BulletProof

iTrader: (3)

These are just some results from 2 of the local dynos, here in Twin Cities, MN.

Nothing was changed between dynos, not even the oil.

Mods:
111K miles Stock block VIII
IX turbo
AEM Intake
Kelford 272's
EPM 02 dump
Ebay FMIC
Ebay TBE
Forge BOV
1200cc Inj.
Walbro 255
E85

JJLANCER02

all I know that the mustang read 40whp lower than a dyno jet.

buchnerj

iTrader: (19)

That is not always true. It varies from dyno to dyno and climate conditions, etc. It is better to have a dyno that cannot have their correction factors changed. This leads to straight numbers from the car, and no human can inflate correction factors to beef up the numbers.

Nomad4g63

iTrader: (16)

yeah theres always a big difference with MUSTANG dynos, take for example a

TTP's MUSTANG DYNO
&
BUSCHUR's MUSTANG DYNO

both read differently, it all depends on what the shop has the settings set @

Aliengotpsi

I made 465hp 410 TQ @ RS Motors so I should be over 500 at Maps..

awddyno

iTrader: (15)

That car needs to get back on the dyno. The other 6262 I had did 486/434 @ 27 psi. Time for bigger injectors.

I think my dyno reads pretty close to gst. Everytime I max out a set up on some kind of injectors and pump, it's similar to GST's numbers. It's just numbers. Let it rip at the track. Right Kevin!

Svendiesel

iTrader: (25)

Nice!

And ya you cant say 40whp less from a Mustang vs a Dynojet is true, you have to go by percentages.

In this instance, the Mustang reads 6% less. But on another comparison sheet I saw from an LS1 Trans Am on a Mustang compared to a Dynojet, the difference was 12%

Youd read just under 500 since his differences were 6%, youd make 492whp. (465 x 1.06 = 492)

BulletProof

iTrader: (3)

I did the Dynojet pulls for fun & the money went to a good cause, breast cancer.

Next goal is to go back to the Mustang and crack 400. And yes, at the end of the day this car rips looking at EITHER #

Babs

iTrader: (26)

I heard TTP just had a Mustang technician come down and calibrate it to the correct standards.

Even then, the reason TTP's was different was because they used correction. When you're living in a state that's 80-90 degrees compared to a state that's in the 50s, some correction should be made.

Whatever...a dyno should be used as a before/after and not to compare between different dynos.

BoostWhore

iTrader: (42)

TTPs dyno seems to read quite a bit lower than it use to. Should be on par with others.

1slowassevo

Fyi to get the true numbers from a d.j.dyno is to put it on non corrected and that's it cause it can throw the dyno reading off a bit if its on sae and the sea level is not exact .Also when a dj reads it should say on the bottom of the page of the sheet 1.0 correction not 1.02.

howell

iTrader: (2)

I always heard the mustang dynos read low, but accurately.

crand002

I find it interesting that the torque is so much higher than the hp on the Dynojet reading which is not the case on the Mustang.

golgo13

iTrader: (134)

Since the pictures hurt my eyes I'm stealing the numbers from the OP's sig:

386/381 Mustang Dyno
410/427 Dynojet

BulletProof

iTrader: (3)

The tq. reads higher b/c of how the dyno loads the car. Less load from the dynojet resulted in the higher tq. figure than hp.