Dynojet versus Mustang
02-17-2006, 08:20 PM
#17
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Official Jack off extinguisher
Posts: 1,173
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Forget about sea and land, dynofart and ponytang, put it on a MAHA and lets compare then. That dyno was developed with Porsche , Audi , MBZ etc , is TUV approved and is the official dyno for the German DTM series. The MAHA protocol calls for the car to be run at WOT for about 25-40 sec , that is called real load and kills dyno queens really fast and in return produces much more realistic numbers then the other dynos who thrive on 8 sec boost spike induced glory runs. Plus the MAHA fans generate 85000 + cfm's which translates into about 70-80 mph but the average Mustang hairdryers create about 5500 cfm's in comparison...................
02-18-2006, 02:01 AM
#18
Instructor
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Assonet, MA
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ST, no need to get so defensive - I am not trying to dog your car in any way, just tyring to make a fair apples to apples comparison as the discrepancy between the dyno numbers is a bit deceiving at first glance, that's all.
Once again, I will reiterate, the Mustang reads higher for turbo cars (fact), your run was at a higher boost level (ours was at 20.5 PSI), and the numbers that have been posted in the top 10 are SAE corrected. You made it a point to sarcastically take a shot at me by stating that ours was the ONLY car not SAE corrected, but you are once again mistaken. Not only are there a couple of other dyno sheets posted that are uncorrected, but YOURS is not SAE corrected either, yet you state that it is. You dyno sheet indicated STD correction, which is not SAE correction, it is STD correction, they are not the same. STD correction yields a higher number than SAE correction, just as DIN does.
Once again, I am not trying to bust on you whatsoever, heck, I respect what you have done with your car, BUT I am just trying to make a point that while on the surface it looks like your car makes significantly more HP at the wheels, in reality, all variables being the same, it does not. I'm talking both vehicles on the same type of dyno (regardless of brand or load or inertia type), the same boost pressure ( your pressure, my pressure, whatever) both using the same correction factors... Blah, blah, blah
Let's face it, we know how to make power, and we are both dealing with some relatively defined parameters (displacement, boost) - So it stands to reason that within reason the numbers of two well tuned same displacement engines will have similar (though not identical) performance capabilities. Sure there are variables (cam, turbo, tuning...) but again, we are talking thought out vehicles with a similar goal. So, once again, it stands to reason that in the grand scheme of things the numbers would not be too far off from each other (all things being equal)
To prove my point, would you happen to have a dyno run at roughly 20 +/- PSI? If so, I bet you put down roughly the same HP as we did, no? For this point, let's put aside our differing views of which dyno makes more power - Within reason, you probably put down somewhere in the range of 475 - 485 RWHP at 20-21 PSI - Let;s just say that number would be more or less on one dyno or the other and leave it at that.
Sorry for the long response, but I just wanted to make my point a bit clearer as I got the feeling you thought I was ripping on you, when I was not - Sorry if it came across that way, I did not mean it to.
Quite frankly, I have nothing against you, in fact, I have made it clear more than once that I commend your efforts and results, hats off. All I wanted to do was demonstrate that much of the power difference lends to variables in the dyno testing methods, and other variables such as boost pressure and correction factors - Strip it all away and you get a couple of vehicles with relatively close numbers.
Thanks for reading.
Once again, I will reiterate, the Mustang reads higher for turbo cars (fact), your run was at a higher boost level (ours was at 20.5 PSI), and the numbers that have been posted in the top 10 are SAE corrected. You made it a point to sarcastically take a shot at me by stating that ours was the ONLY car not SAE corrected, but you are once again mistaken. Not only are there a couple of other dyno sheets posted that are uncorrected, but YOURS is not SAE corrected either, yet you state that it is. You dyno sheet indicated STD correction, which is not SAE correction, it is STD correction, they are not the same. STD correction yields a higher number than SAE correction, just as DIN does.
Once again, I am not trying to bust on you whatsoever, heck, I respect what you have done with your car, BUT I am just trying to make a point that while on the surface it looks like your car makes significantly more HP at the wheels, in reality, all variables being the same, it does not. I'm talking both vehicles on the same type of dyno (regardless of brand or load or inertia type), the same boost pressure ( your pressure, my pressure, whatever) both using the same correction factors... Blah, blah, blah
Let's face it, we know how to make power, and we are both dealing with some relatively defined parameters (displacement, boost) - So it stands to reason that within reason the numbers of two well tuned same displacement engines will have similar (though not identical) performance capabilities. Sure there are variables (cam, turbo, tuning...) but again, we are talking thought out vehicles with a similar goal. So, once again, it stands to reason that in the grand scheme of things the numbers would not be too far off from each other (all things being equal)
To prove my point, would you happen to have a dyno run at roughly 20 +/- PSI? If so, I bet you put down roughly the same HP as we did, no? For this point, let's put aside our differing views of which dyno makes more power - Within reason, you probably put down somewhere in the range of 475 - 485 RWHP at 20-21 PSI - Let;s just say that number would be more or less on one dyno or the other and leave it at that.
Sorry for the long response, but I just wanted to make my point a bit clearer as I got the feeling you thought I was ripping on you, when I was not - Sorry if it came across that way, I did not mean it to.
Quite frankly, I have nothing against you, in fact, I have made it clear more than once that I commend your efforts and results, hats off. All I wanted to do was demonstrate that much of the power difference lends to variables in the dyno testing methods, and other variables such as boost pressure and correction factors - Strip it all away and you get a couple of vehicles with relatively close numbers.
Thanks for reading.
02-18-2006, 02:55 AM
#20
Instructor
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Assonet, MA
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turby,
In regard to your tuning, let me know when your ready.
In regard to ST and myself...
I hate to refer to it as bickering, perhaps debating would be a better word? Obviously he has his views and opinions, and I have mine - But somewhere between all the discussion and debating lies the underlying truths of what we debate. He believes what he believes, and I know what I know ;-) (Just kidding ST)
To me, it is just some friendly debating - Surely/hopefully he feels the same way.
In regard to your tuning, let me know when your ready.
In regard to ST and myself...
I hate to refer to it as bickering, perhaps debating would be a better word? Obviously he has his views and opinions, and I have mine - But somewhere between all the discussion and debating lies the underlying truths of what we debate. He believes what he believes, and I know what I know ;-) (Just kidding ST)
To me, it is just some friendly debating - Surely/hopefully he feels the same way.
02-18-2006, 07:15 AM
#23
Originally Posted by Under Pressure Performance
ST, no need to get so defensive - I am not trying to dog your car in any way, just tyring to make a fair apples to apples comparison as the discrepancy between the dyno numbers is a bit deceiving at first glance, that's all.
Once again, I will reiterate, the Mustang reads higher for turbo cars (fact), your run was at a higher boost level (ours was at 20.5 PSI), and the numbers that have been posted in the top 10 are SAE corrected. You made it a point to sarcastically take a shot at me by stating that ours was the ONLY car not SAE corrected, but you are once again mistaken. Not only are there a couple of other dyno sheets posted that are uncorrected, but YOURS is not SAE corrected either, yet you state that it is. You dyno sheet indicated STD correction, which is not SAE correction, it is STD correction, they are not the same. STD correction yields a higher number than SAE correction, just as DIN does.
Once again, I am not trying to bust on you whatsoever, heck, I respect what you have done with your car, BUT I am just trying to make a point that while on the surface it looks like your car makes significantly more HP at the wheels, in reality, all variables being the same, it does not. I'm talking both vehicles on the same type of dyno (regardless of brand or load or inertia type), the same boost pressure ( your pressure, my pressure, whatever) both using the same correction factors... Blah, blah, blah
Let's face it, we know how to make power, and we are both dealing with some relatively defined parameters (displacement, boost) - So it stands to reason that within reason the numbers of two well tuned same displacement engines will have similar (though not identical) performance capabilities. Sure there are variables (cam, turbo, tuning...) but again, we are talking thought out vehicles with a similar goal. So, once again, it stands to reason that in the grand scheme of things the numbers would not be too far off from each other (all things being equal)
To prove my point, would you happen to have a dyno run at roughly 20 +/- PSI? If so, I bet you put down roughly the same HP as we did, no? For this point, let's put aside our differing views of which dyno makes more power - Within reason, you probably put down somewhere in the range of 475 - 485 RWHP at 20-21 PSI - Let;s just say that number would be more or less on one dyno or the other and leave it at that.
Sorry for the long response, but I just wanted to make my point a bit clearer as I got the feeling you thought I was ripping on you, when I was not - Sorry if it came across that way, I did not mean it to.
Quite frankly, I have nothing against you, in fact, I have made it clear more than once that I commend your efforts and results, hats off. All I wanted to do was demonstrate that much of the power difference lends to variables in the dyno testing methods, and other variables such as boost pressure and correction factors - Strip it all away and you get a couple of vehicles with relatively close numbers.
Thanks for reading.
Once again, I will reiterate, the Mustang reads higher for turbo cars (fact), your run was at a higher boost level (ours was at 20.5 PSI), and the numbers that have been posted in the top 10 are SAE corrected. You made it a point to sarcastically take a shot at me by stating that ours was the ONLY car not SAE corrected, but you are once again mistaken. Not only are there a couple of other dyno sheets posted that are uncorrected, but YOURS is not SAE corrected either, yet you state that it is. You dyno sheet indicated STD correction, which is not SAE correction, it is STD correction, they are not the same. STD correction yields a higher number than SAE correction, just as DIN does.
Once again, I am not trying to bust on you whatsoever, heck, I respect what you have done with your car, BUT I am just trying to make a point that while on the surface it looks like your car makes significantly more HP at the wheels, in reality, all variables being the same, it does not. I'm talking both vehicles on the same type of dyno (regardless of brand or load or inertia type), the same boost pressure ( your pressure, my pressure, whatever) both using the same correction factors... Blah, blah, blah
Let's face it, we know how to make power, and we are both dealing with some relatively defined parameters (displacement, boost) - So it stands to reason that within reason the numbers of two well tuned same displacement engines will have similar (though not identical) performance capabilities. Sure there are variables (cam, turbo, tuning...) but again, we are talking thought out vehicles with a similar goal. So, once again, it stands to reason that in the grand scheme of things the numbers would not be too far off from each other (all things being equal)
To prove my point, would you happen to have a dyno run at roughly 20 +/- PSI? If so, I bet you put down roughly the same HP as we did, no? For this point, let's put aside our differing views of which dyno makes more power - Within reason, you probably put down somewhere in the range of 475 - 485 RWHP at 20-21 PSI - Let;s just say that number would be more or less on one dyno or the other and leave it at that.
Sorry for the long response, but I just wanted to make my point a bit clearer as I got the feeling you thought I was ripping on you, when I was not - Sorry if it came across that way, I did not mean it to.
Quite frankly, I have nothing against you, in fact, I have made it clear more than once that I commend your efforts and results, hats off. All I wanted to do was demonstrate that much of the power difference lends to variables in the dyno testing methods, and other variables such as boost pressure and correction factors - Strip it all away and you get a couple of vehicles with relatively close numbers.
Thanks for reading.
, so people think I am serious on here. Also - most of the time I can goad pople into participating in this manner - like when I got you to chime in on the HP thread......... 
I think a dyno competition would be a good time - that's the only reason I suggested it.
If I got beaten at low boost, I would laugh.
02-21-2006, 12:21 AM
#24
Advanced
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STEP UP TO THE PLATE st
Enough talk SPECIAL TOOL pick a day to go to the dyno - any day - Lets get this over with - I am sure Scott will show up - So pick the place and the time and post it here because we all know that actions are stronger then words and I for one have read enough on this topic.
Is there anybody else on this list with me on this?
Is there anybody else on this list with me on this?
02-21-2006, 12:38 AM
#25
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Originally Posted by warpedrotor
Enough talk SPECIAL TOOL pick a day to go to the dyno - any day - Lets get this over with - I am sure Scott will show up - So pick the place and the time and post it here because we all know that actions are stronger then words and I for one have read enough on this topic.
Is there anybody else on this list with me on this?
Is there anybody else on this list with me on this?
02-22-2006, 07:24 AM
#27
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
hmmmm....Why? click on warpedroters name. Then go read all of his whopping eleven posts. When you notice that 75% of his big eleven posts contain his attacks on ST, it's possible that you will formulate the same idea that I did. This guy is a troll with an agenda that has ZERO to do with being a part of this board, but instead for his own, or someone elses aggrandizment.
3 : to enhance the power, wealth, position, or reputation of <exploited the situation to aggrandize himself>
3 : to enhance the power, wealth, position, or reputation of <exploited the situation to aggrandize himself>
02-22-2006, 04:53 PM
#28
Advanced
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The real deal
Ehall I can understand where you are coming from based on my last posts - however all I seek is the truth- two cars run back to back on the same dyno - thats is my hidded agenda -no attacks - no nothing - If special tool will name the place and time then we can put this whole issue to rest -
thats all I have - i look forward to yours and special tools response -
and I would invite anyone and anybody from this board to join us at the dyno as soon as a time and place are set
thats all I have - i look forward to yours and special tools response -
and I would invite anyone and anybody from this board to join us at the dyno as soon as a time and place are set
02-22-2006, 04:56 PM
#29
Originally Posted by warpedrotor
and I would invite anyone and anybody from this board to join us at the dyno as soon as a time and place are set
Cool.
What's close to you?