Do dyno #'s lie?
Nov 5, 2007, 08:14 PM
#31
Evolved Member
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 2,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Dyno is a tool for tuning.
ALL (even mustang) have a correction funtion.
A dyno can be fooled if the power comes on strong and "over rev's" the dyno drum/wheel even if the correction setting is accurate.
Fun tip: HP=TQ x RPM/ 5252
If the hp and tq curve do not cross at 5252 rpm there has been a correction or fraud
ALL (even mustang) have a correction funtion.
A dyno can be fooled if the power comes on strong and "over rev's" the dyno drum/wheel even if the correction setting is accurate.
Fun tip: HP=TQ x RPM/ 5252
If the hp and tq curve do not cross at 5252 rpm there has been a correction or fraud
Nov 5, 2007, 08:29 PM
#32
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wood Dale, IL
Posts: 1,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of our friends has a neat little CORR Pro-lite toyota truck. They tuned the engine on an engine dyno, made about 320 hp at the flywheel with printed graphs to prove it. They installed it, put the truck on our dyno and it put down about 230 whp.
The chassis dyno hp/tq curves matched his engine dyno sheets almost perfectly. He also said this is very typical of the number difference that all the pro-lite guys see. Hell the engine builder even guessed what it would put down on the chassis dyno.
The chassis dyno hp/tq curves matched his engine dyno sheets almost perfectly. He also said this is very typical of the number difference that all the pro-lite guys see. Hell the engine builder even guessed what it would put down on the chassis dyno.
Nov 5, 2007, 08:31 PM
#33
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (35)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Near the hOle
Posts: 1,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My car with me weights from 3480-3510 pounds (depends if i have the spare with me or not)...
On a DD i have seen 309whp on pump
On the strip i have seen 12.14 @ 114 on the same map...
At the track i did a 12.07 @ 113 on a really bad clutch (slipping all gears and smelling really bad) @ 26psi boost on Sunoco 116 and adjusted map...
On the DD i saw 330whp @ 26psi on racegas on a new clutch though and a bit better map...
Weight the lightest i have ever weighted is 3480 pounds...
Now all you guys that are goon in Math or have good horsepower calculators can play...
On a DD i have seen 309whp on pump
On the strip i have seen 12.14 @ 114 on the same map...
At the track i did a 12.07 @ 113 on a really bad clutch (slipping all gears and smelling really bad) @ 26psi boost on Sunoco 116 and adjusted map...
On the DD i saw 330whp @ 26psi on racegas on a new clutch though and a bit better map...
Weight the lightest i have ever weighted is 3480 pounds...
Now all you guys that are goon in Math or have good horsepower calculators can play...
Nov 5, 2007, 08:41 PM
#34
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (35)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Near the hOle
Posts: 1,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah for comparison sake-
EVOs making 400-410whp with 20% lost at flywheel it is about 480-492hp and trap 119-121mph.
C6 Corvette Z06 is rated at 505hp and has better top end and aerodynamics and around 15 to 20hp advantage and traps 120-124mph on the average.
By the way both cars weigh similiar, actually I think Z06 is a little lighter.
HP calculators are neat tools, but not accurate.
EVOs making 400-410whp with 20% lost at flywheel it is about 480-492hp and trap 119-121mph.
C6 Corvette Z06 is rated at 505hp and has better top end and aerodynamics and around 15 to 20hp advantage and traps 120-124mph on the average.
By the way both cars weigh similiar, actually I think Z06 is a little lighter.
HP calculators are neat tools, but not accurate.
As far as the calculators not being accurate, thats only half true. The ET portion of the formula has too many variables to be really accurate, but the MPH portion is surprisingly accurate IMHO.
Nov 5, 2007, 08:47 PM
#35
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (35)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Near the hOle
Posts: 1,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of our friends has a neat little CORR Pro-lite toyota truck. They tuned the engine on an engine dyno, made about 320 hp at the flywheel with printed graphs to prove it. They installed it, put the truck on our dyno and it put down about 230 whp.
The chassis dyno hp/tq curves matched his engine dyno sheets almost perfectly. He also said this is very typical of the number difference that all the pro-lite guys see. Hell the engine builder even guessed what it would put down on the chassis dyno.
The chassis dyno hp/tq curves matched his engine dyno sheets almost perfectly. He also said this is very typical of the number difference that all the pro-lite guys see. Hell the engine builder even guessed what it would put down on the chassis dyno.
Nov 6, 2007, 06:30 AM
#36
Evolved Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Work - New York, Alaska, Mexico or the Caribbean. -Home - Tx Hill Country
Posts: 1,858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
336 whp on a Mustang and trapped 119 in my full wieght car, minus spare but with me, 220 lb driver. Looks pretty low reading to me.
Last edited by robertrinaustin; Nov 6, 2007 at 06:33 AM.
Nov 6, 2007, 06:51 AM
#37
Evolved Member
iTrader: (41)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toms River, NJ
Posts: 4,653
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dynos dont lie, silly horsepower/track time calculators do!
I dynoed 378whp/386tq on 93 octane on my stock turbo setup on a Dynojet.
I then ran 118.00mph backed up by another 118mph and 117.7. I would say the dyno was DEAD ON. I am pretty sure I had one of the highest stock turbo/pump gas only dyno and trap speed.
I think Mustang dynos and Dyno Dynamics are misleading because they can be manipulated by the operator, thats why I like Dynojets UNCORRECTED.
I dynoed 378whp/386tq on 93 octane on my stock turbo setup on a Dynojet.
I then ran 118.00mph backed up by another 118mph and 117.7. I would say the dyno was DEAD ON. I am pretty sure I had one of the highest stock turbo/pump gas only dyno and trap speed.
I think Mustang dynos and Dyno Dynamics are misleading because they can be manipulated by the operator, thats why I like Dynojets UNCORRECTED.
Nov 6, 2007, 06:52 AM
#38
Evolving Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Africa
Posts: 480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just by looking at what is phsically possible from Turbo Configurations, the Dynojet numbers are closer to the limits of what is possible from the Hardware in terms of Crank output rather than output at the Wheels.
But big numbers are cool - none the less.
.
Nov 6, 2007, 07:00 AM
#39
Evolved Member
iTrader: (37)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Spec-Ops Motorsports, Fayetteville, NC
Posts: 3,146
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
mustang dyno... 330hp
track time 11.8 at 116
highest trap that night 119
stock turbo, no cams 3 gal 114/3 gal 93
full weight minus stock sub and spare tire
id say the mustang reads pretty low to close to actual wheel hp
track time 11.8 at 116
highest trap that night 119
stock turbo, no cams 3 gal 114/3 gal 93
full weight minus stock sub and spare tire
id say the mustang reads pretty low to close to actual wheel hp
Last edited by bigric09; Nov 6, 2007 at 07:21 AM.
Nov 6, 2007, 07:15 AM
#41
HP calculators are very hard to judge on an awd car. On a car making 400 whp cutting 1.6 and 1.5 60's and going 11's and say Dave Buschurs black car making 900+whp and there best 60' is a 1.4 something. Their trap speeds are ALOT higher than what the car is going to run because the 60' is down. Them trapping 175mph is good for a mid 7. They will never see that because they can't launch the car and get the 60' like a 1.1 that they need to do it. There's a 60' to WHP curve so to speek. In a rwd car that makes 900whp you'd expect to cut somewhere around a 1.1 60'. Their trap speed would be down to probally 160 something.
After a certain point the AWD kills you. Most of us will never see that point. Good luck in your research, but I think using a hp calc is the wrong thing to use. Better to use trap speed and compair dyno sheets and mod lists. Unfortunately thats going to be hard to do because not everyone is a pro driver. So the trap speeds are going to be off, but you might be able to get a good idea of whats going on.
Good luck!
After a certain point the AWD kills you. Most of us will never see that point. Good luck in your research, but I think using a hp calc is the wrong thing to use. Better to use trap speed and compair dyno sheets and mod lists. Unfortunately thats going to be hard to do because not everyone is a pro driver. So the trap speeds are going to be off, but you might be able to get a good idea of whats going on.
Good luck!
Last edited by BURNALL_4; Nov 6, 2007 at 07:19 AM.
Nov 6, 2007, 07:27 AM
#45
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (35)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Near the hOle
Posts: 1,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Hp calc tell me about the same +/- 3hp. So I think you said you dynoed 425Hp on the mustang dyno. 425 x 21% is 514 Hp. Problem here is Jarrod has mentioned that the their Mustang reads 15-18% lower than a Dynojet, then another 15-20% for drivetrain losses and then there is a discrepancy.