I finally had a chance to scan the dyno graph of my dyno 3 weeks ago.

For you dyno graph reading experts...go crazy!

For those that do not know my mods...just an Upsolute Ecu and Custom Fabricated exhaust with 85mm tips from (David in VA).

 

I thought the number to multiply by to find hp at the crank was a much smaller number. Is 1.28 the actual multiplier. Evo claims rwhp which equates to 505 hp. I guess I am just wondering why the discrepency

 

This was on a 4 wheel Mustang Dyno, not DynoJet. Dyno Jet numbers would be about 10-15% higher from what I understand.

 

It is, IMHO -- just go by the RWHP numbers for cars run on the same type of dyno. I'm sure the same "modded" engine will produce different RWHP numbers depending upon whether it's run on a 4-wheel vs. 2-wheel dyno, but these "multipliers" are getting out of hand.

BTW, with all due respect to BCS, there's no way a Turbo with the Upsolute chip, David's wonderful muffler and K-16 turbos is putting out the flywheel/crank HP/TQ numbers posted.

 

Jack...

As you can see in my sig, I only put down wheel HP and TQ figures. I should have used photoshop to erase the flywheel numbers. Those numbers were written in by AWE...not me.

Many people wanted to see the graph of my dyno....so I posted it. This post wasnt about telling people that I had 560HP/570TQ. I did that before and there was a huge debate about the conversion factor...thread after thread. Quite ridiculous if you ask me. Had it been any other tuner, Im sure the responses would have been different. Regardless, I was very pleased with the power gains, etc.

If anyone has questions about the conversion factor, talk to the guys at AWE. They are the experts, not me.

I ran with a GIAC stage IV car and the results were MUCH CLOSER than one would expect. Especially if I am only running "500" HP and the StageIV is rated at "600" HP.

With that said, we need to have a little shootout and see what happens!

 

BCS:

Your RWHP/TQ numbers are great and you should be very pleased with the results -- I know I would be.

I also agree with you that the "other tuners" crank numbers are out of whack, but what do I know. By my comment about your crank HP/TQ numbers, I did not intend to suggest that you were touting those numbers; but rather, I was attempting to comment on the "multiplier inflation" issue when RW numbers get converted to flywheel numbers.

 

Trying to compare dyno numbers on this board is close to impossible. To facilitate comparison, there must be a "standard" to which dyno results comform or are "corrected." In the US this is usually Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) standard J1349 Rev JUN90. Correcting to SAE J1349 alters the data as if it was taken when the atmospheric pressure was 29.23 in/hg., the temperature 77 degrees F and the humidity zero.

There is another standard. It is refered as "standard corrected" which is very popular with after market manufacturers, no doubt because it uses 29.92 in/hg and 68 degrees F to get bigger numbers.

Always ask what correction factor was used to derive the data when judging various performance products on the basis of dyno test results.

As for converting to flywheel numbers....good luck. For what difference they make why even bother.

 

Thanks for the great info, I never put two and two together that correction factors so greatly influenced "claimed" hp

-Lou

 

LSM,

For what it is worth, I have even seen un corrected hp, which depending on barometric pressure, temperature and humidity, can be all over the board.

By example if a tuner claimed 600 standard corrected hp it would be the same as approx. 578 SAE hp. We are talking rear wheel hp. If they don't tell you which standard is being used you cannot compare. Worse yet, many say nothing and simply claim 600 hp.

 

I had a CBR 900RR during college and I dynoed it after mods. It dynoed like 135hp, which at the time was pretty good(1996) My mods were micron exhaust dynojet 3 jet kit, racing cams, lowered gearing, lighter chain, and a couple other things I do not remember. I remeber looking at the chart which had all kinds of corrections and variences. The motorcycle shop could not explain anything. Now I know why! I owned a 1994 CBR900RR which felt much faster than the 1996 model, and it had less mods and no way made 135hp. So much for them "dyno-tuning" my bike. Thanks alot for the info.

I plan to dyno my car soon. What exact questions should I ask and what should I ask of the people testing the dyno. Is it ok to test on a 2 wheel dyno, if they disconnect the front wheels on my Turbo?? Or am I much better off just finding a 4 wheel dyno?

-Lou

 

I meant the same thing, was not trying to flame or question the validity of the data simply trying to learn. Congrats on your numbers, I would be extremely happy especially considering the cost.

-Lou

 

BCS, Those are great #'s Upsolute will do the trick...
Another question with regards to the GIAC 600hp IV pkg to anyone...
it is my understanding that to get those hp #'s, you would need the whole pkg (k24's,IV ecu,exhuast ,d-valves &" headers"...)
w/o the headers I dont think you will convert to that Fly??
(off Evo)

 

Using a 2wd dyno like the Dynojet 248 and removing the drive line is just fine. The earliest Dynojet is the 248C. They now have a 248H. The newest peripheral hardware for the Dynojets is called the DynoWare EX+. It is very good and you can obtain a lot of information with it. Make sure the dynojet at least has the optional Air/Fuel Ratio Module. The Dynatrac option is also extremely nice. when enabled, the desired rpm is entered into the software and the computer controled Dynojet brake maintains the desired rpm.

 

RDH,
You don't have to buy the whole kit. For example if you have an X50 we can do that as well. You have to have a freeslow exhaust, K24s, DVs, and airfilter. Oh and the software

 

Dyno is an AWD Dyno Dynamics from Australia

KTR Performance in MA


Before Mods




After Mods