Doesnt matter what it reads, its a tool

I am saying that those online calculators read like a DJ and shouldnt be trusted if you think its going to match a Mustang. So happens I have dyno'd motors back to back from an engine stand and a dynojet and its not flywheel.

The dynojet has evolved just a little in the last 25 years and isnt quite the same beast it used to be.

 

So let me get this right....
You are claiming that the TTP car with no seats, no exhaust, no wing, light wheels, and slicks STILL weighs 865 more pounds than the STM car.
Please do yourselves two favors
1. Don't insult the intelligence of the community, it makes you look bad.
2. Just admit the dyno reads a little higher than the typical Mustang and remind everyone that it doesn't matter because the dyno is merely a tool and still allows you to tune just as well as one that reads lower.

 

Before and after numbers are key in my book.

The dyno is a tool for tuning. Its safer than doing pulls on the street. Allows for repeated testing and before/after events (part changes/tuning).

Some good reads:
http://www.turbomagazine.com/tech/03...ash/index.html
http://www.turbomagazine.com/tech/04...ems/index.html

 

The WCF figures can read higher than a typical uncorrected MD. Most MD facilities do not use WCF. Most are in climates that have lower humidity and heat so it is not effective for their application.

Our uncorrected MD figures are inline with most MD's.

What I have learned is that the 660whp car is 706whp using the WCF.

In the end it is a 660whp car that weighs less than a 713whp car both using uncorrected scale.

None of which is ON TOPIC because the topic is MPH which known.

 

It seems like the WCF is like a drug, tough to get off of....
I wouldnt use it unless you dyno normally aspirated cars that need it or if the customer wants to brag. Braggers are often times scrutinized to death and in the end go much slower at the track than their #'s would indicate.