DynoDragon

iTrader: (1)

Marco - what was your setup when we got this at 414hp?

thewird

iTrader: (8)

That was after the single turbo. I think the date on that dyno graph is incorrect.

thewird

DynoDragon

iTrader: (1)

It's so nice to have someone get more than they expexted - doesn't happen very often.

Because most FC's draw very warm air from near or behind the rad, I measure ambient air temperature right at the air filter and apply the appropriate correction.

IAN

iTrader: (3)

That's pretty close to my dyno plot. Jo is there any way you can plot my 405 against marcos for comparison? My boost plot is horrible compared to marco's.

Ian

thewird

iTrader: (8)

Oh dear, dyno wars lol.

thewird

IAN

iTrader: (3)

WAR!

Just interested to see the difference. Either way your still faster

DynoDragon

iTrader: (1)

For what it's worth:

The last car we ran yesterday was an Altima 3.5 litre V6 auto, stock except for a cold-air intake. Advertised power is 245 hp. We measured 194 hp. Using 23% mechanical loss, this would be approx 251 hp at the engine which matches pretty closely. This indicates a Dynojet would report about 277 hp (10% more) which is a little unrealistic.

[the 23% mechanical loss for atumatic transmissions comes from an engine builder who has tested his engines on an engine dyno and subsequently on a cahssis dyno. He uses 18% for manual transmissions]

thewird

iTrader: (8)

LoL, I was kidding. It just made me laugh when it came to mind ^_^

I forgot to mention the only real way to compare dyno's is on the same dyno and even then weather can have an effect on numbers. That's why I say its just a number hehe.

thewird

DynoDragon

iTrader: (1)

Later today...

Here are both maximum runs on the same sheet: Remarkably similar.