
© Copyright 1995 thru 2008 - The Mustang Works™. All Rights Reserved.
MustangWorks.com is designed and hosted by Aero3 Media.
MustangWorks.com is designed and hosted by Aero3 Media.
|
|
#8 |
|
Registered Member
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Rogers, MN
Posts: 2,089
|
I have to disagree with the idea simulating load is better than simply getting raw horsepower. Horsepower is horsepower. How can you factor in wind resistance but not factor in ram air effect? Which car's downforce and drag coefficient do they use? Is the dyno actually in a wind tunnel? It's not scientific and it's adding variables that aren't necessary. The fact that they would report less horsepower than a DynoJet proves that they aren't good. These "features" just seem like sales hype.
It's like standing on a bathroom scale and having it factor in how much you would weigh if you were doing 60mph. Am I opinionated or what? ![]() ------------------ 351W 89 Mustang GT Convertible |
|
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Stingy Dyno? | SleeperGT | Modular Madness | 4 | 10-22-2003 01:42 PM |
| What is Mustang 1750 dyno? | Mike_W | Windsor Power | 2 | 07-13-2001 09:57 AM |
| Dynojet or Mustang Dyno? | Noongs94GT | Windsor Power | 2 | 01-22-2001 08:02 PM |
| Dyno Don '66 Mustang photos? | jibusuki | Classic Mustangs | 4 | 08-13-2000 06:41 PM |
