Supra Forums banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Joined
·
63 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

Another day, another #A90 #Supra in the books! This one was fitted with a Pure Turbo and is running 93 octane with a modest methanol kit. Blue line = Stock Tune / Red line = Custom Tune w/ Pure Turbo and Methanol. This Mustang dyno reads 18% low as compared to the usual Dynojet. ✔477whp/494wtq (563whp/583wtq Dynojet Corrected)

✔93 Octane w/ methanol injection

✔@pureturbos Pure Turbo

✔Stock Intake w/ Drop-in filter

✔Downpipe

✔Tuner: JordanTuned
 

·
Mind if I do a J?
Joined
·
3,241 Posts
Honestly I’d have more respect for this post if you just said it made 500whp on a Mustang dyno rather than compensate for your theoretical Mustang-to-dynojet bullshit. Either way nice gains, ours is making similar power and fun to drive to a certain extent.
 
Joined
·
63 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Honestly I’d have more respect for this post if you just said it made 500whp on a Mustang dyno rather than compensate for your theoretical Mustang-to-dynojet bullshit. Either way nice gains, ours is making similar power and fun to drive to a certain extent.
i fixed the title so you can have more respect for the thread now :)
 

·
Mind if I do a J?
Joined
·
3,241 Posts
i fixed the title so you can have more respect for the thread now :)
Awwww thanks bud lol
But seriously, I think we are all pretty familiar with the fact that Mustang dynos read a bit low. My car made 1450whp on a Dynojet 224x then an hour later it made 1270whp on a Mustang dyno that had apparently been “calibrated” to read closer to dynojet numbers. I haven’t been able to get past 1170whp on the Mustang dyno at SIV the last couple years (granted its also a thousand degrees outside). But anyway 480whp/500tq are respectable numbers on a Mustang dyno with just a small turbo upgrade, downpipe, and tune. Like I said ours is making similar power and is fun on the street.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,344 Posts
I'm, apparently, one of the few that do not subscribe to the "Mustangs read lower than Dynojets" school of thought. . Two of my cars have been dynoed on SP Engineering 's Mustang and Dynojet on the same day and all four runs were within 7 whp of one another, with the higher run coming on the Dynojet with Eau Rouge and the Mustang with Blackie.

Speaking personally, I prefer the Dynojet because of its consistency and, IMO, too many changes can be made by the Mustang user, whereas virtually none can be made by the Dynojet operator.

Many years ago, when I followed Jeff Gordon religiously, I visited a bunch of NASCAR race shops in Mooresville. Every team I visited at that time had a Dynojet because of, as I was told by one of Hendrick Motorsports engine techs, "it's accuracy and consistency, particularly when it comes to restrictor plate racing".

This is SF, so I've never seen a dyno thread extrapolating numbers from one make of dyno to another and posting the higher numbers in the thread title. This is absurd and I'm glad it's been corrected.



Ken.
 
Joined
·
63 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
I'm, apparently, one of the few that do not subscribe to the "Mustangs read lower than Dynojets" school of thought. . Two of my cars have been dynoed on SP Engineering 's Mustang and Dynojet on the same day and all four runs were within 7 whp of one another, with the higher run coming on the Dynojet with Eau Rouge and the Mustang with Blackie.

Speaking personally, I prefer the Dynojet because of its consistency and, IMO, too many changes can be made by the Mustang user, whereas virtually none can be made by the Dynojet operator.

Many years ago, when I followed Jeff Gordon religiously, I visited a bunch of NASCAR race shops in Mooresville. Every team I visited at that time had a Dynojet because of, as I was told by one of Hendrick Motorsports engine techs, "it's accuracy and consistency, particularly when it comes to restrictor plate racing".

This is SF, so I've never seen a dyno thread extrapolating numbers from one make of dyno to another and posting the higher numbers in the thread title. This is absurd and I'm glad it's been corrected.



Ken.
Dynojet is the more popular option, thats why i also posted the corrected data.

From my experience there's a big difference in numbers between the two (anywhere from 15-20%). We do not have a dyno at the shop so im not an expert but from what i heard, Dynojet can be calibrated a lot easier than Mustang dynos. Shops use it to their advantage to make customers happier by posting higher numbers.

the Dynojet you used must have been calibrated to be as close as possible to the mustang dyno
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,344 Posts
Dynojet is the more popular option, thats why i also posted the corrected data.

From my experience there's a big difference in numbers between the two (anywhere from 15-20%). We do not have a dyno at the shop so im not an expert but from what i heard, Dynojet can be calibrated a lot easier than Mustang dynos. Shops use it to their advantage to make customers happier by posting higher numbers.

the Dynojet you used must have been calibrated to be as close as possible to the mustang dyno
I agree there are often differences in Dynojet and Mustang dynos. I just disagree with the basic premise of those who buy into the conventional wisdom. I'm not here to argue with you. I am here to welcome you and hope you have a successful stay on SF. That said, I believe if you personally compare the two makes of dynos, you will find that the truth is exactly the opposite of what you have been told. Find yourself a Dynojet, familiarize yourself with its operation (it's pretty straightforward) and form your own conclusions about how easy it is to adjust one dyno versus the other.

During the golden age of Supra drag racing, Aussie Supra owners in particular complained loudly about American Supras and the Dynojets upon which they first made big power and, subsequently, huge power. SW, Saad Saad, Ryan Woon, Darin Dichiara and other six-speed drivers all posted quarter-mile trap speeds directly in line with the 1300-1500 whp dyno sheets they produced at the time (circa 2007-2008). When this information was brought to the attention of those who, for one reason or another, had bought into "the Mustang reads 15+% lower than the Dynojet", the silence was deafening and remains so until this day.

Quarter-mile trap speeds do not lie no matter what a given dyno says, but when the trap speeds line up with the dyno numbers, it's hard to argue a particular make of dyno is inherently inaccurate or can be so easily manipulated by the user as to make the results worthless. Best of luck with your programs going forward.


Ken.
 
Joined
·
63 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
I agree there are often differences in Dynojet and Mustang dynos. I just disagree with the basic premise of those who buy into the conventional wisdom. I'm not here to argue with you. I am here to welcome you and hope you have a successful stay on SF. That said, I believe if you personally compare the two makes of dynos, you will find that the truth is exactly the opposite of what you have been told. Find yourself a Dynojet, familiarize yourself with its operation (it's pretty straightforward) and form your own conclusions about how easy it is to adjust one dyno versus the other.

During the golden age of Supra drag racing, Aussie Supra owners in particular complained loudly about American Supras and the Dynojets upon which they first made big power and, subsequently, huge power. SW, Saad Saad, Ryan Woon, Darin Dichiara and other six-speed drivers all posted quarter-mile trap speeds directly in line with the 1300-1500 whp dyno sheets they produced at the time (circa 2007-2008). When this information was brought to the attention of those who, for one reason or another, had bought into "the Mustang reads 15+% lower than the Dynojet", the silence was deafening and remains so until this day.

Quarter-mile trap speeds do not lie no matter what a given dyno says, but when the trap speeds line up with the dyno numbers, it's hard to argue a particular make of dyno is inherently inaccurate or can be so easily manipulated by the user as to make the results worthless. Best of luck with your programs going forward.


Ken.
[/
thank you for welcoming me to the forum. I’m always open to change my opinion and learn from others.

it’s going to vary between different dynos (even if it’s the same brand dyno). It all depends on how it’s calibrated by each shop. Some tend to inflate their numbers while others try and keep it as honest as possible.

at the end of the day you are 100% correct about real life results being the most important.

when looking at the stock numbers this dyno shows 282whp/342wtq . Most dynojet stock numbers I have seen have stock Supra at 340whp/390wtq

here is an example
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,344 Posts
For whatever reason people tend to believe the lower dyno number is more accurate than the higher. Here again, and in relation to the dyno graph you posted above, the track does not lie. It helps to demonstrate the point I made earlier. Several mainstream periodicals, C/D and MT among them, dynoed MKVs and generated whp that was the same, roughly speaking, as Toyota's crank horsepower rating (335 bhp). After track testing these cars, the quarter-mile trap speeds supported an estimate of actual brake horsepower in the 370-400 hp range. The numbers produced by mainstream media and supported by related track times appear to be significantly more accurate than the 271 whp graph you posted above.

Again, I must tell you that it is the Mustang that is far more configurable than the Dynojet. With the Mustang you can change the roller weight, for instance, which will affect the amount of power produced by a given vehicle. I witnessed the installation and testing of the Dynojet at SP Engineering many years ago. The settings were established by the factory, confirmed by the installer and approved for use. Google "Dyno Dan" when you have a moment. He is certainly one of the foremost authorities on chassis dynos and used by various dyno manufacturers across the country. He's not the youngest guy and, like me, could be retired, but he is incredibly knowledgeable and very helpful as a matter of course.


Ken.
 
Joined
·
63 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
For whatever reason people tend to believe the lower dyno number is more accurate than the higher. Here again, and in relation to the dyno graph you posted above, the track does not lie. It helps to demonstrate the point I made earlier. Several mainstream periodicals, C/D and MT among them, dynoed MKVs and generated whp that was the same, roughly speaking, as Toyota's crank horsepower rating (335 bhp). After track testing these cars, the quarter-mile trap speeds supported an estimate of actual brake horsepower in the 370-400 hp range. The numbers produced by mainstream media and supported by related track times appear to be significantly more accurate than the 271 whp graph you posted above.

Again, I must tell you that it is the Mustang that is far more configurable than the Dynojet. With the Mustang you can change the roller weight, for instance, which will affect the amount of power produced by a given vehicle. I witnessed the installation and testing of the Dynojet at SP Engineering many years ago. The settings were established by the factory, confirmed by the installer and approved for use. Google "Dyno Dan" when you have a moment. He is certainly one of the foremost authorities on chassis dynos and used by various dyno manufacturers across the country. He's not the youngest guy and, like me, could be retired, but he is incredibly knowledgeable and very helpful as a matter of course.


Ken.
My post was not about which dyno is more accurate in real life result. My post was about Mustang dyno (at least the one that i posted) reads lower than Dynojet.

It sounds that you are agreeing with what i posted but you are saying the Dynjoet reading 340 whp / 390 wtq on stock car is more accurate
 

·
Blue Thunder
Joined
·
3,474 Posts
Dynojets are the standard by which most guys go when it comes to dyno readings for a reason. Mustangs are too easy to manipulate.

Would you like a cocaine scale that was calibrated and not able to be modified or one that you can change the weight given?
Example Dynojet = 200lbs, vice Mustang = 160-194lbs? You'd want the most accurate one right? LOL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
What are you planning on using the car for?Seems like it would wreck the driveability and take away the whole character of the car. low end hit hard. id like a little more max hp, but this looks like an old mk iii power curve.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,032 Posts
What are you planning on using the car for?Seems like it would wreck the driveability and take away the whole character of the car. low end hit hard. id like a little more max hp, but this looks like an old mk iii power curve.
Looks a lot like the curve on my 1jz / G25-660 setup. You're right though, that's a pretty hard hit, doubles the torque from ~2500 to ~3500 rpm. If you have the traction to cope, and the driver skill to keep it going where you want to, this isn't a problem. If you're a little bit of a rookie behind the wheel, this is gonna be dangerous.

I like it though, it's a nice curve. Kinda makes me wonder what mine would put out on E85 or putting that water methanol kit on the car finally...
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top