Question for Mike.......
#1
12-06-2006, 07:47 PM
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question for Mike.......
Mike.........
Why the wide margin of difference in hp and tq numbers between the mustang dyno and the dynojet dyno. Im talking a difference of 35 hp between the two being run on a few days apart. (Not my truck but still one with Troyer tunes) Just wondering what gives us a better real world number to base our bragging rights on. Belive the lower mustang number or the significantly higher dynojet numbers? I ran on the mustang but may go back to a dynojet this weekend.....would have gone there first had I known last weekend. Thanks!
Gordon
Why the wide margin of difference in hp and tq numbers between the mustang dyno and the dynojet dyno. Im talking a difference of 35 hp between the two being run on a few days apart. (Not my truck but still one with Troyer tunes) Just wondering what gives us a better real world number to base our bragging rights on. Belive the lower mustang number or the significantly higher dynojet numbers? I ran on the mustang but may go back to a dynojet this weekend.....would have gone there first had I known last weekend. Thanks!
Gordon
#2
12-06-2006, 09:33 PM
#4
12-07-2006, 07:29 AM
Hi.
I think you'll find that, if it's the correctly configured dyno, that's suited to that application, a dynojet with a proper load cell ( eddie current) will 'load up' just fine.... and Mike has just such a dyno.
Here's a link to this dyno:
http://www.dynojet.com/automotive_dy...yno/index.aspx
Cheers
Bubba
I think you'll find that, if it's the correctly configured dyno, that's suited to that application, a dynojet with a proper load cell ( eddie current) will 'load up' just fine.... and Mike has just such a dyno.
Originally Posted by Superchips_Distributor
Hi Mickey,
Thanks for your post - we find the Mustang dyno's to generally read about 20 to as much as 30 HP low on Lightnings compared to say, the typical Dynojet, just to give you an idea. Most likely, if we had you here on our Dynojet 224LCX, you'd be another 20 RWHP or so in our experience. And that's about right for your mods, overall.
Congrats & have fun!
Thanks for your post - we find the Mustang dyno's to generally read about 20 to as much as 30 HP low on Lightnings compared to say, the typical Dynojet, just to give you an idea. Most likely, if we had you here on our Dynojet 224LCX, you'd be another 20 RWHP or so in our experience. And that's about right for your mods, overall.
Congrats & have fun!
http://www.dynojet.com/automotive_dy...yno/index.aspx
Cheers
Bubba
Last edited by MGDfan; 12-07-2006 at 07:34 AM.
#5
12-08-2006, 08:02 AM
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#6
12-10-2006, 10:37 AM
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#7
12-11-2006, 04:08 PM
Former Sponsor
No, there is no "across the board" "conversion" for Mustang to Dynojet numbers.
What needs to be remembered is that there are numerous different models of each manufacturer's dyno - for example, with Dynojet, I don't care for the numbers that come from any other dyno of their other than the model we had configured, which *does* have the load bearing capability, contrary to a lot of info that gets posted out there.
In fact, our dyno is one of only 51 in existence as of the time we installed ours at this new shop back in March, that is how rare it is - well, by now there may be a couple others in existence, but not many as they are *very* expensive and require more work to install, more knowledge to operate & maintain properly, etc. Usually you find the type of dyno we have at places like NASCAR cup race teams, for example. What we have is the most accurate dyno I feel, and what we require to do the kind of part-throttle and loaded work we need to do in order to be able to properly optimize the performance of these vehicles at any throttle position, as well as at any rpm, load point, etc.
We looked at Mustang as well as every other dyno manufacturer, and decided against them for a number of reasons, one of which is a lack of consistency - Dynojet is the industry standard today, and the model we have is what I trust. Mustang's 1750 was one we considered, but they use an Aramid belt that stretches and must be replaced frequently, and even then, their software is problematic IMHO, I just don't care for it.
The bottom line is, any dyno numbers are relevant ONLY to that specific dyno, at that date & time - nothing else. You cannot compare numbers between different dynos like that, it just does not work. Even the exact same dyno will vary based on it's setup & calibration, age, etc., that is simply the nature of the beast - I feel that Dynojet, with it's 224 series, and specifically the way we have ours configured with it's eddy current power absorption load bearing capabilities as being the most reliable & consistent for the type of work we do - as do a lot of NASCAR teams.
To each their own, this is how we feel.
What needs to be remembered is that there are numerous different models of each manufacturer's dyno - for example, with Dynojet, I don't care for the numbers that come from any other dyno of their other than the model we had configured, which *does* have the load bearing capability, contrary to a lot of info that gets posted out there.
In fact, our dyno is one of only 51 in existence as of the time we installed ours at this new shop back in March, that is how rare it is - well, by now there may be a couple others in existence, but not many as they are *very* expensive and require more work to install, more knowledge to operate & maintain properly, etc. Usually you find the type of dyno we have at places like NASCAR cup race teams, for example. What we have is the most accurate dyno I feel, and what we require to do the kind of part-throttle and loaded work we need to do in order to be able to properly optimize the performance of these vehicles at any throttle position, as well as at any rpm, load point, etc.
We looked at Mustang as well as every other dyno manufacturer, and decided against them for a number of reasons, one of which is a lack of consistency - Dynojet is the industry standard today, and the model we have is what I trust. Mustang's 1750 was one we considered, but they use an Aramid belt that stretches and must be replaced frequently, and even then, their software is problematic IMHO, I just don't care for it.
The bottom line is, any dyno numbers are relevant ONLY to that specific dyno, at that date & time - nothing else. You cannot compare numbers between different dynos like that, it just does not work. Even the exact same dyno will vary based on it's setup & calibration, age, etc., that is simply the nature of the beast - I feel that Dynojet, with it's 224 series, and specifically the way we have ours configured with it's eddy current power absorption load bearing capabilities as being the most reliable & consistent for the type of work we do - as do a lot of NASCAR teams.
To each their own, this is how we feel.
Trending Topics
#8
12-11-2006, 06:33 PM
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#9
12-18-2006, 01:51 PM
Former Sponsor
Well, it's up to you my friend, but in all candor, I wouldn't waste time "chasing dyno numbers", as I call it, as that varies even on the same dyno, just as I said before. The only reason I would put it on a dyno is if you need to do datalogging.
What I suggest is to concentrate on how the vehicle actually performs, as that is what matters. No dyno numbers are going to change *that*. And the way to find out what you got is described in the docs we send with our tunes - this is why we spend that time writing all of that info, so that you will have an accurate way (if it is done properly) to determine what additional performance you got from out tunes (not withstanding the fact that with more miles adaptive strategy is going to dial in further power gains with our tuning over the first few hundred miles). *That* is the way to evaluate the performance differential gained by our tuning.
Even if you find some other 224 dyno, I wouldn't expect it to say the same thing ours does, it is still going to vary somewhat - and you will never get the effects of adaptive strategy represented, which adds another 8-12 RWHP from our tuning - so you will never be able to see precisely what our tuning did for you. Chase dyno numbers if you want, but they aren't going to be an accurate representation just from adaptive strategy alone - what we have to go thru to arrive at what our actual results are is rather extreme.
This is, of course, hopefully just some general FYI for you, & good luck with whatever you do & whatever results you find!
Merry Christmas,
What I suggest is to concentrate on how the vehicle actually performs, as that is what matters. No dyno numbers are going to change *that*. And the way to find out what you got is described in the docs we send with our tunes - this is why we spend that time writing all of that info, so that you will have an accurate way (if it is done properly) to determine what additional performance you got from out tunes (not withstanding the fact that with more miles adaptive strategy is going to dial in further power gains with our tuning over the first few hundred miles). *That* is the way to evaluate the performance differential gained by our tuning.
Even if you find some other 224 dyno, I wouldn't expect it to say the same thing ours does, it is still going to vary somewhat - and you will never get the effects of adaptive strategy represented, which adds another 8-12 RWHP from our tuning - so you will never be able to see precisely what our tuning did for you. Chase dyno numbers if you want, but they aren't going to be an accurate representation just from adaptive strategy alone - what we have to go thru to arrive at what our actual results are is rather extreme.
This is, of course, hopefully just some general FYI for you, & good luck with whatever you do & whatever results you find!
Merry Christmas,
#10
12-18-2006, 09:54 PM
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good Descision!
Mike.....
Funny your reply as that was the conclusion I had come to about 4 days ago.
Truck is a real joy to drive and I had it on the dyno to get the datalogging done and thats enough for me. Hopefully, when you get time to review my data, you will find all is well. I cant say enough how much more I enjoy driving this truck now.
One thing I have noticed is that with the 93 pref tune installed, the truck allmost sounds like it has an exhaust leak on the front end of the passangers side. I have been all over the underside and cant find one anywhere. It seems to dissipate somewhat when the engine warms up. Then when going down the road and gettin onto it it is noticable again. (Mix between a tick tick tick and an exhaust leak) Not sure where to go next in search of what this may be. Have read about manifold bolts and have checked all that, no black stuff around joints.........maybe something that operates differently with the added preformance as it doesnt sound that way in stock trim?
Thought you may have some insight.
Thnaks for the reply and hope you and your staff enjoy all the holiday festivities and Merry Christmas to all of you as well!
Gordon
Funny your reply as that was the conclusion I had come to about 4 days ago.
Truck is a real joy to drive and I had it on the dyno to get the datalogging done and thats enough for me. Hopefully, when you get time to review my data, you will find all is well. I cant say enough how much more I enjoy driving this truck now.
One thing I have noticed is that with the 93 pref tune installed, the truck allmost sounds like it has an exhaust leak on the front end of the passangers side. I have been all over the underside and cant find one anywhere. It seems to dissipate somewhat when the engine warms up. Then when going down the road and gettin onto it it is noticable again. (Mix between a tick tick tick and an exhaust leak) Not sure where to go next in search of what this may be. Have read about manifold bolts and have checked all that, no black stuff around joints.........maybe something that operates differently with the added preformance as it doesnt sound that way in stock trim?
Thought you may have some insight.
Thnaks for the reply and hope you and your staff enjoy all the holiday festivities and Merry Christmas to all of you as well!
Gordon
#11
12-20-2006, 10:36 PM
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Found it!
Its where the manifold attaches to the collector exhaust pipe. Need to figure out how to fix it to keep it away from the dealed that will blame it on my catback. Think that wil the added pref. of the tunes made the leak more pronounced. Anyone with any ideas chime in on my post in the exhaust section.....Thanks!
Gordon
Its where the manifold attaches to the collector exhaust pipe. Need to figure out how to fix it to keep it away from the dealed that will blame it on my catback. Think that wil the added pref. of the tunes made the leak more pronounced. Anyone with any ideas chime in on my post in the exhaust section.....Thanks!
Gordon