RT Tuning FTW
Actually Vince, Coastdown and inertia checks that you do on your mustang dyno have nothing to do with the actual final HP figure. Before trying to match hp numbers between it would have been a good idea to think about how the loading curve for both dynos differ and how it effects the the load calculations as seen by the ecu, which can make the same car hit different fuel/timing targets between the two, especially as speeds increase.
Most likely you have a high weather correction factor (WCF) or your parasitic loss value is not set at a default of 1.0.. The only other way is to enter a false weight value when doing a load cell calibration.
Most likely you have a high weather correction factor (WCF) or your parasitic loss value is not set at a default of 1.0.. The only other way is to enter a false weight value when doing a load cell calibration.
Hey Guys, we will be more then willing to share any info needed. As far as the correction factor on our mustang dyno, it is calibrated to read like a dynojet. How we came up with this calibration is from the several years and 1000's of tuned AWD cars on a dynojets, from stock to heavily modified. Dynojet dynos are not adjustable from a calibration standpoint and is the reason they are the industry standard. Now mustang dyno's have a calibration value that is adjustable. There is an acceleration and coast down procedure that you perform and it gives you a value. You perform this procedure 4 times and take the average of the 4 and that's the value you enter. When we were performing this procedure(probably about 40 times total) we had a variance of about 10% total with all of the averaged values. Depending on how the car coasted down and how you accelerated it gave ya different numbers. We feel this is the reason why so many mustang dynos have different readings. So at that point we decided to calibrate the mustang dyno to be as close as we can get it to dynojet values. We did this by dynoing about a dozen cars that we have already tuned on dynojet dynos as well as many stock cars that have dynojet dynos done and the info is easily availble. We have found that our mustang is within a couple percent of dynojet readings. I also have alot of technial data of how accurate dynojet dynos are from the many parts testing and R&D we have done for manuufacuers. I feel that info above was pretty forth coming so please assume what we will share and not share.
Keep in mind here at R/T tuning we own and operate both a Mustang dyno and a Dynojet dyno, how many shops can say that. Tscompusa, what dyno do you own and operate over a dozen times a week? Either way dyno numbers are just numbers and we dont get too wrapped up in them.. When ever possible we try and get a true baseline before tuned so we can show the actual percentage gained regardless on what dyno it is.
With that being said this is the first time I have heard anything about our dyno's reading high, so I am pretty shocked to hear we have a "bad reputation" for that. I will see if I can post whatever you need later today. We have dozens and dozens of stock vehicle baselines as we as fully tuned dyno graphs in SAE or whatever correction factor you need.
Keep in mind here at R/T tuning we own and operate both a Mustang dyno and a Dynojet dyno, how many shops can say that. Tscompusa, what dyno do you own and operate over a dozen times a week? Either way dyno numbers are just numbers and we dont get too wrapped up in them.. When ever possible we try and get a true baseline before tuned so we can show the actual percentage gained regardless on what dyno it is.
With that being said this is the first time I have heard anything about our dyno's reading high, so I am pretty shocked to hear we have a "bad reputation" for that. I will see if I can post whatever you need later today. We have dozens and dozens of stock vehicle baselines as we as fully tuned dyno graphs in SAE or whatever correction factor you need.
Newbie
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
From: Lansdale, PA
Actually Vince, Coastdown and inertia checks that you do on your mustang dyno have nothing to do with the actual final HP figure. Before trying to match hp numbers between it would have been a good idea to think about how the loading curve for both dynos differ and how it effects the the load calculations as seen by the ecu, which can make the same car hit different fuel/timing targets between the two, especially as speeds increase.
Most likely you have a high weather correction factor (WCF) or your parasitic loss value is not set at a default of 1.0.. The only other way is to enter a false weight value when doing a load cell calibration.
Most likely you have a high weather correction factor (WCF) or your parasitic loss value is not set at a default of 1.0.. The only other way is to enter a false weight value when doing a load cell calibration.
As far as the per car set up, we use the table that mustang dyno send out every year for the values you should enter in for every car. Also our parasitic loss is set at 1.0. Either way we have dynoed hundreds of cars since we have been set up and have found it to be very close to dynojet numbers and have yet to have a car really make us question the set up. Either way below is a stock EVOX dyno chart which lays out a little lower then the dyno chart from dynojet themselves...
Our Mustang dyno plot of a stock EVO X
Hey Guys, we will be more then willing to share any info needed. As far as the correction factor on our mustang dyno, it is calibrated to read like a dynojet. How we came up with this calibration is from the several years and 1000's of tuned AWD cars on a dynojets, from stock to heavily modified. Dynojet dynos are not adjustable from a calibration standpoint and is the reason they are the industry standard. Now mustang dyno's have a calibration value that is adjustable. There is an acceleration and coast down procedure that you perform and it gives you a value. You perform this procedure 4 times and take the average of the 4 and that's the value you enter. When we were performing this procedure(probably about 40 times total) we had a variance of about 10% total with all of the averaged values. Depending on how the car coasted down and how you accelerated it gave ya different numbers. We feel this is the reason why so many mustang dynos have different readings. So at that point we decided to calibrate the mustang dyno to be as close as we can get it to dynojet values. We did this by dynoing about a dozen cars that we have already tuned on dynojet dynos as well as many stock cars that have dynojet dynos done and the info is easily availble. We have found that our mustang is within a couple percent of dynojet readings. I also have alot of technial data of how accurate dynojet dynos are from the many parts testing and R&D we have done for manuufacuers. I feel that info above was pretty forth coming so please assume what we will share and not share.
Keep in mind here at R/T tuning we own and operate both a Mustang dyno and a Dynojet dyno, how many shops can say that. Tscompusa, what dyno do you own and operate over a dozen times a week? Either way dyno numbers are just numbers and we dont get too wrapped up in them.. When ever possible we try and get a true baseline before tuned so we can show the actual percentage gained regardless on what dyno it is.
With that being said this is the first time I have heard anything about our dyno's reading high, so I am pretty shocked to hear we have a "bad reputation" for that. I will see if I can post whatever you need later today. We have dozens and dozens of stock vehicle baselines as we as fully tuned dyno graphs in SAE or whatever correction factor you need.
Keep in mind here at R/T tuning we own and operate both a Mustang dyno and a Dynojet dyno, how many shops can say that. Tscompusa, what dyno do you own and operate over a dozen times a week? Either way dyno numbers are just numbers and we dont get too wrapped up in them.. When ever possible we try and get a true baseline before tuned so we can show the actual percentage gained regardless on what dyno it is.
With that being said this is the first time I have heard anything about our dyno's reading high, so I am pretty shocked to hear we have a "bad reputation" for that. I will see if I can post whatever you need later today. We have dozens and dozens of stock vehicle baselines as we as fully tuned dyno graphs in SAE or whatever correction factor you need.
I can think of one.
Mitch
wow really... corrected me if i'm wrong but don't you only use a virtual dyno???? and you are ******* a shop that has a mustang on one side and a dynojet on the other...
for R/T being one of the premier shops in the tri-state area
for people that throw there iphone in the cup holder and claim #s
kinda like a stock VIII block stock head e85 ef4 544/443 yea ok
for R/T being one of the premier shops in the tri-state area for people that throw there iphone in the cup holder and claim #s kinda like a stock VIII block stock head e85 ef4 544/443 yea ok
this place has a really bad reputation of using high correction factor.. i was told by multiple local people their mustang reads 12% higher then a dynojet.
with that said, lets see the correction factor and full print out data of the dyno run.. i doubt they will share it.
with that said, lets see the correction factor and full print out data of the dyno run.. i doubt they will share it.
wow really... corrected me if i'm wrong but don't you only use a virtual dyno???? and you are ******* a shop that has a mustang on one side and a dynojet on the other...
for R/T being one of the premier shops in the tri-state area
for people that throw there iphone in the cup holder and claim #s
kinda like a stock VIII block stock head e85 ef4 544/443 yea ok
for R/T being one of the premier shops in the tri-state area for people that throw there iphone in the cup holder and claim #s kinda like a stock VIII block stock head e85 ef4 544/443 yea ok
And since were all decideing to talk **** argue about vd #s on this car, garenteed he is in the 650whp range
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...x40-37psi.html
How about the #s on this car although its being parted out STOCK MOTOR.
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sa...d-partout.html
Argue them ****ing #'s and time slips.
Last edited by CurseDSM; Feb 15, 2012 at 04:23 PM.
Actually Vince, Coastdown and inertia checks that you do on your mustang dyno have nothing to do with the actual final HP figure. Before trying to match hp numbers between it would have been a good idea to think about how the loading curve for both dynos differ and how it effects the the load calculations as seen by the ecu, which can make the same car hit different fuel/timing targets between the two, especially as speeds increase.
Most likely you have a high weather correction factor (WCF) or your parasitic loss value is not set at a default of 1.0.. The only other way is to enter a false weight value when doing a load cell calibration.
Most likely you have a high weather correction factor (WCF) or your parasitic loss value is not set at a default of 1.0.. The only other way is to enter a false weight value when doing a load cell calibration.
The interia check is directly related to the final HP number. The inertia test is the one I was speaking about with the process of averaging the 4 test to get a value. That value you enter in the dyno parameters screen in the Equvialnt wt(lbs) slot. That number is essentially the calculated weight value of the dyno. So the higher you make that number the higher the cars will read in HP. The lower you make that value the lower the cars will read. This is exactly was was told to me as i was standing next to the Mustang engineer as he was typing on our computer, that was flown out here to get our mustang dyno set up. When he was here we actually were just changing that number up and down as we were running it and seeing the values power values going up and down. Just so you know I am talking about the initial set up value you are suposse to use when you first set up the dyno, and you are not suposse to change unless you replace hard parts on the dyno itself. Since we first set up the dyno we have not changed that number.
As far as the per car set up, we use the table that mustang dyno send out every year for the values you should enter in for every car. Also our parasitic loss is set at 1.0. Either way we have dynoed hundreds of cars since we have been set up and have found it to be very close to dynojet numbers and have yet to have a car really make us question the set up. Either way below is a stock EVOX dyno chart which lays out a little lower then the dyno chart from dynojet themselves...
Our Mustang dyno plot of a stock EVO X
As far as the per car set up, we use the table that mustang dyno send out every year for the values you should enter in for every car. Also our parasitic loss is set at 1.0. Either way we have dynoed hundreds of cars since we have been set up and have found it to be very close to dynojet numbers and have yet to have a car really make us question the set up. Either way below is a stock EVOX dyno chart which lays out a little lower then the dyno chart from dynojet themselves...
Our Mustang dyno plot of a stock EVO X
Yeah petey turbo knows nothing about mustang dynos.....he doesnt work on them every day all day or anything....
Newbie
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
From: Lansdale, PA
OK....Ill post in this thread one last time not to clutter the OP's thread anymore. If someone want to start a technical thread on dyno differences and how they read and load the car up, I would be more then willing to contribute.
@MXGUY1286....Petey is a good tuner, he has tuned on krazy house's dyno probaly a 100 times. I never said he didn't know what he was doing. In my post I was just making sure that the values I was talking about were different then the per car value you enter in on the main page and making sure he knew that. I'm sure Petey and I could have a conversation on all the different aspects and advantages a mustang dyno has.
@guitar72186...Also Steve from PSI tuned Donk186's car. He has tuned it several times through all the chances and the car seems to run well. He also tuned his car on our dyno and commented on how he liked how it loaded the car up and such, so not quite sure why that was brought up but I'm sure I mentioned the names you wanted to be mentioned. we are also excited to see what this manifold can do and we will also make sure we post the results when we are done as we post up our results from cars just about everyday.
But again....my posts have nothing to do with any of that. It was directed at TSCOMPUSA making certain assumptions like we wouldnt share info and making a false statement about the kind of numbers our dyno reads without having first hand knowledge. People who make those kind of statements should be called out and have to validate them. Those kind of unwarrented statements **** me off and promted me to post in here.
The OP was just showing how much the manifold flowed up high, Andy did not do any tuning on the car after the manifold was on as it was too late. The old manifold caused a bit of a boost spike at peak TQ then tapered down(ill get the exact numbers from andy tomorrow). With the new manifold the boost spike was gone and more linear. The overall boost was 1 pound less up high and it still had the power gains you see in the graph, which is pretty impressive. Hopfully we will get him back in here shortly when he gets time and we will be able to raise the boost back where it was without any taper to get a nice smooth TQ band.
Natedajew, glad your happy with the car/tune, always nice having you car come in the shop as all of our customers love the way it looks and puts up good numbers to back it up(on our dyno anyway)....
@MXGUY1286....Petey is a good tuner, he has tuned on krazy house's dyno probaly a 100 times. I never said he didn't know what he was doing. In my post I was just making sure that the values I was talking about were different then the per car value you enter in on the main page and making sure he knew that. I'm sure Petey and I could have a conversation on all the different aspects and advantages a mustang dyno has.
@guitar72186...Also Steve from PSI tuned Donk186's car. He has tuned it several times through all the chances and the car seems to run well. He also tuned his car on our dyno and commented on how he liked how it loaded the car up and such, so not quite sure why that was brought up but I'm sure I mentioned the names you wanted to be mentioned. we are also excited to see what this manifold can do and we will also make sure we post the results when we are done as we post up our results from cars just about everyday.
But again....my posts have nothing to do with any of that. It was directed at TSCOMPUSA making certain assumptions like we wouldnt share info and making a false statement about the kind of numbers our dyno reads without having first hand knowledge. People who make those kind of statements should be called out and have to validate them. Those kind of unwarrented statements **** me off and promted me to post in here.
The OP was just showing how much the manifold flowed up high, Andy did not do any tuning on the car after the manifold was on as it was too late. The old manifold caused a bit of a boost spike at peak TQ then tapered down(ill get the exact numbers from andy tomorrow). With the new manifold the boost spike was gone and more linear. The overall boost was 1 pound less up high and it still had the power gains you see in the graph, which is pretty impressive. Hopfully we will get him back in here shortly when he gets time and we will be able to raise the boost back where it was without any taper to get a nice smooth TQ band.
Natedajew, glad your happy with the car/tune, always nice having you car come in the shop as all of our customers love the way it looks and puts up good numbers to back it up(on our dyno anyway)....
Last edited by Vince@R/TTuning; Feb 15, 2012 at 06:41 PM.
Newbie
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
I was only curious in the tq loss and doing a quick late night tune answers the question. Bottle necking on the stock manifolds can be a real issue. Keep us posted on how the tq comes out with the final tune as I am curious to see the results of this manifold.
With that being said this is the first time I have heard anything about our dyno's reading high, so I am pretty shocked to hear we have a "bad reputation" for that. I will see if I can post whatever you need later today. We have dozens and dozens of stock vehicle baselines as we as fully tuned dyno graphs in SAE or whatever correction factor you need.