Bolt On Turbo Line Up
David's dyno reads high compared to most MD's.
If it didnt then it wouldnt read within 5 percent of Switzers dynojet, not to start a dyno comparison just stating facts.
Some cars that have traveled away from Buschurs MD to dyno on other MD's have reported lower numbers....
Scorke
If it didnt then it wouldnt read within 5 percent of Switzers dynojet, not to start a dyno comparison just stating facts.
Some cars that have traveled away from Buschurs MD to dyno on other MD's have reported lower numbers....
Scorke
I think Davids car was even closer than that on Switzer's dyno. My own observation is if the numbers are that close, then you would assume that another car making reasonably the same numbers on another Dynojet would run in the same ballpark as far as et/mph. It never happens. I think Switzer numbers, for whatever reason seem to be closer to Davids dyno than other Dynojets. I know, I know, subjective. Moving on.
The heat was a major factor today. Even Trents car was down 37 whp today on David's dyno. The heat, 111 degrees intake, and the humidity, had to be 80%+, would make a lot of difference in todays numbers vs even an average day. With what we've learned, the car could have as much as 20-25 whp left in it. On a good day, it should make 565-570 on the Buschur Racing Dyno.
The heat was a major factor today. Even Trents car was down 37 whp today on David's dyno. The heat, 111 degrees intake, and the humidity, had to be 80%+, would make a lot of difference in todays numbers vs even an average day. With what we've learned, the car could have as much as 20-25 whp left in it. On a good day, it should make 565-570 on the Buschur Racing Dyno.
Same car, same tune, same octane, same boost. Warrtalon, take from this whatever you want
Scorke
If I wanted an FP Red and put it on my car and made 50 whp more/less than I was expecting I would be very happy or very sad depending in which way it goes, I know this is an exaggeration but still, knowing what apples and oranges your dealing with is half the battle online.
Scorke
What I take from it is that curves are quite different with the Dynojet torque curve being pushed to the right. You know that the farther to the right you can maintain torque, the higher the peak WHP will be.
These two have much different peak hp and peak tq numbers with the 8k rpm power being much different between the two as well. I do not know why they are so different, but this is certainly not typical compared to what I've seen in the past. My only guess is the curve differences are from load-bearing vs non.
Another thing is that dyno differences are not based on a percentage as power increases but closer to a static difference. Here, we're looking at a 34whp difference, but that's still lower than previous ones I've seen.
These two have much different peak hp and peak tq numbers with the 8k rpm power being much different between the two as well. I do not know why they are so different, but this is certainly not typical compared to what I've seen in the past. My only guess is the curve differences are from load-bearing vs non.
Another thing is that dyno differences are not based on a percentage as power increases but closer to a static difference. Here, we're looking at a 34whp difference, but that's still lower than previous ones I've seen.
The numbers from any dyno can be used to compare to other results from the same dyno, same car..... otherwise your just trying to compare two things with too many different variables, this you know.These two have much different peak hp and peak tq numbers with the 8k rpm power being much different between the two as well. I do not know why they are so different, but this is certainly not typical compared to what I've seen in the past. My only guess is the curve differences are from load-bearing vs non.
Scorke
Evolving Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
From: Dubai
threadjacked!
Why not just post links to the dyno runs and let people figure things out for themselves dyno-wise? I can tell you right now that finding one all encompassing, universally acceptable dyno benchmark is just NOT going to work out in this lifetime so let's save 3 pages of back and forth on that topic please!
Heck, even if somebody did, there'd still be 4 pages worth of bickering about ambient temp/humidity/elevation/dyno loading etc.
OP - Nice thread! Good to know the options and some ballpark figures, plus quick links to the curves. Thanks
Why not just post links to the dyno runs and let people figure things out for themselves dyno-wise? I can tell you right now that finding one all encompassing, universally acceptable dyno benchmark is just NOT going to work out in this lifetime so let's save 3 pages of back and forth on that topic please!
Heck, even if somebody did, there'd still be 4 pages worth of bickering about ambient temp/humidity/elevation/dyno loading etc.
OP - Nice thread! Good to know the options and some ballpark figures, plus quick links to the curves. Thanks
Last edited by theshadow; Jul 13, 2008 at 12:47 PM.
Ok, here's the new plan:
1. I will only add numbers for posted dyno sheets, and only on Mustang dynos (because I don't know how to convert to a Mustang equivalent from the other ones). If you post the dyno sheet in this thread, I will link to that specific post so it's easier to find.
2. I will update the table with the statistical average for each turbo, based on all the listed posts, together with the standard deviation. That should give people a quick look comparison, but with an indication of the spread of numbers reported for each turbo.
The more data points the better, so help me out and hit the search button
.
Well ... to be honest I'm doing this for purely selfish reasons - I have a WR9 in my car that's just about had it, and am trying to decide where to go next. But thanks for the props nonetheless
Ok, here's the new plan:
1. I will only add numbers for posted dyno sheets, and only on Mustang dynos (because I don't know how to convert to a Mustang equivalent from the other ones). If you post the dyno sheet in this thread, I will link to that specific post so it's easier to find.
2. I will update the table with the statistical average for each turbo, based on all the listed posts, together with the standard deviation. That should give people a quick look comparison, but with an indication of the spread of numbers reported for each turbo.
The more data points the better, so help me out and hit the search button.
Ok, here's the new plan:
1. I will only add numbers for posted dyno sheets, and only on Mustang dynos (because I don't know how to convert to a Mustang equivalent from the other ones). If you post the dyno sheet in this thread, I will link to that specific post so it's easier to find.
2. I will update the table with the statistical average for each turbo, based on all the listed posts, together with the standard deviation. That should give people a quick look comparison, but with an indication of the spread of numbers reported for each turbo.
The more data points the better, so help me out and hit the search button
.BTW, what's up with your WR9? Does it need a rebuild or are you just tired of it?
