Lets just say I found 9.2 Hp and 6.6 ft/lbs with ignition timing only on a mustang Dyno.....

 

You need to post up the plots to really get people talking about it, but I was there...it's true...for some reason his timing was way off (12 degrees), when we moved that back up to 16.5 his car responded very well.

B-who must have the "touch" when it comes to tuning other peoples car!

 

That does not sound right. More importantly would be what the final #'s were....

Let's see.

Mustang dyno=

 

whatever ****...

Anyway, the starting results started at 135whp at 12 degrees CONSISTANTLY with a mustang dyno, and ended with I think 144, but Jody will put up the results in a little bit I'm sure!?

 

jOO got a scanner B, cause mine is in-op......let me see if I can bal outta work for a moment to get the sheet...then i'll throw up the final #'s

 

Ah, so you resort to the name calling, so soon in the game. You didn't even give me a chance to really **** you off!

I must have hit a sweet spot with the mustang dyno comment!

apex- who's a bit more mature than #401.

 

Actually there's nothing wrong with mustang dynos.. they are usually more consistant too.

 

Yes, I know the differences between the two and have dyno'd on both. Ironiclly, I lost an engine on the mustang dyno, which is the loading dyno. My oil pump checked out resulting in 3 spun bearings.

Regardless, I still don't like the mustang dynos. It's my opinion, shoot me if you'd like.

Consistent in what respect, atmospheric conditions? back to back runs? Is it more useful for a wide range of tuning, yes. Will I put my $5k motor on another mustang dyno? No.

 

And that's the dynos fault?

You're entitled to your opinion, just expect others to point out how stupid it may be.

Once setup correctly they are very consistent for back to back runs, something no dynojet that I've ever seen can claim. That's why I love when people talk about the 4 HP they gained from an exhaust in a "back-to-back" run (just swapping the exhaust on the dyno's lift) when 2-3 of that could have easily been the dynojet, or it may have made 6-7hp (ok, exhaust bad example to use..)

 

"Once setup correctly they are very consistent for back to back runs, something no dynojet that I've ever seen can claim. "

The Dynojet I use is very consistant. Especially when I was tuning the a/f and for 9 runs straight the lines overlayed each other.

 

Where is this at? Probably nowhere near me

 

Sorry it's in Maryland. I have to admit that it is new and calibrated.

 

Back to the topick, those #s seem very low even for a MD Dyno, I have been tuning on a MD for the last 4 years. My ITR is making 185 WHP on the MD.

Mattj

 

Well, if the load of the dyno is what caused the pump failure, yes! Notice how I didn't ever mention it being the dynos fault. I just said it was ironic.

Must you always be this much of a jerk? I have never disrespected you in any way, even with all of your jackass posts in the past. Lose the "Holier than thou" attitude, it's not required for you to make a point.


You're right, bad example.

Don't bother with anymore responses if they are not constructive. I was hoping this could remain a technical discussion, but now 2 people would rather flame me than discuss in a mature fashion.

[edit-spelling]


[Modified by apexii, 4:26 PM 7/1/2002]

 

On a Dynometer mine made 170whp. On a Dynojet same mods, untouched, made 193whp.


[Modified by MPH, 4:32 PM 7/1/2002]

 

No reason to include it in a technical discussion on dynos. IMO the pump failing has nothing at all to do with a discussion on dynos.

Holier than thou? Where the heck did you get that from? I'm an *******, I admit that. I actually have to really think about a reply instead of just typing to not come off as an *******. Sorry, that's just me. Most people that know my "in real life" will tell you the same thing. But thanks for pointing out my "jackass posts" in the past, didn't know you were a member of my ******* Posters Club. Back to the topic, saying that a MD dyno sucks for absolutely no reason is stupid, there's not other way to say it. Now if you were to provide proof that a MD was a piece of **** for some real technical reasons (not your oil pump dying) than it would be worth more than "stupid", but alas.....

So saying I make jackass posts is Mature? (and no, I don't care, just pointing that out) and I never flamed *you*, just your opinion of MDs in which you had no reason to say that they sucked. You might not like them, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean they suck. Hell I don't even use a MD anyways..

 

Ok, it's apparent that you do not see my point. Would you agree that a dyno that puts a specific load(stress) on an engine would have more potential of causing mechanical failure over a dyno that induces no load? That is the only point I am trying to make, nothing else. I never once said that mustang dynos suck, even though you quoted me twice as saying that. I did, however give it a "thumbs down", and I will stand by my previous icon.


Well, I wouldn't call it immature, considering some of the posts that have been on this forum in the past month. I'm not trying to start a war here. You stated that my opinion was stupid, even though I had a personal scenario to back it up. I'd call that specific flame directed at me.

 

I guess you could use that arguement... if you never drive the car.

= suck imo.

You had a bad oil pump. A MD doesn't place such gross amounts of load on the motor to just make an oil pump fail. Therefore I was calling your opinion stupid because it wasn't based on any logical arguement. So what are these posts you speak of?

[/QUOTE]