I like the dynapack dyno because it does give you realistic and repetative numbers because it removes some variables (tires and their pressure wheel weight). I like the dynojet on the other hand because you get to the wheel numbers and that is what i need since im not racing my car on the hub, but at the track.I have to agree its by user preference, but i like both dynos.
Once i get my turbo, i plan on tuning on the dynapack and then heading over to the dynojet to get hp differencespeace outHARDCORE Mikey. Dynapaks will always dyno higher because there is no rotating mass resistance to go against it.I prefer Dynojet because like eddie123 said, it all about how much you actually putting down on the ground that counts in the real world, not with car up on a lift or jackstands or whatever.Plus, it is easier to guage ur ETs with dynojet numbers.Which is precisely why a Dynapack is better. Using a.normal. dyno gives less accurate results because of tire slip and deformation. The rotating mass resistance statement is just plain wrong. Of course there's resistance, that's how they measure the power output.Remember a dyno is only as good as it's operator and when it was last calibrated. The number produced is valid only as a comparative tool for comparing one run to the next on the same dyno.
If you don't like your numbers find another dyno, there are plenty around that will give you what you want. SCC has a chassis dyno test comparison in Aug issue.
They test 7 different dynos.Their conclusion: Its impossible to say.They seem to think the pak was better at repeatability. But the jets seemed better to compare between different dynos.I've been using a jet and it is very consistant pull to pull and different days. So I would have no problem using it for precise tuning.Plus I only want to know what I'm putting down to tarmac. If its off because of tire pressure, then its off because of tire pressure.umm who cares?The way I do my testing is run a current state dyno and then immediately run the test dyno after installing the new mod. So little things like tire pressure don't matter. SCC has a chassis dyno test comparison in Aug issue. They test 7 different dynos.Their conclusion: Its impossible to say.They seem to think the pak was better at repeatability.
But the jets seemed better to compare between different dynos.I've been using a jet and it is very consistant pull to pull and different days. So I would have no problem using it for precise tuning.Plus I only want to know what I'm putting down to tarmac. If its off because of tire pressure, then its off because of tire pressure.umm who cares?The way I do my testing is run a current state dyno and then immediately run the test dyno after installing the new mod. So little things like tire pressure don't matter.So the V2 robbed you of.2whp and gave you.8wtq compared to stock air box? IMG+V2+Borla only yield 6.4whp and 2.9tq? Gain of that IMG is most impressive over the V2 and Borla though.
SCC has a chassis dyno test comparison in Aug issue. They test 7 different dynos.Their conclusion: Its impossible to say.They seem to think the pak was better at repeatability. But the jets seemed better to compare between different dynos.I've been using a jet and it is very consistant pull to pull and different days.
So I would have no problem using it for precise tuning.Plus I only want to know what I'm putting down to tarmac. If its off because of tire pressure, then its off because of tire pressure.umm who cares?The way I do my testing is run a current state dyno and then immediately run the test dyno after installing the new mod. So little things like tire pressure don't matter.It's not tire pressure it's tire slip and deformation which will vary from run to run - although as the tires heat up the pressure will change introducing more error.As far as comparing the same type of dyno in different locations - this comes down to the calibration of the dyno and the operator. Again the Dynapack should produce more consistent results because you've taken the tires out of the equation.I don't understand your pre-occupation with wanting a whp number, it's just a number and given the known inaccuracies with wheel dynos it's not as accurate a number as you'll get from a Dynapack. A Dynapack does what wheel dynos can only dream of.
The drivetrain of a car all the way to the wheels is composed of metal interacting with metal so there's not a lot of give and take. The big problem is when to get to the squeegy, soft deformable lumps at the end of the drivetrain - the tires. If your mod delivers a big enough gain you will see it on a wheel dyno, but if you're only talking a few hp it can be lost in the grey area called your tires.Bottom line is a dyno does not provide real world picture of what your engine is putting on the road - how can it, a dyno is not a road. The only way to accurately measure hp is by using an engine dyno. Almost everyone knows that comparing dyno numbers makes absolutely no sense, yet you couldn't tell that by all the dyno hp numbers displayed in signatures. The only thing dynos are good for is tuning cars. You change variables and see how the car responds.
Dynapack Viewer Software Windows 7
Other than that, the same dyno might show different numbers next time you get on it.That said, I do think some dynos have more merit than others. For example, I am not clear why the DynoJet dominates the market in the US when it really can't be used for anything other than WOT performance. I am also not sure why DynoDynamics operators rarely talk about the correction factor they all use to make their numbers look more like DynoJet numbers.
And I have to agree with those who report DynaPack numbers that can be lower or higher than DynoJet numbers. I've personally been on a DynaPack that read quite low and on one that read much higher.I do like the DynaPack for its versatility and the fact that it takes the wheel variable out of the game.
Dynapack Viewer Software Download
I don't like the setup procedure, the marginal software, and the vibrations during a DynaPack run.I think the Mustang is underrated. I really like that setup, and it's great for part throttle tuning. The software, too, could be better (that really goes for all of them), but I wish there were more Mustangs out there.Another thing that puzzles me: during the EFI101 University course I attended last week, the very experienced instructor said that tailpipe sniffers are all but useless for monitoring AF in a cat car, and that only sensors before the cat will yield accurate results. If so, then all of my dyno runs to-date must have yielded inaccurate AF results. Mods: Stage 3 Comptech SC, AEM CAI, Comptech street header, stock cat, modified stock injectors, Hondata K-Pro, Hondata IMG, Fujitsubo PG catback, cat, 225/45-17 Goodrich G-force Rivals on Kazera rims, Mugen SS, Quaife LSD, CT lightweight flywheel and street clutch, ACT heavy-duty pressure plate, CT rear sway/tie bar and titanium front strut brace, Type-R replica wing, CT short shifter, Auto Meter Sport Comp full-sweep boost gauge.
Current results: 290 whp on DynaPack. Another thing that puzzles me: during the EFI101 University course I attended last week, the very experienced instructor said that tailpipe sniffers are all but useless for monitoring AF in a cat car, and that only sensors before the cat will yield accurate results. If so, then all of my dyno runs to-date must have yielded inaccurate AF results.you make several good points. Regarding the positioning of the wideband O2 sensor, it is true that sensors placed at the muffler are not as accurate as ones placed before the cat/at the test pipe.