They were actually comparing numbers to an ENGINE dyno though with a guesstimated drivetrain loss, not a chassis dyno. They still just were guessing what the true drivetrain losses were since there really wasn't chassis dyno's yet to compare any results to, which is why they were inventing one.

 

So you are saying Dynojet numbers are the same numbers dynocell produces? That explains why they are reading that high, the sheets says whp while they have matched engine dyno numbers.

 

Have you guys taken a motor that was Dyno on an engine Dyno then out it in a car and Dyno on a chassis Dyno? I have a friend who did that and his motor made 925Crank HP on an engine Dyno. Then when out in the car with bigger headers it was on a Dynojet with a turbo 350 Auto transmission and it made 688whp. Doing the math out his drivetrain loss at 25.7% That is right what people have guessed it would be with accessories hooked up as well. The only accessories hooked up was a vacuum pump and an alternator. With a loose converter and big tires it seems right to me. The numbers also back up the times the car has run in the past at the track. A mustang reading 13% lower would have a 39% lower reading and I do not think that is accurate. So we may not have a 100% dead on reading but it is the closest and it works in the math and is easy to compare to other cars. Mustangs can be altered so I don't trust them and the numbers just don't add up.

 

The Big reason it may work out so well is that a motorcycle doesn't have a lot of drivetrain losses so the initial number being the same would make sense since the transmission is built into the engine so the only loss not accounted for would be the chain and one wheel. That is a very small percentage and could be why they Dynojet ends up being so close. Since it was rated 145HP and the Dyno cells read 120 which is over 10% less and no one accused the V-Max of being overrated.

 

Mustangdyne appears to assume roughly a 25% drivetrain loss on AWD and 20% on 2WD while Dynojet seems to be closer to 15% AWD/10% FWD. Certain automatic transmissions can definitely absorb much more than 25% losses, depending on the setup. I have seen DSM's go from the AWD setup to a RWD ATX setup and lose a fair amount of power to the wheels with no changes to the engine/tune so I can see some ATX's definitely being power eaters.

The most local person I know that has seen serious drivetrain losses with his RWD Talon is Kevin Jewer (blue 8.2 second RWD talon most see at the DSM Shootout popping wheelies). Here is a link to a thread he chimed into a while back with some info he had mentioned. Drivetrain losses are tricky. Some have seen that the drivetrain losses at higher speed can grow as the resistance on the drivetrain increases from wind, road resistance and stuff. This can be an argument for inertia vs loaded dynos as well for some people.

http://www.yellowbullet.com/forum/sh...34&postcount=9

-Jamie

 

I leave you guys alone for a couple days, and this is what I come back to

I cant wait to get my hands on one of the EFR turbos

A stock Evo would be around 225-250 WHP on this Mustang dyno.

The 900+ WHP was at 55 psi!! What other shops have pushed their car that far? Not many.
When the Red Demon was making 850-875 on this same Mustang dyno, I went 8.20's and trapped 173MPH. Joey's "Junk Box" made 850 WHP on this same Mustang dyno and went 8.90's with a car weighing over 2600 lbs. The real world results match up with the dyno numbers, in my opinion.

The turbo testing was done on the same day on the same dyno, so the difference between the pulls should be what we are looking at. Don't look at peak numbers and try to compare different dyno's - thats not what dynos are used for.

Devin

 

Yeah, I don't trust them either... Why? Because I like the inflated numbers that Dynojets constantly put out and it sure makes me feel better when I can post up a dynosheet on some forum that my car made 700ftlb of AWD torque with a 67mm turbo @ 44lbs of boost

ps. Did you go over to that LS1 site yet and ask your question? lol

 

I didn't go to another forum full of people who think they know it all. On what planet is a reading better just because it is lower? If I have a thermometer that says it is 70degrees when "other" thermometers say it is 80 degrees. The other ones must be "inflated". Completely ridiculous. Also to say a 67 can't flow enough air for 700 or 1000 tq shows your lack of understanding as well. It has everything to do with the engine it is strapped to. Throw it on a Big motor and it can easily make that tq. If you really think it isn't possible then just think about a 500HP diesel. That would do over 1000tq easily. Shows the Turbo isn't limited just the motor it is attached to.

 

what does a stock evo produce on a dynojet?

 

The average I recall was:

230whp for evo 8's (271crank HP)
245whp for evo 9's (286 crankHP)

SAE Weather Corrected

-Jamie

 

All i can say boostin is excellant work. That thing must be a rocket. I wish i could get a ride in it one day. I'm happy to see that my turbo has over 20psi of more boost left in it. One day i'll get it on e85 and post some results on here. probably run out of injector but god damn that would be a blast to drive. See you at the shootout this year.

Thestig

 

You really are funny. You have admitted that you have ZERO ownership of turbocharged V8s and, therefore, very limited personal experience with turbocharged V8s. Yet, you sit here and tell us that if you go to a V8 site to tell them that a T3-based 67mm turbo will make 1000rwtq on one of their engines and they tell you that you are full off donkey crap that they are the "know it alls." Irony sure is a wonderful thing

I have had three turbo V8 Mustangs ranging from 600rwhp to 1500rwhp (still currently own a twin turbo Precision 76mm drag radial car) and have had all three cars on dynos for countless hours through the years. Have switched back and forth between turbo combinations countless times. But you know what? I'm not going to argue with you because you know better

And now you want to bring DIESELS into the discussion? You really are a riot, but at least you enjoy living in your own little world

 

UPDATE!!

I've got my hands on a brand new prototype FPXX94R Turbocharger. Visually the exhaust and compressor housings look bigger then the 6766 and the 3794's housings, which would normally mean more lag, right? Not at all! Initial results show faster spool then even the 6766, and Robert @ FP is confident it will make more power then both the 6766 and the 3794!

I can't talk much about details, but I know that it uses the same compressor wheel as the 3794, which is a 67.5mm inducer. The exhaust wheel and center section is unlike any T3 turbo I have ever seen. Sorry, but I will not be releasing turbine dimensions or any pictures until Robert is ready. My original intension with the 6766 vs. 3794 testing was to push these turbo manufactures to design and test something new and hopfully even better, and it looks like we may have something.

I will be putting the Red Demon on our Mustang Dyno very soon, so stay tuned for the results!!

 

I for one am most excite, I know that you will be one of the best possible to test this and I have been a long time fan of how FP explore and and improve things. This could be awesome, staying tuned :-D

 

Looking foward to that new turbo results! god i love turbo's! why get a N/A v8 when theses crazy turbo's keep coming out!