If you are talking to me, I was saying that Cobb's dyno doesn't appear to be off a static amount, like some others on here are saying. If you want justification, just read the post. Three seperate cars, three seperate power levels, three seperate results. Hense, there as be several different runs that tested a span of performance capability and all three did not show any kind of consistency in the measured power levels. That, to me shows, inconsistency.

2. Not true. They have different standards for different things.

3. No. Unless both dynos can trace a calibration back to a NIST standard, they can not be compared realistically. Accuracy is in the words, which they are accurate, I'm just adding extra "flare" with the large type so that it's noticed.

Further more, a friend (Shae) back in the day dyno'd within like 5 HP on Phantom's old dyno and Modern's (Cobb's) dyno. The dynojet was lower, not higher... At that same time everybody was claiming that the mustang dyno read lower. It obviously did not on his car.

My personal opinion on the matter is that the Mustang dyno seems to read low on AWD cars. Maybe they have some kind error in their input data on one of the two setups? When a fwd car dynoing 450 WHP traps 122mph and an AWD dynoing 380 WHP and weighing 400 pounds more traps 124mph, something seems off to me. Both cars has similar 60', 1/8 mile and 1/4 times and speeds. 70 WHP difference should show up as a higher trap speed on a FWD car.

 

I didn't mean to start some sort of an argument here...I was just saying what about 10 different people down at Cobb told me. As Christian stated it, 280 on their dyno would have been good, above 300 is REALLY good. I'm not trying to start an argument that's just what I was told. When I did the first dyno run on Munoa's with Intake, MBC, FMIC, and fuel pump I did 324. I installed 02 housing, new injectors and an FP Green turbo and did 313 on Cobb's dyno. This shows there is obviously quite a bit of difference in the two dyno's unless I lost 11whp by upgarding turbo's.

 

Or there could have been considerable differences in correction factors, or possibly corrected vs. ncorrected, as stated. Although shops generally will not give you uncorrected numbers unless you specifically ask for them.

I think it is silly that Christian is telling you what he thinks it would measure on a Dynojet. I say it's silly because Christian knowns damn well you can't compare dyno numbers from different dynos in any realistic manner. Why he's telling you what he thinks it would dyno on a dynojet just seems silly to me because it seems like he's just trying to make you feel better about your numbers. Him saying "over 300 is great" is more understandable though.

I also mean that in NO WAY to say you aren't making good power. 310 WHP on that particular dyno, from the few cars I have seen go across it, the car should do 108mph-110mph traps with good driving. That's a decently fast car that should be damn fun to drive on the street. But trying to say "it would make about 385 WHP on a Dynojet" is just lame bench racing that has no factual data behind it.

 

Apples and Oranges. The whole "drag racing time theroy" is lame. I have two friends that drove the exact same car down the 1320 on the same night and netted completely drifferent results! Sounds like the "operator error" to me.

The comparing of different dynos is lame too! They are a tool to help you tune car. The "only" true way to measure any gain or loss is to do the tests in the same way as berfore like going to the same dyno. Going to different machines to measure gain is ridiculous. I'm sure Mikes evo will slaughter other evos making "more power" on other machines.

 

exactly, i rode in mikes car today and it is pretty retardedly fast. i want to see mike get back on your dyno munoa, that would be a good comparison...

in my opinion though mikes car almost felt a little faster with the old turbo, could this be because the later spool up of the green causes less torque but more top end hp therefore it doesnt feel like it pulls as hard but is actually faster?? i heard torque is what you feel, but hp is what gets you places...

 

Thanks Ficker. There was a fair bit of contact on track this weekend. In my case, it was a new driver (I believe it was his first w2w race) and he rear ended me at the apex of turn 1 on the east track. ARG! Looks like mostly body damange. Guy seems very well intentioned and has agreed to cover the damage.

There is one SAE correction standard for engine HP. Do they have correction factors for the energy of cow farts? Possibly, together with a host of others that are equally irrelevant to the discussion of engine HP and dyno correction standards.

There are differences in dyno values. Even on the same dyno with the same car with pulls just minutes apart. My cars been dyno'd on dyno-jets, pacs and mustangs. Are the numbers all the same. Of course not. I can though quite easily compare power and torque curves.

As to the original question of why Cobbs dyno numbers are what they are ... it's because they're running the most recent correction standard.

 

Thats good. I met him on Friday, and he seemed nice enough. I don't think that you'll have a problem collecting on that debt. Cool that he offered though, legally or otherwise, he really has no responsibility. That being said, i would probably offer as well, had it been me. I'm sure you'd do the same.

It does seem like peeps should have to get at least fairly comfortable in a non-w2w situation with open passing and close quarters running prior to being door to door with stakes on the table. imo.


Dynos are tools. Cars are just tools as well. They are all means to an end. What that end is, is up to you. If it is to make big numbers on a dyno, then thats a waste of time. As long as you achieve your goals it doesn't matter what the numbers are, or even what car you have for that matter. Means to an end.

 

Dyno's as tools is the right way to look at it. I think it's comical how so many want to see big numbers. For tracks where we turn, it seems drivers are always wanting to claim the lowest possible number.

Most club racing groups have liability and responsibility for covering damages to the at fault driver. Operative word there is "club" racing. This is the case with SCCA, NASA and many other clubs. It was the case with MPRA last season. In talking with Mitch on Sat, he mentioned that he has dropped it for MPRA this season. Even if a club has such a rule in place, collecting on the damages is what counts and enforcement is a challenge.

Most are not aware that MPRA policy on this changed from last year. No doc or communication on it anywhere. I think it's a mistake. It's the very early days of club racing at MMP and more emphasis IMO should be put on clean, non-contact racing. Especially with such a wide range of experience levels.

 

I definetely feels the same way riley does, the car felt like it had a little more "oomph" on the old setup but the car went from 5-100 without me even meaning to do it incredibly fast. The old setup felt like it had more torque but the new one has the car much much faster.

 

If it is just a tool, then why do you guys keep saying "On a dynojet, it would make 385." I'm well aware of dynos being tools, which is why it annoys me when people try to compare numbers.

 

 

Lets plan a trip to get tuned! After I get my car fixed

 

LOL!!!

 

yes please stop on the dyno crap.

and anyways we all know when I crank up my vtec to 40lbs, my dyno numbers will make everyone elses cars look like hybrids!!!!

 

by hybrids I assume you mean a codename, for our 900awhp monsters?