I wanted to start a discussion about truth in Dyno advertising...

Why you might ask...Because if you are true to your self (read ethical) and to your customers, you would always give them the actual non fictional numbers not part+part+part= x amount.

A lot of numbers are thrown around here on NAM, and it might been the number that the Dyno chart showed at the moment but how true are they?

If you would own a company like M7, which one would you use?

202 whp or 216whp that is the question...

peter
Team M7
562-608-8123

Chart #1 dyno pull is the dyno we always use for testing.




Chart #2 Dyno pull same car different dyno, one week later.

 

Hello,
I just want to pose thhis question to further the discussion.

Would have the ECU adjusted by the time the second "DYNO" was done a week later? If so wouldn't the second dyno be the more accurate number?

 

I think it is rather un-fair that people base a comparison of aftermarket parts off of dyno charts.

I don't necessarily know if there is a solution to this problem but as you said different dyno's with different cooling setups for the car will produce totally different results.

Unless there is a standardized set of testing conditions all dyno's truly tell you are a baseline and a before and after comparison.

I know that this is my opinion and not that of all of your customers and I sympathise with the difficutly you vendors have dealing with issues like these.

 

i would say that as long as the individual goes to the same dyno to compare his mod results ;all is cool . no harm no fowl you as a manufacturer of parts can still claim what increases should be . after all regardless of the dyno used so long as there are before and after . the increase should be the same or close. by now we should know a mustang and some other will read high consistantly . and others low. so you as a manuft. can't put a notation to that efffect in your pitch?

 

No changes at all, balmy SoCal weather and identical cooling of the
intercooler (stock Ic at that time).

peter
Team M7
562-608-8123

 

Is this a difference between the two dynos? If so, what was the baseline graph for each of the two dynos?

I think that we all understand that mods give different gains (or losses) on different cars, different days (temperature, atmospheric pressure, etc), different fuel and a host of other factors. To me, the real number comes in the anticipated gain... the change between the baseline (before mod) and the altered state (after mod).

Any talk about "Mod X will take your car to x hp and y torque" doesn't mean a thing to me as I don't know:
1. What other mods were on the test car?
2. What was the baseline for that car with the mods it already had in place.
3. Were other changes made to the car between baseline and the test?
4. Are the figures at the crank or at the wheel (corrected / uncorrected for driveline loss)

I'd say that either of the two dynos would be appropriate to use as long as they are adequately calibrated with the use of a baseline reading in a similar scenario. You might try to take the baseline reading, do the install and take the 'after' reading, but heat-soak might play a part in things so just do what is fair or come up with some way of correcting for the heat soak if you can (baseline run - install part - test run - second test run - uninstall part - second baseline run : average all runs to calculate change)

 

That's all good, but what if I tell you all that the reading on the 2nd chart is the number you will have. Pre and post numbers (Deltas) will never be revealed as everyone is looking at numbers IE. maximum HP.

peter
team m7
562-608-8123

 

Then I guess we have to take YOUR word for it...which is what this all comes down too...who's the best salesman.

 

What does this all mean?

I thought Helix said something about it being almost impossible to pull 200 WHP on their dyno?

 

As long as the dyno is used as a tool, it is all good. IE, we installed a mod and saw a +nn in HP.

I would be doubtful of any one using a dyno as a truthsayer. IE, we isntalled a mod and yuo are guaranteed nnn HP.

I hope that makes sense.

 

In this particular instance, I would discount the second dyno graph, if only for the strange bump in torque at 3,300RPM - it just doesn't make sense.

In general, it's often been said that dynos are nice for marketing, but they don't tell the entire story, and are best used for bragging rights, or tuning and incremental changes.

 

In this scenario, I'd simply ignore your numbers. You might as well be pulling them from your, well, you get the picture.

Dynos are different. Cars (even the same make and model that were produced next to each other on the assembly line) are different. Conditions are different. The delta is the only number that makes any sense...

Ex: Our dyno testing found that adding our (insert product here) to our stock (or otherwise specified) 200# MCS increased peak HP by X HP

 

Based on this info you'd have to use the first one, because that is your baseline. If you have reason to believe it is in error, then do it again.

 

The similarity between your two graphs Peter lies in the torque plot above 3800 RPM. They are similar in shape, however that said, it's inappropriate to even compare the two plots on the same dyno, as critical information for each run have not been disclosed [i.e. IAT, ECT, if one or both are SAE corrected, if the dyno has a drivetrain loss fudge factor or is showing SAE corrected [aka atmospheric corrected] figures as measured at the wheels or axles.

Remember, measurements need qualification and explaination. Without that, the measurement is moot.

Cheers,
Ryan

 

DYNO charts are no longer the vendors "HOLY GRAIL" of proving HP gains.

Just a 2-3 years ago if a vendor was selling HP they had to have a DYNO or access to one to prove their claims. People would accept them as fact or at minimum not fuss to much over it. Nowadays it seems having a DYNO or access to one is no longer considered to be enough. The vendors have a more difficult task these days because; not only do they have to prove their product makes HP but also prove their product is better than the next vendors. Most of all convincing the enthusiast they are being honest about their numbers.

Someone posted here that MUSTANG DYNO's consistantly give higher readings. Now who is to say that the MUSTANG readings are more realistic than a DYNOJET or vise-versa. Which DYNO gives us the real numbers? Like many say....DYNO's are only good for the same vehicle comparison. Comparing one DYNO reading from another proves nothing. Like all science experiments consistancy is the key for good results.

I would recommend that you use the same DYNO for the same vehicle as upgrades are being added. This will at least be more believable and subject to less criticism.
I feel for you vendors. The internet has given people a tool. Some people use it to make build good worthwhile things while others us it to destroy what is being built.
Keep making the quality products you do and you will be left standing when the dust settles.

 

When the car was run on the Dyno Dynamics, we were told that the dyno is
consistently 15-20% lower in in it's HP readings. And vice-versa the Dynojet
is always running fairly high readings compared to a Mustang, Maha et al.
AEM got rid of it's Mustang dyno as it always read lower then the Dynojet
that the competition was using. All to show better # to it's customers.

peter
Team m7
562-608-8123

 

our cars are very sensitive to the state they're measured in, so all of Ryans points about the missing data are right on. This also means that just useing the same dyno is no guarantee of accurate relative readings. So I think the only real thing to do is to say what was measured (As well as what wasn't)and how it was measured, and let the audience interpret for themselves. In the case of the two graphs that start this thread, they are, to be blunt, experimetal facts. The explanation or interpretation of the two may (and probably will be) very different.

I'm curious about the different readings vs dyno type.... I'll dig into this a bit more. After all, these miracle machines just measure the rate at which the car can do work........

Matt

 

"You can expect hp readings between 202 and 216 horsepower, the actual value dependent on your car's base hp, the dyno and test stand setup, the altitude, humidity and temperature the test was conducted at, the octane rating of the gasoline, and the phase of the moon." I guess what I'm saying is publish a paragraph with the number(s) to explain a range is normal and the reasons for it.

You are trying very hard to be fair and honest Peter, and I applaud you for that.

 

Again, if you don't post the max HP number but just say "It added X HP to a car in this state (stock, lightly modded, CAI + exhaust + TB, etc)" and always use the same dyno for your readings, it's much safer and much more realistic for the consumer. It gets past all of this "Mustangs measure higher than X, which measure higher than Y" problems.

 

Even car manufacturers overstate/understate their figures. Everyone just needs to be more knowledgeable about it and avoid being mis-lead.

 

Ethical dyno numbers? Is there even such a thing?

 

You see here lies the rub.....

Tuners have been known to use Graph# 2, even though Graph #1 is actually
the truth. So the question has nothing to do with base-lines, humidity and or
temperature.... But greed.

peter
Team M7
562-608-8123

 

I remember talking to you about this at AMVIV. It is a big problem. I just don;t trust dyno graphs. I listen to peoples opinions and trust manufacturers who make consistently good products. Like m7

 

Providing truely useful dyno numbers is bordering on the impossible for vendors. It just costs too much money and is too difficult to really control outside of an engine dyno in a very expensive test cell.

I'll second the motion that M7 should be commended for trying and for starting this thread. I'll add that I know that Helix makes every reasonable effort to control their dyno conditions and provide meaningful numbers. Eric and I discussed his techniques a bit when I was at his shop back in late 2003. I think that's also the reason that Eric typically provides a range of projected hp and is pretty conservative.

Testing variables that WILL impact engine power output - humidity, altitude, intake air temperature entering the combustion chambers, coolant temperature, oil temperature, oil type (viscosity, also related to temperature), oil quantity, fuel temperature/quality/octane/additives, intake restriction, exhaust restriction, rpm range used, and dyno calibration accuracy. On those cars with EGR, the EGR % will be calculated based on a combination of tables and sensor inputs and the solution can vary. Changing EGR % will impact cylinder pressure and thus power output.

Those are all true on an engine dyno. If you are using a chassis dyno, as nearly all vendors do ($$$), then all of the above apply plus other variables such as transmission lube (same concerns as oil above), any attempted correction factors, brake rotor weight, wheel/tire weight, transmission type and gear used. That's for a Mustang Dyno or other load (edycurrent) type. For inertial dynos like the Dynojet, then tire slippage and wheel/tire moment of interia also are factors.

None of the above comes from hearsay or reading magazine articles or web postings. Testing engines on dynos is what I do every day as a profession. I'm currently responsible for a group of test engineers conducting endurance testing, abuse testing and mechanical mapping of developmental (future product and current product) engines using engine dynos and motoring dynos in test cells which are capable of controling all of the factors noted above. We also have the luxury of measuring cylinder pressure and rocker lever loads per degree of crank angle, and having heavily instrumented engines recording literally hundreds of measured and ECM parameters.

As MINI owners, none of the vendors we have available to us have those kinds of facilities available to them. It just flat costs far too much money for them to possibly justify it, and I certainly don't hold it against them. Heck, some automotive manufacturers don't have those kinds of resources available.

Running a baseline on the same dyno using the same car still won't provide truely accurate comparative hp numbers for their customers, due to the practical impossibility of them controlling or even measuring ALL of the above factors. Many do the best they can, which is all we can really ask for as consumers. Just don't get too wrapped around the axle worrying about a couple hp here or there when making purchase decisions. The odds of you having accurate hp numbers to compare is virtually nil.

Scott
90SM

 

Jeez, sorry about the book. I guess I'll blame it on being up too late and having a subject that is near and dear to my heart (and wallet).

Scott
90SM