Qzilla,

Are you saying that you think my hp number is correct at 320? But that my torque number is 25 percent high because they are using a strain gauge (whatever that is)? So my "accurate" torque number should be 771 x .75 = 578.25?

Why would the hp number not be 25 percent to high too?


If you think that my tq number is 25 percent to high, then are you also saying that everybody that dyno'd Saturday using that dyno is also showing tq numbers 25 percent to high?

Pardon all my questions, but I am new to this and have never been on a Mustang before. If it is inaccurate or squirrly to use maybe all the diesel performance shops should just stick to Dynojets. Sounds like I wasted $40.00 for 2 completely worthless runs and 1 inaccurate one.

 

I believe the hp number to be correct. Of course on any given day from dyno to dyno the numbers can vary. There are a trillion variables that can slightly affect hp numbers. If you want to do a true measurement of gain you need to do it on the same dyno on the same day.

The strain gauge is a basically a sensor for actually measuring the torque in a physical manner. It is very accurate, it just gives a different number compared to a calculation which a dynojet does.

The hp calculation is simply a mathmatical calculation using drum weights and time. This calculation should be dead accurate.

Don't get me wrong the torque is dead accurate as well, it is just measured at the flywheel basically.

There are a lot of advantages to a shop using a load cell. They can test for egt's, drivability and a lot of other factors that you cannot do on a dynojet.

They are good dynoe, just a different animal than a dynojet.

It was not a waste of money and they are not wrong. I am just trying to explain to everyone why the torque numbers look out of place.

 

100% stock she ran 276.6 hp and 513.9 ft/lbs.

 

So do you believe my truck, in fact, gained 40 hp with air and exhaust upgrades only?

And, do you believe that everybody that dyno'd Saturday is showing a 25 percent higher torque number than they should because it is actually measuring it at the engine flywheel? OR do you think that only applied in my case for some reason?

I am not as concerned about "impressing" anybody with my numbers as I am having ACCURATE numbers as I move forward in bombing my truck.

 

no stock fuel pump or clutch will support that kind of power. the cp3 will suck the stock pump pressure to 0 with the tst on 4-4. with 1000lbs the stock clutch would not hold in 5th gear.

 

well you can ask everyone their, pm me your email and ill send you the sheet so you can read it. and i never said i dynoed in 6th, 6th dont hold at all if i get into it. so quit saying i didnt make that kind of power.

 

I was there and those were the numbers. You can bad mouth the dyno, the truck, the weather or whatever, but those were the numbers on the dyno sheet and posted on the board......period.

 

I think for comparison sake you would need to take a 25% loss on all torque numbers shown that day to compare them to a dynojet number. I think that 25% is pretty close as that is what the drivetrain losses should add up to on average.

So yes, I think all the torque numbers were shown about 25% higher than a dynojet because it measures flywheel torque at the rear wheels.

Also I totally think you could gain 40hp with exhaust and intake on one of these trucks. I got beat to a pulp over a statement like that sometime ago about how much power our intake would make.

 

Thanks for your input QZilla. I doubt I will do anymore bombing before I get another chance to dyno, so hopefully the next one will be a Dynojet and I can make a better comparison. And, on the DJ I assume I need to go back to 4th gear o/d to make better numbers.

 

http://www.riegerweb.com/Nortex_DTR/Videos/TexasCTD.WMV


Here is one of the runs. I know it doesn't prove anything on the numbers because you can't read them. But I thought it was really cool for "Hotdram" to provide it to me. Proves I was there anyway...ha ha.