Gary Wells

Dynojet to Dynomite Dyno Comparison on a 2011 CTS-V Coupe:


Bone stock, Vette Doctors Dynomite Dyno on 09-20-2010:
525 RWHP & 519 RWTQ


After the following mods, (9.5” lower pulley, CAI, 160˚, & Vette Doctors tune) Vette Doctors Dynomite dyno on 09-20-2010:


525 (stock) RWHP to 604.3 (modified) RWHP = 15.1% RWHP increase
519 (stock) RWTQ to 619.2 (modified) RWTQ = 19.3% RWTQ increase


The same car with the same modifications, (no other changes) on Mustang Magic’s Dynojet dyno on 10-04-2010:
556.2 RWHP
554.8 RWTQ


The Dynomite indicated 8.7% (.087) more RWHP than the Dynojet
The Dynomite indicated 11.6% (.116) more RWTQ than the Dynojet

Or:

The Dynojet indicated 13.1% (.131) less RWHP than the Dynomite
The Dynojet indicated 16.2% (.162) less RWTQ than the Dynomite

venom ws7

iTrader: (13)

Thanks for the comparison ...

I really think 604rwhp is high with your mods the dynojet numbers seems right for the mods though...
we tuned CTSV 09 M6 with CAI / Upper & lower pullies / 1.7/8 Headers ORX and mild cam 630rwhp 645rwtq

Is the car M6 or A6??

Congrats on the car and numbers..

Gary Wells

Sorry, no confusion intended. I collect dyno data from people that post it on here but mostly on the Cad forum. It is not my car, but belongs to someone over on Cad Forum. I thought that it would be of interest to other peeps that are involved in build-up currently to know that dynos do differ. I suspect that the Dynojet #'s are closer to real #'s that the other dyno.

FWIW, I believe that is a M6, or manual

Gary Wells

venom ws7:
If you guys did a bone stock, no mods, baseline run I would sure like to have the info for my charts.

I would need the following:

RWHP--RWTQ---Trans----Locale-----Owner------------Date-----------Dyno

I would also need the correction factor , if any, applied.

venom ws7

iTrader: (13)

I will try to get the dyno graph

470rwhp 445rwtq SAE Smoothing 5 on dynojet Manual 09 CTSV
90f weather...

Gary Wells

Cad bone stock RWHP & RWTQ (Manl) (dynojet only):

RWHP--RWTQ---Trans----Locale-----Owner------------Date-----------Dyno

466------464------manl-----Kali------Luna------------05-??-09--------Dynojet
470------445------manl-----????-----venom ws7-----??-??-??---------Dynojet
494------483------manl-----Txs------Silver –V--------01-16-09-------Dynojet
500------481------manl-----Ala------roarkb-----------03-06-10-------Dynojet
502------490------manl-----Txs------TrevorD---------12-25-09-------Dynojet

Manual bone stock RWHP & RWTQ ( dynojet only) 5 samples:

RWHP Average (5 samples) = 2432/5= 486.40 RWHP
RWTQ Average (5 samples) = 2363/5= 472.60 RWTQ
Verified: 10-08-2010

Got a location such as state & a date?

venom ws7

iTrader: (13)

Gary My bad the TQ was 465

the car was dynoed in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia 04-20-10

Gary Wells

Cad bone stock RWHP & RWTQ (Manl) (dynojet only):

RWHP--RWTQ---Trans----Locale-----Owner------------Date-----------Dyno

466------464------manl-----Kali-------Luna-------------05-??-09-------Dynojet
470------465------manl-----Arab-----venom ws7------04-20-10-------Dynojet
494------483------manl-----Txs-------Silver –V--------01-16-09-------Dynojet
500------481------manl-----Ala-------roarkb-----------03-06-10-------Dynojet
502------490------manl-----Txs-------TrevorD---------12-25-09-------Dynojet

Manual bone stock RWHP & RWTQ ( dynojet only) 5 samples:

RWHP Average (5 samples) = 2432/5= 486.40 RWHP
RWTQ Average (5 samples) = 2383/5= 476.60 RWTQ
Verified: 10-08-2010




Thanks, Venom

RJB01camaross

Very nice comparison of good info!!!

ludicrist2500hd

Funny we have had a 2009 CTS-V with pulley, lt's ,cai, tune 12 psi

Dyno Jet 562 rwhp
Mustang 482 rwhp

But it still ran the same MPH at the track ...

Gary Wells

Mustang dynos are notorious for indicating #'s quite low in comparison to the other main dyno groups. In the example above, I was just showing the other end of the spectrum, that Dynomite dynos indicate #'s quite high in relationship to the other main dyno groups.
HTH

vettenuts

iTrader: (4)

All of my tuning was on a Mustang (which they are good for) but I always wondered what it would do on a Dynojet. I have "heard" 5% is a conservative conversion but also that the more power the car puts down the larger the difference.

Very interesting information in this thread by the way

ctd

iTrader: (1)

The question that has been on my mind for sometime, most dyno's are capable of 1/4 measurements. I understand there would be some discrepancy with tire slip however shouldn't the MPH on the dyno be very close to drag strip?

The MPH being more of a constant?

ctd

iTrader: (1)

If the Mustang has not been messed with I think 10% is closer. I'm not familiar with the DJ so I'm not sure what you mess with other than weather corrections.

Gary Wells

If you look at the hot-linked thread / post below, you get a pretty good picture of where particular brands and / or types of dynos indicate.






https://ls1tech.com/forums/dynamomet...l#post13977203

Mike@Diablosport

iTrader: (2)

I've seen several Vs dyno'd with similar mods and the 550ish numbers are right in line with what everyone else sees.

What would have been the best comparison, would have been to baseline the car on both dynos as well.
That way, you can calculate the % of power increase, which, no matter what the numbers are, should be the same.

Gary Wells

Thanks for your comments and info, Mike. I am not down on any particular type and / or brand of dyno, but from the info that I have recorded, the Dynomite brand of dyno so far leads the list of the highest reading dyno. And I have seen at least a few threads / posts on this and other forums regarding the possible low #'s produced by the Mustang brand of dyno.

justoyz2

Sorry,

The dyno results you posted really doesn't do anything for anyone. In order to show the differences in dyno outputs, the pulls musth occur within mins of each other. The condiditon has to be the same.

Gary Wells

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but I believe you to be somewhat incorrect. I believe that all of the examples below are SAE corrected, other than one which is STD corrected, and as a general rule, the difference between SAE and STD can be calculated to a certain extent. And they really are within minutes of each other. Just multiply 60 mins by 24 to get the amount of mins per day and then multiply by the amount of days, weeks, months, and / or years. That way they will all be in minutes. And as far as not doing any good for anyone, you are the 1st one with negative comments. HTH.

Gary Wells

Here's the complete grouping of 3 sets of differences between different brands of dynos.


Dynojet to Dynomite comparison on aj660’s 2011 CTS-V coupe:

http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums...d-up-my-v.html

modded & tuned: (9.5” lower pulley, CAI, 160˚, & Vette Doctors tune) Vette Doctors Dynomite dyno on 09-20-2010:

Dynomite (09-20-2010): 604.3 RWHP & 619.2 RWTQ

Dynojet: (10-04-2010): 556.2 RWHP & 554.8 RWTQ

The Dynomite indicated 8.7% (.087) more RWHP than the Dynojet
The Dynomite indicated 11.6% (.116) more RWTQ than the Dynojet
Or:
The Dynojet indicated 13.1% (.131) less RWHP than the Dynomite
The Dynojet indicated 16.2% (.162) less RWTQ than the Dynomite




Dynojet to Dynapack comparison on Jedhead’s 2006 Cad STS-V

http://www.motorgen.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21287

Mild tune, Church Automotive Testing’s Dynapack Dyno on 06-30-2010:
Dynapack: (06-30-2010): 443 FWHP & 430 FWTQ, CF SAE
Dynojet: (unknown date): 390 RWHP & 382 RWTQ

The Dynapack indicated 13.6% (.136) more FWHP than the Dynojet
The Dynapack indicated 12.6% (.126) more FWTQ than the Dynojet
Or:
The Dynojet indicated 12.0% (.120) less RWHP than the Dynapack
The Dynojet indicated 11.1% (.111) less RWTQ than the Dynapack




Dynojet to Dynapack comparison on Gary Wells’s 2009 Cad CTS-V

http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums...ew-dyno-s.html

Factory stock, Church Automotive Testing’s Dynapack Dyno on 10-11-2010:
Dynapack (10-11-2010) 510 FWHP & 531 FWTQ, CF SAE
Dynojet: (10-13-2010): 456 RWHP & 451 RWTQ, CF SAE

The Dynapack indicated 11.9% (.119) more FWHP than the Dynojet
The Dynapack indicated 17.7% (.177) more FWTQ than the Dynojet
Or:
The Dynojet indicated 10.6% (.106) less RWHP than the Dynapack
The Dynojet indicated 15.0% (.150) less RWTQ than the Dynapack

Regardless of atmospheric conditions, these readings should not vary that much between brands and / or types of dynos.
HTH