Dyno'd
3/25/10, 10:37 AM
#101
Banned
Join Date: August 16, 2006
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ford may well have gone conservative on the power ratings so that they can put up new numbers against whatever new numbers the bowtie boys put out in response.
Also, remember that most of the 03-04 terminator cars dyno'd stronger than what their official power ratings would have suggested they would.
Also, remember that most of the 03-04 terminator cars dyno'd stronger than what their official power ratings would have suggested they would.
3/25/10, 10:44 AM
#102
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
Join Date: November 14, 2007
Location: Pacific NW USA
Posts: 3,652
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
6 Posts
Last year I had some dyno tuning done on my supercharged '07 GT. Well-respected tuner around here, I might add. His dyno is a Mustang Dyno (which reads 5-10% lower than the typical Dynojet). Anyway....
Because I have an automatic, he always has to alter my tune to lock the car in 4th (1:1 ratio) so it doesn't downshift at WOT on the rollers. So, he accidentally locked it for 3rd gear and it dyno'd a crazy high number (400+ rwhp). Realizing that he goofed, he altered the tune to correctly lock it in 4th, and we pulled again and got a more reasonable 364 rwhp (my car typically dyno's in the 350-370 rwhp range).
So, if this '11 GT was dyno'd in 4th gear with it's 1.32:1 ratio, then I'm going to assume that the 395/365 #'s don't mean squat as they were not done in the conventionally accepted 1:1 transmission ratio that would make for a more realistic comparison.
Because I have an automatic, he always has to alter my tune to lock the car in 4th (1:1 ratio) so it doesn't downshift at WOT on the rollers. So, he accidentally locked it for 3rd gear and it dyno'd a crazy high number (400+ rwhp). Realizing that he goofed, he altered the tune to correctly lock it in 4th, and we pulled again and got a more reasonable 364 rwhp (my car typically dyno's in the 350-370 rwhp range).
So, if this '11 GT was dyno'd in 4th gear with it's 1.32:1 ratio, then I'm going to assume that the 395/365 #'s don't mean squat as they were not done in the conventionally accepted 1:1 transmission ratio that would make for a more realistic comparison.
3/25/10, 10:46 AM
#104
Banned
Join Date: August 16, 2006
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last year I had some dyno tuning done on my supercharged '07 GT. Well-respected tuner around here, I might add. His dyno is a Mustang Dyno (which reads 5-10% lower than the typical Dynojet). Anyway....
Because I have an automatic, he always has to alter my tune to lock the car in 4th (1:1 ratio) so it doesn't downshift at WOT on the rollers. So, he accidentally locked it for 3rd gear and it dyno'd a crazy high number (400+ rwhp). Realizing that he goofed, he altered the tune to correctly lock it in 4th, and we pulled again and got a more reasonable 364 rwhp (my car typically dyno's in the 350-370 rwhp range).
So, if this '11 GT was dyno'd in 4th gear with it's 1.32:1 ratio, then I'm going to assume that the 395/365 #'s don't mean squat as they were not done in the conventionally accepted 1:1 transmission ratio that would make for a more realistic comparison.
Because I have an automatic, he always has to alter my tune to lock the car in 4th (1:1 ratio) so it doesn't downshift at WOT on the rollers. So, he accidentally locked it for 3rd gear and it dyno'd a crazy high number (400+ rwhp). Realizing that he goofed, he altered the tune to correctly lock it in 4th, and we pulled again and got a more reasonable 364 rwhp (my car typically dyno's in the 350-370 rwhp range).
So, if this '11 GT was dyno'd in 4th gear with it's 1.32:1 ratio, then I'm going to assume that the 395/365 #'s don't mean squat as they were not done in the conventionally accepted 1:1 transmission ratio that would make for a more realistic comparison.
PLUS, even when in correct gear this guys dyno is a joke and unreliable. GT500 in 4th ( 1:1 ) got 511 RWHP on his dyno. Come on. I love my car, but it sure as hell isn't that strong stock.
3/25/10, 10:46 AM
#105
Banned
Join Date: August 16, 2006
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3/25/10, 10:55 AM
#106
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: January 18, 2010
Location: KC, MO
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would think it depends on if the dyno is intended to calculate engine power or just measure power at the wheels. If intending to measure engine power, then it depends on if it is hard-configured for a typical car in a 1:1 transmission gear, or if the operator has to enter the gearing parameters, or if the dyno automatically determines the gear reduction based on the speeds of the engine and the roller. If hard-configured, there's a problem. If automatically adjusted, there is not a problem. If operator configured, it depends on if the operator entered the correct parameters into the dyno before the run.
Again, I don't know anything about dynos. Just trying to figure it out based on what engineering background I've got.
Again, I don't know anything about dynos. Just trying to figure it out based on what engineering background I've got.
3/25/10, 11:12 AM
#107
FR500 Member
Join Date: July 1, 2008
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even if all cars are dyno'd with the trans in a 1:1 gear, there are all kinds of different rear end gears that are used. So a 3.31 car isn't going to 'make' as much power as a 3.73 car, or a 4.10. So as eci initially said, it's all bunk anyway. The only way to know for sure is to test the car on a brake dyno.
3/25/10, 11:13 AM
#108
FR500 Member
Join Date: July 1, 2008
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would think it depends on if the dyno is intended to calculate engine power or just measure power at the wheels. If intending to measure engine power, then it depends on if it is hard-configured for a typical car in a 1:1 transmission gear, or if the operator has to enter the gearing parameters, or if the dyno automatically determines the gear reduction based on the speeds of the engine and the roller. If hard-configured, there's a problem. If automatically adjusted, there is not a problem. If operator configured, it depends on if the operator entered the correct parameters into the dyno before the run.
Again, I don't know anything about dynos. Just trying to figure it out based on what engineering background I've got.
Again, I don't know anything about dynos. Just trying to figure it out based on what engineering background I've got.
3/25/10, 11:16 AM
#109
GT Member
Join Date: January 10, 2010
Location: huntley, il
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
. Too much ignorance for all things not Camaro.I've been looking around and found this posted on another site: "no it will not read higher. the dyno reads spark signal for its rpm reading. it calculates gearing based on rpm and roller speed. it adjusts for gearing and IT WILL READ LOW. just go to a dyno and do the same for yourself . i have and i know exactly how low a lower gear will read." I'm in no way saying you're wrong, I'm just putting it out there for discussion. Quite a few people are saying that a 5th gear pull would've given higher #'s. I'll also put out that the track #'s are what's most important. That's what I really want to see.
3/25/10, 11:17 AM
#110
FR500 Member
Join Date: July 1, 2008
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3/25/10, 11:26 AM
#111
V6 Member
Join Date: September 8, 2009
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3/25/10, 11:29 AM
#112
Banned
Join Date: August 16, 2006
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look at this idiot:
http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showpo...29&postcount=9
How is it STILL the better buy? The Mustang is better sorted period. The N/A Camaro SS now weighs more than a GT500. LOL. GM has NOTHING in the pipeline other than the mythical Z/28.
OMG, the Mustang is getting better. What do we do! What do we do! *Panic*
NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorrry but Camaro still looks nicer, is STILL the better buy and GM will blow them out the water soon enough.
NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorrry but Camaro still looks nicer, is STILL the better buy and GM will blow them out the water soon enough.
http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showpo...29&postcount=9
How is it STILL the better buy? The Mustang is better sorted period. The N/A Camaro SS now weighs more than a GT500. LOL. GM has NOTHING in the pipeline other than the mythical Z/28.
Last edited by eci; 3/25/10 at 11:30 AM.
3/25/10, 11:39 AM
#113
I Have No Life
Until Alpha comes along, they'll have to deal with the weight.
Even with a new smaller lighter V8 that's rumoured....it won't help.
They can't really down the weight, so they'll have to up the power.... but Ford can play that game too.
Even with a new smaller lighter V8 that's rumoured....it won't help.
They can't really down the weight, so they'll have to up the power.... but Ford can play that game too.
3/25/10, 12:00 PM
#114
Bullitt Member
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the right options, one helluva Mustang GT could hit the roadracing circuits and still be EPA legal! For that matter, one helluva V6 Mustang could hit the roadracing circuits and still be EPA legal!
Tests I'd love to see, done by excellent drivers in the appropriate venues (dragracin' & roadracin'):
A standard 2011 GT500
A 2011 GT500 with all the handling/braking upgrades that may be available in an otherwise standard 2011 GT500 (no SuperSnakes, no Prudhomme Editions, or whatever)
A standard 2011 GT350 (assuming the supercharged 5.0L is in fact the standard engine)
A standard 2011 Mustang GT
A 2011 Mustang GT with all the OEM handling/braking upgrades that may be available
A 2011 Mustang V6 with all the OEM handling/braking upgrades that may be available
Beautiful naked chicks with all the OEM handling/braking upgrades that may be available
A 2011 Mustang upgraded to the EcoBoost V6 with the exhausts configured for longitudinal mounting in a RWD vehicle
All to be manual trannies, natch.
Unfortunately, six or seven different mags would havta be purchased to get all this--and then you have different drivers on different days at different strips/tracks
Hell, just bring on the beautiful naked chicks and I'll thrash 'em myself...Greg "Eights" Ates
3/25/10, 12:35 PM
#115
Legacy TMS Member
Join Date: January 25, 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,849
Received 1,573 Likes
on
1,078 Posts
hmmm . . . this dyno stuff all seems a lot more complicated than it needs to be . . . horsepower is simply Torque X RPM X a factor (I don't recall the exact formula off the top of my head, but that's the essence of it) -- so why doesn't the dyno simply measure torque and RPM and do the math?
maybe it all relates to calculating it back to the engine and that's where the gear ratios come in, since we're trying to plot against engine rpm, not rear wheel rpm . . . but then again we're trying to measure rear wheel horsepower not crank horsepower . . .
or maybe it's because the dyno machine can't actually measure torque, it has to infer torque from the spin-up rate of the roller?
maybe it all relates to calculating it back to the engine and that's where the gear ratios come in, since we're trying to plot against engine rpm, not rear wheel rpm . . . but then again we're trying to measure rear wheel horsepower not crank horsepower . . .
or maybe it's because the dyno machine can't actually measure torque, it has to infer torque from the spin-up rate of the roller?
3/25/10, 12:47 PM
#116
FR500 Member
Join Date: July 1, 2008
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The major problem is that the "affordable" dynos don't measure torque directly, but rather infer it from acceleration of a rotating assembly. One you start accelerating than all sorts of stuff happens, like power being diverted to speed up the rotating parts of the car. Since the rotating mass of each car is different, and because there is no easy way to measure it, people have to guess how much power is eaten up.
More expensive torque-loading dynos measure the output torque at steady state, which gives a better picture of what the engine is producing. But in steady state it's not possible to measure improvements made by reducing the rotating mass on a car.
The article I linked earlier talks about the fact that Dynojet, among others, don't just give you the power AS MEASURED at the rear wheels, they add on these phantom correction factors. The point the article makes is that the most reasonable measure of real world performance is actual real wheel horsepower, without the correction factors.
More expensive torque-loading dynos measure the output torque at steady state, which gives a better picture of what the engine is producing. But in steady state it's not possible to measure improvements made by reducing the rotating mass on a car.
The article I linked earlier talks about the fact that Dynojet, among others, don't just give you the power AS MEASURED at the rear wheels, they add on these phantom correction factors. The point the article makes is that the most reasonable measure of real world performance is actual real wheel horsepower, without the correction factors.
3/25/10, 01:41 PM
#118
Bullitt Member
A buddy of mine contacted Dynojet about this same discussion regarding with what gear the measurement is done. Looks to me like we could expect to see a higher HP number if this was done in the 1:1 gear. This is what Kevin Lockliear at Dynojet had to say:
"Typically, you will see the highest numbers in the 1:1 or closest to 1:1 ratio gear. This is because no additional power is being exhausted to accelerate the inertia of the drivetrain. In 2nd gear, let’s say, because the gearing allows the car to accelerate more quickly, more HP will be used to accelerate the inertia of the drivetrain than in 1:1. See my graph below. This example was a 1996 Pontiac Trans Am WS6, all gear run. Ignore the small shift spikes at the beginning of each gear as that’s an inertia spike (where letting the clutch out abruptly against an engine with higher RPM than matching the next gear at that speed causes a brief quick acceleration of the drums).
As you can see, the HP was the highest in the 1:1 gear, and lower in other gears. From what I have experienced, the further you get from 1:1, the lower the power getting to the wheels and drum surface will be, as more is used to accelerate the inertia of the drivetrain, overcome frictional losses in meshing gears, side loading bearings, etc."
"Typically, you will see the highest numbers in the 1:1 or closest to 1:1 ratio gear. This is because no additional power is being exhausted to accelerate the inertia of the drivetrain. In 2nd gear, let’s say, because the gearing allows the car to accelerate more quickly, more HP will be used to accelerate the inertia of the drivetrain than in 1:1. See my graph below. This example was a 1996 Pontiac Trans Am WS6, all gear run. Ignore the small shift spikes at the beginning of each gear as that’s an inertia spike (where letting the clutch out abruptly against an engine with higher RPM than matching the next gear at that speed causes a brief quick acceleration of the drums).
As you can see, the HP was the highest in the 1:1 gear, and lower in other gears. From what I have experienced, the further you get from 1:1, the lower the power getting to the wheels and drum surface will be, as more is used to accelerate the inertia of the drivetrain, overcome frictional losses in meshing gears, side loading bearings, etc."
Last edited by Stormbringer; 3/25/10 at 01:42 PM.
3/25/10, 01:47 PM
#119
Banned
Join Date: August 16, 2006
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't mesh with my dynosheets or anyone elses. I really wish Insideline would clear it up, or someone else would throw one on the dyno. Are we now to believe the car would put out 410 in 5th? Are we to believe the engine is actually worth 475 crank HP, and Ford is just "underrating it" to 412?
I pulled my two sheets from the G8 out, 331 in 3rd, 301 in 4th. Dynojet 248c.
I'll be on a 224xLC with my Mustang in a week, I'll have them run it in 3rd which is close to the ratio of the GT's 4th.
I pulled my two sheets from the G8 out, 331 in 3rd, 301 in 4th. Dynojet 248c.
I'll be on a 224xLC with my Mustang in a week, I'll have them run it in 3rd which is close to the ratio of the GT's 4th.
Last edited by eci; 3/25/10 at 01:52 PM.
3/25/10, 01:59 PM
#120
Bullitt Member
Doesn't mesh with my dynosheets or anyone elses. I really wish Insideline would clear it up, or someone else would throw one on the dyno. Are we now to believe the car would put out 410 in 5th? Are we to believe the engine is actually worth 475 crank HP, and Ford is just "underrating it" to 412?
I pulled my two sheets from the G8 out, 331 in 3rd, 301 in 4th. Dynojet 248c.
I'll be on a 224xLC with my Mustang in a week, I'll have them run it in 3rd which is close to the ratio of the GT's 4th.
I pulled my two sheets from the G8 out, 331 in 3rd, 301 in 4th. Dynojet 248c.
I'll be on a 224xLC with my Mustang in a week, I'll have them run it in 3rd which is close to the ratio of the GT's 4th.
Well Im really in no position to argue with you. All I have is the graph and the statement from Dynojet. Is your G8 a GT or GXP?