E85 stock turbo english racing tune, dyno graph inside.
What are you talking about, man? DDs are WELL KNOWN to read about 15% less than Dynojets and just about equal to a properly-calibrated Mustang. Unmolested Mustangs and DDs read VERY low compared to Dynojets. By no means is it 5%. The only time a DD reads close to or the same as a Dynojet is when the DD has a large CF making up for it. DDs have a weather station, but you can manually input the CF on your own to adjust it. I know, because I live at 6000' elevation, so the weather station routinely calculates 1.28-1.32, but since that is inflated for turbo'd cars at altitude, we cut it in half for a more accurate number.
Using raw, uncorrected numbers, my DD figures were 15% less than my Dynojet figures at the same altitude, mods, tune, and boost. The same has been seen on Vishnu's dyno and many others for years now. The numbers in this thread indicate Dynojet-like corrections, but that's fine, because the power is big, although the curves are very strange looking.
Using raw, uncorrected numbers, my DD figures were 15% less than my Dynojet figures at the same altitude, mods, tune, and boost. The same has been seen on Vishnu's dyno and many others for years now. The numbers in this thread indicate Dynojet-like corrections, but that's fine, because the power is big, although the curves are very strange looking.
What are you talking about, man? DDs are WELL KNOWN to read about 15% less than Dynojets and just about equal to a properly-calibrated Mustang. Unmolested Mustangs and DDs read VERY low compared to Dynojets. By no means is it 5%. The only time a DD reads close to or the same as a Dynojet is when the DD has a large CF making up for it. DDs have a weather station, but you can manually input the CF on your own to adjust it. I know, because I live at 6000' elevation, so the weather station routinely calculates 1.28-1.32, but since that is inflated for turbo'd cars at altitude, we cut it in half for a more accurate number.
Using raw, uncorrected numbers, my DD figures were 15% less than my Dynojet figures at the same altitude, mods, tune, and boost. The same has been seen on Vishnu's dyno and many others for years now. The numbers in this thread indicate Dynojet-like corrections, but that's fine, because the power is big, although the curves are very strange looking.
Using raw, uncorrected numbers, my DD figures were 15% less than my Dynojet figures at the same altitude, mods, tune, and boost. The same has been seen on Vishnu's dyno and many others for years now. The numbers in this thread indicate Dynojet-like corrections, but that's fine, because the power is big, although the curves are very strange looking.
Even corrected vs corrected, they are 15% across at sea level. My situation is special, and is not relevant, but the corrections are the same, so it's still around 15%. It is NOT commonly understood that Dynapacks read the highest. They DO tend to read higher and close to Dynojets, but it's not a universal constant. DDs ALWAYS read much lower UNLESS the CF is modified. There are hundreds of cases of this right on this site, and all are relevant to AWD cars.
15% is very standard between a DD and Dynojet - just like a Mustang - and if you're only experience is with this is RWD cars, then you should stop the argument.
15% is very standard between a DD and Dynojet - just like a Mustang - and if you're only experience is with this is RWD cars, then you should stop the argument.
Well I have done 3 cars with about the same combo and they are about 405-430whp on a Dyno Jet. He has the same combo as my car did when it made the 431whp but with bigger 280 cams.
Newbie
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Dynos aside, his EVO WAS putting down good power. I had the 2nd best power of the day (DAMN YOU KONAD!), @ 350/390 and after that, VERY FEW cars made eve barely over 300 whp. And there were some decent cars there.
Had my boost spike not caused the tires to spin, I may have bested your power, but nope! haha.
I wanted to stay till the end, but had family obligations.
Had my boost spike not caused the tires to spin, I may have bested your power, but nope! haha.
I wanted to stay till the end, but had family obligations.
Your data is skewed. Can't really compare two different cars. And a Dyno Dynamics is very similar to a Mustang dyno when it comes to #'s due to the added load for both. 15% lower is about right when comparing a load bearing dyno to a Dynojet...Actually it's a fact.
This is my first dyno run since I had cams 02 housing hotside and the e85 conversion done, needless to say I am very very happy.
It was a dyno day that consisted of about 10 sti's countless wrx's a few honda's and 2 evo's. Probally 40 cars in total and I came out on top by about 65 hp
. I dont know how dyno dynamics compares to a dynojet.... anybody??
Props to English Racing for the tune the car is oh so smooth. All mods are in sig.
It was a dyno day that consisted of about 10 sti's countless wrx's a few honda's and 2 evo's. Probally 40 cars in total and I came out on top by about 65 hp
. I dont know how dyno dynamics compares to a dynojet.... anybody??Props to English Racing for the tune the car is oh so smooth. All mods are in sig.
Lucas is the man
Last edited by Paul Nelson; Mar 16, 2008 at 11:16 AM.
Dynapaks give the highest numbers.
Dynojets are next.
BOTH Dyno Dynamics and Mustangs give roughly the same numbers and are very comparable, ASSUMING both are set to the same correction factor, and ASSUMING the DD is run in standard mode and not 'shootout' mode. When the correction factors are "1.0" both generate numbers that work out to ~15% less than a Dynojet.
Because DD and Mustangs give low numbers, oftentimes their operators fudge the correction factor to make them read more like Dynojets. They do this because they don't want to disappoint the customer with 'low' results. The problem with this is unless the customer is aware of it and where the correction factor was set during the run, he will not be able to reliably compare his figures with anything else. This appears to be the situation we have here.
When Konad resolves the correction factor, then you all can have some perspective, otherwise you're all just arguing about nothing.
Dynojets are next.
BOTH Dyno Dynamics and Mustangs give roughly the same numbers and are very comparable, ASSUMING both are set to the same correction factor, and ASSUMING the DD is run in standard mode and not 'shootout' mode. When the correction factors are "1.0" both generate numbers that work out to ~15% less than a Dynojet.
Because DD and Mustangs give low numbers, oftentimes their operators fudge the correction factor to make them read more like Dynojets. They do this because they don't want to disappoint the customer with 'low' results. The problem with this is unless the customer is aware of it and where the correction factor was set during the run, he will not be able to reliably compare his figures with anything else. This appears to be the situation we have here.
When Konad resolves the correction factor, then you all can have some perspective, otherwise you're all just arguing about nothing.
Last edited by Ted B; Mar 16, 2008 at 12:58 PM.
