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.
Yea thats what I'm thinking. Take it to the track to get a real estimate on what it puts down because those numbers seem fudged.
I would not say the numbers are fudged.
They are Mustang Dyno numbers.
I think it's fair to say you can't really compare the Mustang numbers to Dynojet numbers. Mustangs don't really compare fairly to each other across the country/weather as they have a myriad of setup parameters. That's not to say they are a bad device, they are great devices for tuning, but not for dyno wars.
Dynojets, because they spin a known weight and calculate torque and horsepower based on time it takes to spin it, tend to correlate very closely across the country when their weather stations are set up properly and SAE correction factors are used.
I think it's fair to say you can't really compare the Mustang numbers to Dynojet numbers. Mustangs don't really compare fairly to each other across the country/weather as they have a myriad of setup parameters. That's not to say they are a bad device, they are great devices for tuning, but not for dyno wars.
Dynojets, because they spin a known weight and calculate torque and horsepower based on time it takes to spin it, tend to correlate very closely across the country when their weather stations are set up properly and SAE correction factors are used.
Joe mustang dynos usually read low when the correct numbers are punched into it, but those numbers can also be enhanced as well which I think is the case with Tim's car as a few people in that thread posted are saying that Dyno consistently reads high.*