getusum

iTrader: (42)

What is the diff between a Mustang dyno and a Dyno Jet?(or any other brand).I was told not to go to a Mustang because the #'s are low...I was also told the #'s are real compared to others...I'm having my car tuned Friday, and the shop has a Mustang...I just want real #'s...doesn't matter the dyno that I use, but i don't want one sayin 530/500 and the other saying 480/490 when the one being correct is the lower #'s//////Did I make any sense

unit213

You want real numbers? Go to the track. Those are the only numbers that matter.
Dynos are tuning tools. People get too caught up with them.

In general, Mustang dynos produce slightly lower results.

SScam68

iTrader: (20)

Because they take more into account.

Not for dyno queens.

slow

iTrader: (7)

Mustang dyno's can be altered to give high or low results. My lid/headers 98 WS6 has put down betwen 187 and 425 rwhp on a mustang dyno, depending on the settings...

A Dynojet is the industry standard when it comes to dyno numbers. They cannot be altered to change the output.

A dyno is a tuning tool, and a load bearing dyno is beneficial for tuning speed density based vehicles.

Ryan

Slowhawk

iTrader: (12)

The Dyno Games

There is no set fact on the difference of a Mustang and Dynojet Dyno.Matter's on how the dyno is setup.

Mr Incredible

Good Afternoon.

My name is Will, and I'm a victim of the Mustang Dyno.

It's been two weeks since my last dyno run...

waSStock

mike c.

iTrader: (1)

The mustang dyno i use kills your #'s,she don't give them out easy. i went to a dyno jet on an old set up and got 395hp....went to a mustang dyno a week later w/no mod changes and only got 370hp. everyone around my area knows about this dyno....we call it the humbler.

getusum

iTrader: (42)

That answers my question...I know it is a tuning tool...Just wanted to see what all the hype is over not using a . The shop where I'm going for tune and dyno, told me on the front end that his dyno has made many boys cry after posting the #'s

300bhp/ton

Too much **** is talked about dyno's.

For starters dynojets aren't an industry standard, they just happen to be very popular in the US. However there are many many other types of dyno out there.

Depending on the individual dyno it usually follows like this. Dynojets are inertia dyno's which use a static drag weight to effectively measure HP although this is because of predetermined calulation of torque at rpm due to it being a static weight.

REMEMBER - in automotive terms HP is derived from torque at speed. Hence Bhp, 'B' standing for Brake, as HP is derived via a brake device. There are many other forms of HP but they are all measured, derived or calulated differently and have little or no direct bearing on motor vehicles.

So Dynojet = static drag brake, no load bearing.

Mustang dyno's are load bearing, which means the effect drag can be increased. This applies higher load to the engine and makes in not only more accurate in terms of real world power, but also a much better tool to tune with.

Load can be applied by various methods depending on make of load bearing dyno, typically water, hydrolic or electromagnetic are means of achieving this.

In fact on a load bearing dyno you can increase the load so much that the car will no longer be able to accelarate at WOT and remain at a stable rpms under full load. This is not possible on a Dynojet.

Also Dynojets are the evil of the US motoring world, as they make so many people think and subiquently claim there car is under rated from the factory. Like all these 330rwhp STOCK Fbody's - bollox. It's just that due to how the Dynojet works the HP is derived differently and can not be compared to to bhp SAE Net as quoted by the manufacturer. The same car on a Mustang Dyno would produce 290-300rwhp tops. Which when driveline drag is accounted for will bring you right in at around 345-350bhp which is what a stock LS1 (01+) makes.

If you need to look at it another way. Try this:

2 packets, each has $10,000 in it. So they are both dollars and both the same numerical value. However one is US$ the other Candaian$ so do they actually have the same value?

Also remember when dyno comparing numbers, there are also many other factors.

1. Correction

Many dyno runs use STD, this does not alter the figure and is what it is on the day. So a hot day HP will usually be down and cool weather a higher HP number. This means you can not compare them.

Same car, same dyno, same setup, same everything except the outside temps. The car Dyno'd in STD correction over 20rwhp difference in favour of the cooler day.

SAE figures correct for these things and make numbers more comparable. The above example dyno's less than 0.5rwhp difference in SAE correction compared to the 20rwhp difference when using STD.

2. Graph smoothing

This is exactly what is says, it simple removes the spikes and inaccuraces from the readings. So running no smoothing (as many dyno's don't) means your PEAK readings can easily be 5-20rwhp too high. Evidently too high a setting on graph smoothing and it will flatten out even the real undulations in power delivery, so a happy medium is needed.

On most dyno's these figures can all be adjusted by the operator, so even when corrected the numbers can still be massivily wrong.

If you want a dyno queen and a number to brag about = Dynojet.

If you want a more realistic number and better tuning potential = Load bearing dyno, Mustang or other.

dynocar

300bhp/ton states, "In fact on a load bearing dyno you can increase the load so much that the car will no longer be able to accelarate at WOT and remain at a stable rpms under full load. This is not possible on a Dynojet."

This method is what the auto manufacturers and most engine dynos use and will increase the HP/TQ numbers by approx 5-10%. So what we call "drivetrain" losses is made up of this difference in methodology plus real drivetrain losses and why many accurate chassis dynos indicate a 20-25% "drivetrain" loss. Good info from 300bhp/ton.

slow

iTrader: (7)

Just curious what is the industry standard dyno then? If you can claim that dynojet is not, then somebody must be.

Also, I guess a better question is, what industry is being considered. The aftermarket tuning industry, Aftermarket Performance Product Parts industry, OEM calibrations, or others

Each market is totally unique, and has their own requirements, with different units being ideal for each. Would an OEM choose to calibrate on a dynojet, no, Would they use a dynojet to verify power outputs on vehicles, absolutely they do. Would an aftermarket product parts company choose to show gains on a mustang dyno, no they would not, since the displayed gains/numbers are lower than the customer expects. Would a company that does tuning on stand along speed density race cars choose to tune on an inertial only dynojet, probably not.

Just my $0.02

Ryan

300bhp/ton

I'm not sure that there is an industry standard dyno, because dyno's involve such a hugh variance. The industry itself is not standard.

Dynojets are comparitively cheap and plentiful and I think have some liason with NASCAR hence in the US they are very very popular.

But popularity should never been confused with accepted standards.

These are all good points. But this is sadly why dyno's are such a complex arena.

No they wouldn't because since at least the 1940/50's ALL manufacturer claimed figures are on engine dyno's and not chassis dyno's. In the earlier days there was little control, hence the awesome HP figures of the 60's muscle cars. These where dubed "gross" HP figures. The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) set out certain standards on how to derive HP, type of dyno used, fuel, temp, humidity and accessories being driven by the engine such as water pump, alternator and so on. This spawned "SAE Net" bhp numbers which are still used today, although they have been revised over the years. This is still very much an American thing, where as in Europe instead of SAE standards and correction factors DIN is often used. It is very similar but uses slightly different correction values, this yields a slight variance in HP numbers, e.g.

S197 4.6 Mustang – 300bhp SAE Net or 297bhp DIN
Charger SRT-8 – 425bhp SAE Net or 419bhp DIN

Well do they? I’ve never ever personally seen or heard of this, certainly the manufacturers don’t publish any such figures. Magazines and hot rodders yes.

Sadly most “claims” of Hp gains are often false and very inaccurate, so it often matters not what dyno was used.

As I said some very good points. But the key to remember is take any HP claim with a pinch of salt as they can be very miss-leading, in extreme cases it can be outrageous.

Personally I’d rather have a better tune and a more realistic HP number and then simply run better times than the dyno queen making 50+ rwhp more.

Chassis dyno’s are great, but as a tool not a measure. ALL professional race engine builders and works factory teams will always refer to HP at the engine and never the wheels, this is because it is far too inaccurate deriving HP at the wheels to really be of any use except as a “ball-park” figure.

And I quite firmly believe that chassis dynos (any type) are too inaccurate to measure small variances such as 5-10rwhp on an engine like an LS1. Because you can easily see 15+rwhp variance over 5 pulls without any changes to the dyno or the car.

dynocar

300bhp/ton quote, "And I quite firmly believe that chassis dynos (any type) are too inaccurate to measure small variances such as 5-10rwhp on an engine like an LS1. Because you can easily see 15+rwhp variance over 5 pulls without any changes to the dyno or the car."

Sorry to I disagree, on naturally aspirated engines we constantly see a <= 1% variance on our MD-1750 chassis dyno, not to much worse then the SuperFlo engine dynos we used to use. I am confident that if we make a 5 HP change on a 500 HP engine, there will be no doubt in anyone's mind that is present that we will see it. Remove the gain and we can directly overlay the previous graphs. It is possible that lessor dynos are not as consistant.

300bhp/ton

Cheers for the heads up. I stand corrected

slow

iTrader: (7)

on both the Mustang MD600 and dynojet 224x that I use, variance from run to run is minimimal (1%) , once drivetrains temps are stable, and engine coolant/engine oil temps are similar from run to run.

If this was not the case, the gains being advertised using the parts/tuning tested would be unreliable.

However, you can make false dnyo backed claims if you start to play tricks with hot drivetrains and cold motors, resulting in higher power, and then cold drivetrains and hot motors to provide lower numbers. Unfortunately many huge companies play these games on their product claims, leaving the customer disapointed when they only gain a small % of the advertised claim.



Ryan

Doc

iTrader: (9)

The 224LC has load bearing capabilities. http://www.dynojet.com/automotive_dy...yno/index.aspx

The biggest factor in my opinion is the integrity / technical knowledge of the shop using the equipment, no matter the brand as it is evident that similar features can be had.

Horsepower is a way to define Work, torque is actually measured on these devices, the difference is how the time/distance is calculated for the given torque.

As it has been already beaten to death simply put, "actual" Horsepower numbers are more accurately determined on a system with a load bearing feature.

That does not mean a qualified shop/tuner can't get all of the power in the car without that feature.

As unit214 stated...goto the track to measure your car's full performance capabilities.

EPP

iTrader: (22)

When we first purchased our Mustang MD 1750 five years ago http://www.exoticperformanceplus.com/dyno.php, we were curious as to just how close it's 1/4 mile runs would be to actual track results. We ran by brother's 1995 Formula http://www.exoticperformanceplus.com...tCar.php?car=7 on our dyno, then took it to the track. It was within several hundreths of a second, consistantly.
Later on we had a chance to run this 8 second Mustang on our dyno, http://www.exoticperformanceplus.com/hotCars.php?car=44 and then the customer took it to the track with the same results.
I would have to say the Mustang Chassis Dynos are very accurate, the nice thing about having one is we can do all of our tuning right on the dyno. Bob

GoneN3

[QUOTE=300bhp/ton]Too much **** is talked about dyno's.

Its affectionately referred to as "Dyno Diarrhea" in most circles I had my Z06 on the "load bearing" dyno and it made 474.9rwhp.(after mods) all my freinds (both of them)cried "too low" "factory pig". So i had it dyno'd on the dynojet and it made a wopping 480rwhp.(after mods). Both tuners informed me it was the difference between before the tune and after the tune that made the difference. The car was running pretty fat from the factory and after headers,haltechf1,and ported intake and the tune the car was night and day SOP difference. NEXT STOP: the 1/4mi

gametech

iTrader: (1)

I see a lot of good points made in this thread, but to go back to the original question, if you are going in for a tune the mustang will be good for that. If you just want high numbers, have the operator screw with the torque arm calibration. That will give most any number you want. Seriously, between the roller weight and diameter, and the torque arm weight, among other parameters, an unscrupulous dyno operator could fake damn near any number on a mustang. Fortunately, I don't think many do.