numbers.
So at the end which one would I prefer. I would take the Dynojet with Eddie Current any day over a Mustang dyno.
03-25-2006, 07:57 PM
#3
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the cause of the difference between the 2 types? Is the Dynojet reading artificially high and the Mustang accurate, or is the Mustang artificially low and the Dynojet accurate?
03-25-2006, 08:00 PM
#4
TECH Addict
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: VA
Posts: 2,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by HPP
What is the cause of the difference between the 2 types? Is the Dynojet reading artificially high and the Mustang accurate, or is the Mustang artificially low and the Dynojet accurate?
03-25-2006, 09:27 PM
#5
On The Tree
Nope...Dyno Jet=BS
Read the March issue of Hot Rod. They interview Mark Dobeck, the founder of Dyno Jet. He didn't like the "reality HP numbers the machine was giving him and his customers, so he added a fudge factor to the cakculation...thus, higher reading numbers and selling more jet kits for motorcycles. I almost fell out of my chair when I read it! You can not compare a Dyno Jet to a high end dyno like a Mustang, Dynomite or Super Flow. Its like comparing a calculator to a PC.
An inertia dyno (dyno jet) requires no calibration, there is no load cell. It is just a known mass with a polar moment of inertia that never changes to any great degree...its a dead weight.
My favorite...
www.dynomite.com
Read the March issue of Hot Rod. They interview Mark Dobeck, the founder of Dyno Jet. He didn't like the "reality HP numbers the machine was giving him and his customers, so he added a fudge factor to the cakculation...thus, higher reading numbers and selling more jet kits for motorcycles. I almost fell out of my chair when I read it! You can not compare a Dyno Jet to a high end dyno like a Mustang, Dynomite or Super Flow. Its like comparing a calculator to a PC.
An inertia dyno (dyno jet) requires no calibration, there is no load cell. It is just a known mass with a polar moment of inertia that never changes to any great degree...its a dead weight.
My favorite...
www.dynomite.com
03-26-2006, 08:26 AM
#6
TECH Regular
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Pasadena, MD
Posts: 462
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heres my thought....
As long as you dyno at the same place each time, you will see the progression of your modifications.
Personally, Ive only dynoed on a dynojet. I like the software, and you can download their viewer off their website.
As long as you dyno at the same place each time, you will see the progression of your modifications.
Personally, Ive only dynoed on a dynojet. I like the software, and you can download their viewer off their website.
03-26-2006, 12:18 PM
#7
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I got my car tested yesterday, it was on a Mustang Dyno. The printouts have a weight listed. How did it know? Only the backwheels were on the rollers. Was there a strain guage in the lift? Or is it something the operators enter in manually?
Also, it listed AFR at 7.3. Again, how was it measuring that? Is it accurate? Seems that it would be running *seriously* rich if that were the case, and leaning it out would save gas and probably make a lot more power as well.
Also, it listed AFR at 7.3. Again, how was it measuring that? Is it accurate? Seems that it would be running *seriously* rich if that were the case, and leaning it out would save gas and probably make a lot more power as well.
Trending Topics
03-26-2006, 12:52 PM
#8
On The Tree
the weight is entered by the operator. It should not effct the HP/TQ...only the duration of the pull.
A number as low as 7.3 on the AFR typically means the unit was not powered up. On the 0-5v scale, 0 probably meant 7.3, the bottom of the scale.
A number as low as 7.3 on the AFR typically means the unit was not powered up. On the 0-5v scale, 0 probably meant 7.3, the bottom of the scale.
03-26-2006, 02:11 PM
#9
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, that's something of a relief to know, I can't imagine my car weighing 3875lbs (02 WS6 T/A, stock except for SLP SFCs and STB).
And it's also nice to know I'm not dumping that much raw fuel out the back too. Although, the idea of more economy and/or power was nice. Almost a shame it wasn't accurate in that respect. lol
And it's also nice to know I'm not dumping that much raw fuel out the back too. Although, the idea of more economy and/or power was nice. Almost a shame it wasn't accurate in that respect. lol
03-26-2006, 05:42 PM
#11
The higher the entered weight the longer the pull will be resulting in higher numbers because you are not using as much TQ to accelerate. Just as with any good engine dyno you can vary the rpm/sec acceleration rate. A engine dyno set to 100 rpm per sec will show a higher number than a pull at 300 or 500 rpm per second.
As I have stated before on the Mustang you can use a constant acceleration rate and the HP/TQ numbers will not vary as much between dynos.
I like the Mustang over the Dynojet just because it is more versatile for what I need to do. Many people purchase the Dynojet because it is not as expensive and simple to operate, but your are very limited on testing capabilites. But both are good units and have there positives and negatives.
As I have stated before on the Mustang you can use a constant acceleration rate and the HP/TQ numbers will not vary as much between dynos.
I like the Mustang over the Dynojet just because it is more versatile for what I need to do. Many people purchase the Dynojet because it is not as expensive and simple to operate, but your are very limited on testing capabilites. But both are good units and have there positives and negatives.
Originally Posted by waSStock
the weight is entered by the operator. It should not effct the HP/TQ...only the duration of the pull.
A number as low as 7.3 on the AFR typically means the unit was not powered up. On the 0-5v scale, 0 probably meant 7.3, the bottom of the scale.
A number as low as 7.3 on the AFR typically means the unit was not powered up. On the 0-5v scale, 0 probably meant 7.3, the bottom of the scale.
03-26-2006, 08:26 PM
#12
On The Tree
Originally Posted by DynoDR
The higher the entered weight the longer the pull will be resulting in higher numbers because you are not using as much TQ to accelerate. Just as with any good engine dyno you can vary the rpm/sec acceleration rate. A engine dyno set to 100 rpm per sec will show a higher number than a pull at 300 or 500 rpm per second.
As I have stated before on the Mustang you can use a constant acceleration rate and the HP/TQ numbers will not vary as much between dynos.
I like the Mustang over the Dynojet just because it is more versatile for what I need to do. Many people purchase the Dynojet because it is not as expensive and simple to operate, but your are very limited on testing capabilites. But both are good units and have there positives and negatives.
As I have stated before on the Mustang you can use a constant acceleration rate and the HP/TQ numbers will not vary as much between dynos.
I like the Mustang over the Dynojet just because it is more versatile for what I need to do. Many people purchase the Dynojet because it is not as expensive and simple to operate, but your are very limited on testing capabilites. But both are good units and have there positives and negatives.
My bad, I thought Mustang was using inertial compensation for the rotating mass. I know Dynomite and Superflow do, maybe its on a later version of the Mustang software. Anyhow, enter in the number of cylinders, bore, stroke and the software derives the estimated polar moment of inertia of the rotating assembly. Problem solved. It eliminates the variance between the accel rates.
03-27-2006, 11:03 AM
#14
Originally Posted by waSStock
number as low as 7.3 on the AFR typically means the unit was not powered up. On the 0-5v scale, 0 probably meant 7.3, the bottom of the scale.
03-27-2006, 05:31 PM
#16
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For tuning purposes a Mustang, for quick HP/TQ pulls an inertial only Dynojet. Maybe an eddy current load Dynojet is the best of both worlds, especially when the extra load causes them to read even higher. Anyone know how much higher they read?
03-27-2006, 05:57 PM
#17
I haven't used a dynojet with the eddy current, but it would be my choice for a machine (that or a twin roller mustang dyno with dynojet software if that was possible 
)
I use a twin roller mustang dyno, and it is a nice tool. I got to use a 224x dynojet, with proportional braking so you can simulate load, which might be an ideal setup for a shop who deals with lower powered cars, (not 800 hp ls1'x)
The dynojet software is HANDS DOWN a better setup than the mustang dyno.
You do have to be careful to make sure the mustang dyno is setup correctly. my car has put down anywhere from 181 to 433 rwhp when they are setup incorrect, or load cell is out of calibraiton.
Ryan
)I use a twin roller mustang dyno, and it is a nice tool. I got to use a 224x dynojet, with proportional braking so you can simulate load, which might be an ideal setup for a shop who deals with lower powered cars, (not 800 hp ls1'x)
The dynojet software is HANDS DOWN a better setup than the mustang dyno.
You do have to be careful to make sure the mustang dyno is setup correctly. my car has put down anywhere from 181 to 433 rwhp when they are setup incorrect, or load cell is out of calibraiton.
Ryan
03-27-2006, 06:01 PM
#18
Ryan
Are you using the PowerDyne Software?
Are you using the PowerDyne Software?
Originally Posted by slow
I haven't used a dynojet with the eddy current, but it would be my choice for a machine (that or a twin roller mustang dyno with dynojet software if that was possible )
I use a twin roller mustang dyno, and it is a nice tool. I got to use a 224x dynojet, with proportional braking so you can simulate load, which might be an ideal setup for a shop who deals with lower powered cars, (not 800 hp ls1'x)
The dynojet software is HANDS DOWN a better setup than the mustang dyno.
You do have to be careful to make sure the mustang dyno is setup correctly. my car has put down anywhere from 181 to 433 rwhp when they are setup incorrect, or load cell is out of calibraiton.
Ryan
)I use a twin roller mustang dyno, and it is a nice tool. I got to use a 224x dynojet, with proportional braking so you can simulate load, which might be an ideal setup for a shop who deals with lower powered cars, (not 800 hp ls1'x)
The dynojet software is HANDS DOWN a better setup than the mustang dyno.
You do have to be careful to make sure the mustang dyno is setup correctly. my car has put down anywhere from 181 to 433 rwhp when they are setup incorrect, or load cell is out of calibraiton.
Ryan
03-27-2006, 08:23 PM
#20
On The Tree
Originally Posted by slow
I haven't used a dynojet with the eddy current, but it would be my choice for a machine (that or a twin roller mustang dyno with dynojet software if that was possible )
I use a twin roller mustang dyno, and it is a nice tool. I got to use a 224x dynojet, with proportional braking so you can simulate load, which might be an ideal setup for a shop who deals with lower powered cars, (not 800 hp ls1'x)
The dynojet software is HANDS DOWN a better setup than the mustang dyno.
You do have to be careful to make sure the mustang dyno is setup correctly. my car has put down anywhere from 181 to 433 rwhp when they are setup incorrect, or load cell is out of calibraiton.
Ryan
)I use a twin roller mustang dyno, and it is a nice tool. I got to use a 224x dynojet, with proportional braking so you can simulate load, which might be an ideal setup for a shop who deals with lower powered cars, (not 800 hp ls1'x)
The dynojet software is HANDS DOWN a better setup than the mustang dyno.
You do have to be careful to make sure the mustang dyno is setup correctly. my car has put down anywhere from 181 to 433 rwhp when they are setup incorrect, or load cell is out of calibraiton.
Ryan