elvism

slegos888

a mustang dyno adds a load to the car to simulate real world power...therefore will show less power then a dunojet which dosent measure power under a load!

HastaLaVista

While I don't know the difference between a Mustang Dyno and Dynojet, I do know this is wrong. The Dynojet system is capable of load testing.

RRRoamer

They are both rolling road dynos. They both put a load on the car (how would you measure power without a load?). My (limited) understanding is that they use different sized /weighted rollers and different calibrations/calculations, which is were the variation comes in. It really doesn't matter (other than bragging rights!) because you are FAR more interested in variations run to run when you are tuning a car, not in the actual peak HP.

new22003

Mustang dyno reads about 5% lower.

slegos888

While I don't know the difference between a Mustang Dyno and Dynojet, I do know this is wrong. The Dynojet system is capable of load testing.
[/b][/quote]
ummmm no!....here ya go!

"01-25-2004, 12:40 PM
Due to the constant controversy surrounding the subject, I felt it necessary for there to be a little explaination involving the use of Mustang (www.mustangdyne.com) dyno's versus Dynojet (www.dynojet.com) dyno's.

As everybody on here is more than likely already aware, Mustang dyno's tend to read considerably lower than Dynojets. A car that makes 450 rwhp on a dynojet, might only make 410-420 on a Mustang dyno. Many people tend to blame that on the belief that the Mustang dyno is inaccurate, and the dynojet IS accurate, therefore everybody needs to use Dynojets. Unfortunately this is almost the complete opposite. But does that make one dyno worse off than another when simply measuring hp? No, not really. I feel they are both nice machines, but 1 can do a lot more than the other... So let me explain.

A Dynojet is what most of you know as an "inertia" based dyno. This means the computer calculates the amount of rwhp a car is making, based on the speed in which it accelerates the drums. Simple as that.

A Mustang dyno is what you refer to as an "eddy current" based dyno. This is much like the way engine dyno's, such as the industry standard Superflow SF-901 works. The eddy current unit measures torque based off a strain gauge (in laymen's terms, it is physically measuring power/torque), thus telling the computer what power, or torque, a car is making to the rear wheels.

As a result of the complexity of this type of dyno, you are able to put a controlled load to the wheels of the car, and see in real time the effect your tuning is having on power output... Making the Mustang dyno a far superior dyno for the use of tuning.

For some, you may ask why you can't do this with a Dynojet. Especially considering they offer what they refer to as their "Dynotrac" option which basically is a train brake able to put a constant load on the drums, allowing for some limited amount of tuning. What a person must take into effect though is that due to the Dynojet being an inertia based dyno, the user is unable to see in real time the effects his tuning is having on power output. Therefore making tuning much more time consuming, and not nearly as effective as on a Mustang dyno.

So faced with these differences, you come to a fork in the road.

A: superior tuning abilities

or

B: industry standard rwhp #'s

Simply put, there are many consumers that refuse to use a Mustang dyno, simply due to the fact that their numbers are lower than those of a Dynojet, which is the standard chassis dyno for most speed shops today. For HPE we have been faced with that already. So to enhance our customer satisfaction. We have felt it necessary to not only provide you with the superior tuning of a Mustang dyno, but to also give you those darn Dynojet numbers you have all grown to love. So, by spring we hope to have our shop equipped with both a Mustang dyno, and a Dynojet. That sound alright to you guys?


Sincerely,
Charles Anders
President of Horsepower Engineering
Houston, TX"



like i said b4

HastaLaVista

ummmm no!....here ya go!
[/b][/quote]

[clipped propoganda]
Yes, that's a real objective source.

Almost as objective as this.

Note the eddy current load control.

ManEHawke

Basicaly the main question was answered already, and then it's what people prefer.