Correction Factors the same as bench racing?
Dec 29, 2009, 04:03 PM
#33
Actually Scott that car has been tested in a variety of climates in its current state of build. That is what I meant and what I will show when I get the .drf's from the dyno later today. I was just also trying to show that corrected (assuming 60* weather) it was only a 23whp difference or thereabouts between 18* and the 60* corrected number.
We tested this car in spring with a 82HTA and then 86HTA, summer with the 86, and most recently with the 86 recording all the relevant data to compare.
We tested this car in spring with a 82HTA and then 86HTA, summer with the 86, and most recently with the 86 recording all the relevant data to compare.
Dec 29, 2009, 07:09 PM
#34
I want to add that Dynojet owners love to claim "dyno manipulation" as a selling point for their lower technology, cheaper free spinning drums that can spin at different speeds and are not locked together in AWD mode like the Mustang Dynos.
The only dyno that I have heard of having the settings changed on evom is DG Motors, admitted by themselves. Their Dyno is a DynoDynamics, NOT A MUSTANG DYNO.
We can speak for our own dyno and say that Mustang Calibrated it themselves and the settings have never changed. We reset the parasitics for AWD mode in back in 2008 and it hasn't changed since. We reset the parasitics because we were exceeding the maximum roll speed the parasitics were setup to interpret.
Our uncorrected and WCF numbers are available on every dynosheet ever saved in the computer.
At the current time of this winter season, UNCORRECTED power readings EXCEED WCF by a few percent.
UNCORRECTED READS HIGHER.
Lastly, I keep hearing these Dynojet owners from 18*F New York and 32*F Vancouver, WA state "we use uncorrected figures because that is what we will race".
So enlighten the forum as to which dragstrip we can expect to see you at for test and tune tommorrow in 24*F weather, 11" of snow on the ground?
The only dyno that I have heard of having the settings changed on evom is DG Motors, admitted by themselves. Their Dyno is a DynoDynamics, NOT A MUSTANG DYNO.
We can speak for our own dyno and say that Mustang Calibrated it themselves and the settings have never changed. We reset the parasitics for AWD mode in back in 2008 and it hasn't changed since. We reset the parasitics because we were exceeding the maximum roll speed the parasitics were setup to interpret.
Our uncorrected and WCF numbers are available on every dynosheet ever saved in the computer.
At the current time of this winter season, UNCORRECTED power readings EXCEED WCF by a few percent.
UNCORRECTED READS HIGHER.
Lastly, I keep hearing these Dynojet owners from 18*F New York and 32*F Vancouver, WA state "we use uncorrected figures because that is what we will race".
So enlighten the forum as to which dragstrip we can expect to see you at for test and tune tommorrow in 24*F weather, 11" of snow on the ground?
Dec 29, 2009, 07:21 PM
#36
Okay so you need to read about our dyno. We have the same linked rollers that all Mustangs have, so both of our 2500# rollers are linked. In fact it is 1 of 2 that Dynojet currently has on the market. Simple fact is I can play with a mustang, dynapack, dyno dynamics, and get funny horsepower numbers and torque numbers. I can play with correction factors on all of those as well as intentionally leave my rpm synch wrong and get inflated torque numbers. This isnt a matter of can or could, it does and is happening.
Here are the pix with as much info as I could cram in them. These are all boost to boost, AFR to AFR, fuel to fuel, ON THE SAME CAR. I feel these are actually really close for being 40*F apart.
Uncorrected DOES NOT ALWAYS READ HIGHER as I hope you can determine from the graphs. In some instances the hot weather pulls made more power uncorrected than the cold ones. I have no explanation nor do I care too. Simply fact is if my customer goes out on the road he goes out uncorrected to face what cars he encounters. If he goes to the strip he faces what cars he faces at what power level he goes out at.
Here is the car in Oct at 72* when it made 665 at 35psi-
Here are the pix with as much info as I could cram in them. These are all boost to boost, AFR to AFR, fuel to fuel, ON THE SAME CAR. I feel these are actually really close for being 40*F apart.
Uncorrected DOES NOT ALWAYS READ HIGHER as I hope you can determine from the graphs. In some instances the hot weather pulls made more power uncorrected than the cold ones. I have no explanation nor do I care too. Simply fact is if my customer goes out on the road he goes out uncorrected to face what cars he encounters. If he goes to the strip he faces what cars he faces at what power level he goes out at.
Here is the car in Oct at 72* when it made 665 at 35psi-
Dec 29, 2009, 07:27 PM
#37
This car traps 130-131 on pump (572whp) and is fulll weight minus all the normal weight reduction that comes from suspension, exhaust, bumper beams, etc. Jesse isnt the smallest guy so I would assume the car is 3350 or so?
He got kicked for some illegal times for no cage, got pissed and refuses to go back to the strip. I am not sure what the car does at 665whp, but again I would think with 90whp more it should be higher 130s. It hasnt been pushed past that because Jesse is deciding if he wants to sell this shortblock and go to an aluminum rod motor and max the 3586 out. I cant make my guys race for trap speeds but the little he does backs the power that the car makes and he has raced it all throughout the year at various temps on 92. He is very good about feedback, visits us regularly and is part of the team.
I use his car, since I really have the most data on it where I have done back to back pulls at different times of the year AND have trap speed to back up. I cant drive my car for shizzle (and will openly admit it), Luke's is caged but only a 6 point (so he isnt pushing it), and I really cant think of any customer cars where I have as much data.
He got kicked for some illegal times for no cage, got pissed and refuses to go back to the strip. I am not sure what the car does at 665whp, but again I would think with 90whp more it should be higher 130s. It hasnt been pushed past that because Jesse is deciding if he wants to sell this shortblock and go to an aluminum rod motor and max the 3586 out. I cant make my guys race for trap speeds but the little he does backs the power that the car makes and he has raced it all throughout the year at various temps on 92. He is very good about feedback, visits us regularly and is part of the team.
I use his car, since I really have the most data on it where I have done back to back pulls at different times of the year AND have trap speed to back up. I cant drive my car for shizzle (and will openly admit it), Luke's is caged but only a 6 point (so he isnt pushing it), and I really cant think of any customer cars where I have as much data.
Dec 29, 2009, 08:08 PM
#38
And if you guys would read the SAE papers on thier correction factor they openly state that 1. If the correction goes above 1.03 to disregard it and 2. It is NOT designed to be a correction for altitude only for variances at sea level. If you do the math a high altitude CF "should" be right in the middle of what the sae cf suggests at approx 5,000 ft.
Dec 29, 2009, 08:24 PM
#40
Evolving Member
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cambridge Ohio
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uncorrected is the only "correct" number as far as what REALLY happened on the dyno. The arguement is so silly I can't even wrap my head around it.
Look at it this way-
If I hopped on here and said, "hey I threw some numbers in a calculator and it says I make 500hp" everyone would flame away. Well guess what, corrected numbers are just that. The car never makes that power (be it higher or lower). A calculation says it "should" do these corrected numbers in a given situation.
Peoples ONLY reasoning for using these numbers are: it was too hot, or too cold, or too this or that. Here is a simple solution, if you don't want 95 degree numbers because you will never race in 95 degree weather DON'T EFFING DYNO IN 95 DEGREE WEATHER.
Look at it this way-
If I hopped on here and said, "hey I threw some numbers in a calculator and it says I make 500hp" everyone would flame away. Well guess what, corrected numbers are just that. The car never makes that power (be it higher or lower). A calculation says it "should" do these corrected numbers in a given situation.
Peoples ONLY reasoning for using these numbers are: it was too hot, or too cold, or too this or that. Here is a simple solution, if you don't want 95 degree numbers because you will never race in 95 degree weather DON'T EFFING DYNO IN 95 DEGREE WEATHER.
Dec 29, 2009, 08:34 PM
#41
Before there is any confusion about the actual graphs, the graph data is the STD correction data illustrated. The uncorrected numbers are then posted (without the accompanying graph) for each run as well as the conditions and then finally the dates down in the corner.
I thought it was interesting (and still do) that the comparison between 46/55 is counter intuitive. Those were both Q16 runs at 33.5-34psi. Somehow the 72* made more (even if just a fraction) uncorrected than the cold weather day despite the temp being half. Though I said I wasnt going to comment I would assume that at some point the charge temp evens out vs airflow through the intercooler.
I thought it was interesting (and still do) that the comparison between 46/55 is counter intuitive. Those were both Q16 runs at 33.5-34psi. Somehow the 72* made more (even if just a fraction) uncorrected than the cold weather day despite the temp being half. Though I said I wasnt going to comment I would assume that at some point the charge temp evens out vs airflow through the intercooler.
Dec 29, 2009, 08:56 PM
#42
I can't bring myself to read a lot of the posts in this thread, it just pains me to much! haha
I am one of the few people who have owned both a Dynojet and Mustang Dyno. I had a brand new Dynojet in 1998 installed in our shop, in ground when we built it. 2wd dyno. We use to convert all the DSM's/EVO's over to 2wd to dyno them. We were of course running a lot of 4G63 RWD platforms then and it was used a lot for them too. I am speaking from my experiences, don't anyone get their panties in a bunch. Over time I found the Dynojet to be worthless, yes it was consistent and was good for testing parts but for tuning any high HP cars on I hated it and the tune changed from the dyno to the track so badly that we quit using it. I pulled the dyno out and sold it to another shop on the East coast that combined it with another same dyno to make it AWD.
I do agree Dynojets, from one to another, are more likely to read the same.
I also am in 100% agreement on the correction factor issue. I did not purchase a weather station for our dyno because it is complete bull**** on a turbocharged vehicle, end of story. I've run in 30 degree weather, I've run in 100+ degree weather and I've run at sea level and at over 5,000 feet. The difference in any of those were down to less than .2 seconds, so the correction factor crap doesn't float with me in the least bit. All Mustang Dyno operators can manually input the weather conditions into the dyno, the screen shot someone posted on here, all those boxes can be input directly and manually. I have a portable weather station next to my dyno, has inside and outside temps, humidity and baro on it. I don't use it. My dyno is set up to run no WCF and the inputs that are in the dyno are set up to always read settings where no correction is applied anyway, it's the default setting in the dyno. I run uncorrected numbers everyday, regardless of the weather. Hot, cold, raining, whatever.
Mustang Dyno's, when they are reading like they should be are also consistent. It would appear that our dyno, CBRD's, Emery's and GST's all ready as close together as any Dynojet does. The 4 of us have exchanged some basic numbers and what we see from base stock numbers all seem to be about the same.
The Mustang Dyno also calculate's HP from roller weight x acceleration and time, same as a Dynojet does. That is the problem, the Dynojet has a fixed number and a calculation for this behind the scenes that can not be messed with. A Mustang Dyno, when it is built, has the rollers, shafts, balancing weights, belts etc. all weighed and input into the dyno as Roller Weight for 2wd and 4wd. The dyno goes through an extensive testing procedure before it leaves the MD facility. Every single dyno is completely assembled and then has a known car (which was a Dodge Viper and Slorice's STi for years) loaded on the dyno and the dyno is run through it's full operation. The dyno is then taken apart, paint is touched up and it is crated for delivery. Every dyno when it leaves MD's facility is set up to read the same as the last one. Now, the roller weight, this is one of the biggest factors on messing with a MD. The roll weight is entered and stored in the records at MD. Let's say for example this roll weight in AWD is 3500 pounds. IF the operator simply adds a few hundred pounds to that number the mathmatical calculation of weight x acceleration and speed (or whatever the hell it is, you get the idea) is changed and the more weight that is added to that original correct number the more that final output number is changed.
We were dyno'ing a bunch of 996 and 997 Porsche's for another shop. He dyno'd on his Dynojet but it caused a lot of problems with the sensors in the Porsche, so he needed our dyno. He got some good baseline runs in and then drove directly to our shop. We loaded the car on our dyno, power was WAY down. We needed our dyno to read like his for testing and advertising. We found that 375 pounds of extra roll weight for that particular car made the power numbers read exactly what the Dynojet did.
Another time back when everyone cried my dyno was so "low" we showed how easy it was to change. At the shootout one year a guys car made about 300 whp, we were going on about the dyno being low blah blah blah. I asked him, "Do you want to win the dyno competition?" He laughed and said, "sure". I changed the roll weight number, Al from Dynoflash made another pull. His car put out over 800 whp that pull and to look at the dyno sheet NOBODY would ever know the difference, no way, no how. The only give away was the lack of lag, it looked like a supercharged V8 the way it made power.
Sorry for the ramble. I agree on the correction factors, absolutely. I could have left it at that but got on a roll!!
I am one of the few people who have owned both a Dynojet and Mustang Dyno. I had a brand new Dynojet in 1998 installed in our shop, in ground when we built it. 2wd dyno. We use to convert all the DSM's/EVO's over to 2wd to dyno them. We were of course running a lot of 4G63 RWD platforms then and it was used a lot for them too. I am speaking from my experiences, don't anyone get their panties in a bunch. Over time I found the Dynojet to be worthless, yes it was consistent and was good for testing parts but for tuning any high HP cars on I hated it and the tune changed from the dyno to the track so badly that we quit using it. I pulled the dyno out and sold it to another shop on the East coast that combined it with another same dyno to make it AWD.
I do agree Dynojets, from one to another, are more likely to read the same.
I also am in 100% agreement on the correction factor issue. I did not purchase a weather station for our dyno because it is complete bull**** on a turbocharged vehicle, end of story. I've run in 30 degree weather, I've run in 100+ degree weather and I've run at sea level and at over 5,000 feet. The difference in any of those were down to less than .2 seconds, so the correction factor crap doesn't float with me in the least bit. All Mustang Dyno operators can manually input the weather conditions into the dyno, the screen shot someone posted on here, all those boxes can be input directly and manually. I have a portable weather station next to my dyno, has inside and outside temps, humidity and baro on it. I don't use it. My dyno is set up to run no WCF and the inputs that are in the dyno are set up to always read settings where no correction is applied anyway, it's the default setting in the dyno. I run uncorrected numbers everyday, regardless of the weather. Hot, cold, raining, whatever.
Mustang Dyno's, when they are reading like they should be are also consistent. It would appear that our dyno, CBRD's, Emery's and GST's all ready as close together as any Dynojet does. The 4 of us have exchanged some basic numbers and what we see from base stock numbers all seem to be about the same.
The Mustang Dyno also calculate's HP from roller weight x acceleration and time, same as a Dynojet does. That is the problem, the Dynojet has a fixed number and a calculation for this behind the scenes that can not be messed with. A Mustang Dyno, when it is built, has the rollers, shafts, balancing weights, belts etc. all weighed and input into the dyno as Roller Weight for 2wd and 4wd. The dyno goes through an extensive testing procedure before it leaves the MD facility. Every single dyno is completely assembled and then has a known car (which was a Dodge Viper and Slorice's STi for years) loaded on the dyno and the dyno is run through it's full operation. The dyno is then taken apart, paint is touched up and it is crated for delivery. Every dyno when it leaves MD's facility is set up to read the same as the last one. Now, the roller weight, this is one of the biggest factors on messing with a MD. The roll weight is entered and stored in the records at MD. Let's say for example this roll weight in AWD is 3500 pounds. IF the operator simply adds a few hundred pounds to that number the mathmatical calculation of weight x acceleration and speed (or whatever the hell it is, you get the idea) is changed and the more weight that is added to that original correct number the more that final output number is changed.
We were dyno'ing a bunch of 996 and 997 Porsche's for another shop. He dyno'd on his Dynojet but it caused a lot of problems with the sensors in the Porsche, so he needed our dyno. He got some good baseline runs in and then drove directly to our shop. We loaded the car on our dyno, power was WAY down. We needed our dyno to read like his for testing and advertising. We found that 375 pounds of extra roll weight for that particular car made the power numbers read exactly what the Dynojet did.
Another time back when everyone cried my dyno was so "low" we showed how easy it was to change. At the shootout one year a guys car made about 300 whp, we were going on about the dyno being low blah blah blah. I asked him, "Do you want to win the dyno competition?" He laughed and said, "sure". I changed the roll weight number, Al from Dynoflash made another pull. His car put out over 800 whp that pull and to look at the dyno sheet NOBODY would ever know the difference, no way, no how. The only give away was the lack of lag, it looked like a supercharged V8 the way it made power.
Sorry for the ramble. I agree on the correction factors, absolutely. I could have left it at that but got on a roll!!
Dec 29, 2009, 09:09 PM
#43
^^^ + 100
I can't help but chime in.
It doesn't matter what dyno, or "calculation" method. MD, DJ, DD, DLL all can and have been manipulated to produce numbers that are just stupid. Weather, altitude, dyno operator and so much more go into this. Most of time its a pride thing and one stroking ones own ego to sell. I prefer to road tune in a safe location (private property). It doesn't get any more real than that. But this is not the case for everyone so I have always compared my results to Buschurs, Vivids (who's dyno, David calibrated years ago
), or Mynes MD.
I.E Gt30Rs at 25PSI on a stock motor and maf evo 8 making 525 whp???
Please! A Gt30R flows how much air???
Tuners here posting Data log lab sheets and cutting off in the print screen where weight and other major factors are so they can show an improvement is stupid and happens so much to sell tuning services. It needs to stop!
Also I have seen these same dynos or programs have failures and the operator not know about it for months, causing erratic and high numbers. Doesn't happen often but can.
I know its been done by people who post on these forums everyday.....
Evan Smith
I can't help but chime in.
It doesn't matter what dyno, or "calculation" method. MD, DJ, DD, DLL all can and have been manipulated to produce numbers that are just stupid. Weather, altitude, dyno operator and so much more go into this. Most of time its a pride thing and one stroking ones own ego to sell. I prefer to road tune in a safe location (private property). It doesn't get any more real than that. But this is not the case for everyone so I have always compared my results to Buschurs, Vivids (who's dyno, David calibrated years ago
), or Mynes MD. I.E Gt30Rs at 25PSI on a stock motor and maf evo 8 making 525 whp???
Please! A Gt30R flows how much air???Tuners here posting Data log lab sheets and cutting off in the print screen where weight and other major factors are so they can show an improvement is stupid and happens so much to sell tuning services. It needs to stop!
Also I have seen these same dynos or programs have failures and the operator not know about it for months, causing erratic and high numbers. Doesn't happen often but can.
I know its been done by people who post on these forums everyday.....
Evan Smith
Last edited by esevo; Dec 29, 2009 at 09:23 PM.
Dec 29, 2009, 09:15 PM
#44
David,
Your input is very welcome. When I saw you were online I was hoping you'd share your feelings on the subject. I am not saying there isnt merit to it and I dont think thats exactly what Lucas was saying either. Its just that its only part of the equation really, like comparing 2 modded cars when the weather is absolutely polar ends of the spectrum (i.e Mike and Us, or AMS, Ivey, etc.).
I also appreciate the fact that most Mustangs do resemble each other. I can look at Bryan's results, yours, Chads, Em's, from what I can tell James, etc. I like the fact that I can look at Mike's numbers then mine and I know also what his car did on your dyno. I know that we have an almost exact 15% difference so it makes it easy for me to see what some combinations that I havent tested or not likely to test will make. I can look at your trap speeds and know what it took for any of our cars at an approx same weight to run the same time.
We have raced here at 100+ with 65%+ humidity in the middle of summer (PIR is down near the water and borders a swamp or estuary) and at the end of the season have it be 35* and 7%. Car runs pretty close despite the temps, in fact the colder temps tend to hurt us on traction so the 20whp extra we make isnt very handy.
Your input is very welcome. When I saw you were online I was hoping you'd share your feelings on the subject. I am not saying there isnt merit to it and I dont think thats exactly what Lucas was saying either. Its just that its only part of the equation really, like comparing 2 modded cars when the weather is absolutely polar ends of the spectrum (i.e Mike and Us, or AMS, Ivey, etc.).
I also appreciate the fact that most Mustangs do resemble each other. I can look at Bryan's results, yours, Chads, Em's, from what I can tell James, etc. I like the fact that I can look at Mike's numbers then mine and I know also what his car did on your dyno. I know that we have an almost exact 15% difference so it makes it easy for me to see what some combinations that I havent tested or not likely to test will make. I can look at your trap speeds and know what it took for any of our cars at an approx same weight to run the same time.
We have raced here at 100+ with 65%+ humidity in the middle of summer (PIR is down near the water and borders a swamp or estuary) and at the end of the season have it be 35* and 7%. Car runs pretty close despite the temps, in fact the colder temps tend to hurt us on traction so the 20whp extra we make isnt very handy.
Last edited by JohnBradley; Dec 29, 2009 at 09:18 PM.
Dec 29, 2009, 09:18 PM
#45
Evan, I have heard stories of people doing this on a Dynojet by heating the stack. If you saw the "conditions" though the sensor would be a dead give away that something was WAY messed up. The only way for it to work right based on my experience would be 2 heat the stack to 100* in the middle of winter and make a corrected pull. As you can see in my dyno graph the 40* between 35 and 77 isnt as much difference as you'd think.