Dynamometer Results & Comparisons - Dynoed tonight. Mustang dyno

Got tuned and dynoed tonight by Bret at FBC in Bmore, 99% of the problems i was having with the car are gone now.

Anyways on a mustang dyno it put down 378rwhp/348rwtq with:

MS3
Stock Heads
MTI Lid
Custom Smooth Bellows
Ported TB
Mac Mids/Cats
Dynomouth
3.42s

Are these numbers good? Im going to be getting a pulley after the gear change, going to 4.10s, and maybe next spring might switch to LTs or at least just gut out my cats i have now. So on a dynojet what would the numbers be, 408-416rwhp/377-383rwtq?

Sounds like a good running car you got there. I say decent numbers on a mustang dyno for the mods you have !!

Sounds like a good running car you got there. I say decent numbers on a mustang dyno for the mods you have !!

Thanks man!! :)

To put things in perspective.. a mustang dyno is lower than a dynojet by 10-15% Most people use dynojet numbers because they read higher. In the sticky in the gen3 internal.. the "recipe for 500rwhp with heads/cam" the same engine put down just 440 on a stingy mustang dyno.

I have seen similar results with that camshaft on stock heads on that dyno.



Got tuned and dynoed tonight by Bret at FBC in Bmore, 99% of the problems i was having with the car are gone now.

Anyways on a mustang dyno it put down 378rwhp/348rwtq with:

MS3
Stock Heads
MTI Lid
Custom Smooth Bellows
Ported TB
Mac Mids/Cats
Dynomouth
3.42s

Are these numbers good? Im going to be getting a pulley after the gear change, going to 4.10s, and maybe next spring might switch to LTs or at least just gut out my cats i have now. So on a dynojet what would the numbers be, 408-416rwhp/377-383rwtq?

To put things in perspective.. a mustang dyno is lower than a dynojet by 10-15% Most people use dynojet numbers because they read higher. In the sticky in the gen3 internal.. the "recipe for 500rwhp with heads/cam" the same engine put down just 440 on a stingy mustang dyno.

So which would you say gives a more accurate estimate?

dyno jet

Those numbers are inline with what we see on our dyno, considering you don't have LT's.

As far as accuracy, as long as a dyno is calibrated correctly, it's accurate, no matter what dyno it is. To compare apples to apples, it's more difficult. It's not just a straight 10% difference between Dyno Jets and Mustang Dyno's. In our experience, at 390rwhp on our dyno, a car will typically see just over 400rwhp on a DynoJet. At 420rwhp on our dyno, the same car will see between 450-460rwhp. At 600rwhp, the difference is even more, I've witnessed as much as an 80rwhp difference with the same car on two different dyno's (it was a Mustang MD-1700 at another location, and a DynoJet). Since the more power a vehicle produces, the Mustang Dyno's absorb more and more power. We tell our customer's that the difference is a conservative 7%.

Now which one is more "real world" is a totally different question. If you drive your car in a situation in which you have no mass and you're in a vacuum, so basically if you do intergalatic racing in space, use a DynoJet. If your car sees gravity, and has an aerodynamic coeffecient, and you race on a planet called Earth, then use a Mustang Dyno.

Interesting as I have seen the same escallating error between a md1750 de and a dynojet as well.



Those numbers are inline with what we see on our dyno, considering you don't have LT's.

As far as accuracy, as long as a dyno is calibrated correctly, it's accurate, no matter what dyno it is. To compare apples to apples, it's more difficult. It's not just a straight 10% difference between Dyno Jets and Mustang Dyno's. In our experience, at 390rwhp on our dyno, a car will typically see just over 400rwhp on a DynoJet. At 420rwhp on our dyno, the same car will see between 450-460rwhp. At 600rwhp, the difference is even more, I've witnessed as much as an 80rwhp difference with the same car on two different dyno's (it was a Mustang MD-1700 at another location, and a DynoJet). Since the more power a vehicle produces, the Mustang Dyno's absorb more and more power. We tell our customer's that the difference is a conservative 7%.

Now which one is more "real world" is a totally different question. If you drive your car in a situation in which you have no mass and you're in a vacuum, so basically if you do intergalatic racing in space, use a DynoJet. If your car sees gravity, and has an aerodynamic coeffecient, and you race on a planet called Earth, then use a Mustang Dyno.

Now which one is more "real world" is a totally different question. If you drive your car in a situation in which you have no mass and you're in a vacuum, so basically if you do intergalatic racing in space, use a DynoJet. If your car sees gravity, and has an aerodynamic coeffecient, and you race on a planet called Earth, then use a Mustang Dyno.
:rotflmao:

Now which one is more "real world" is a totally different question. If you drive your car in a situation in which you have no mass and you're in a vacuum, so basically if you do intergalatic racing in space, use a DynoJet. If your car sees gravity, and has an aerodynamic coeffecient, and you race on a planet called Earth, then use a Mustang Dyno.


He's Superman, so I'd say a little of both :jest:

Nice numbers man.

He's Superman, so I'd say a little of both :jest:

Nice numbers man.

:rotflmao:

Thanks man!