100% incorrect!! In regards to a Dynopack reading higher due to wheel mass removed.

man it's getting to the point where I should follow your posts and correct them because people believe what you say since you say it with such a "I know all manor" yet you have just over zero in experience. I problem that I joke around with my engineer friends with regularly.

C6 Dvl dyno'd higher on a Dynojet then he did on our Dyno pack, and just over on a Mustang. There is a very good reason why a Dynopack dyno is double the expense of a Dynojet, and triple the cost of a Mustang dyno. It is because it's accuracy is and capabilities are much greater then the average dyno. Hence why we chose to pay the extra expense.

btw, you were also incorrect when you said in another thread that a supercharged car cannot get better fuel economy at cruise or "you would eat your engineering degree". I would be happy to offer you some ketchup for it, because I would imagine it would taste rather dry, but you are again incorrect! Not every car always gains mpg at cruise, but more then average do when the entire car is tuned properly, not just over 4k. We have installed and tuned 100's upon 100's of SC's now and have had so many people report back gains in cruising mpg. I know, I know, your one single car didn't so it cant be true!

 

[QUOTE=DOUG @ ECS;1568559447]100% incorrect!! In regards to a Dynopack reading higher due to wheel mass removed.

an informed consumer he isn't.

 

real world speaking...

 

I said "Tend to" and then went on to point out that with different correction factors any dyno can be made to read high OR low. If you don't believe that by removing 100 pounds of rotating mass from the car it won't be able to spin up those hubs faster making it seem as though it is making more power, then I don't know what to tell you... You may also want to re-read glass_slipper's post about Dynapack accuracy... I don't claim to be an expert in the subject but he certainly knows what he is talking about...
Same goes for the supercharger and fuel economy. Even if the blower was 100% efficient, which it isn't even close to, you are still consuming power to turn it as the volute compresses air internally. You can not add parasitic drag to the engine via a supercharger belt and gain fuel economy: it would be like turning on your air conditioning to save gas . You may have encountered some cars that were running very rich and saw a gain in fuel economy after you leaned them out at part throttle, but my car was already tuned very well before I installed the blower and I saw the same loss of fuel economy that Corky Bell talks about in "Supercharged!". If you don't want to argue with me, send Mr. Bell and e-mail about it and tell him to change his book; appearently one of the most respected sources in Forced Induction is wrong too

I've never claimed to be an expert in anything; I have a Mechanical Engineering degree and I do that for a living. I guess because I'm not on my back all day wrenching under a car and following instruction manuals I can't possibly know as much as some mechanics, but I know a thing or two; a few from my education, which has little to do with aftermarket work on cars; a lot of what I know comes from reading every book on the subject that I can get my hands on, and a good amount of it from working on my cars and my friends cars too... And you know what? I share that knowledge free of charge for anyone who wants to ask me a question. If you have something to share by all means jump on the forum and post away, and if you think I might be mistaken about something feel free to point it out too: I've never said I knew everything.
But you may want to lose that caustic tone... I don't really care if you like me or not but certainly coming off as a jerk can't help your business in this failing economy after your main mechanic left you and while the competition is offering a similar product for much less... It cost you my business in the past... Be nice Doug I've even kept out of your threads lately since you were getting so upset about it, why would you want to go out of your way to argue with me?

 

Bring your car to 100 dynos and you will get 100 different numbers. Dynos are a tool to show gains or loses that's it.

Randy

 

Now it's been about 6 years since we were pricing dyno's, but at that time our Mustang MD-1100SE with the Eddy Current set up was about $14000 more than the DynoJet.

 

I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night.

 

Fortunately we are anything but failing unlike the economy, which we are extremely thankful for. I have no wish to argue with you or even interact with you honestly, I prefer a more experienced objective then a "I read it on the Internet" type person, but you seem to have a nack for consistently posting your views negatively towards subjects that we sell and or advocate so I have no choice but to undermine the thoughts you are planting in peoples heads with what you post when they are not in line with what we see daily here. BTW, nice attempt on a dig there with our past employee, however he was the first person to ever leave ECS. He was past up on promotions due to not being our "main mechanic" so he felt he was in a dead end position, we agreed since we passed him for promotions to other employee's and so life goes. I respect him for not wanting to stay in one place, but we did not feel he could go any farther here. Either way it is not fair of you to put this out on a public forum since he is still befriended by us and attends Corvette challenges, and is a member on this forum.

 

The book was written in 2001, but I don't believe the laws of physics have changed since then; the best centrifugal superchargers on the market today still net sub 80% efficiency and even with the blow off valve open it still takes considerable horsepower to turn that shaft; seeing as that power comes from the engine, it logically follows that the engine has to burn more fuel to keep moving the car AND turning the blower. There is no way you can tune a supercharged car to get better gas mileage than a car you tuned to remain naturally aspirated.

For someone who claims to have no wish to interact with me you really went out of your way finding this thread and letting me know that you "should follow your posts and correct them because people believe what you say since you say it with such a "I know all manor" ".
Also, I post negative views towards things you sell? I am probably the biggest advocate for Superchargers on this forum and I have never hesitated to recommend ECS to all the forum members who PMed me in the past asking what I thought of your shop, although I am beginning to regret it now; I have never had a problem with you, and I've PMed you twice to let you know that. You have NOTHING to gain by attacking me on this forum; I am not your competition, I am not here to make money, I don't sell anything, and I've never bashed you or your shop on this forum. Stop treating me like I'm on an anti-ECS crusade on this forum because frankly, it just makes you look bad.
Thanks Doug, I hope you and I can get along some day.

 

When we recently purchased our DynoPak in the beginning of last year, the Mustangs where high 20's, the Dynojets where low forty's, and the DynoPak was seventy three. It is very possible that the price I was looking at was for a model not as equipped as yours? I was not personally interested in a Mustang so I did not pay as close attention as I might have to others, although I'm sure it is a great tuning tool.

 

I did not follow you to this thread, it was a thread regarding dyno's so I stepped in and read incorrect information in regards to a product that we own and advocate...again, by you.
You have posted up negatively in regards to ECS when you installed your SC. Even though we have never done anything for you, and chances are mutually that we never will. So send me a link to your PM where that is the case and I will be more then willing to apologize, but from what we see here, your actions regularly post up incorrectly about many things we advocate.
As far as the SC debate, no need to continue, I know what I see daily and nothing can or will change that. If Andy jumped on here and said he has never Seen an increase, I would respect his findings as a person who is speaking from experience, but know that I still see what I see.

Peace.

 

Now I know why I have always thought that Powerlabs was a self important, know it all. Makes me wish the moderators screened people before giving them access to the forum..............

 

Odd, I never thought or saw Mr. Powerlabs here as a "know it all".
In fact, he does not even make my famed "One of The Three Wise Men on CF" list. Though I do respect him for at knowing at least something and I have learned from him!

 

Which Mustang Dyno were you looking at for 20s?? I purchased a MD600DE with a second eddy current absorber and that one cost me $40k over 5 years ago and I worked them for a deal back then. They did upgrade my Dyno with the latest control hardware and software just before Christmas and I got to say it was an early Xmas present for me because they did it on their dime and even sent a field rep to install the equipment for me.

I totally agree with Randy @ DRM the dyno is just a tool to tune cars, take your car to 100 dynos and you will get 100 diffrent test results. As long as its used properly with the a person with the right tuning skills you will always get a good end result. My dyno pays for itself within the first couple days of every month, its used for not only tuning our beloved Corvettes but local GM dealships even send me their customer cars when they can't figure out drivability issues.

I too feel very fortunate that my business is still going good even with the state of todays economy. People like you that have an excellent record of doing good business will always do well no matter what the economy. It is however a little which for me is expected during the winter months, but I can say I am nearly booked for the month of January.

 

I know the base Mustang Dyno's are relatively cheap, but with the options and higher end models they get pricey. The big dog, MD 1750DE is over $80000 now, and I think ours is just over $50000 if you were to buy it today. Those prices are for two wheel drive versions as well. I just wanted to clear that up.

We could have gotten any dyno at the time of our purchase, so it's not like we decided to get a Mustang dyno because it was cheaper and recorded low horsepower numbers, that would have been dumb. It would have been like getting a dyno just to have a dyno. The loading capabilities at the time were the reason for the purchase, and the higher price over DynoJet.

 

My car had been tuned with LG LT's and my 410's and ran well prior to the blower installation at ECS. After my blower install I called Doug on the highway on my way home asking if my DIC reading was correct because I was getting better mileage after the blower install and couldn't believe it. Doug told me at that point that it is very common. Being an engineer myself (and owner of an engineering firm with lots of "enginerds" working for me) I had my doubts. I had regularly kept record of my gas mileage and checked it for a while before and after. I ABSOLUTELY gained mpg after my install, checked by miles traveled vs gallons used (not the DIC). It may be attributed to a better tune, but I know that my mileage has gone up (when I'm not mashing the peddle of course).

My company designs pump systems (both centrif and PD) for different industries. A typical centrif water pump is very similar to a centrif blower. In the 20+ years I have been working with pump systems I have seen many bizarre things occur that go against the grain and have baffled the best in the industry. Engineers always want to see everything as "black and white", I've learned that there are shades of grey every now and then, and flexibility can get you very far as an engineer (and this is applicable to the performance industry also). Isn't it true that bumblebees arent supposed to be able to fly?? http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_09_13_04.html (kind of a good analogy for similar situations)

 

Glad to hear business is good! I really dislike hearing about any business' failing and it seems to be so common now.
I very well could, and most likely am, incorrect on the pricing. I just remember being very surprised with how cheap they were, but again I was not interested in that brand so I did not pay as close attention as the top three I had in mind.

They did have the loading down before many of the others, which is key as I'm sure you know. I did not intend on making the Mustang appear as a cheap dyno, my apologies if I came off that way.

Stop Dave, there is no way a bumble bee can fly, I read that it's impossible!!

 

I always chuckle when I see "on a mustang dyno" in sigs and stuff, but must admit I've fallen prey to the beer swilling, chest thumping silly car people thing myself. One particularly painful experience was making 499.67rwhp on Cartek;s stingy dyno, in 90 degree wx, through 4:10s etc. Lol, c'mon ya gotta gimmie that one!

Uncorrected I make around 680rwhp. I'm over 6000' Do you think I tell people I make 680 or the corrected 760? Its tough, oh no I was on a Dynojet, those read notoriously high right?

When I think something has gone wrong, I go back and scan on the SAME dyno. If I'm over 25% off, something probably is wrong. Just a tool.

But, I do fall into the my dyno numbers are a direct reflection on the size of my PP game sometimes too. When I'm doing that I'll never quote my numbers from the Mustang dyno

By the way Doug, I need you guys to square up my tune when I get back to Jersey. Can I play with your new flux capacitor machine? I hear it reads ridiculously high!

 

thanks for the correction i got it bass ackward

 

Erm, did either one of you actually read that link entirely?

"The persistence of the bumblebee myth also highlights a misunderstanding about science, models, and mathematics."

"A prominent aerodynamicist happened to be talking to a biologist, who asked about the flight of bees. To answer the biologist's query, the engineer did a quick "back-of-the-napkin" calculation.

To keep things simple, he assumed a rigid, smooth wing, estimated the bee's weight and wing area, and calculated the lift generated by the wing. Not surprisingly, there was insufficient lift. That was about all he could do at a dinner party. The detailed calculations had to wait. To the biologist, however, the aerodynamicist's initial failure was sufficient evidence of the superiority of nature to mere engineering."

"So, no one "proved" that a bumblebee can't fly. What was shown was that a certain simple mathematical model wasn't adequate or appropriate for describing the flight of a bumblebee."