Scooter,
I ran an 11.1@129mph weighing in at 3440 spinning through first. It was 37degrees up at Mission. Like Aaron said...the temperature helps the power, but not the traction.

129mph traps
3440 lbs
537whp on DJ
estimated 456 on MD

 

That is likely caused by the rollers being able to spin at different speeds front and rear which can damage expensive differentials.

The Titan Motorsports Porche blew the differential from running on a dyno without the rollers locked together. I believe they stated it was about $9000 in damage done from decelerating without the rollers locked at the same speed.

 

http://dynojet.com/automotive_dyno/4...o/default.aspx

plus this

http://www.dynojet.com/automotive_dy...o/default.aspx

Mean that BMW's with traction control that drops line pressure in the auto to keep the tires from spinning, Porsche AWD, Lambo AWD are now safe.

It so happens those two are what comprise our dyno.

 

Yes I believe its being done on every dyno. However it really depends on the integrity and honor of the operator. But not everyone has that when it comes to their own reputation being magnified by a graph.

It does not matter what dyno, as they all serve their own purpose. But Buschur and AMS, English and XS engineering ect. keep the same settings and produce similar results every time a car with similar mods come in. So its dependable and trustworthy. Now how to get the rest to be that way??????

Evan Smith

 

Truth, I think I understand your point but a DJ is harder than you think to manipulate (really it can only be done during winter where it is cold).

 

Congratulations on having one of 2 units out of hundreds of Dynojets worldwide that can handle AWD cars without damaging the expensive transfercase and rear LSD.

I can appreciate your decision to invest in a dual eddy unit, unfortunately it cannot do half of the things a Mustang Dyno can. Performance measurements, acceleration, quarter mile sprints, measure whp and tq during the 1320'. I don't want to speculate but I am certain there are many more things it lacks over the MD.

 

Every AWD Dynojet in the NW can handle AWD cars without damaging their transfercases... you say this like it's a rarity... it's actually quite common.

You're right Scott... the Mustang dyno is far better. I just choose to use Dynojets because they're soo many of them around me and they all read the same.

 

Dynojets seem to work well for the ones wanting a sheet of paper. For an actual machine geared towards greater performance tuning and measurement abilities, one can look elsewhere from Mustang to Dyno Dynamics and LandnSea Dynomite.

Aaron stated there are only 2 Dynojets in the USA with the locked rollers. I would call that rare.

 

Nice thread. Hopefully it stays open.

 

Wow this blew up. I really made this whole write up for my turbo 700r raptor forums that I have been on lately. Company has a turbo raptor that they claim makes 80whp on a stock 450cc injector with no Boost ref FPR. They are getting the # off correction and there is really no way it could ever make more then 65-70whp Uncorrected on a 450cc injector at 42 psi fuel pressure.

As far as DynoJets hurting cars the only one I have seen problems with is the older 248/224 combos ware the breaks are not setup right. So it breaks the car on stopping. Rear roller still doing 40mph when the front is stopped.

I have yet to see any problems with the new 424 dynos.

I can see Daves point about the 2wd Dynojets. The one roller is really week load for cars much over 500whp, But the AWD has all the load you will ever need since its 2 full weight rollers. That was part of my reason for buying the Link was to add extra load to 2wd cars and still keep the DynoJet # that cant be messed with. I do have the Eddy currents but I have to calibrate that so there is a chance of Dyno # that can be played with.


Even if my dyno is only good for a sheet in some ones eyes at least its a sheet that means something.

 

Actually it can and does, any dynojet can its just knowing how to make it do it correctly. Just like using the load control, it seems that many have it and few know how to make it work.

Well thats a pretty circular arguement so other than acknowledging it can both ways I will leave it at that.

I will call and doublecheck with Dynojet, but last I knew there were 2 of us. Then again that was before it was even listed on the site, so its subject to change. I have recieved calls from a couple shops in california that asked how we liked ours since they were considering it as an option on their new purchase. Since its something that can be added on at any time (as are the eddy units) I would assume someone has bought it after the fact. Our engineer told us there were 2 ordered the way we had it at the time as the full unit to begin with.

 

I have something I would like to share.

EVO's tuned on a mustang or eddy current dyno will not always make higher hp figures even if done on a lower reading mustang dyno. The reason for this is that the load as calculated by the ECU will "stray" when loaded onto the free rolling inertia drums (dynojet) that do not equal actual live rolling resistance or load as experienced by an evo in real life conditions or a properly setup eddy current dyno. This will cause fuel and timing targets and values to "stray" as well depending on the tune and can explain the lower dynojet hp figure. Experienced tuners can judge differences between mustang numbers and what it should make on a dynojet based off dyno AND 1/4 mile data, but in order to see the higher numbers on a dynojet the car may require a dynojet re-tune in some instances..
That is all

 

Why would you make a thread in the EVO DYNO RESULTS section on a 4-wheeler ATV and claim it is about a turbo kit on a Raptor? There is not another vendor on Evom making turbo kits for ATV's that I am aware of so it appears pointless to post a controversial thread based on ATV dynoing and pawn it off on being unfair to your Raptor turbo kit results.

You claim to have 5000+lbs rollers. Since an Evo weighs 3300lbs and a 1,700lb driver would break the plastic Recaros, I fail to see how having excessive load on the dyno rollers can provide for a correct representation of load on the car on a Dynojet.

Our roller weight is 2152.92lbs in AWD mode and vehicles weighing over this weight get the eddy brake applying the computerized proper load on the car so that the exact representation of vehicle weight and load can be placed on the car.

I can see that Dynojets without eddy brake will start off with way too much load at low rpms and then end up with not enough load to represent wind drag at higher rpms and speed as the Mustang Dyno is able to apply to the car correctly. As Dave Buschur stated earlier, he sold his DJ early on as the cars would perform differently at the track than on the dyno.

If the rollers on the eddy brake Dynojet truly represent 5000lbs, then you will again have too much load up front and then the eddy load brakes "hopefully" and synchronized so that they apply the exact same load to each roller. In speaking to them at PRI this year, I do not believe that they have the technology to add load to the rollers in a way to simulate an actual road with wind drag and increasing load by roll speed and according to vehicle weight.

My assumption is that load is fixed based on user input throughout the entire pull and does not change with speed and according to vehicle weight data. It is a very non-technical way to add load to a car and does not represent anything close to real load on the road.

I can imagine if not equipped with the rare AWD belt only 2 Dynojets have, (yours being one of them) that on an eddy brake unit Dynojet one of the two eddy brakes most certainly has more brake on it than another as you cannot possibly have the same exact force with two independantly run rollers (much like two separate dynos mounted one in front of the other) which will exert more force on either the front or rear wheels than the other.

 

The tune is not done by the tool-- It's done by the tuner.

 

Thanks for the input Pete. I remember some time ago a customer bought a $1200ish Wilson Manifold for use on a FPGreen non HTA. We did not think the car would gain any power as the turbo was already tapped out.

As we assumed, we retuned the car on the new $$$$ manifold and the car did NOT make any power. The car was tuned to the best it could be on the eddy load cell Mustang Dyno. Car performed great on the street.

We had to share with the customer that we wish that every time they spent money on new parts, there was more power to be had. This was not the case this time and he would be more apt to see gains with a larger CFM flowing turbo that can benefit from a manifold.

Not able to digest the fact that the Manifold did not gain any power under the correct load cells for the tune, he was persuaded by the seller of the Wilson manifold to come in and retune for free. Outside of stealing our ECU mapping, they baselined our tune on a non-eddy brake dyno where the car did not have enough load on it to represent what would happen on the street in real life.

Naturally in all proper ECU tuning, the higher the load, the lower the ignition timing programmed. Less load, more timing. Well, they baselined our tune on a non-eddy load dyno, the car boosted less, with a lower MAF reading, the car hit lower load cells in the ECU and the car knocked a few counts as it was an un-natural traveling of the load cells in the ECU programming.

They then took out a degree or two of ignition timing so that the map would work on their un-natural loaded dyno, the car no longer knocked and they claimed that they made power with the manifold.

In the end all they did was dis-service the customer by detuning the car to perform on the dyno and neglecting what performance the car would have on the street or strip. All so they could make the customer not feel as bad that he paid them $1200-1600 installed for a Wilson Manifold that they swore to him would make power.

This is the horse **** that goes on in this industry. Needless to say, the shop that sold him the manifold no longer sells them. That is one way not to stand behind a product.