HP/TQ#s Dream:
Thread Starter
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
From: Omaha, NE
HP/TQ#s Dream: I have a dream, wouldn't it be nice if we could accurately compare chassis dyno numbers. This is very reminiscent of the auto manufacturer's HP ratings of the 60's muscle car era, we could not compare their advertised numbers either. Then came 1971 and 1972 when finally all U.S. manufacturers agreed on an SAE "standard" for testing proceedures and corrections. This probably cannot be accomplished until all chassis dynos become measurable load bearing and then establish a standard engine rate of excelleration. Here again, the manufacturers of chassis dynos would need to agree on this. Some may say that this standard should just be a given enertia rating but this is not enough because different gearing, tire diameter etc has such an varying effect on their numbers. The only vehicles this leaves out is the high stall autos, I can't think of a chassis dyno solution for these. Now that Dynojet is or is getting ready to go the load bearing route, this dream could eventually become a reality. My questions are, how do we get this to happen? What kind of pressure was put on the auto manufacturers back then? Was it public, SAE or ,God forbid, the government? Am I the only one interested in this? If not, where do WE go from here? Could it start here?
EJ
EJ
Originally Posted by dynocar
I have a dream, wouldn't it be nice if we could accurately compare chassis dyno numbers. This is very reminiscent of the auto manufacturer's HP ratings of the 60's muscle car era, we could not compare their advertised numbers either. Then came 1971 and 1972 when finally all U.S. manufacturers agreed on an SAE "standard" for testing proceedures and corrections. This probably cannot be accomplished until all chassis dynos become measurable load bearing and then establish a standard engine rate of excelleration. Here again, the manufacturers of chassis dynos would need to agree on this. Some may say that this standard should just be a given enertia rating but this is not enough because different gearing, tire diameter etc has such an varying effect on their numbers. The only vehicles this leaves out is the high stall autos, I can't think of a chassis dyno solution for these. Now that Dynojet is or is getting ready to go the load bearing route, this dream could eventually become a reality. My questions are, how do we get this to happen? What kind of pressure was put on the auto manufacturers back then? Was it public, SAE or ,God forbid, the government? Am I the only one interested in this? If not, where do WE go from here? Could it start here?
EJ
EJ
You are not the only one interested in this dynocar! It's good to dream, but I don't believe we will ever see it.
Thread Starter
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
From: Omaha, NE
Originally Posted by DynoDR
Sounds good to me. I think we have touched on this before about using a standard accel rate, etc. I also think there will always be people that "race" dyno numbers and feel like Hp/Tq is a concrete measurement of what the vehicle makes and nothing else will change this number. Hell, everyone knows "std or sae", but most could care less about the other varibles.
You are not the only one interested in this dynocar! It's good to dream, but I don't believe we will ever see it.
You are not the only one interested in this dynocar! It's good to dream, but I don't believe we will ever see it.
Neat idea, but the hard part about it is calibration. An inertia dyno's advantage is in its simplicity because the drum's moment of inertia is known and the rate it's accelerated can be measured very accurately. With a load dyno, you're throwing in the error of the load cell into the mix. You'd have to make sure it was calibrated regularly with precision weights with no hysteresis. I have a feeling you'd get results that vary just as much with the load dynos and a set acceleration rate.
Another thing, instead of a set acceleration rate, you'd want 0 acceleration or very close to ensure the inertia of the drivetrain isn't a factor.
Another thing, instead of a set acceleration rate, you'd want 0 acceleration or very close to ensure the inertia of the drivetrain isn't a factor.
Launching!
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
From: Denver, CO
Interesting, and yes, this would be a great idea.
I heard from some people that the 69 z/28's 302 was underrated, and put out closer to 400 hp according to them. I highly doubt it myself though. What did GM rate the engine at?
I heard from some people that the 69 z/28's 302 was underrated, and put out closer to 400 hp according to them. I highly doubt it myself though. What did GM rate the engine at?
Launching!
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 273
Likes: 1
From: Trois-Rivières (Québec / Canada)
Originally Posted by Christos
Interesting, and yes, this would be a great idea.
I heard from some people that the 69 z/28's 302 was underrated, and put out closer to 400 hp according to them. I highly doubt it myself though. What did GM rate the engine at?
I heard from some people that the 69 z/28's 302 was underrated, and put out closer to 400 hp according to them. I highly doubt it myself though. What did GM rate the engine at?
Thread Starter
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
From: Omaha, NE
Originally Posted by P Mack
Neat idea, but the hard part about it is calibration. An inertia dyno's advantage is in its simplicity because the drum's moment of inertia is known and the rate it's accelerated can be measured very accurately. With a load dyno, you're throwing in the error of the load cell into the mix. You'd have to make sure it was calibrated regularly with precision weights with no hysteresis. I have a feeling you'd get results that vary just as much with the load dynos and a set acceleration rate.
Another thing, instead of a set acceleration rate, you'd want 0 acceleration or very close to ensure the inertia of the drivetrain isn't a factor.
Another thing, instead of a set acceleration rate, you'd want 0 acceleration or very close to ensure the inertia of the drivetrain isn't a factor.
Yes, a 0 acceleration rate would be best, such as the step method used on engine dynos which is possible, but a standard acceleration rate, such as 300 rpm/sec, would negate much of this enertia factor. I'm not suggesting a perfect world here, just something much closer then what we have now. Currently I am at the PRI show in Indianapolis where there are several chassis dyno companies represented. I want to get their reactions to this, but the guy in the booth is seldom the person to approach with such hair-brain ideas.
EJ
Trending Topics
Thread Starter
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
From: Omaha, NE
Originally Posted by Christos
Interesting, and yes, this would be a great idea.
I heard from some people that the 69 z/28's 302 was underrated, and put out closer to 400 hp according to them. I highly doubt it myself though. What did GM rate the engine at?
I heard from some people that the 69 z/28's 302 was underrated, and put out closer to 400 hp according to them. I highly doubt it myself though. What did GM rate the engine at?
EJ
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
Topdon ONE vs. Artidiag 800 BT2: Which is the Diagnostic Tablet For You?
Pouria Savadkouei
Gas Monkey Built a 6-Wheel Ferrari Testarossa With a Corvette LT4 Engine
Verdad Gallardo
7 Most Reliable High-Performance Engines GM Has Ever Built
Verdad Gallardo
Amazing '71 Camaro Restomod Is Modern Muscle Car Under the Skin
Verdad Gallardo
6 Common C5 Corvette Failures and What's Involved In Repairing Them
Pouria Savadkouei
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
this would be a great idea. I was very impressed at back to back test on my Mustang Dyno with two differant drivers. I do feel that I can compare with anyone else with a MD also given the same loading factors.
