I've been doing some web search and theres a lot of discussion regarding which dyno is more accurate. People say that Dynapack reads higher HP than Dynojets and Dynojets reads higher than Mustangs dynos. Also I found that Dynojet is a good tool for advertise HP. Almost every recognize shop use Dynojets.

 

Do you have a question, or is this just general discussion?

Not being terribly familiar with the Mustang dyno's, I really like the Dynapacks. They do a much better job than Dynojets of eliminating variables - although they're capable of reading either more or less than a dynojet, depending on how you set up your run.

But the Dynojet has become somewhat of a "standard" measurement - and they're fairly affordable, which is nice for shops.

 

Just want to hear people's experiences and opinions.

 

Mustang dyno is the most accurate. It also cost the most so not to many shops buy it. There was a good article in GRM about the different Dyno's a while back. I forget what month.

 

Exactly, the mustang dyno is the most accurate. Most universities that have dyno's usually use a mustang dyno for their research.

 

no dyno is 100% accurate. people like the fact that the dynojet produces higher numbers, which is better for showing off. it is accurate in a sense, but it has no load bearing on it. it would basically be like driving your car down the road with out anything pushing it. (forces of nature, newtons law, etc)

the mustang dyno is a loaded dyno, it simulates the load on an engine better, therefore the lower readings. this also means, that when you are actually on the street, this is the kind of power you will feel. this is also the reason that it is better to tune on a mustang dyno, b/c it makes the engine work harder to excert the force, just like on the street. i have seen cars that were tuned perfectly on a dynojet hit the streets just to start missing and popping, spark knocking etc.

 

to put it simply. if you're wanting a certain horsepower or torque number to brag about, go with a dynojet. mustang dynos "more accurately" simulate the loads that your car will actually be seeign in the real world. lower output, better tune.

if you're looking for a proper tune, go with a mustang dyno.

 

Turbo Sam know's what i'm saying

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by H22Si &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Turbo Sam know's what i'm saying </TD></TR></TABLE>

w3rd to the h3rd y0!

 

most accurate you can get is not a chassis dyno .... a dyno that goess off the hub - not the wheel which has a chance of slippage, not to mention the weight and size of the roller determines certain qualities of the dyno

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Chemicalviper &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">most accurate you can get is not a chassis dyno .... a dyno that goess off the hub - not the wheel which has a chance of slippage, not to mention the weight and size of the roller determines certain qualities of the dyno</TD></TR></TABLE>
That's what I like about the dynapack - it's less of a chassis dyno, more of a drivetrain dyno. Both the dynojet & mustang have similiar confounding variables to contend with - wheels, tires, alignment, & inertia.

And I don't buy the "there's no load using a dynojet" explanation. Accelerating a 4,000 pound steel drum places a load on the engine, that seems pretty obvious to me. Albeit, not neccesarily one that's faithful to what you'd encounter on the street.

 

It's all relative.

You want to compare dyno sheets on the internet use a dynojet.

You want excellent tunability and flexiility use a dynapack.

 

i used a mustang dyno...i like it
but it did put lower numbers than alot of other dynos i saw with the same bolt ons i had

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Chemicalviper &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">most accurate you can get is not a chassis dyno .... a dyno that goess off the hub - not the wheel which has a chance of slippage, not to mention the weight and size of the roller determines certain qualities of the dyno</TD></TR></TABLE>

Yea i guess you would know sine you got a in-garage dyno in your house

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 95cx &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Yea i guess you would know sine you got a in-garage dyno in your house </TD></TR></TABLE>

Is this what you do go to all things ive posted and respond ....

you have no life

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Daemione &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">And I don't buy the "there's no load using a dynojet" explanation. Accelerating a 4,000 pound steel drum places a load on the engine, that seems pretty obvious to me. Albeit, not neccesarily one that's faithful to what you'd encounter on the street.</TD></TR></TABLE>

newtons law: an odject in motion will stay in motion

without a force acting upon it otherwise, it takes very little force to continue the movement of the drums on a dynojet.

another name for a mustang dyno is a waterbrake dyno. its actually adds opposing force to the wheels, it doesnt just base it readings off simple inertia

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Turbo Sam &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">newtons law: an odject in motion will stay in motion

without a force acting upon it otherwise, it takes very little force to continue the movement of the drums on a dynojet. </TD></TR></TABLE>
How is this different from a car on the street? Other than air-resistance, that is. The keyword is accelerating . . .

And all you have to do is look at vacuum & MAP sensor readings while it's making the run, and it's obvious there's a load placed on the engine.

If it were a load-less environment, it would completely impossible to tune a car using a dynojet. And while there are certainly better tools available, there are hundreds of cars out there tuned via dynojet every day.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Daemione &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
there are hundreds of cars out there tuned via dynojet every day.</TD></TR></TABLE>

most shops i have talked to that use a dynojet have to take the car to the streets for a couple hours after being on the dyno to get a proper tune, where as most shops that use a mustang dyno do all the tuning is done on the dyno

i still think that for tuning, the mustang dyno is the best, but if you want bragging right numbers, use a dynojet

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Turbo Sam &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">i still think that for tuning, the mustang dyno is the best, but if you want bragging right numbers, use a dynojet</TD></TR></TABLE>
Better tuning tool than a dynojet, sure. But a dynapack is much more sensitive, does a better job of eliminating variables, and has all the same capabilities as a Mustang.

And I disagree that a dynojet is just about bragging rights. It's affordable and widely available - and because of that, it's become a benchmark that everyone can recognize & compare.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Daemione &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
And I disagree that a dynojet is just about bragging rights. It's affordable and widely available - and because of that, it's become a benchmark that everyone can recognize & compare.</TD></TR></TABLE>

but if it isn't loading your vehicle for a "more proper" tune, then what is it good for? just a number, bragging rights. the number you get from a dynojet isn't what being put to the ground.....it's just a number.

 

Just ask yourself this question, which does the army use for all veichles including tanks.........Mustang dyno