Dynojet versus Mustang
02-17-2006, 09:03 AM
#1
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Dynojet versus Mustang
Lindsey Racing did back to back runs on a Dynojet and then a Mustang dyno to see if there really is a difference in the numbers between the two yesterday. The car was a lightly modded 89 944 Turbo. The peak numbers are mighty close. Results are posted on turbo944.com with charts on the way.
02-17-2006, 09:22 AM
#2
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 1,493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very interesting.. Looks like the DynoJet actually is showing lower numbers than the mustang. I wonder if this is because on a turbo car, the mustang (load dyno) puts more load on the motor. I've heard that turbo motors don't perform as well if they are not under a load, and that might explain why the mustang dyno numbers are slightly higher. Perhaps DynoJet numbers are only higher on N/A cars.
Last edited by danny951; 02-17-2006 at 10:02 AM.
02-17-2006, 01:16 PM
#4
Instructor
Who woulda thought? As I have been saying for years, the DynoJet indicates lower numbers than the Mustang, but I didn't need anyone else to confirm it for me, I have known this from first hand experience for years. Which is why I had made my point with conviction in past posts.
There are lots of people that like to assume things, speculate, and base their performance on other dynos based on rumor and myth. The only way to prove your car makes more power on one dyno versus the other is to go out prove your argument.
My offer to "prove my point" by dyno testing for free a few hand picked cars was open to a few Rennlisters both online and off, all with Mustang dyno results of their car, all claiming their numbers would be higher on a DynoJet, all happy with, and boasting, their Mustang results - Yet not a single one came forward to prove me wrong, not one.
It makes me wonder how the Rennlist top ten would shake out if all cars were on DynoJets, and if ALL the numbers were SAE corrected. For example, ST's car (which is a great car no doubt) Put down 533HP @ 24 PSI on a Mustang and is NOT SAE corrected. Lindsey's results are SAE corrected on a DynoJet (not sure of the boost), our results are SAE corrected on a DynoJet at only 20.5 PSI, so, in the grand scheme of things, all things being the same, which engine is more efficient? Who is making more power per CC per PSI of boost?
A long time ago, Danno posted a great formula for determining power versus displacement versus boost, it would be interesting to see how that would apply to the Rennlist top 10. Keep in mind, that there is still the dyno and correction factor discrepancies that would need to be factored in as well.
Oh, one more thing. When we first posted our dyno sheet to the Rennlist top 10 (back when the actual thread originator was moderating it) I am told that there was a request from someone (I know who it was, but I will refrain from name dropping) that asked/forced the then moderator to single me out and adjust my numbers (which were right around 483 RWHP DIN corrected) to reflect SAE corrected numbers, YET there are several others, INCLUDING the top position which were allowed to be posted UNCORRECTED - Given the source of the request to have my numbers corrected, I find this quite odd and somewhat manipulative.
Again, I will not name drop, you know who you are.
In closing, I would like to commend Lindsey Racing for taking the time to prove (if not just to themselves) that what I have been preaching is actual and factual. Dave Lindsey and I had a relatively lengthy conversation regarding this very subject back last summer and he seemed quite interested in my findings - I am sincerely happy he took the time to see for himself - KUDOS!
Also, I would like to acknowledge, once again, all those in the top 10 - You all know what it takes to be there, and you should all be proud to have earned your spot.
Thanks for reading.
There are lots of people that like to assume things, speculate, and base their performance on other dynos based on rumor and myth. The only way to prove your car makes more power on one dyno versus the other is to go out prove your argument.
My offer to "prove my point" by dyno testing for free a few hand picked cars was open to a few Rennlisters both online and off, all with Mustang dyno results of their car, all claiming their numbers would be higher on a DynoJet, all happy with, and boasting, their Mustang results - Yet not a single one came forward to prove me wrong, not one.
It makes me wonder how the Rennlist top ten would shake out if all cars were on DynoJets, and if ALL the numbers were SAE corrected. For example, ST's car (which is a great car no doubt) Put down 533HP @ 24 PSI on a Mustang and is NOT SAE corrected. Lindsey's results are SAE corrected on a DynoJet (not sure of the boost), our results are SAE corrected on a DynoJet at only 20.5 PSI, so, in the grand scheme of things, all things being the same, which engine is more efficient? Who is making more power per CC per PSI of boost?
A long time ago, Danno posted a great formula for determining power versus displacement versus boost, it would be interesting to see how that would apply to the Rennlist top 10. Keep in mind, that there is still the dyno and correction factor discrepancies that would need to be factored in as well.
Oh, one more thing. When we first posted our dyno sheet to the Rennlist top 10 (back when the actual thread originator was moderating it) I am told that there was a request from someone (I know who it was, but I will refrain from name dropping) that asked/forced the then moderator to single me out and adjust my numbers (which were right around 483 RWHP DIN corrected) to reflect SAE corrected numbers, YET there are several others, INCLUDING the top position which were allowed to be posted UNCORRECTED - Given the source of the request to have my numbers corrected, I find this quite odd and somewhat manipulative.
Again, I will not name drop, you know who you are.
In closing, I would like to commend Lindsey Racing for taking the time to prove (if not just to themselves) that what I have been preaching is actual and factual. Dave Lindsey and I had a relatively lengthy conversation regarding this very subject back last summer and he seemed quite interested in my findings - I am sincerely happy he took the time to see for himself - KUDOS!
Also, I would like to acknowledge, once again, all those in the top 10 - You all know what it takes to be there, and you should all be proud to have earned your spot.
Thanks for reading.
02-17-2006, 04:28 PM
#6
Banned
The 4th gear run on both dynos give identical hp. I have always stated that they are very close. A mustang dyno loads the car correct in any gear. A dynojet needs 1to1 gearing for a accurate reading.
02-17-2006, 04:49 PM
#7
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 1,493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Under Pressure Performance
Oh, one more thing. When we first posted our dyno sheet to the Rennlist top 10 (back when the actual thread originator was moderating it) I am told that there was a request from someone (I know who it was, but I will refrain from name dropping) that asked/forced the then moderator to single me out and adjust my numbers (which were right around 483 RWHP DIN corrected) to reflect SAE corrected numbers, YET there are several others, INCLUDING the top position which were allowed to be posted UNCORRECTED - Given the source of the request to have my numbers corrected, I find this quite odd and somewhat manipulative.
Trending Topics
02-17-2006, 05:48 PM
#8
Originally Posted by Under Pressure Performance
Who woulda thought? As I have been saying for years, the DynoJet indicates lower numbers than the Mustang, but I didn't need anyone else to confirm it for me, I have known this from first hand experience for years. Which is why I had made my point with conviction in past posts.
There are lots of people that like to assume things, speculate, and base their performance on other dynos based on rumor and myth. The only way to prove your car makes more power on one dyno versus the other is to go out prove your argument.
My offer to "prove my point" by dyno testing for free a few hand picked cars was open to a few Rennlisters both online and off, all with Mustang dyno results of their car, all claiming their numbers would be higher on a DynoJet, all happy with, and boasting, their Mustang results - Yet not a single one came forward to prove me wrong, not one.
It makes me wonder how the Rennlist top ten would shake out if all cars were on DynoJets, and if ALL the numbers were SAE corrected. For example, ST's car (which is a great car no doubt) Put down 533HP @ 24 PSI on a Mustang and is NOT SAE corrected. Lindsey's results are SAE corrected on a DynoJet (not sure of the boost), our results are SAE corrected on a DynoJet at only 20.5 PSI, so, in the grand scheme of things, all things being the same, which engine is more efficient? Who is making more power per CC per PSI of boost?
A long time ago, Danno posted a great formula for determining power versus displacement versus boost, it would be interesting to see how that would apply to the Rennlist top 10. Keep in mind, that there is still the dyno and correction factor discrepancies that would need to be factored in as well.
Oh, one more thing. When we first posted our dyno sheet to the Rennlist top 10 (back when the actual thread originator was moderating it) I am told that there was a request from someone (I know who it was, but I will refrain from name dropping) that asked/forced the then moderator to single me out and adjust my numbers (which were right around 483 RWHP DIN corrected) to reflect SAE corrected numbers, YET there are several others, INCLUDING the top position which were allowed to be posted UNCORRECTED - Given the source of the request to have my numbers corrected, I find this quite odd and somewhat manipulative.
Again, I will not name drop, you know who you are.
In closing, I would like to commend Lindsey Racing for taking the time to prove (if not just to themselves) that what I have been preaching is actual and factual. Dave Lindsey and I had a relatively lengthy conversation regarding this very subject back last summer and he seemed quite interested in my findings - I am sincerely happy he took the time to see for himself - KUDOS!
Also, I would like to acknowledge, once again, all those in the top 10 - You all know what it takes to be there, and you should all be proud to have earned your spot.
Thanks for reading.
There are lots of people that like to assume things, speculate, and base their performance on other dynos based on rumor and myth. The only way to prove your car makes more power on one dyno versus the other is to go out prove your argument.
My offer to "prove my point" by dyno testing for free a few hand picked cars was open to a few Rennlisters both online and off, all with Mustang dyno results of their car, all claiming their numbers would be higher on a DynoJet, all happy with, and boasting, their Mustang results - Yet not a single one came forward to prove me wrong, not one.
It makes me wonder how the Rennlist top ten would shake out if all cars were on DynoJets, and if ALL the numbers were SAE corrected. For example, ST's car (which is a great car no doubt) Put down 533HP @ 24 PSI on a Mustang and is NOT SAE corrected. Lindsey's results are SAE corrected on a DynoJet (not sure of the boost), our results are SAE corrected on a DynoJet at only 20.5 PSI, so, in the grand scheme of things, all things being the same, which engine is more efficient? Who is making more power per CC per PSI of boost?
A long time ago, Danno posted a great formula for determining power versus displacement versus boost, it would be interesting to see how that would apply to the Rennlist top 10. Keep in mind, that there is still the dyno and correction factor discrepancies that would need to be factored in as well.
Oh, one more thing. When we first posted our dyno sheet to the Rennlist top 10 (back when the actual thread originator was moderating it) I am told that there was a request from someone (I know who it was, but I will refrain from name dropping) that asked/forced the then moderator to single me out and adjust my numbers (which were right around 483 RWHP DIN corrected) to reflect SAE corrected numbers, YET there are several others, INCLUDING the top position which were allowed to be posted UNCORRECTED - Given the source of the request to have my numbers corrected, I find this quite odd and somewhat manipulative.
Again, I will not name drop, you know who you are.
In closing, I would like to commend Lindsey Racing for taking the time to prove (if not just to themselves) that what I have been preaching is actual and factual. Dave Lindsey and I had a relatively lengthy conversation regarding this very subject back last summer and he seemed quite interested in my findings - I am sincerely happy he took the time to see for himself - KUDOS!
Also, I would like to acknowledge, once again, all those in the top 10 - You all know what it takes to be there, and you should all be proud to have earned your spot.
Thanks for reading.
My chart says SAE right on it. Why are you speculating that it isn't SAE?
You are the only one who has posted a DIN chart, Scotty.
Are you in Germany now?? 
By the way - my 533 SAE run was 548 RWHP DIN corrected - so lets compare on even terms, Scott. THAT'S 548 DIN RWHP - IN CASE YOU MISSED IT.
Everyone knows DIN is corrected to slightly higher temperature, just like any shop with a Mustang and a Dynojet will tell you turbos read MUCH lower on the Mustang.
I would LOVE to dyno my car against yours - I will pay for yours at the land and sea dyno.
This will be a place that neither of us owns - to make sure noone gets an advantage.
Run any boost you like - I realize you are afraid that your car cannot handle the high boost because your tuning is suspect. Therefore, I will give you 500 more revs. How is that?
You must be interested, because you seem to be very concered with my engine's power.
Don't worry, after my car bitch-slaps yours, you can take comfort in the consolation that your car is much prettier than mine.
02-17-2006, 06:01 PM
#9
Formula One Spin Doctor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by special tool
My chart says SAE right on it. Why are you speculating that it isn't SAE?
You are the only one who has posted a DIN chart, Scotty. Are you in Germany now??
By the way - my 533 SAE run was 548 RWHP DIN corrected - so lets compare on even terms, Scott. THAT'S 548 DIN RWHP - IN CASE YOU MISSED IT.
Everyone knows DIN is corrected to slightly higher temperature, just like any shop with a Mustang and a Dynojet will tell you turbos read MUCH lower on the Mustang.
I would LOVE to dyno my car against yours - I will pay for yours at the land and sea dyno.
This will be a place that neither of us owns - to make sure noone gets an advantage.
Run any boost you like - I realize you are afraid that your car cannot handle the high boost because your tuning is suspect. Therefore, I will give you 500 more revs. How is that?
You must be interested, because you seem to be very concered with my engine's power.
Don't worry, after my car bitch-slaps yours, you can take comfort in the consolation that your car is much prettier than mine.
You are the only one who has posted a DIN chart, Scotty.
Are you in Germany now?? By the way - my 533 SAE run was 548 RWHP DIN corrected - so lets compare on even terms, Scott. THAT'S 548 DIN RWHP - IN CASE YOU MISSED IT.
Everyone knows DIN is corrected to slightly higher temperature, just like any shop with a Mustang and a Dynojet will tell you turbos read MUCH lower on the Mustang.
I would LOVE to dyno my car against yours - I will pay for yours at the land and sea dyno.
This will be a place that neither of us owns - to make sure noone gets an advantage.
Run any boost you like - I realize you are afraid that your car cannot handle the high boost because your tuning is suspect. Therefore, I will give you 500 more revs. How is that?
You must be interested, because you seem to be very concered with my engine's power.
Don't worry, after my car bitch-slaps yours, you can take comfort in the consolation that your car is much prettier than mine.
Does this mean you guys are going to race too!
02-17-2006, 06:04 PM
#10
No - I am just a poor wrench.
There are no quarterbacks at my house.
Edited only to put smiley face so people don't think I am SUUUUUCH a pycho gearhead - even though my bald head is covered with grease from the underside of a diesel dump truck that I am turbocharging!
There are no quarterbacks at my house.
Edited only to put smiley face so people don't think I am SUUUUUCH a pycho gearhead - even though my bald head is covered with grease from the underside of a diesel dump truck that I am turbocharging!
Last edited by special tool; 02-17-2006 at 06:29 PM.
02-17-2006, 06:08 PM
#11
Tool: Are saying that Lindsey's results are somehow flawed when you state "any shop with a Mustang and Dynojet will tell you turbo's read MUCH lower on the mustang"? My experience so far has been closer to Lindseys. Unless you believe that a K27/8 with guru chips on my car make WAY more power than a Vitesse Stage III with Vitesse software. I dyno'd th K27/8 on the Mustang Dyno and made around 280 rwhp. I dynoed the Vitesse stage III on a Dynojet and made around 300 rwhp. I know you think there is something wrong with my car but regardless it was the same engine/exhaust combo for both runs. Do you have some proof of the difference between Mustang and Dynojet numbers other than speculation?
P.S. Don't take this to mean that I doubt the power your car is making. I'm just doubting that there is as big a difference between the two types of Dyno's as has been assumed in the past.
P.S. Don't take this to mean that I doubt the power your car is making. I'm just doubting that there is as big a difference between the two types of Dyno's as has been assumed in the past.
02-17-2006, 06:18 PM
#12
Formula One Spin Doctor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Personally ,
This is rediculous . as all dyno's are nothing more than tools and the only way to compare regardless of the brand is to DYNO ALL THE CARS AT THE SAME TIME ON THE SAME DYNO ! the HP readings are appproximations anyway ,
533 rwhp on a dynojet and then the same car measures 522 on a mustang does that mean the car lost 11 hp or the mustang is right , dynojet wrong , blah , blah , blah .BLAH ! Splitting hairs I say !
THe only way to compare is as The TOOL said compare both cars at the same dyno on the same day. I have worked with almost every dyno made on this planet , some i have liked better than others, but they where all tools ( well that is not true the italian ones are well !!) used them correctly and they will in the end produce the same results and your engine will be better tuned when you get off.
________________________________________________
www.tpgproducts.com
This is rediculous . as all dyno's are nothing more than tools and the only way to compare regardless of the brand is to DYNO ALL THE CARS AT THE SAME TIME ON THE SAME DYNO ! the HP readings are appproximations anyway ,
533 rwhp on a dynojet and then the same car measures 522 on a mustang does that mean the car lost 11 hp or the mustang is right , dynojet wrong , blah , blah , blah .BLAH ! Splitting hairs I say !
THe only way to compare is as The TOOL said compare both cars at the same dyno on the same day. I have worked with almost every dyno made on this planet , some i have liked better than others, but they where all tools ( well that is not true the italian ones are well !!) used them correctly and they will in the end produce the same results and your engine will be better tuned when you get off.
________________________________________________
www.tpgproducts.com
02-17-2006, 06:20 PM
#13
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Well, my 395rwhp run posted on the top ten list is on a Dynojet, SAE corrected, AND on pump gas. So there 
And I am man enough to admit that the car was not really driveable in traffic at that rwhp. With the stock street tires/sizes and stock suspension I just couldn't hardly get out of the accelerator quick enough to stop wheel spin as boost come on. It was great fun for a couple of weeks but got really old quick in traffic. I turned it down and drive the car at about 350 to 360 rwhp.
And I am man enough to admit that the car was not really driveable in traffic at that rwhp. With the stock street tires/sizes and stock suspension I just couldn't hardly get out of the accelerator quick enough to stop wheel spin as boost come on. It was great fun for a couple of weeks but got really old quick in traffic. I turned it down and drive the car at about 350 to 360 rwhp.
02-17-2006, 06:22 PM
#14
Formula One Spin Doctor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by SoloRacer
Tool: Are saying that Lindsey's results are somehow flawed when you state "any shop with a Mustang and Dynojet will tell you turbo's read MUCH lower on the mustang"? My experience so far has been closer to Lindseys. Unless you believe that a K27/8 with guru chips on my car make WAY more power than a Vitesse Stage III with Vitesse software. I dyno'd th K27/8 on the Mustang Dyno and made around 280 rwhp. I dynoed the Vitesse stage III on a Dynojet and made around 300 rwhp. I know you think there is something wrong with my car but regardless it was the same engine/exhaust combo for both runs. Do you have some proof of the difference between Mustang and Dynojet numbers other than speculation?
P.S. Don't take this to mean that I doubt the power your car is making. I'm just doubting that there is as big a difference between the two types of Dyno's as has been assumed in the past.
P.S. Don't take this to mean that I doubt the power your car is making. I'm just doubting that there is as big a difference between the two types of Dyno's as has been assumed in the past.
as the peak number means nothing compared to the AVG.
02-17-2006, 06:23 PM
#15
Originally Posted by SoloRacer
Tool: Are saying that Lindsey's results are somehow flawed when you state "any shop with a Mustang and Dynojet will tell you turbo's read MUCH lower on the mustang"? My experience so far has been closer to Lindseys. Unless you believe that a K27/8 with guru chips on my car make WAY more power than a Vitesse Stage III with Vitesse software. I dyno'd th K27/8 on the Mustang Dyno and made around 280 rwhp. I dynoed the Vitesse stage III on a Dynojet and made around 300 rwhp. I know you think there is something wrong with my car but regardless it was the same engine/exhaust combo for both runs. Do you have some proof of the difference between Mustang and Dynojet numbers other than speculation?
P.S. Don't take this to mean that I doubt the power your car is making. I'm just doubting that there is as big a difference between the two types of Dyno's as has been assumed in the past.
P.S. Don't take this to mean that I doubt the power your car is making. I'm just doubting that there is as big a difference between the two types of Dyno's as has been assumed in the past.
I have never doubted any power claims by Lindsey - because I have never seen a reason.