I just threw my 4th gen on the dyno so i could get a quick basemap to start street tuning so i can learn the AEM EMS software before i put in my built h22. Not a full tune, just safe.

Mods: AEM V2 intake, Greddy evo2 catback, AEM powersteering pully & alt. pully.

Max HP: 161
Max TQ: 137

This was on a Mustang Dyno so add 11% for dynojet #'s

Never posted a pick before. How do i do it? would like to share graph.

 

will sound like a noob but why do you add 11% for a dynojet?

 

You put the weight of your car + driver & gas. And it takes that and adds a resistance to the rollers so the engine as a load on it that simulates pushing the actual weight of the car where the dynojet has no resistance other than the weight if the drum. We figured out 11% by calibrating the Mustang to run off the same principals as a dynojet and it was basic math from there. So i hope that settles a little of the dynojet debate but i still don't know how to post a pic.

 

so which dyno is more accurate?


to add a image do this: go here http://www.imageshack.us/ then upload the image to their database and they will give u a link to view the image then come in here and paste the link..

H22 ITB that is using the url for forums 1


edit: dont use the img tags, also tested diff image urls

edit: used photo bucket this time....


for photo bucket go to photobucket.com make an account and then use the image link they give u after u upload and just paste it

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by M2B4 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">so which dyno is more accurate?</TD></TR></TABLE> They are both equaly accurate (for all practial reasons, technicaly the mustang will be more accurate but it will be miniscule and not worth worying about no matter what you are tuning) but the Mustang is going to give you a "real" measurment not something proportionate to that.

P.S. thanks for the link picwill be up in a sec.

 

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by NewOrleansH22 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> (for all practial reasons, technicaly the mustang will be more accurate but it will be miniscule and not worth worying about no matter what you are tuning)
</TD></TR></TABLE>

so the 11% you said are you meaning take 161 X .11 = 17.71 + 161 = 178.71 whp on the dynojet dyno?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by M2B4 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

so the 11% you said are you meaning take 161 X .11 = 17.71 + 161 = 178.71 whp on the dynojet dyno?</TD></TR></TABLE>

You got it!

 

because in general mustang dynos read lower than dynojets. imo not really accurate to add X % to figure out dynojet readings. because all dynos are different. but it should give you a good general estimate.

 

11% is for around 175 hp. percents change depending on car weight nd amount of HP. Have seen them anywhere from 7% to 20%

 

cool thx you helped me and i helped you

and yeah i agree on the being able to add X% to exact numbers but a decent guestimate

 

11% is based off of my jdm h22a that i had in my other 4th gen.

 

just out of curiosity do you have dyno numbers on a stock jdm h22a1?

 

Got any a/f info? Here is ur dyno

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by M2B4 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">just out of curiosity do you have dyno numbers on a stock jdm h22a1?</TD></TR></TABLE>

You woud have to find one first and that might be kinda hard. but if you would like to know what i got on my jdm h22a with I/H/E, Highflow cat, msd sci, energy suspension motor mount inserts and A.C. removed; it was 175 HP nd i forgot the TQ.

Free Dyno time rocks

 

put it on a dynojet before you claim 11%, IMO

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 98vtec &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">put it on a dynojet before you claim 11%, IMO</TD></TR></TABLE>

I have made it a point not to put down dynojets throuought this entire thread yet there is still going to be someone who makes a comment like this. The designers of dynojet even say tat here numbers are higher. I whent through the entire process of how to convert yet someone still has to be a dickwead. I was just trying to explane why the numbers were so low and show what they could be compared to. I personaly dont give a **** if someone thinksi have 160HP or 175HP When it runs a mid 14 im happy. My entire point was to give people a referance of what to expect from similar setups.

 

i completely understand that dynojets usally read higher than most dynos. But the number you get are the numbers you get....thats all. You cant say that you have 11% more hp when you dont have a graph that says so. I'm not arguing with you, but most people want real truth and not a bunch of formula's that say you have more hp.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 98vtec &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">i completely understand that dynojets usally read higher than most dynos. But the number you get are the numbers you get....thats all. You cant say that you have 11% more hp when you dont have a graph that says so. I'm not arguing with you, but most people want real truth and not a bunch of formula's that say you have more hp.</TD></TR></TABLE>

First i would like to say that you are a moron and an *******. i know that all dynos will give you different numbers evene when comparing mustang dynos to other mustang dynos: the point was to put numbers in a relative ballpark based off of tests done on another h22. I am sory if the .5:1 difference in the compression acts differently or the bearings/rings having been broken in differently affect its efficiency under load. The difference would be miniscule and worthless to the point of this thread whitch was: to let people know what to expect on a mustang dyno and a colse ballpark of what you could expect on a dynojet. I never said that i ran the car on a dynojet or inplied that. I stated that we set the mustang to run off of the same paramiters of a dynojet. I did not run the car on those paramiters becayse the point was just to get a decent base tune not to show off numbers. I was trying to provide a little more info on the situation in hopes that someone could have a better understanding of what these engines put out.

Now that i have gone and killed my thread over petty bullshit i am going back to work.

 

dude, you are going off on a tangent for no reason. I didnt mean for it to offend you. Just saying that you didnt ACTUALLY make another 11%. Thats all.....jesus.....