skewing the dyno??

-
Dart Frog said:
A couple of things come to mind one, dyno's are a great tool for recording horsepower and torque but they also are great tools for advertising !!:rolleyes: Skewed numbers oh yeah! I for one l totally miss the pre-dyno everywhere days when there was so much more mystery and intrigue to how a person built their motor.
Was the six pack better than the dual quad or was the tunnel ram superior to the large single plane etc,and or was it just the driver? It was to be determined either on Friday night or Saturday somewhere at the track or on some back road. Now you just get to listen to some self-proclaimed expert on how you could get more horsepower if you went cookie cutter says the dyno God :( in the latest article. Blah blah blah!
Click to expand...
Well put, lol.
 
Dart Frog said:
A couple of things come to mind one, dyno's are a great tool for recording horsepower and torque but they also are great tools for advertising !!:rolleyes: Skewed numbers oh yeah! I for one l totally miss the pre-dyno everywhere days when there was so much more mystery and intrigue to how a person built their motor.
Was the six pack better than the dual quad or was the tunnel ram superior to the large single plane etc,and or was it just the driver? It was to be determined either on Friday night or Saturday somewhere at the track or on some back road. Now you just get to listen to some self-proclaimed expert on how you could get more horsepower if you went cookie cutter says the dyno God :( in the latest article. Blah blah blah!
Click to expand...

So tuning in ignorance is a better way to do it?

Got it.
 
273 said:
Unless you fudge the Torque and Rpm readings themselves, the engine actually made that power, it's just in whatever unrealistic and or uncontrolled set up you have. Don't see many doing Net Hp readings.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure with the Dyno software you can manipulate the rpm that is read by the computer.
That would be some bullshit if so.
 
Newbomb Turk said:
They should be looking at the observed numbers.

That’s exactly how much power the engine made on that day, in those conditions.

The corrected numbers are so you can test at various times of the year and have comparable data.
Click to expand...
Like @.050 numbers on cam duration, tis a standard.
 
MOPARMAGA said:
I agree, what dart frog somehow to mention is that, the ability to dial in a great tune on the Dyno.
Click to expand...


And test back to back in a relatively controlled environment.

You take out the track, junk tires, piss poor chassis tuning, trash converters, horrible shocks and best of all, drivers.

Very few drivers are capable of jumping out of the car and telling you exactly what happened.

Most of those guys are the ones you see on TV.

Dirt bikes aren’t much different. A good majority of riders can’t tell you if the suspension is packing or if the seat is slapping them in the ***.

You take out as many variables as you can. It reduces costs, wear on parts and you end up with something better.
 
Tune..
Performs decent. Performs really good. Performs Great.
To me, tuning is never really finished because the entire car always has room for improvement. Why? It's all man made, so the improvements are endless. And whatever we create, somebody at some point will create it better.
 
Newbomb Turk said:
And test back to back in a relatively controlled environment.

You take out the track, junk tires, piss poor chassis tuning, trash converters, horrible shocks and best of all, drivers.

Very few drivers are capable of jumping out of the car and telling you exactly what happened.

Most of those guys are the ones you see on TV.

Dirt bikes aren’t much different. A good majority of riders can’t tell you if the suspension is packing or if the seat is slapping them in the ***.

You take out as many variables as you can. It reduces costs, wear on parts and you end up with something better.
Click to expand...
Zaklee
 
318willrun said:
Tune..
Performs decent. Performs really good. Performs Great.
To me, tuning is never really finished because the entire car always has room for improvement. Why? It's all man made, so the improvements are endless. And whatever we create, somebody at some point will create it better.
Click to expand...
So what you're saying is the Lord needs to give us some divine tuning.
 

Someone just posted a pretty huge HP smallblock dyno run on this site the other day, and he had ALL the important data cropped out of the video. My first question is how many % was the correction? Anything more that 1-1.5% is probably bogus to inflate the numbers
 
NC Engine Builder said:
Someone just posted a pretty huge HP smallblock dyno run on this site the other day, and he had ALL the important data cropped out of the video. My first question is how many % was the correction? Anything more that 1-1.5% is probably bogus to inflate the numbers
Click to expand...

I’ve seen as high as 12% where I live. The CF can go higher in places like Colorado.

It’s not the CF that’s the issue.
 
Newbomb Turk said:
No. You look at how many pound per hour of fuel you burn to make 1 horsepower. It’s called:

Brake
Specific
Fuel
Consumption

The standard is it takes .5 pounds of fuel to make 1 horsepower for 1 minute.

Your BSFC would be .5.

Today, even decent engines have BSFC rates of .45ish and at one time I heard nascar was dipping into the .39ish range.

At any rate, if the engine is burning enough fuel to make 400 hp and the dyno says it’s making 500 hp you know there is an issue.

When NHRA pencil whipped the Dodge out of competition with the fuel and rpm rules, Chris McGaha did some testing of a Dodge on his dyno and after a few pulls he saw how much fuel it was using and he said it would never be competitive as the rules stood.

That’s how critical fuel flow numbers on the dyno are.
Click to expand...
So from what you are telling me,
as I try to understand,
that when he tested the same engine twice,
and the carbureted version made more top end horse power than the fuel injection setup,
the carburetor was flowing more fuel than the fuel injection at the same rpm,
(I believe at the very top end of the rpm range)
-which illustrates why the carburetor makes the increase in horse power for the same engine over the fuel injection dyno run.

Please forgive, just trying to understand why there would be a difference with the same exact engine if rpm was the same.

Thank you very much.
 
I wonder how much power an engine loses in significant elevation change, dyno to dyno (say versus sea level) or while driving something extreme like the Pike’s ?hill? Climb.
 
Dart Frog said:
Was the six pack better than the dual quad or was the tunnel ram superior to the large single plane etc,and or was it just the driver? It was to be determined either on Friday night or Saturday somewhere at the track or on some back road.
Click to expand...
A dyno is a great tool, saves money and time. I spent 1000's of dollars in time and parts back in the day testing by trial and error.
A dyno would have saved me money and probably made me faster. It took a bunch of needless money and time to get my street car to run mid 11's in 1980.
Probably run 9's now for the same amount of money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-
Back
Top Bottom