[MKIVpowered]

http://www.turbomagazine.com/tech/0306tur_dynodash/

Note the difference in the dyno numbers. Particularly which one has the highest numbers VS lowest numbers.

 

[drjonez]

word. interesting stuff....amazing that turbo did a tech article....

 

[Guest]

I think its very interesting too...do you think its more the software, the way they calculate it, or the way the dyno is designed, IE some have more internal resistance then others...

Only thing im scared of now is...

"I dynod my car this weekend, 323rwhp...and it was on that one dyno that reads like 40hp lower then the other ones....so that means I have 365rwhp, YAY!"

 

[MKIVpowered]

Did the aussie style dyno make more or is that a different type! Whats the story! no flaming please just want to know why it read higher.

 

[ZaZZn]

thats crazy... huge diffrences.... I did my dyno's on a DynoJet. Using WinPEP.. So I'm guessing that if I was to go to one of them other dyno's I'd get damn almost a 65 hp jump thats retarded....

So will you're #1 spot could be shot down by someone else making like 680 rwhp on one type of dyno.....

 

[X-man]

It would be interesting to find out on a high horsepower car if the difference increased or stay the same. If you have a difference of 50 hp at 250 to the ground would it be the same at 650 to the ground or increase accordingly? I remember reading the article and they said they used an NA car for some sort of consistancy. There are so many things that effect a turbo car and by drastic amounts especially temperature, what are you supposed to do. I guess you dyno, post your results, and then say give or take 60 rwhp.

 

[outofstep]

Did the aussie style dyno make more or is that a different type! Whats the story! no flaming please just want to know why it read higher.

Dyno dynamic dynos are kinda like mustang dynos when compared to dynojet dynos. Yes there will be variances between dynos of that series, but they consistently read lower than their dynojet counterparts.

 

[outofstep]

The dynojets in that article showed a range of 16 hp from the highest to the lowest. Taking the median value, you are looking at a variance of 3%. Assuming the dyno dynamics dynos also have a 3% variance between dynos and that the 1001 rwhp number was the median you have a range of 970 - 1031. However if we assume the 1001rwhp number is at the extreme end of either of the spectrums (highest or lowest dyno numbers) a more complete look at the range is 941 - 1061rwhp.

-edit- heh, just noticed I used the wrong numbers. Its actualy a range of 37. That kinda realy changes the numbers. Eyeballing it, it would make the end range under 900 to over 1100 rwhp. I'm not calcin it out again. -edit-

 

[MKIVpowered]

I guess what i'm not understanding is that if that dynamic dyno reads lower then the dynojet how come the readings on the dynojet is lower on both styles dynojets. That means it reads higher by a percentage.

 

[X-man]

Will just go and put down 1200 rwhp and that will end the discussion all together.

 

[MKIVpowered]

 

[xscurry]

Taking the median value, you are looking at a variance of 3%. Assuming the dyno dynamics dynos also have a 3% variance between dynos and that the 1001 rwhp number was the median you have a range of 970 - 1031. . .

Ha, is that a Normal Distribution? Do a probablilty plot to find out from the data in the article.

 

[outofstep]

Blah, I'm not making a bell curve and finding standard deviations and all that crap. I just used the two end extremes. Works for me.

 

[202 Carb & Cam]

The people I have talked to in Australia in regards to why we don’t use the US standard dynojet, is due to the dyno dynamics being better able to load up the motor and hold the load @ various rpm points, ideal for programmable ECU’s.

 

[MKIVpowered]

Hey guys anyone find out why the numbers on the dynamic dyno are higher then the numbers on both the dynojets tested. I thought they should be on average 15 percent lower then the dynojet.

 

[outofstep]

What do you mean? They are lower.

 

[adjuster]

Well, I don't know about the Turbo article test, but lately all they do is re-hash stuff covered in Sport Compact Car. (When my subscription runs out, I'm not going to renew, but might pick up Super Street or even SCC as they run more Supra stuff now v/s Turbo which is in love with the 4 door twins (WRX & EVO) or anything they do to a 350Z. (Amazing you can spend 14k on a SC kit and not break 400rwhp? Strikes me as a expensive POS for sure.)
On a dyno note, I've pulled two dynos now, one here in Boise, and did 418rwhp, and about 390rwt, and then Vegas 03 for 419 and 365?rwt (Not sure about that tq number.) Anyway, they were very close, and both were dynojets I think.
Not sure why the Tq dropped off. Must have been the new MHG, possibly lowered my compression ratio? Or I have a larger engine problem starting to show up. (Car is not running now, suddenly lost all vac. Doing a compression test tomarrow.)
Will, you still building motors? I might need one.

 

[MKIVpowered]

I sure am adjuster. just let me know.

Outof step
The dynamic dyno delivered higher numbers then the dynojets in the article. i thought it should read lower. Like 15 percent lower then the dynojets.

 

[outofstep]

Jeez im slow. I thought you were talking about Sebs numbers... heh. I'm not sure why the turbo article got the highest numbers? They did mention that it shows both fly and wheel numbers. Perhaps they showed the fly numbers? Turbo mag isn't exactly known for the consistency or facts of their articles. So it wouldn't suprise me if they flubbed and used the fly numbers. I don't know though. I can't give you an answere on that one. All I can say is that mustang dynos hold the defacto for being 12-15 % lower than dynojets and dyno dynamics read even lower than mustang dynos.

Turbo mag flub? I don't know.