When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
How does one verify which one is correct? What is the calibration tool? If I do exactly 55,000 foot*lbs of constant rate work in one second on either dyno, which one reads closer to 100.0 hp? I would like to see people back up their claims on this one. (I don't know the answer, but this is the internet afterall, so maybe I should just pick one and insist that it is right? :jester )
IMHO it doesn't matter which one is "right" but rather which one is used as the standard. If everybody uses a dynojet, I want dynojet numbers to compare with. If everybody uses a mustang dyno I want mustang numbers to compare. If everybody runs a bubba dyno I want a bubba dyno to compare with.
As such since most people quote dynojet numbers, using the SAE standard, that's what I use.
I suppose you could ask the same about corrected versus uncorrected numbers. I always use SAE corrected from a Dynojet as that is what all of the shops in DFW that I visit have installed.
Which ever one you choose, make sure you go back to that one for mod results. Really it doesn't matter which one you go to, it's all about getting results and then improving upon them.
I race RC cars... there are several different dyno's out for them, too. The biggest thing is making sure you use the same one. and be consistant in testing.
My car dyno'd 351/351 on a Dynojet 248e, and then 3 weeks later I had it dyno'd on Breathless's Mustang Dyno and it came out 366/378. I have always gone by the Dynojet figures as you can see in my sig...
Certainly you are using the dyno for quantifying the results of your mods and not for bragging rights.
For the purpose of testing it won't matter as long as you remain consistent and use the same dyno for each testing session (with wideband O2's I hope).
Mustang dynos are eddy-current load dynos while DynoJet's are inertia. For tuning the edge goes to the Mustang because of its ability to load the engine in different ways to simulate real world driving conditions. They do tend to be more conservative than DynoJets but seeing as how there is no standard by which chassis dynos are rated one can't be sure which one is "right." However, you can change the load parameters of the Mustang to totally replicate that of a DynoJet and then they are almost dead even. And, DynoJet has come out with an eddy-current dyno of their own to compete with the Mustang. What's my real world analysis of the two? For some reason you tend to get more parasitic loss off of the Mustang vs. the DynoJet because of the way it loads the chassis. On our DTS engine dyno (using my old 396 as the example) I got 571 hp/505 lb/ft tq. On a DynoJet this same engine produced 466 rwhp which equates to roughly an 18% loss on my ZF equipped car. On a Mustang (while tuning the DFI) the same combination, unchanged, made 418 rwhp or a loss of somewhere between 25-30%... Hope this helps.
-Jeb
Mustang dynos are eddy-current load dynos while DynoJet's are inertia. For tuning the edge goes to the Mustang because of its ability to load the engine in different ways to simulate real world driving conditions. They do tend to be more conservative than DynoJets but seeing as how there is no standard by which chassis dynos are rated one can't be sure which one is "right." However, you can change the load parameters of the Mustang to totally replicate that of a DynoJet and then they are almost dead even. And, DynoJet has come out with an eddy-current dyno of their own to compete with the Mustang. What's my real world analysis of the two? For some reason you tend to get more parasitic loss off of the Mustang vs. the DynoJet because of the way it loads the chassis. On our DTS engine dyno (using my old 396 as the example) I got 571 hp/505 lb/ft tq. On a DynoJet this same engine produced 466 rwhp which equates to roughly an 18% loss on my ZF equipped car. On a Mustang (while tuning the DFI) the same combination, unchanged, made 418 rwhp or a loss of somewhere between 25-30%... Hope this helps.
-Jeb
That's probably the best explaination I've seen yet. Thanks! :yesnod:
Latest Chevy High Performance does a back to back test using 2000 Camaro on a Dynojet and a Mustang 250...their findings were Mustang was closest to real world and Dynojet was inflated! They also did actual acceleration runs with same car on flat ground to mimic the dyno profiles...
I'm more kidding folks as the article was interesting, but there isn't a 'right' dyno for the above reasons others have stated. I definitely like to do back to back testing for stuff though-gives me piece of mind which is huge in my book!
Besides, I could care less about bragging numbers...
Designer Imagines A Corvette That Looks More Like a Corvette Than the Corvette
Slideshow: A Jaguar designer's personal project imagines what a modern front-engined Corvette might look like if Chevrolet revisited the golden age of the Stingray.