Dynojet HP numbers and what they mean......
My experience with dyno packs seems to be that they read lower then dynojets
but higher then mustang / dd dynos.
i.e. At dyno day there was this new RX-8. We all know that they are overrated from
the factory but this one only put down 155whp on the dynapack. 155...
but higher then mustang / dd dynos.
i.e. At dyno day there was this new RX-8. We all know that they are overrated from
the factory but this one only put down 155whp on the dynapack. 155...
Originally Posted by Warrtalon
I really just believe the 05 VIIIs and 06 IXs were underrated at the crank by Mitsubishi. I don't think it's that the Dynojets are reading so high, but rather that the published flywheel numbers are way too low. It just doesn't seem to make sense that the 03/04s who put down 225-235 on a Dynojet would only have ~225-235 at the flywheel. I think their Dynojet figures are proper as well as their published 271hp at the crank. Once you get to 05, though, the numbers get thrown off. The trap speeds increased by 2mph, but the published HP only went up by 5. Next, with 06s, the trap speeds increased again by 2mph, but only a 10hp increase at the crank. The cars are putting down the times/speeds at the track to prove their power, but the published numbers seem too low to me.
Indeed the Evo engine is underrated. Ask Sergio to scan you a magazine that he has from Spain where they tested a Evo 8 on a Dyno and estimated to have 310 crank hp. The road tests in Europe gives always you dyno numbers and speeds in the 1/4 mile, 0 to maximum speeds in increments of 12mph and many other stuff that we never test here.
The magazine is called AUTOMOVIL .
superz,
Better go back and read what I wrote again. Here is one point I made, "It is a tuning tool to make baseline runs from and measure you gains." That would mean what I was doing with our dyno is exactly what it is good for.
The point of this is quite clear.
BTW, my RS on our 20g-9 made 405 whp on our dyno today and 444 ft lbs of torque.
David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com
Better go back and read what I wrote again. Here is one point I made, "It is a tuning tool to make baseline runs from and measure you gains." That would mean what I was doing with our dyno is exactly what it is good for.
The point of this is quite clear.
BTW, my RS on our 20g-9 made 405 whp on our dyno today and 444 ft lbs of torque.
David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com
2003EVO8,
Actually, from the man that designed the Dynojet, I am going to say the Dynojet reads to high.
If you consider the fact that our MD reads 22% lower than Switzer's AWD Dynojet then I would have to say the power that our MD sees to the wheels is pretty darn close.
Consider AWD, transfer case, huge rotors, four axles, 4 tires/wheels, transmission, driveshaft etc., that could easily account for 22% loss to the wheels.
The point of this was to point out what the designer himself just put out there for information.
David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com
Actually, from the man that designed the Dynojet, I am going to say the Dynojet reads to high.
If you consider the fact that our MD reads 22% lower than Switzer's AWD Dynojet then I would have to say the power that our MD sees to the wheels is pretty darn close.
Consider AWD, transfer case, huge rotors, four axles, 4 tires/wheels, transmission, driveshaft etc., that could easily account for 22% loss to the wheels.
The point of this was to point out what the designer himself just put out there for information.
David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com
Originally Posted by davidbuschur
superz,
Better go back and read what I wrote again. Here is one point I made, "It is a tuning tool to make baseline runs from and measure you gains." That would mean what I was doing with our dyno is exactly what it is good for.
The point of this is quite clear.
BTW, my RS on our 20g-9 made 405 whp on our dyno today and 444 ft lbs of torque.
David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com
Better go back and read what I wrote again. Here is one point I made, "It is a tuning tool to make baseline runs from and measure you gains." That would mean what I was doing with our dyno is exactly what it is good for.
The point of this is quite clear.
BTW, my RS on our 20g-9 made 405 whp on our dyno today and 444 ft lbs of torque.
David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com
those numbers mean nothing, they're just a measuring tool
Originally Posted by davidbuschur
Dang, come on, there should be more arguements than this. Nobody is going to flat out tell me I'm a idiot??
Warrtalon, I can't agree with what you said about the power numbers and the EVO9's being that much stronger. On our dyno all EVO's in decent condition running 93-94 octane make between 200-215, it's actually all closer to 208 or so but that is as wide a range as they go, 200-215.
O.K. so anyway. I get this months Hot Rod magazine in the mail. There is an article in it, "The Truth Meter". It's about the Mark Dobeck, the originator of the Dynoet. Basics of the story is he was just building kits to re-jet carbs back in the 1980's. He needed a way to hook a large piece of equipment to a motorcycle and test AFR's and such. Well since that was impossible he decided to make a portable roller to run the motorcycles on to use his test equipment. He then got an idea to make this portable roller calculate HP.
At the time the most powerful motorcycle being built was a V Max. Here is the story from there, just a paragraph:
"Dynojets final number-fudge was arbitrarily based on a number from the most powerful road-going motorcycle of the time, the '85 1,200 cc Yamaha V Max. The VMax had 145 advertised factroy hosepower, which was far above the raw 90 hp number spit out by the formula. " (*not a quote->they are talking about the formula that they came up with to figure out the hp based on the time it took to accelerate the rolls of the dyno they built) "Meanwhile, existing aftermarket torque-cell engine dynamometers delivered numbers that clustered around 120. Always a pragmatist, Dobeck finally ordered his Chief Engineer to doctor the math so tha the Dynojet 100 measured 120 hp for a stock VMax. And that was that: For once and forever, the power of everything else in the world would be relative to the '85 Ymaha VMax and a fudged imaginary number."
Anyway, the proof is in the story about what I was thinking lately. Pick up the March 2006 issue of Hot Rod and read for yourself.
The Dynojet numbers mean basically nothing. It is a tuning tool to make baseline runs from and measure you gains. The actual numbers are inflated and that is FACT based on the inventor himself.
Wow.
David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com
Warrtalon, I can't agree with what you said about the power numbers and the EVO9's being that much stronger. On our dyno all EVO's in decent condition running 93-94 octane make between 200-215, it's actually all closer to 208 or so but that is as wide a range as they go, 200-215.
O.K. so anyway. I get this months Hot Rod magazine in the mail. There is an article in it, "The Truth Meter". It's about the Mark Dobeck, the originator of the Dynoet. Basics of the story is he was just building kits to re-jet carbs back in the 1980's. He needed a way to hook a large piece of equipment to a motorcycle and test AFR's and such. Well since that was impossible he decided to make a portable roller to run the motorcycles on to use his test equipment. He then got an idea to make this portable roller calculate HP.
At the time the most powerful motorcycle being built was a V Max. Here is the story from there, just a paragraph:
"Dynojets final number-fudge was arbitrarily based on a number from the most powerful road-going motorcycle of the time, the '85 1,200 cc Yamaha V Max. The VMax had 145 advertised factroy hosepower, which was far above the raw 90 hp number spit out by the formula. " (*not a quote->they are talking about the formula that they came up with to figure out the hp based on the time it took to accelerate the rolls of the dyno they built) "Meanwhile, existing aftermarket torque-cell engine dynamometers delivered numbers that clustered around 120. Always a pragmatist, Dobeck finally ordered his Chief Engineer to doctor the math so tha the Dynojet 100 measured 120 hp for a stock VMax. And that was that: For once and forever, the power of everything else in the world would be relative to the '85 Ymaha VMax and a fudged imaginary number."
Anyway, the proof is in the story about what I was thinking lately. Pick up the March 2006 issue of Hot Rod and read for yourself.
The Dynojet numbers mean basically nothing. It is a tuning tool to make baseline runs from and measure you gains. The actual numbers are inflated and that is FACT based on the inventor himself.
Wow.
David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com
Fascinating
I would ask for general discussion that most member's goal with dyno tuing is ?
What is it that you feel is important ? This is directed to the members.
Originally Posted by davidbuschur
Warrtalon, I can't agree with what you said about the power numbers and the EVO9's being that much stronger. On our dyno all EVO's in decent condition running 93-94 octane make between 200-215, it's actually all closer to 208 or so but that is as wide a range as they go, 200-215.
On average, the IXs are making more power out of the box and then even MORE power with basic mods. It's not fair really...
Ok David,
How about this. Let's make this easy...Is 1 horsepower read from the Dynojet the same as 1 horsepower read from a Mustang?
A very basic example. You dyno a stock Evo on your Mustang, and then add an axleback exhaust only. Stock peak HP reads 210whp. Axleback peak HP reads 213whp. You dyno the same stock Evo on Swtizer's dynojet, then add the same exhaust only...The stock peak HP reads 250whp. Will you expect to see the gain of 3 peak horsepower making 253whp? Or would you expect that the Dynojet reads the gain of horsepower at a rate of more than 1.00hp vs that of the Mustang?
-Gabe
How about this. Let's make this easy...Is 1 horsepower read from the Dynojet the same as 1 horsepower read from a Mustang?
A very basic example. You dyno a stock Evo on your Mustang, and then add an axleback exhaust only. Stock peak HP reads 210whp. Axleback peak HP reads 213whp. You dyno the same stock Evo on Swtizer's dynojet, then add the same exhaust only...The stock peak HP reads 250whp. Will you expect to see the gain of 3 peak horsepower making 253whp? Or would you expect that the Dynojet reads the gain of horsepower at a rate of more than 1.00hp vs that of the Mustang?
-Gabe
Originally Posted by Gabriel J
Ok David,
How about this. Let's make this easy...Is 1 horsepower read from the Dynojet the same as 1 horsepower read from a Mustang?
A very basic example. You dyno a stock Evo on your Mustang, and then add an axleback exhaust only. Stock peak HP reads 210whp. Axleback peak HP reads 213whp. You dyno the same stock Evo on Swtizer's dynojet, then add the same exhaust only...The stock peak HP reads 250whp. Will you expect to see the gain of 3 peak horsepower making 253whp? Or would you expect that the Dynojet reads the gain of horsepower at a rate of more than 1.00hp vs that of the Mustang?
-Gabe
How about this. Let's make this easy...Is 1 horsepower read from the Dynojet the same as 1 horsepower read from a Mustang?
A very basic example. You dyno a stock Evo on your Mustang, and then add an axleback exhaust only. Stock peak HP reads 210whp. Axleback peak HP reads 213whp. You dyno the same stock Evo on Swtizer's dynojet, then add the same exhaust only...The stock peak HP reads 250whp. Will you expect to see the gain of 3 peak horsepower making 253whp? Or would you expect that the Dynojet reads the gain of horsepower at a rate of more than 1.00hp vs that of the Mustang?
-Gabe
I would have to guess that since we think the difference is a percentage then loss/gains from performance parts would also be a percentage. If you think about it the difference in the two has to be a percentage. If it wasn't when we put a car on the dyno and idled it on our dyno it would make 0 whp and 60 whp on his.
David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com
David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com
http://www.germanmotorcars.com/Dyno_...0inertia_1.htm
Chassis dyne HP, What is it? What to call it? DynoJet = "DJHP". It's not really proper to call "DJHP" "rwhp", as neither the Mustang, DynoJet, Fuchs, Superflow or Land and Sea will necessarily produce the same numbers as a DJ dyno, except by luck - and the whole idea of true, rear wheel horsepower is that EVERY dyno manufacturer HAS the capability to provide those numbers! The Superflow chassis dynes, the Mustang, Land and Sea are all capable of measuring power in steady state mode and producing the same numbers - they all measure torque. Torque x rpm / 5252 = horsepower. We've not diddled with physics! The only factor that is added to the measured reading, in true, rear wheel horsepower, is the additional energy (dyne parasitics) required to spin the dyno(s) roller to whatever speed the roller is turning at - logical, proper and required for any measuring instrument, torque x rpm / 5252 = horsepower + parasitic power = true, rear wheel horsepower.
Chassis dyne HP, What is it? What to call it? DynoJet = "DJHP". It's not really proper to call "DJHP" "rwhp", as neither the Mustang, DynoJet, Fuchs, Superflow or Land and Sea will necessarily produce the same numbers as a DJ dyno, except by luck - and the whole idea of true, rear wheel horsepower is that EVERY dyno manufacturer HAS the capability to provide those numbers! The Superflow chassis dynes, the Mustang, Land and Sea are all capable of measuring power in steady state mode and producing the same numbers - they all measure torque. Torque x rpm / 5252 = horsepower. We've not diddled with physics! The only factor that is added to the measured reading, in true, rear wheel horsepower, is the additional energy (dyne parasitics) required to spin the dyno(s) roller to whatever speed the roller is turning at - logical, proper and required for any measuring instrument, torque x rpm / 5252 = horsepower + parasitic power = true, rear wheel horsepower.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
