Dyno Jet/Mustang Dyno

[NOTCH306]

I had my mustang on a dnyo jet and it made 275 hp and 312 ft lbs of torque. I did minor changes like an aluminum driveshaft 6 speed conversion and retarded cam timing 4 degrees. Then i was on a mustang dyno and the car only made 254 hp and 284 ft lbs of torque of torque. People have been telling me that mustang dynos always read low but i don't really know. Anyone work with these things and know what is going on?

[Rev]

The way I understand it, even dynos of the same brand often have wide variations in their measurements. I think you have to use the exact same dyno for comparisons to mean anything.

Rev

[Unit 5302]

The Mustang Dyno is a more complex measuring device that supposedly takes into consideration vehicle weight and aerodynamics. It often reads significantly lower than other dynos.

I think it's a bunch of crap, myself. There was a rather intense debate about it some years ago involving myself, jimberg, and a few others. Might try digging it up.

[mr49south]

my car stock block with heads,cam,intake,tb, mass air dynoed 330 with 14 degrees timing, an spryed it with tinibg the same 125 shot got 440 which is about right 4 97 mph inthe 8th

[NOTCH306]

thanks for the imput. i plan on going back to the dyno jet it was on before to see what it says

[Jeff Chambers]

Originally Posted by Unit 5302

The Mustang Dyno is a more complex measuring device that supposedly takes into consideration vehicle weight and aerodynamics. It often reads significantly lower than other dynos.

I think it's a bunch of crap, myself. There was a rather intense debate about it some years ago involving myself, jimberg, and a few others. Might try digging it up.

Yep, that's a bunch of crap. How does one know that the Dynojet isn't reading falsely high? Ask MD to explain how TQ/HP are measured on their machine then ask the same of Dynojet. You'll get two completely different answers, and two answers that says the 'other guy' is wrong. I just bought a Mustang Dyno MD-1100-SE and its a fantastic machine. If someone wants me to lie to them and pump their numbers up, I'll just add a scalar. Read low/read high, 99% of customers wouldn't know the difference if there was a random number generator spitting out the numbers. No offense intended, but there's not many out there (myself included) that really understands the physics and mechanics behind the measurements being made.

The important thing is to use the same dyno consistently to get a good reading on how much your changes have netted (+ or -). No two dynos will read the same, and no one dyno will read the same every time, every day, every run. There's too many variables involved no matter what dyno you're on.

BTW: The MD will only use the aerodynamic loading in certain test formats (e.g. 1/4-mile run). For a typical power curve, no aero loading is applied.

[Jeff Chambers]

BTW: I ran a bone stock Kawasaki Z1000 on my MD yesterday and its peak TQ/HP results were within 1% of the factory ratings and were right on the factory RPM points.

[HotRoddin]

Originally Posted by Jeff Chambers

How does one know that the Dynojet isn't reading falsely high? Ask MD to explain how TQ/HP are measured on their machine then ask the same of Dynojet. You'll get two completely different answers, and two answers that says the 'other guy' is wrong.

That is mind boggling to me. I know only the basics of dynos, but every other measuring instrument known to man has some point of reference that it's measurement is based on ... any micrometer can be checked with a precision machined block, traceable back to a standard ... torque wrenches, even cheap ones, have to have some degree of measurable accuracy. 1 HP is a measurable thing, tracable back to a highly accurate standard, it's not some arbitrary number that someone sets where ever he feels it should be ??? What am I missing here ? How can these machines read something totally different, measuring the same thing.
Websters definition of measure ......
Dimensions, quantity, or capacity as ascertained by comparison with a standard.

Please somebody enlighten me here.

[Jeff Chambers]

It's not that the machine's measurements are traceable to a standard (e.g. NIST), but rather the events under which those measurements are taken. My MD has a certificate of calibration for the load cell and that load cell is 'zeroed' on a regular basis to account for thermal, electrical and mechanical drift. But let's look at the physics involved. HP is a measurable quantity, however its a dynamic quantity. 1 HP = 550 ft-lb/sec. These dynamometers (and their computers) measure a reaction force on the roller support (or PAU support) at a known, fixed lever distance so they can directly measure a STATIC torque (ft-lbs). That static torque doesn't directly correlate into work until it is moved through some distance over a period of time. Now given a known mass (inertia) of the rollers and some measured acceleration rate, work can be calculated (inferred). These are not simple calculations, for example, the rate of acceleration has to be calculated from finite velocity measurements taken from the rollers. Acceleration is the first time derivative of velocity (calculus) so its calculated accuracy is dependent on how well roller speed can be measured, the sample frequency, filtering of the signal noise from the device, etc. The way that each dyno chooses to do this affects the outcome. They may be measuring the same thing (the load eventually resolved at the load cell), but they are inferring (calculating) a completely different measurement from that load.

Now let's talk a little about what outside of the physical dyno affects the measurement and try to understand why the end user should look at the results as somewhat qualitative and not purely quantitative. Here are just a few parameters that affect not only the power the car is making, but also the power that the dyno is trying to calculate:

humidity
barometric pressure
temperature
engine temperature
transmission temperature
rear end temperature
oil temperature
fuel pressure
tire grip (at any instant throughout the run)
electrical line noise
rpm pickup (inductive, capacitive or optical)
rear gearing (final drive ratio)
rate of acceleration (yet another derivative)
phase shift and lag (of all signals)

These are just a few of the many thousands of variables (imagine the inputs and variables in your PCM alone) that I can drum up on this sleepy Sunday morning. So just as Ford and GM can start with the same exact 305 cubic inch displacement and wind up with completely different power, fuel economy and performance, the different dyno makers are going to wind up with different measurement systems.

Users also need to remember that they directly affect the outcome. As an operator, I get customers that don't want to spend anymore than the $65 for two basic pulls. They come in unprepared, but expect the world. Next time you're at the dyno, take copius notes then go back home and ask yourself just how accurate the results really are when you've run your car with the innacurate idiot gauges in the dash and no idea how many of the variables compared from run #1 to run #2.

Like I said, the idea is to strive for consistency in some form and fashion so that you can REASONABLY assess how your car is performing. This isn't rocket science, if it were, it'd cost you alot more than $65 for a couple of pulls.

[HotRoddin]

But the fact remains, Jeff, that measuring HP is incredibly crude, compared with a million other things that we routinely measure now days ... how could roller speed or signal noise be a concern when measuring something that only has to be measured within a couple HP, when everyday we measure minutely small radio signals from a billion light years away, or subtle vibrations from an earthquake, thousands of miles away with a simple PC card ? ... barometric pressure, temp. humidity etc can be very easily measured with radio shack stuff now days, and if you can measure it, you can easily compensate for it.
As for the calculations, you could set that up in a spread sheet, that will, with one keystroke, solve all the calculations in a couple hundred thousands of a second.
If you mean the motor or vehicle measured is varying from one machine to another, i can kind of understand that, but if you're saying the machines themselves vary that much from one to the other then i'm still as baffled as before

Rod

[andy669]

Originally Posted by HotRoddin

but if you're saying the machines themselves vary that much from one to the other then i'm still as baffled as before

Rod

Are you wondering if 2 Dynojet 248's vary significantly? Or are you confused about the differences between manufacturers. (i.e. DynoJet/Mustang Dyno)

I believe the 4 different DynoJet 248's I have been on to be within 7 or 8 horsepower of each other. Is that close enough for you?

I know just enough about the Mustang Dyno to know that I dont know jack about it. They are 10 times the tool that the simple DynoJet inertia dyno is.

Hows your shop doing, Jeff? I inquired about a Mustang Dyno last year. A good friend and I were seriously considering purchasing one. Well we both got busy with racing and he ended up winning 3 events, so it got put on the backburner. Its looking like next year we will both be in alot better position, so I expect we will take the plunge.

Andy

[jimberg]

When I took my car to get dynoed, I did 4 or 5 runs. The spread in HP between the different runs was about 20. I don't really see a way that an engine can consistently put down the same amount of HP every time you run it. As Jeff stated, there are a lot of variables.

If you want to compare a bunch of cars ability to spin a drum of a known weight, both the DynoJet and the Mustang dyno should do the trick. Unless the weight of the drums were exactly the same between the DynoJet and the Mustang, I wouldn't try to compare the numbers between the two because the load on the engines would be different and would yield different results. If you want to tune your car against realer world conditions, I'd use a Mustang dyno since it can simulate how your vehicle would truly respond. The load on a DynoJet may not be enough to cause your vehicle to ping, where the load on a Mustang Dyno might, for example.

That's my 2 cents. Hey, Unit, when did you start participating again?

[Jeff Chambers]

Originally Posted by HotRoddin

...that measuring HP is incredibly crude, compared with a million other things that we routinely measure now days ... how could roller speed or signal noise be a concern when measuring something that only has to be measured within a couple HP... barometric pressure, temp. humidity etc can be very easily measured with radio shack stuff now days, and if you can measure it, you can easily compensate for it.
As for the calculations, you could set that up in a spread sheet, that will, with one keystroke, solve all the calculations in a couple hundred thousands of a second.
If you mean the motor or vehicle measured is varying from one machine to another, i can kind of understand that, but if you're saying the machines themselves vary that much from one to the other then i'm still as baffled as before

You've answered your own questions...in a way. You're right, the individual measurements aren't difficult, however there's a difference between a direct measurement and the calculation (inference) of a different quantity from those measurements. The speed at which you can make those measurements (as you imply with the spreadsheet analogy) has an effect on the outcome, but probably not nearly as much as the tolerances, variabilities and such as the sum of the whole on all the measurements. If you've ever studied Probability and Statistics, you learned that the total variance is not necessarily linear with the sum of the individual variances, but rather each individual variance compounds the overall variance exponentially.....say to the nth power where you have n variables. Let's take for example the speed sensor on the roller from which acceleration is inferred. The speed sensor is an inductive device that picks up on 60-teeth machined into the roller support shaft and works just like your Hall effect sensor in your EFI distributor. Now as you roll into the throttle on a power curve, the pulse signal is not constant, but is getting shorter between each of those 60 pulses for each turn of the drum. Acceleration of the drum is calculated in part as the delta in pulse width. Obviously, the more pulses measured over a period of time, the finer the resolution of the delta and hence the more accurate estimation of acceleration, correct? Oh, but lets not forget that the inductive pick-up has an error factor of its own, lets say .1% of full range, so there's an error in the signal before we've even sent it to the computer. Lets also remember that the 'roll' into the throttle isn't a perfectly smooth event either so we're going to complicate the matter by a non-linear acceleration of the wheels, which by the way, may be slipping on the drum to boot. Now then, the 50-feet of pick-up cable between the sensor and the computer also has a resistance to it that hopefully we've taken into account, and calibrated into the signal value as it arrives at the computer. Let's hope also that Ohio Edison is supplying us with a reasonably steady 230VAC electrical supply (which we all know isn't true) and that the line noise isn't affecting our signal too much, maybe only another .1% or .2%. Now we place our trust in the computer's I/O card (made in Taiwan) that hopefully doesn't introduce too much more variability into the signal. OK, so now the speed signal has made its way to the CPU to be acted upon by the computer. The calcuation is not an exact one. What? Not exact? Engineering calcuations are rarely exact, but rather mathematical approximations of the physical events. So, if the engineers are approximateing the acceleration as a fourth order polynomial (instead of the theoretical exact derivative over an infinitesimally small increment of time), then there's at least five coefficients that are 'approximate' in the equation. WOW! All this just for the acceleration component and I've over-simplified tremendously. So anyways Rod you can see where I'm going with this (at least I thought I did myself when I started this diatribe). Oh yeah, I completely forgot about the temperature compensation! Scratch another couple of percent off the accuracy!

In your response, you're allowing the motor to vary with the test, so why not the dyno. We've built billions upon billions more motors than we have dynos, should we not expect the motor to be more repeatable and consistent than the dyno?

Sure we MEASURE light and radio signals from distant galaxies, but do you think that these measurements aren't without error? And we even spent billions putting together Hubble to try and take such measurements. Truth is that all those pretty pictures coming off Hubble have the color artifically applied based on the light spectrum being measured (most people don't know this happens). We work with simple AC & DC electricity everyday, but take two different meters attached to the same voltage source, display them to more than one significant value and see what you get. Hell, see if you can measure the same voltage with the same meter for any more than a tenth of a second.

Again people, don't expect exact repeatability or likeness from these machines and you won't be disappointed. Take the data that you're given and try to make reasonable decisions based on that data. The dyno is just a tool, that's it, a tool. Its not the end all to tuning problems and its not the only assessor of your car's performance or potential. Use it and use it wisely for what it is, don't expect more than it can give you and you won't be disappointed in the end. If you like one brand more so than the other, then use that brand, but use the same one each and every time. YOU have at least controlled one variable by doing this (so long as your dyno shop doesn't sell that unit and buy another). This 'he said, she said' can go on and on forever but no one will ever be declared the victor. Find a shop that you trust and use them, use them often and if you don't have a shop yet let me recommend CRT Performance in Norwalk Ohio (shameless plug).

Getting back to the original poster's question. I'd have to ask the owner a few more questions to try and figure out where the power went. However, right off the bat I could surmise that the six-speed transmission may suck up a few extra ponies and that depending on what gear he dyno'd in the final drive ratio may have had some effect. I'd also have to ask if he put the 4-degrees back into the cam timing did he see any change? I personally wouldn't consider 4-degrees a minor change and would say that this potentially robbed him of the horsepower that he's missing.

BTW: I dyno'd my bone stock 2001 GT the other day and it made 241.7 HP and 298.3 ft-lbs of TQ at the wheels. Not too shabby for an engine that was rated at 260hp from the factory.

[Jeff Chambers]

Jimberg brings up a very good point. The inertia of the drums between the two dynos is completely different. If I recall, the DJ has something like 1000-lbs more mass to the drums than does the MD. The MD uses the eddy-current brake (Power Absorbtion Unit) to apply the bulk of the loading.

[Rev]

For the same DynoJet at the same time my runs usually vary by only about 1%. Now at different times and atmosphereic conditions using the same Dynojet and using their software to create similar conditions (S.A.E. conditions), my readings vary by maybe 5% or more from one session to another. In short, I really don't trust the Dynojet software that creates the S.A.E. numbers. I always ask for the raw numbers and then use my own software to get either the sandard hp/tq readings or the S.A.E. readings that I want.

I have no experience with the Mustang dyno at all.

Rev

[HotRoddin]

Originally Posted by Jeff Chambers

This 'he said, she said' can go on and on forever but no one will ever be declared the victor.

First of all, let me say I think it's pretty cool you went to that much trouble to try and explain this to me. That being said, let me also say as a direct result of your post, I had to renew my Riddlin Rx to be able to concentrate even close to enough to understand what you were saying

Honestly Jeff I'm not trying to be the victor, I was just trying to figure out how there could be such a large variance from machine to machine on a measuring instrument.

but take two different meters attached to the same voltage source, display them to more than one significant value and see what you get

Thats part of my point ... a decent volt meter, should be within .025% on a full scale reading. Most measuring instruments are pretty precise and very repeatable, and it makes no difference if you go from a Hewlett Packard meter to a Fluke meter, if you put a 10 volt standard across them they better read damn close to the same. Now if the voltage you're measuring is flying all over the place then thats different, and thats my base question I guess ?? When you see these large variances from one brand dyno to another brand dyno, is it the engine or is it the dyno ???
If you had an electric motor that put out exactally 100 HP + or - .1 HP (this is theoretical), and you put that motor on a Mustang Dyno, then put it on some other brand of dyno how far off is acceptable ??

Originally Posted by Jimberg

Unless the weight of the drums were exactly the same between the DynoJet and the Mustang, I wouldn't try to compare the numbers between the two because the load on the engines would be different and would yield different results.

It doesn't matter what size the drum is, or what pickup they use, or how they make their calculations. All that had better be factored in, because 1 HP is 1 HP, you can either measure it or you can't, and i'm not talking about tolerance, I understand there is some degree of tolerance, but you can't say, well that 1 HP is actually 2 HP on my dyno because my drums bigger ??? Noooo lol that 1 HP input is still 1 HP .. if your dyno is reading it at 2 HP, then your dyno is screwed up. I'm not talking about your dyno personally Jimberg lol just a theoretical dyno.

I just have to believe all this variance is in the car not the measuring instrument.

Whew ... out of Riddlin again gotta go !! Seriously, thanks for spending so much time trying to explain this to me, you guys are the greatest !!!

Rod

[NOTCH306]

i think all you guys might be a little crazy but i'm not sure!!! just kidding

[jimberg]

Rod,

You're absolutely correct that horsepower is horsepower. The problem is that the system in which the horsepower is transferred will produce different results based on the load the system is under. I'm sure you've heard of drivetrain loss. The load on the drivetrain affects how much horsepower actually makes it to the wheels. The load on the engine also affects how much horsepower it can produce.

[HotRoddin]

Originally Posted by jimberg

The load on the engine also affects how much horsepower it can produce.

Ah haaaa ... that finally lit the light bulb in my brain ... the measuring instrument itself is using up engine output in varying amounts ...
Back to the electrical meter analogy ... in the old days, some meters had so much internal resistance, if you tried to measure very small amounts of current in a working circuit, the very instrument you were trying to measure with, was using up part of that current to power itself, so you were never getting a true reading.
Still you would think by now somebody would have come up with a fix for that type of error .... sounds like someone needs to figure out a different way of measuring HP on a running engine.

Excuse me, i have to retire to my laboratory

Rod

[jimberg]

All we need is a standard for how horsepower at the wheels is measured. E.g. The drum must weigh 1000 #s or that the drum must provide resistence equivalent to the weight of the vehicle. The only benefit it would provide, however, is that a person could get dynoed on one dyno, make changes to the engine, and go to another dyno to see if they got more power.