So many Dyno's out there how does one decide which to choose? There has been a lot of debate concerning Inertia Dynos versus Load Dynos and the abilities of each to accurately measure and tune true HP to real world conditions.

Dyno Dynamics and Dynapack have always had the ability to tune to real world conditions and only until recently DynoJet started to offer Dynotrack with their Dynos; offering similar claims.

Which Dyno most accurately measures HP and which Dyno can most accurately tune to real world driving conditions, such as street use?

Mustang
DynoJet
Dyno Dynamics
Dynapack

Thanks!

 

Oh, in case everyone was wondering I think this list is accurate:

Buschur - Mustang
AMS - DynoJet
Tuning Tech - DynoJet
Vishnu - Dyno Dynamics
Works - Dynapack

 

I think the dynojet is the most realistic and also the most repeatable from dyno to dyno. Also there is no adjustment which may invite manipulation in some cases.

Iveytune=Dynojet AWD



Sean

 

I have no problems at all tuning cars and getting really good results that are very similar to road conditions.
I decided to use dynojet after travelling and using most of the other ones, it's very simple but gives excellent repeatable and accurate results.

Sean

 

Agreed...

Although, in terms of tuning a car for "Real Life" conditions, would you say that Dynojet is on par with dynos like Dyno Dynamics & Dynapack?

Thanks Sean!

 

Dynojet or nothing

 

Because...

What's your factual proof point?

 

the best I have seen is a dyno dynamic, but use what you can

 

Dyno Jet reads the HIGHEST out of The mustand and Dyno Dynamics

 

I have been tuned on a Dynapack dyno many times. It has always given good results.
I cannot say anything about the other dynos, but I can say from experience that the Dynapack works well for what its made to do, aid in tuning and provide consistent results.

 

The best dyno is the track!

there you can really see what you got...

Dynojet is the most common dyno used and of course the most popular...

However i dont think it can really load the car in road like conditions... for example if i see on the road in 3rd gear 23psi, when i put the car on the dynojet, then the load will be less thus the boost will be less and i will either show less power or i will have to adjust my boost controller in order to see the power i make on a specific boost pressure...

For the above reason i consider the Dyno Dynamics, the Mustang and other similar type dynos to be more realistic in terms of metering the power on the road. However the handler/tuner who uses these types of dyno has to be Honest and not to manipulate the dyno in order to show higher numbers for whatever reasons...

 

IMO
The dyno is meant to be used as tool. It incorporates ease of being stationary and can replicate conditions consistently. It is not as accurate as datalogging and track tuning, which can take days, but is a replacement used to set rough benchmarks and make the tuning process more streamlined, efficient, and quicker.

 

i think the closest one, probably reads a same as the factory in mitshu japan. so when they stated the IX have around 250 whp, what ever dyno you use is close enough that, i consider a preatty accurate.
but the dyno i think good for get the engine running right not for showing off numbers for some one else.
i did run higher WHP car against mine and mine was faster...
So the dyno for me, is a good idea, to figure it out the parts you got, its worth it or not.
Nothing more.

 

Yes, exactly. Most EVO owners either don't have the time or the resources to pay for a track tune. This is why I have asked the question. Yes inertia Dynos like Dynojet do produce consistent results but are these results well suited for actually using your car?

Theoretically, certain Dyno's are capable of replicating "Real Life" conditions. My questions is which Dyno is the best when considering all the factors that go into a tune?

All factors being equal, should a tune from (Dynopack) be better than a tune from (DynoJet)?

 

Rototest
http://www.rototest.com/
Accurate and consistent.