Dyno question needs wider audience...

[phiebert]

I've posted a question in the dyno section under http://vca1.viperclub.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000694.html

I'm posting here hoping to get more responses because something is wrong. If you've dyno'd on a Mustang Dynamometer or have any opinions I'd appreciate your response. Thanks.

 

[Jack B]

Patrick:

What is your mph, that is the true indicator of hp. My Gen I had identical mods and was 400/480 on motor and 530/650 on N2O

 

[Miles B]

Can you do 11 sec runs *after* the dyno run? What I mean is, did you do the 11 sec, car broke, then dynoed (thinking dead plug or wire or something).

But then, seeing the other numbers that dyno has produced, I would say get yourself to a dynojet. Probably the machine..?

 

[KenH]

Here are a couple of interesting links that might apply. The first one talks about how changing the vehicle weight in the Mustang style dyno can change the reported HP which is obviously BS. The second one has some good general info on Dynos and other intesting stuff. The 3rd one has a good comparison of the differences of the Mustang, Dynojet and other dyno systems.
http://www.sdsefi.com/techdyno.htm
http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/mainmenu.htm
http://www.mustangdyne.com/index.html

On the last one, click on the Magazine article.

--- Ken

 

[Jack B]

Phiebert:

The problem is obvious, they are measuring your power in imperial hp

 

[Sniper]

Here ya go!

My base run(stock) on a Mustang Dynamometer 315.6 rwhp 395.9 rwtorque.
My next run(full exhaust and Vec1) 355 rwhp 437 rwtorque.

Now, on a Dynojet(same mods as the 355 hp and 437 torque), the car dynoed at 404.4 rwhp and 502.5 rwtorque.

 

[phiebert]

Thanks Matt, that's perfect, that is the kind of comparisons I'm looking for. That way I can start to calculate the percentage difference between the two on average.

 

[Sniper]

Pat-

My paper says to compare hp/tq results to factory net ratings, multiply by 1.31 for a rough approximation which after taking out 13% for driveline loss, it was real close to the dynojet readings.

So 355 x 1.31 = 465.05 465.05 x 13% = 60.45
465.05 - 60.45 = 404.6rwhp -compared to dynojet # of 404.4rwhp

And 437 x 1.31 = 572.47 572.47 x 13% = 74.42
572.47 - 74.42 = 498.05rwtq -compared to dynojet # of 502.5rwtq

 

[Steve 00RT/10]

I have some incomplete records comparing the Mustang to a Dynojet. The cars were a '97 and '98 GTS. The '97 GTS put out 397.6 HP(with Mopar Performance Computer) and 465.6 torque on the Mustang. The '98 did 393 HP and 446 torque on the Mustang. The following year, on a Dynojet, the '97 put out 457.3 HP(w/o Mopar computer) and 495 torque. The '98 did 438.2 HP on the Dynojet. Don't have the torque number for the '98 on the Dynojet. On my car,the Mopar computer cost me 16 HP due to running way rich. I think the '97 GTS lost some HP as well on the Mustang run using the Performance computer. Both the above cars had headers, tubes, filters, 3" exhaust and were catless.

Steve