Post your 0-60mph times!!
Jan 26, 2007, 08:38 PM
#25
Account Disabled
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What device are you using? Most of these devices measure crank horsepower not wheel horsepower. By adding 30 percent drivetrain power loss to a 300whp Evo it should be exactyly 390 crank horsepower. This is assuming that wheel horsepower was measured on a Mustang dyno or Dyno Dynamics dyno, which both read accurate wheel horsepower. Yep!
Jan 26, 2007, 08:47 PM
#26
I'm referring to the calculator that was mentioned in the beginning of the thread.
30% is ridiculously high, and no, Mustangs and DDs do not read "accurately," because there is no such thing as "accurate." There is no right and wrong dyno reading. Also, Mustangs and DDs rarely read the same - Mustangs can be configured to read however you want, and believe me, people take advantage of that all the time.
Anyway, regardless of that tangent, that calculator can't guess these things based off the info given.
30% is ridiculously high, and no, Mustangs and DDs do not read "accurately," because there is no such thing as "accurate." There is no right and wrong dyno reading. Also, Mustangs and DDs rarely read the same - Mustangs can be configured to read however you want, and believe me, people take advantage of that all the time.
Anyway, regardless of that tangent, that calculator can't guess these things based off the info given.
Jan 26, 2007, 11:38 PM
#28
I'm referring to the calculator that was mentioned in the beginning of the thread.
30% is ridiculously high, and no, Mustangs and DDs do not read "accurately," because there is no such thing as "accurate." There is no right and wrong dyno reading. Also, Mustangs and DDs rarely read the same - Mustangs can be configured to read however you want, and believe me, people take advantage of that all the time.
Anyway, regardless of that tangent, that calculator can't guess these things based off the info given.
30% is ridiculously high, and no, Mustangs and DDs do not read "accurately," because there is no such thing as "accurate." There is no right and wrong dyno reading. Also, Mustangs and DDs rarely read the same - Mustangs can be configured to read however you want, and believe me, people take advantage of that all the time.
Anyway, regardless of that tangent, that calculator can't guess these things based off the info given.
Weight of car: 04 SSL = ~3300 lbs.
Passenger weight = 230 lbs.
Fuel level = 3 gallons
1/8 et = 7.646 sec
1/8 mph = 91.59
1/4 elapset time = 11.89
1/4 trap speed = 116.11
= o to 603.281260 sec,
= min hp414.8
= avg hp 427
= max hp 435.2
Now, take my dyno number, 358.7 hp on the Mustang dyno,
add 17 percent to convert to dynojet numbers.
358.7 * .17 % = 60.979 hp
60.979 plus 358.7 = 419.679 hp actual dynojet whp number
Take the min hp and the avg hp numbers and add them up. Divide the
answer by 2 to get the average of both, and you get 420.9 hp
The 419.679 whp dynojet number from above is almost equal to the hp
number of 420.9 whp the calculator is giving me.
You can believe it or not, but I just did it and showed you it worked for me.
Is it a miracle that it came true for me? Is for you to decide.
The truth is in the pic of the time slip, dyno chart, and hp/ 0 to 60 Jester calculator.
Nothing was made up. All I did was plug my numbers.
Last edited by 04AWDTURBOEVO; Jan 26, 2007 at 11:42 PM.
Jan 26, 2007, 11:59 PM
#29
You can make numbers do anything you want them to. Just like the guy above thought it was cool to add 30% to my 300whp (Dynojet) to get 390 (even though he said that would only apply to Mustang Dynos and Dyno Dynamics, though they don't read the same). Now, you randomly want to use 17% to change your Mustang Dyno numbers into Dynojet numbers. Ok, why is that? Did someone say the numbers in the calculator are supposedly Dynojet numbers? At best, they're crank HP numbers, but then that's useless, because trying to estimate crank HP makes no sense due to every car having a different drivetrain loss (no, he doesn't know the exact drivetrain loss for every single transmission, plus it's not even a linear % as HP increases anyway).
Sorry, but you do not make 420whp on a Dynojet. Your 116.xx mph trap speed indicates 360-370whp on a Dynojet...very close to your CFT numbers. You did know that CFT was known for reading like a Dynojet, right? If you put down 359whp on Buschur's MD, you'd be trapping 120+. Likewise, 420whp on a Dynojet would be 120-121mph traps...
I don't see any proof in your timeslip, CFT dynograph, nor Jestr calculator. It shows nothing except a 116mph trap, a 359whp dyno, and then some useless numbers. I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that those things are proof of anything. There is no correlation between the first 2 images and the 3rd image, and I can't actually believe that you think there is.
Sorry, but you do not make 420whp on a Dynojet. Your 116.xx mph trap speed indicates 360-370whp on a Dynojet...very close to your CFT numbers. You did know that CFT was known for reading like a Dynojet, right? If you put down 359whp on Buschur's MD, you'd be trapping 120+. Likewise, 420whp on a Dynojet would be 120-121mph traps...
I don't see any proof in your timeslip, CFT dynograph, nor Jestr calculator. It shows nothing except a 116mph trap, a 359whp dyno, and then some useless numbers. I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that those things are proof of anything. There is no correlation between the first 2 images and the 3rd image, and I can't actually believe that you think there is.
Last edited by Warrtalon; Jan 27, 2007 at 12:02 AM.
Jan 27, 2007, 01:03 AM
#30
Evolved Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: NJ
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.jestrtuning.com/ and click on the Link tab to see other applications.
