Does Anyone own a Dyno Dynamics Dyno?
Originally Posted by Forteen3GT
big difference between 20 rwhp and 85+!!!! 
Not to mention I was one of the first to "question" the results of, um, possible vehicle, and, um, possible dyno....
Seen to many diff cars, engines, combos
After the said car in question was run on a DJ, those #s were actually believable. Low, but believable.
Originally Posted by V6 Bird
What did you find out on your tests?
I think the one thing that we have come to realize with our little unscientific test, is that the DDs may not be as repeatable, or accurate as people would think. I may get blasted for saying so, but you sure cant beat the repeatability of a DJ. I've talked with the dynojet tech guys, and they tell me you cannot manipulate the correction factors of their dynos. That being said, there may be ways to "fool" them i.e. messin with the weather center, and so forth.
It would be nice if there was some sort of "standard", that way some of the optimistic numbers posted wouldnt be questioned. 'Tis an imperfect world we live in. Best we can hope for is truthfulness......
Last edited by edcmat-l1; Feb 21, 2007 at 12:33 PM.
Teching In
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by edcmat-l1
One car was dead on. Another was about 20 HP higher on the DD than the DJ. The third was same HP, or real, real close, but with a 50 Ft LBS dif. The DD read lower torque on that one. Dont quite understand how there could such a big dif in torque, yet the HP was real close.
I think the one thing that we have come to realize with our little unscientific test, is that the DDs may not be as repeatable, or accurate as people would think. I may get blasted for saying so, but you sure cant beat the repeatability of a DJ. I've talked with the dynojet tech guys, and they tell me you cannot manipulate the correction factors of their dynos. That being said, there may be ways to "fool" them i.e. messin with the weather center, and so forth.
It would be nice if there was some sort of "standard", that way some of the optimistic numbers posted wouldnt be questioned. 'Tis an imperfect world we live in. Best we can hope for is truthfulness......
I think the one thing that we have come to realize with our little unscientific test, is that the DDs may not be as repeatable, or accurate as people would think. I may get blasted for saying so, but you sure cant beat the repeatability of a DJ. I've talked with the dynojet tech guys, and they tell me you cannot manipulate the correction factors of their dynos. That being said, there may be ways to "fool" them i.e. messin with the weather center, and so forth.
It would be nice if there was some sort of "standard", that way some of the optimistic numbers posted wouldnt be questioned. 'Tis an imperfect world we live in. Best we can hope for is truthfulness......
Thread Starter
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (15)
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,109
Likes: 0
From: Grand Prairie, TX
Originally Posted by awddynotodd
You might want to research "Xtra Correction" and "Inlet Air Temp Probe".
Thats what I think is happening in one case already and on 2-3 other cars as well.My problem and question here is...Was the A/F the same on all your testing of these cars on the DJ and DD units Edcmat-l1?
Originally Posted by V6 Bird
Yes that has already been found in my research. Its on the DD units to fudge the numbers some more Thats what I think is happening in one case already and on 2-3 other cars as well.
My problem and question here is...Was the A/F the same on all your testing of these cars on the DJ and DD units Edcmat-l1?
Thats what I think is happening in one case already and on 2-3 other cars as well.My problem and question here is...Was the A/F the same on all your testing of these cars on the DJ and DD units Edcmat-l1?
I only have one sample (car) of A/F from dyno to dyno. I can try to get the info on the others. Have to contact the car owners.
Anyways, I had the A/F @12.9:1-13:1 thru the entire pull. We got it to our dyno, and it was like 12.3, 12.4 straight across. The DD graph A/F sample was taken UPSTREAM of the cats. I was sampling at the tailpipe. So, that would increase the dif. Up stream should show richer, if the cats are lit, and in good shape. if they're not working, at the most it should be the same. So the dif is probably more like a full point.
After we get done with the cam swap, I'll check upstream and downstream to get an idea of whats up.
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
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
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Verdad Gallardo
Awesome K5 Blazer Restomod Comes With C7 Corvette Power
Verdad Gallardo
10 Camaros You Should Never Buy
10 LS Engine Myths That Refuse to Die
Verdad Gallardo
Originally Posted by Alvin@pcmforless.com
You cannot beat the repeatablity of a dynojet. I dynoed the same car in 2 different cities within a week apart and the difference was less than 3hp on a 490rwhp car.
Ya'll are looking at the wrong device as the UIC(unit in comparission). The standard isn't a motor. It can't be. LOL even Jet Engine Test Cells don't use a jet engine as the calibration method. Albeit they do have sets of motors that they will run to use as a comparision to a UUT.(Unit under Test)
First and formost a dyno isn't worth crap unless it is setup and calibrated correctly. That goes for any measurement equipment. The biggest correction factor is always in the user. Torque wrenches and pressure guages are the same way. Then the quality of the dyno itself, i.e. its parts then comes the algorithm that the manufacturer chooses to use.
I see it as a big fault of the dyno companies that they don't invest the time or the money in demonstrating their accuracies. I might use this for my Master's Thesis.
In an industry where .001 of a second count and .00001 of an inch can mean a part coming apart it would be benificial for dyno's to be more accurate not just for bragging rights but for more accurate tuning.
I know what you are saying but I really dont see a big problem with any of the dynos that are in use as far as how they are built. What exactly is it that the dyno manufactures should be doing differently? When I can input the same load and the dyno repeatedly gives me the same output there isnt too much more the dyno manufacture can do.
Most of the confusion with the varying power numbers I feel comes from the lack of testing standards and operator error. Not being consistant with the test cell conditions and air quality, temperature differences from run to run, and MOSTLY when someone trys to compare a test result from one type of dynomometer to totally different type that is using a totally different testing method. Other than the word DYNO, there is not much else in common when you are comparing an inertia test to a loaded test.
We could talk about this alot more but I think you understand what I am trying to say.
Most of the confusion with the varying power numbers I feel comes from the lack of testing standards and operator error. Not being consistant with the test cell conditions and air quality, temperature differences from run to run, and MOSTLY when someone trys to compare a test result from one type of dynomometer to totally different type that is using a totally different testing method. Other than the word DYNO, there is not much else in common when you are comparing an inertia test to a loaded test.
We could talk about this alot more but I think you understand what I am trying to say.
Originally Posted by DynoDR
I know what you are saying but I really dont see a big problem with any of the dynos that are in use as far as how they are built. What exactly is it that the dyno manufactures should be doing differently? When I can input the same load and the dyno repeatedly gives me the same output there isnt too much more the dyno manufacture can do.
Most of the confusion with the varying power numbers I feel comes from the lack of testing standards and operator error. Not being consistant with the test cell conditions and air quality, temperature differences from run to run, and MOSTLY when someone trys to compare a test result from one type of dynomometer to totally different type that is using a totally different testing method. Other than the word DYNO, there is not much else in common when you are comparing an inertia test to a loaded test.
We could talk about this alot more but I think you understand what I am trying to say.
Most of the confusion with the varying power numbers I feel comes from the lack of testing standards and operator error. Not being consistant with the test cell conditions and air quality, temperature differences from run to run, and MOSTLY when someone trys to compare a test result from one type of dynomometer to totally different type that is using a totally different testing method. Other than the word DYNO, there is not much else in common when you are comparing an inertia test to a loaded test.
We could talk about this alot more but I think you understand what I am trying to say.
Bottom line is a dyno is for tuning. Baseline and gains thats all! The fact that DJ has been on the American market longer the DD has made it the benchmark of dynos. I spent almost 6 months looking at dynos before buying the DD. We wanted a stable and accurate dyno for tuning in load.
We have dynoed hundreds of stock late model cars in which we have determined that the DD dyno reads 10-12 % lower then a DJ. We locked our dyno a year and a half ago at 10% and never looked back. I just dynoed another stock 06' ZO6 which made 458 RWHP and 432 RWFT. That is on the money.
With all the new tuning software out there today and being able to tune in "real time" I am real glad I bought this load dyno. Hopefully this year we are going to be able to tie the tuning software into the dyno and be able to log things like TPS, MAF and any other OBD2 sensors. This is the next generation of data gathering.
We have dynoed hundreds of stock late model cars in which we have determined that the DD dyno reads 10-12 % lower then a DJ. We locked our dyno a year and a half ago at 10% and never looked back. I just dynoed another stock 06' ZO6 which made 458 RWHP and 432 RWFT. That is on the money.
With all the new tuning software out there today and being able to tune in "real time" I am real glad I bought this load dyno. Hopefully this year we are going to be able to tie the tuning software into the dyno and be able to log things like TPS, MAF and any other OBD2 sensors. This is the next generation of data gathering.
Teching In
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
From: Minnesota
That right there will be the biggest variance. A DD has a simple key to push, X, and you can add a % to the numbers. Some people call it a correction factor, I call it a multiplier. It needs to be asked if the operator is putting a multiplier on the readings, depending on the shop some do and some don't.
Originally Posted by Alvin@pcmforless.com
Listen, that is just one example. Should you still doubt me go ask any nascar team and see.
BTW. Theres no "calibration" to a inertia dyno.
BTW. Theres no "calibration" to a inertia dyno.
haha...yea...go figure...wether it be a engine dyno or a eddy current setup...its still a given weight spun on a known circle given over a specific time with x amount of force being applied and then throw in the mathmatics...
Thread Starter
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (15)
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,109
Likes: 0
From: Grand Prairie, TX
Originally Posted by edcmat-l1
I know what you're trying to say. I understand that the 2 types of dynos being discussed are completely different. I'm sure everyone else does too. The point trying to be made (I think) is the ability to skew a certain dynos numbers. The reason WE tested more than one car, on 2 different types of dynos was because we had the chance too. What started it all was one of my customers dynoing almost exactly the same on both dynos. We just by chance had dynoed that and 2 others on both dynos under very similar weather conditions. Had this thread and the other not been going, we would have most likely kept the findings to ourselves, as in our case the differences werent near as dramatic. There was some dif, but not terrible, just the fact that the results were inconsistent.
Thread Starter
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (15)
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,109
Likes: 0
From: Grand Prairie, TX
Originally Posted by LittleV6
That right there will be the biggest variance. A DD has a simple key to push, X, and you can add a % to the numbers. Some people call it a correction factor, I call it a multiplier. It needs to be asked if the operator is putting a multiplier on the readings, depending on the shop some do and some don't.
Originally Posted by 70Stang
I would never ever own a DynoJet agian.
The DD dyno is so much better for tuning and actual real world stuff.
DynoJets are popular becuase they are cheap and plentiful.
The DD dyno is so much better for tuning and actual real world stuff.
DynoJets are popular becuase they are cheap and plentiful.
AND, although I dont know the $ amount of a DD I cant see them being much more expensive than a DJ. My DJ is known for being stingey. Compared to the local DD, I've had customers tell me mine read as low as 60 HP LESS than the DD. And that was on a sub 500 rwhp car. Those #s are basically a 12% or better, fudge factor. And DJs are supposed to read high..........
Originally Posted by V6 Bird
Word has it he crashed the car a few days ago.
Whoever you're talking about, that sucks.....
Last edited by edcmat-l1; Mar 3, 2007 at 04:59 PM.