Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: S65 n/a Dyno Results - Mustang vs. Dynojet

              
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    610
    Rep Points
    2,144.3
    Mentioned
    131 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No

    Post S65 n/a Dyno Results - Mustang vs. Dynojet

    Click here to enlarge

    We built this E92 M3 track day car for a client and its FAST. Car has has 1 full season of track days.

    Power mods:
    Active Autowerke Software
    Fabspeed primary catbypass
    Fabspeed non-resonated x-pipe
    Fabspeed MaxFlo mufflers

    We ran it on our heartbreaker Mustang and a Dynojet for NASA Time Trial qualification. Same car, same mods, it was a bit colder when we ran it on the Mustang.

    VAC Mustang:
    334hp 247tq

    Dynojet SAE:
    378hp 272tq

    Dynojet STD:
    390hp 280tq


    Click here to enlarge

    Click here to enlarge

    Click here to enlarge

  2. #ADS

  3. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    98,947
    Rep Points
    23,617.3
    Mentioned
    1471 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    237


    Reputation: Yes | No

    Mustang versus Dynojet dyno results courtesy of a VAC Motorsports built E92 M3 S65 V8

    All dynos are not created equal. One 'rule of thumb' so to speak on automotive forums is that the Mustang dyno reads lower than the Dynojet. In most cases, that is absolutely true. Take this E92 M3 modified by VAC Motorsports for instance. The car has an Active Autowerke tune, Fabspeed cat bypass, Fabspeed X-pipe, and Fabspeed mufflers. What does it put out on VAC's Mutang Dyno? 334 horsepower to the wheels. And on a Dynojet? 390 wheel horsepower in STD correction.

    Click here to enlarge

    That's a spread of 56 wheel horsepower for the same car with the same mods, significant. Just changing the correction on the Dynojet to SAE changes the numbers to 378 horsepower to the wheel. 12 horses less than in STD correction on the same dynojet and 44 horsepower more than on the Mustang dyno. The next time one is comparing dyno results remember that the numbers can very based on the dyno, conditions, and correction and the same car and show very different numbers due to this.

    Additionally, the Mustang Dyno does not always read low. This is commonly cited but AMS showed recently how Mustang numbers can be manipulated rather easily. Dyno numbers are just part of a picture but more often than not used for bragging rights. One thing is certain, it's easier to skew dyno numbers than a timeslip.

    Power mods:
    Active Autowerke Software
    Fabspeed primary catbypass
    Fabspeed non-resonated x-pipe
    Fabspeed MaxFlo mufflers

    VAC Mustang:
    334hp 247tq

    Dynojet SAE:
    378hp 272tq

    Dynojet STD:
    390hp 280tq

    Click here to enlarge

    Click here to enlarge

    Click here to enlarge
    $100 fantasy football league, register here (ONE SPOT OPEN): http://www.germanboost.com/showthrea...ague-2014-2015

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    4,062
    Rep Points
    1,780.6
    Mentioned
    97 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    18


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Just more evidence supporting the fact that you should try to always get numbers from the same dyno & focus on the gains made. Sick of people saying "your numbers are no good because they're not off a DynoJet".

    Mike -- Now that you guys have put out more info on the VAC S65 stroker builds, is this customer looking into it? Def seems more appropriate building a stroker than bolting on a s/c for a dedicated track car.
    COBB AP ProTune by Bren of ///Bren Tuning
    Akrapovic DP | Helix FMIC | Alpina TCM Flash | Walbro 450LPH Fuel Pump


    "The moment money becomes your motivation, you are immediately not as good as someone who is motivated by passion and internal will." -A. Senna

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,471
    Rep Points
    1,888.7
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19


    Reputation: Yes | No
    I think mustang dynos are garbage for this very reason. A horsepower is a horsepower is a horsepower... The company should be removed from this earth. Oh, lets calculate a horsepower differently and start a dynamometer company.

    I am kidding of course, but not kidding at the same time. For the reason they read low I have posted about, but because of that they suck for 99% of the cases.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    866
    Rep Points
    869.6
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    ^ Not sure you understand the difference of load-based versus interia based dynos and how they calculate horsepower.

    For tuning a vehicle a Mustang dyno or load cell based system (Mainline, Maha, Dyno Dynamics, Dynapack) will allow the tuner to do much much more. It is the preferred machine for MANY successful companies. I love when people try to do steady-state or from scratch standalone tuning on a older dynojet dyno and then the car drives like total garbage on the street. The newer load cell based dynojets still don't do everything the Mustang can do either.
    Last edited by BrenM3; 06-28-2013 at 11:00 AM.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    610
    Rep Points
    2,144.3
    Mentioned
    131 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No

    We own a Dynapack (the golden standard) and Mustang AWD. Load based is preferable for tuning.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    866
    Rep Points
    869.6
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9


    Reputation: Yes | No
    You own the tool best tuning tools out there my friends Click here to enlarge^

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    559
    Rep Points
    1,441.5
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    15


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by inlineS54B32 Click here to enlarge
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think mustang dynos are garbage for this very reason. .
    I respectfully disagree. Although the mustang dynos do not produce the hero dyno sheets we all want our Mom's to place proudly on the fridge - the Mustang dyno cannot be beat for tuning (partial load especially) and driveability.

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    98,947
    Rep Points
    23,617.3
    Mentioned
    1471 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    237


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by benzy89 Click here to enlarge
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Just more evidence supporting the fact that you should try to always get numbers from the same dyno & focus on the gains made. Sick of people saying "your numbers are no good because they're not off a DynoJet".

    Mike -- Now that you guys have put out more info on the VAC S65 stroker builds, is this customer looking into it? Def seems more appropriate building a stroker than bolting on a s/c for a dedicated track car.
    It's just that a dynojet has the largest base of reference so it's most convenient if you want to the paper comparison.
    $100 fantasy football league, register here (ONE SPOT OPEN): http://www.germanboost.com/showthrea...ague-2014-2015

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    98,947
    Rep Points
    23,617.3
    Mentioned
    1471 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    237


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BrenM3 Click here to enlarge
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    ^ Not sure you understand the difference of load-based versus interia based dynos and how they calculate horsepower.

    For tuning a vehicle a Mustang dyno or load cell based system (Mainline, Maha, Dyno Dynamics, Dynapack) will allow the tuner to do much much more. It is the preferred machine for MANY successful companies. I love when people try to do steady-state or from scratch standalone tuning on a older dynojet dyno and then the car drives like total garbage on the street. The newer load cell based dynojets still don't do everything the Mustang can do either.
    But the numbers are higher Click here to enlarge
    $100 fantasy football league, register here (ONE SPOT OPEN): http://www.germanboost.com/showthrea...ague-2014-2015

  12. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    98,947
    Rep Points
    23,617.3
    Mentioned
    1471 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    237


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by MisterEm Click here to enlarge
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I respectfully disagree. Although the mustang dynos do not produce the hero dyno sheets we all want our Mom's to place proudly on the fridge - the Mustang dyno cannot be beat for tuning (partial load especially) and driveability.
    Tuners love them but from what I understand the highest quality load based dyno for tuning is the dyno dynamics due to the options. The tuners should be able to shed more light.
    $100 fantasy football league, register here (ONE SPOT OPEN): http://www.germanboost.com/showthrea...ague-2014-2015

  13. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,471
    Rep Points
    1,888.7
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BrenM3 Click here to enlarge
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    ^ Not sure you understand the difference of load-based versus interia based dynos and how they calculate horsepower.

    For tuning a vehicle a Mustang dyno or load cell based system (Mainline, Maha, Dyno Dynamics, Dynapack) will allow the tuner to do much much more. It is the preferred machine for MANY successful companies. I love when people try to do steady-state or from scratch standalone tuning on a older dynojet dyno and then the car drives like total garbage on the street. The newer load cell based dynojets still don't do everything the Mustang can do either.

    I understand completely. However, they shouldn't call their rating a horsepower if it's not one is all I mean. From a purely mathematical/physics perspective, this shouldn't differ from machine to machine in a perfect world. That's all I mean. I understand fully the diferences - I have posted about this before... It makes things very confusing when you cannot say - my car makes X HP when it means nothing unless you quantify X with "on this dyno at this location". Again, a perfect world. Just because a mustang dyno is using eddy currents and one uses a fixed mass drum doesn't make the definition of a HP any different.

    However, I completely get your point - they may be more helpful than another dyno when looking at how the car will react in the real world. I am just talking about SAE rated HP though - I feel this shouldn't change...
    Last edited by inlineS54B32; 06-28-2013 at 10:14 PM. Reason: clarity

  14. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    866
    Rep Points
    869.6
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Read the story of how the dynojet rating of HP was started back when they were created and you will see how drastically unscientific it was.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by inlineS54B32 Click here to enlarge
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I understand completely. However, they shouldn't call their rating a horsepower if it's not one is all I mean. From a purely mathematical/physics perspective, this shouldn't differ from machine to machine in a perfect world. That's all I mean. I understand fully the diferences - I have posted about this before... It makes things very confusing when you cannot say - my car makes X HP when it means nothing unless you quantify X with "on this dyno at this location". Again, a perfect world. Just because a mustang dyno is using eddy currents and one uses a fixed mass drum doesn't make the definition of a HP any different.

    However, I completely get your point - they may be more helpful than another dyno when looking at how the car will react in the real world. I am just talking about SAE rated HP though - I feel this shouldn't change...

  15. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    866
    Rep Points
    869.6
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Tuners love them but from what I understand the highest quality load based dyno for tuning is the dyno dynamics due to the options. The tuners should be able to shed more light.
    My experience is the opposite, while a quality machine I found significant variation from day to day (same stock car going up or down 30hp with no changes) with a Dynamics. I didn't install it or setup the config file in all fairness though. I find Mustangs amazing though. It will be our next purchase.

  16. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    98,947
    Rep Points
    23,617.3
    Mentioned
    1471 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    237


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BrenM3 Click here to enlarge
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Read the story of how the dynojet rating of HP was started back when they were created and you will see how drastically unscientific it was.
    Yep and the 15% drivetrain loss number was essentially just created by them.
    $100 fantasy football league, register here (ONE SPOT OPEN): http://www.germanboost.com/showthrea...ague-2014-2015

  17. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    98,947
    Rep Points
    23,617.3
    Mentioned
    1471 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    237


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BrenM3 Click here to enlarge
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    My experience is the opposite, while a quality machine I found significant variation from day to day (same stock car going up or down 30hp with no changes) with a Dynamics. I didn't install it or setup the config file in all fairness though. I find Mustangs amazing though. It will be our next purchase.
    You prefer the Mustang to the Dynapack?
    $100 fantasy football league, register here (ONE SPOT OPEN): http://www.germanboost.com/showthrea...ague-2014-2015

  18. #17
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    54
    Rep Points
    130.1
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Who cares about HP; show me a trap speed, that's all I care about.

  19. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    866
    Rep Points
    869.6
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You prefer the Mustang to the Dynapack?
    They both can do things the others can't but as far as WOT tuning, I like the Dynapack the best. Ideally both can be used depending on the application.

  20. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    98,947
    Rep Points
    23,617.3
    Mentioned
    1471 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    237


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by z3speed4me Click here to enlarge
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Who cares about HP; show me a trap speed, that's all I care about.
    I'd like to know what my WHP is for my trap speed. I like to have both not one or the other .
    $100 fantasy football league, register here (ONE SPOT OPEN): http://www.germanboost.com/showthrea...ague-2014-2015

  21. #20
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    340
    Rep Points
    249.1
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by inlineS54B32 Click here to enlarge
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    A horsepower is a horsepower is a horsepower...

    For the reason they read low I have posted about, but because of that they suck for 99% of the cases.
    Actually, HP is a calculated number at a particular RPM based on the torque at that RPM.

  22. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    98,947
    Rep Points
    23,617.3
    Mentioned
    1471 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    237


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by maxnix Click here to enlarge
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Actually, HP is a calculated number at a particular RPM based on the torque at that RPM.
    He knows that and wasn't saying differently...
    $100 fantasy football league, register here (ONE SPOT OPEN): http://www.germanboost.com/showthrea...ague-2014-2015

  23. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,471
    Rep Points
    1,888.7
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by maxnix Click here to enlarge
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Actually, HP is a calculated number at a particular RPM based on the torque at that RPM.
    ? What?

    Did I say something otherwise?

    Edit - didn't see above post
    Last edited by inlineS54B32; 07-18-2013 at 11:56 PM. Reason: didn't see 2nd page :)

  24. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,471
    Rep Points
    1,888.7
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BrenM3 Click here to enlarge
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Read the story of how the dynojet rating of HP was started back when they were created and you will see how drastically unscientific it was.
    I will check this out - didn't even notice this reply for some reason. Interesting to know - will reply when I get a chance to read up

  25. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    98,947
    Rep Points
    23,617.3
    Mentioned
    1471 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    237


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by inlineS54B32 Click here to enlarge
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I will check this out - didn't even notice this reply for some reason. Interesting to know - will reply when I get a chance to read up
    That story is where the 15% standard was invented.
    $100 fantasy football league, register here (ONE SPOT OPEN): http://www.germanboost.com/showthrea...ague-2014-2015

  26. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    13,472
    Rep Points
    48.0
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    mike AT vac was the DJ at fabspeed, r/t, or the other place who's name escapes me at the moment?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •