If you can afford it, yes. In a week, no. When pushing the envelope, there is no such thing as completely reliable. Its a risk you have to be willing to take, while not irresponsibly convincing others that it is feasible for all to do without breaking things.

 

No, not at All. Dynojets are common here and we pretty much see Dynojet numbers and trap speeds being consistant.

 

When you say DynoJet numbers and trap speed are consistent. How do you do this comparison? With one of those horsepower quarter mile calculators? I was always curious about those calculators because I could never tell if they meant wheel horsepower or crank.

One things for sure... DynoJet reads A LOT higher than Dyno Dynamics or Mustang Dyno. Basically "wheel" horespower seems to be a very relative thing to my understanding. What is wheel horsepower? Well it depends on the dyno. Which leads me to believe those calculators must be based on flywheel horsepower. If so.. are they for RWD or AWD or FWD?

 

http://www.dsm.org/tools/calchp.htm

Or this one:

http://www.supermotors.net/vehicles/...tors/index.php (it seems to be more accurate)

From what I can determine the second one is whp on a dynojet based on what 2 cars that I know have dyno'd and then what they ran. Typically though they are meant for RWD cars, whp. For reference one of the cars was dyno'd 261 corrected bonestock with a drop in filter. Later in the year it went consistent 13.3's at 103-105mph in 90* heat. The car was a IX GSR full weight minus the spare.

These things are only good as rough estimates though.

 

No, because one can see the power plateau just before the onset of detonation. And when it does begin to detonate, it's plainly visible both in the power curve and the data log.

What I am pointing out is that the link you provided reflects engine dyno numbers, not chassis dyno numbers. Obviously, it's common knowledge that the two are incomparable (unless the car miraculously has zero drivetrain losses). Since the consensus in the very same forum references Norris stating the difference between their engine dyno and the DD in shootout 44 mode to reflect ~24% drivetrain losses, what does that work out to be? My calculations indicate ~400whp.

 

So when you tune a car on the dyno you don't check the car is ok on the road? To be honest I wouldn't want someone to tune my car in this fashion. I personally feel there are too many differences between a dyno and the road. That said, I'm not a tuner and to be honest I had no idea you could tune a car solely by watching the dyno rather than listening for det.

Ted I know it is an engine dyno. My assumption was (and correct me if I am wrong), that 500+ flywheel hp was not being achieved often on 93 octane fuel in the USA on a GT30. Meaning the link I posted was an exceptionally strong result. Meaning there might be something to consider in terms of where the ignition / boost trade-off lies.

 

I just tried this... and put in 3400 for USDM Evo 8/9 and then 13.3 which is what I thought a standard Evo would do. I got back the following:

Using the ET method, I come up with 286 horsepower

Note it does not say "wheel horsepower". Just "horsepower". Since DynoJet numbers are the closest of all dynos to flywheel hp, maybe that is why this calc had worked well for you?

 

Ok I tried this one. I used this function: "Estimated ET and Trap Speed"

I put in 3400 lbs, and 285 hp... it gave me 13.3 and 102.4 trap. So again this calculator seems to be based on flywheel hp too unless I'm wrong about a standard Evo doing 13.3.

These calculators have always puzzled me because they seem to work well, but you have to expect they are not for AWD, and they do seem to give FLYWHEEL hp.... Wierd!

 

There are differences between the dyno and the road. An engine is less likely to detonate on a dyno with a given tune than the road (with most street cars anyway) due to differences in loading. This is why responsible tuners don't typically tune to the 'ragged edge' on the dyno and send the car out on the road as-is. But it's a simple matter to find the limits on the dyno, and then provide a bit of a cushion for street operation (especially with an eddy current dyno).

Neither you nor I know what comparably equipped motors in the U.S. make on the same engine dyno. However, in the chassis dyno figure calculation I made just above, I'm using information provided from the *very same source* you're referencing to arrive at the figure I posted. That figure does not seem entirely unreasonable, not even by our very conservative DD readings on these shores.

 

Yep Ted I do agree it should work out to approximately 400 ATW on a DD in Shoot44. I would say on a Mustang dyno it probably would be a bit higher. Maybe 440 or so? Anyway, I guess I just have to pay attention more because I thought this was a great result but I guess it is happening more often than I thought.

 

It's always easier to consider part of the picture (the parts that sound good to us), and not the whole picture. In no way am I diminishing what anyone has done either here nor there, I'm just illustrating the dozen or so ways we can get tripped up in drawing comparisons based upon assumptions that on the surface, seem reasonable.

I am very interested in resolving the differences between what we see in shootout mode here vs. there. It should be a simple matter. If I can do that, then we can all make sound comparisons and contrasts between results from both continents, and without all the spirited debates!

 

Well said Ted I agree. It does feel like we're going in circles sometimes and I agree some info from DD about why all the UK guys run that mode and US does different would be interesting.

Oh, and regarding GT30R on pump, I did some searching and take back what I just said above. I do think 517 flywheel is great numbers... could be argued that this board has not seen that much power and torque from a GT30R on 93. Again though, as you say, it is difficult to make a solid comparison based on the possible fuel and dyno disparities.

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...ighlight=gt30r

fr34k - 91 octane - 22psi = 360 dynojet

scorke - 93 octane - 20psi = 386 dynojet

And then this thread which again seems to show low numbers.

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...ighlight=gt30r

 

But these are looow numbers, and do not represent everything seen on this board (or elsewhere). You'd want to consider the best numbers you can find in order to make comparisons, right? With that in mind consider that stock block, stock head, and stock ECU EVOs have made 370+whp on pump fuel with stock turbo on those same dynos with mild HKS cams. In contrast, we tuned Drifto's stock head, stock block, stock ECU GT30R just last weekend, and it made 375whp at 23psi on a DD in typical U.S. 'heartbreak' mode (correction factor <1.0) with pump fuel. Considering the correction factor used, this works out to ~430whp for a Dynojet.

 

Yes, 4-Wheel, I can believe that with a good batch of 93 octane gas, and a low timing map(<17*), and pushing through a high efficiency, uograded FMIC you could see 28# boost with only trace detonation, on an Evo IX, given the improved coolant passages in the head and the more efficient compressor housing.

I think that the bigger FMIC lets you run a couple more PSI safely than the stock intercooler would. And the ignition timing rolled back on the topend helps a bit as well. I imagine that after the ten dyno pulls the IC was getting heat soaked, and loosing efficiency, right?

Scott(TTP), posts that there is more power to be had from increased timing vs. increased boost, and he should know. I guess that holds true especially with the smallish stock turbo. With a larger turbo upgrade that blows colder air, there may be more to be had from running a few more PSI above the level where the stock turbo is just blowing hot air.

 

i wieght 220 and with a stock evo with the sparetire wrench and jack out i ran 13.0 @ 105

there are many than have ran 12.7-9. this is my first awd car, unforuntetly i was too quick to mod. i would have ran an amazing time stock