I did some testing on Locashracing's Dynapack chassis dynamometer this weekend, for fun. My setup is as follows: 98 USDM ITR 72,XXX miles, Mugen, Intake, Header Exhaust, & JDM Kakimoto testpipe. On the first set of dyno runs, I tested my Mugen ECU to see where my A/F ratios were at with that ECU and my setup, just curious. I then pluged in my Hondata S300 System and compared the ITR maps, the ones that come stock for free with the S300 ECU, to the Mugen N1 ECU. Furthermore, I had my friend, Joe, do a 5-min tune to see if he could make more power with the S300 than the Mugen computer. In 5-min of tuning he was able to gain some power over the Mugen ECU, there is still some power to be made. The Dyno results are depicted below.
The Dynapack chassis dynamometer is a hydraulic powered dyno that bolts directly to the hubs of the automobile. It is a lot more accurate than the Dynojet Dyno, I know this from personal experience. The Dynojet dyno tends to give higher horsepower readings than the Dynapack, I believe that this is due to the inertial forces on the Dynojet's large roller. I made 177hp and 132 ft-lb of torque on the Dynojet before I installed my Mugen header and exhaust, this just goes to show you the differences between Dyno manufacturers dyno readings. The numbers have been different from the Dynojet to the Dynapack on all the cars we have tested. Anyway, Here are the dyno charts from the testing. If you are in Arizona and need a good Hondata or Neptune tuner give Joe at Locashracing a call. http://www.locashracing.com

Mugen ECU vs. S300 ITR Base Maps
You can see all the power that is lost with the Higher VTEC switchover point on the S300 Map. The solid line is the Mugen ECU and the dashed line is the S300.
IAT and Coolant Temps Held Constant between Tests IAT=114 F CT = 190 F


Mugen ECU vs. Locashracing S300 5-Minute Tune
The Mugen ECU is the solid line and the Locashracing 5-Min ITR tune is the dashed.
IAT and Coolant Temps Held Constant between Tests IAT = 114 F CT = 190 F

 

Good stuff.

The days of pre-programmed ECU's and "Chips" are over. Affordable programmable engine management is where it's at!

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Ausmith &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Good stuff.

The days of pre-programmed ECU's and "Chips" are over. Affordable programmable engine management is where it's at!</TD></TR></TABLE>

Pay attention guys.....he works for "Mugen" too

Any chance you have the AF graphs we can look at? Thanks for the comparisons

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Ausmith &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
The days of pre-programmed ECU's and "Chips" are over. Affordable programmable engine management is where it's at!</TD></TR></TABLE>

This man speaks the truth. Every car runs different. Some respond better than others to pre-programmed ECU's. To be able to "dial" in parameters specific to each vehicle is worth every penny. And not that many "pennies" are required nowadays.

 

Dyno tuning for each specific vehicle is always recommended, but for an out of the box unit like the Mugen ecu, it works pretty well..

I'm not so sure about about the "generic" Mugen copies on the internet though, who knows what people put in those..

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by RagingAngel &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Any chance you have the AF graphs we can look at? Thanks for the comparisons </TD></TR></TABLE>

I can do that, later on tonight.

The S300 is a good investment. I love how the USB connection can download changes to the map on the fly!

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 98 Spec R &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The Dynojet dyno tends to give higher horsepower readings than the Dynapack</TD></TR></TABLE>

Are you sure about that? All I know is I see a bunch of B16A plots on Clubsi pushing 165-170hp and they were all run on Dynapack dynos.

 

I'll rephrase this for him.. My Dynapack reads lower than my Dynojet 224x that I recently sold.. The Dynapacks at Church Automotive read significantly higher than my Dynapack unit, or most Dynojet's in the country, which is due to the modification performed on the units in his possession.

 

Ah thanks for clearing that up

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by locash &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I'll rephrase this for him.. My Dynapack reads lower than my Dynojet 224x that I recently sold.. The Dynapacks at Church Automotive read significantly higher than my Dynapack unit, or most Dynojet's in the country, which is due to the modification performed on the units in his possession.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Personally, I trust the unmodified Dynapack unit. As a mechanical engineer, I cant understand why you would modify a dynamometer.

To give you an example we had the Hasport K-Series Integra H1 car on the dyno and it dynoed 40 hp and 20 ft-lb less than Church Automotive's Dynapack.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by locash &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Dyno tuning for each specific vehicle is always recommended, but for an out of the box unit like the Mugen ecu, it works pretty well..

I'm not so sure about about the "generic" Mugen copies on the internet though, who knows what people put in those..</TD></TR></TABLE>

I agree with that too - before affordable engine management the Mugen ECU's were pretty decent and safe for a plug-n-play application. However, the thing to keep in mind is that their ECU's were developed specifically for N1 spec which includes a free flowing exhaust - less restriction than the Twin Loop. Despite that the Twin Loops still work pretty well and of course they are nice a quiet.

S300 is definately a step up from the S100/200 units and IMHO worth every penny. USB is so much nicer than emmulators, programmers, and serial connections.

Great stuff guys - thanks for posting up a "Tech" thread on Honda-"Tech"

 

s300 is the way to go, i was running a chipped computer in my car, and i had the ITB's and was tuned, but the car would seem like its starving for fuel at around 65 mph or at a steady mph. So i switched over to the s300 and man, what a difference the car runs like its on a regular manifold now. Love it.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Ausmith &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Good stuff.

The days of pre-programmed ECU's and "Chips" are over. Affordable programmable engine management is where it's at!</TD></TR></TABLE>

They day of the pre-programmed ECU was pretty short lived IMO. I feel that once the import industry as a whole, caught wind to pre-programmed ECU's it pretty much sparked the idea of engine management considering companies were thus, puting their own maps into Honda ECU's.

 

Interesting comparison.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 98 Spec R &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Personally, I trust the unmodified Dynapack unit. As a mechanical engineer, I cant understand why you would modify a dynamometer.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

x2

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 98 Spec R &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Mugen ECU vs. Locashracing S300 5-Minute Tune
The Mugen ECU is the solid line and the Locashracing 5-Min ITR tune is the dashed.

</TD></TR></TABLE>


I feel that this is a VERY unfair comparison as the Mugen ECU probably had months of development. Showing a "five minute tune" against the Mugen unit just shows how much improvement there can be in one mapping session. With 5 or 6 "five minute tunes" the Hondata unit would out perform the Mugen unit, hands down. C-speed actually just proved this last summer. "fastfour" had an EK equiped w/ a Mugen ecu (which he is selling, currently) that Crescent of C-speedRacing.com removed and replaced with another ECU utilizing Crome software. Power delivery was increased as well as drivability and efficiency.

In all cases, its the tuner, not the software. And in the Mugens case, it was a very well engineered ECU program that was designed for N1 racing.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Haleiwa-Brando &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

They day of the pre-programmed ECU was pretty short lived IMO. I feel that once the import industry as a whole, caught wind to pre-programmed ECU's it pretty much sparked the idea of engine management considering companies were thus, puting their own maps into Honda ECU's.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I think you've got the cart before the horse. Aftermarket programmable engine management has been around since electronic fuel injection was first used in production cars (maybe even before that), the issue was accessability and cost.

The revolution we've had in the last 5 years has been the ability of companies like Hondata, that have brought this technology to the market in an easy to use package at an affordable price.

Has anyone seen the new JASMA ECU?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Circuit Star-29 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I feel that this is a VERY unfair comparison as the Mugen ECU probably had months of development. Showing a "five minute tune" against the Mugen unit just shows how much improvement there can be in one mapping session. With 5 or 6 "five minute tunes" the Hondata unit would out perform the Mugen unit, hands down. In all cases, its the tuner, not the software. </TD></TR></TABLE>

I think you are confused. Did you read the entire post? The Hondata did out preform the Mugen ECU in the 5 minute tune, that is the point of this tech post. In the first dyno graph, I was simply comparing the Base ITR maps that come for free with the S300 to the Mugen ECU, just in case anyone was interested on how the ITR base maps compare to the Mugen ECU. The second graph shows the actual tuning of the S300 vs. the Mugen ECU, and the S300 made more power, easily.


<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Circuit Star-29 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
And in the Mugens case, it was a very well engineered ECU program that was designed for N1 racing. </TD></TR></TABLE>

I agree the Mugen ECU works very well for an "out of the box" ECU. I use it as my daily driving ECU and it never gives me the slightest hiccup. The S300 is just a toy that I use to play around with on Joe's dyno, the track and for my thesis research.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 98 Spec R &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

I think you are confused. </TD></TR></TABLE>

I was....Finals week. Reading &gt; me...lol

 

Joe, will you stop posting this crap? I told you on TOV and I told you face to face at SEMA, my 2000s were never modified except to replace a power supply a year after I bought them. They've read as they are since the day they were delivered. My 4000s were calibrated by _Dynapack_ to read within 1% of my 2000s for consistency and interchangeability. I don't know how this meme got stuck in your head, but you need to purge it, fast, and quit repeating misleading information.

Furthermore, if your Dynapack is reading lower than a Dynojet, you might want to question why. Considering that you're not accelerating 70-80 lbs of wheel/tire mass along with the dyno on the Dynapack, results should be higher on the Packs for any given combination using the same gear and a similar acceleration time. And that's before we even consider tire flex and scrub (due to alignment). The idea of losing 60+ hp from the flywheel to the hubs (not wheels) on a modern drivetrain should give serious pause. We've tested several engines on an engine dyno and then on my packs (in FWD config) and found consistent losses of 22-27 hp from the flywheel to the hubs.

This is the third time you've repeated this stuff, and its particularly insulting especially after I told you face to face that it was not true. Please stop.

C_A_T

 

Shawn, I am in now way insulting you, do not take it that way. You are a good person, you are a great tuner, and my post is not directed at you personally. The point is, your Dynapack units read higher than the rest of the Dynapack units in the country, and it makes the rest of us with Dynapack units look bad when an identical car run on your dynapack makes 10%+ more power with no changes. I completely understand elevation differences, but this is a bit out of hand. Furthermore, your dyno is used by manufacturers to promote their products, and you can see my point. Unfortunately, I could have been given incorrect information before you had your Dynapack 4000, as I was informed that your unit had been "tinkered" with, by someone you know pretty well.. Yes, you've told us that the model 4000 has been "turned up". Thats good enough for me.

As I said, don't take this personally, I respect you and your skills, and I've never had any reason to dislike you. Please just understand how this affects the view of other tuners.

 

A Dynapack is a tool for measuring something, in this case horsepower and torque. The purpose of the tool is to make changes to the vehicle and measure the results in order to optimize the power production and drive-ability of the vehicle. Comparing this dyno to that dyno is counterproductive, but understandable given the nature of people. Pissing contests are unavoidable.


That said, the very nature of the dynos in question will lead to discrepancies. A Dynojet measures power at the wheels. A Dynapack measures power at the hubs. Most people in the sport know this. It takes power to turn the wheels-a substantial and measurable amount of power. Therefore, the Dynapack should read higher than a Dynojet, it is simple physics.


In order for the Dynapack to read the same or lower than a Dynojet, it would have to be calibrated to read incorrectly. The calibration would be artificially low, perhaps to cater to tuners who feel that they have to compete directly with Dynojet operators?


Instead of worrying and obsessing over how this dyno compares to that dyno, customers should be more concerned with the before and after graphs on the same dyno on the same day. How does the A/F look? How does the car run after tuning? Is the VTEC transition smooth and optimal? Is the car faster? Take it to the track!


One last note: How can Shawn not take it personal when a person posts on a public forum that he (Shawn) manipulated his dynos to read higher? The statement is untrue. And Shawn made it clear to Joe (Locash) that it was not true, before this post. It seems like a very personal attack to me.

 

B19 - Obviously you've misread my post. It is not a personal attack at all. I like the guy. Point is, the newest dyno was recalibrated to read higher than off the shelf Dynapack units, thats good enough for me. Also, yes, it is "simple physics", assuming you know calibration records on all equipment involved, and know how they all work. A dynojet and a dynapack work nothing alike, other than they both measure hp, but with different variables in the equations. Get Dynojet to show you the math on their system, they won't.

B19 is right though, this is the very reason you should never try to compare two graphs from different dyno shops.

Shawn, accept my apologies if you feel you've been attacked, I never meant to attack you personally, only shed some light on the situation.

 

Joe,

Apology accepted. I'm open to new ideas, and I do believe that Dynapack has changed their cals over the years (otherwise, why would my 4000 read lower than my 2000 when it was first delivered?). And the 4000 recalibration to match the 2000 has been posted everywhere, its not new public information.

But let's talk a little tech, see if we can't figure it out. My Dynapack 2000 is almost 4 years old now. The very first car we put on it when Dynapack installed it in my shop was my S2000. Completely stock it made 211-212 hub hp. One week earlier it made 200-202 whp on R&D's Dynojet. Car makes 217-218 today wiht a CAI. Made compelete sense to me because we weren't accelerating 84 lbs of rear wheel and tire on the Dynapack and I'd never seen any other conflicting Dynapack data posted to that point (I'd never seen any Dynapack data period in 2002).

Furthermore, quoted transmission efficiencies (for manual boxes) range anywhere from 92-95+% (from various sources). Differential efficiencies range from 97-99%. Taking median values for efficiency (which may or may not be conservative) I come up with a 21 hp loss. Then you've got to do the Moment of Inertia calcs. I won't get into the math here (see http://www.churchdyno.com for an introduction, you probably know the math already), but by my calcs I figure another 4-5 hp in inertial losses at 8000 rpm. Now maybe I missed something in there, but do you think there is another 10% lurking somewhere? We've accounted for primary friction, inertia, etc. Maybe I missed the wheel bearing drag, or my MoI is off a bit, but by a factor of 2?

I've worked the numbers both ways Joe. Starting with Dynojet numbers and going backwards (wheel/tire inertia) or starting with flywheel and going the other way. I want to understand the differences as much as (or more than) anyone. But I can't see how a Dynojet should ever read higher than a Dynapack if the load times are anywhere similar (within 50% of each other)

C_A_T

 

Shawn,

The load time issue is where it gets a little confusing for most, as the only way that could be compared is if the car in question is first dyno'd on a Dynojet, then, using the info from the Dynojet graph, input that time variable into the Dynapack and re-dyno the car, and you are right, if the time factor is the same, they should be near identical.. The problem is that almost every car would use a different time factor, as cars that produce more torque are going to accelerate the 2600 ish pound roller at a quicker rate.. I'll do some testing locally amongst the dyno's in town (there is another dynojet and another dynapack 3000 within ten miles) and post my results.. The more information out there, the better..

FYI - The Hasport Supercharged K24 (run file Hsport JRSC TSX 4 on your dyno), made 253.96 ft lbs/331.5 hp on your dyno, and 232.55 ft lbs/293.1 hp on my Dynapack, same 5.030 ratio, and same time factor. No changes were made to the calibration..