Take the motor to another dyno and it also says 500 hp. Now what do you think?
Here’s the problem and you and I both know it.
I watched part of joes video and turned it off.
You have to test the engine just like they are in the car. You can’t use dyno headers, dyno ignition and dyno water temps and then drop it in the car and blame the dyno for the issue.
I pretty much test at 160 degrees. That’s at least 20 degrees colder than what most guys run. That hurts power. I have tested at 180 if the guy asks for it.
Dyno headers are about always 10-20 better than most headers. Maybe more.
And of course it’s never the chassis that’s an issue. Never.
The car has old tires that are hard as wood. The converter is wrong (that’s a HUGE issue), gearing is off, junk shocks (I’m still appalled going to the track today and seeing cars with absolutely junk shocks on them), the chassis is bound up because it’s bent and hadn’t been serviced since water got wet.
The ignition in the car is different so that means the timing most likely isn’t correct like it may have been on the dyno.
I could go on and on but I’ll lay out the real truth (which I know you know 92b but it needs to be repeated over and over and over until it sinks in) and that is the correction factor.
I don’t care which CF is used it will only be correct IF the exact conditions of the correction factor is met.
Since I use (and will continue to do so) J607 which is also called “Standard Temperature and Pressure and that’s 60 degrees F, a 29.92 barometer and 0 humidity.
So if my CORRECTED numbers say the engine makes 500 hp at STP that means it only makes THAT power at the above conditions. PERIOD. End of the discussion.
You can use a “newer” CF, but the corrected power numbers will only be actual when the conditions of that correction factor are met. EVER.
Where I live, on a “good” weather day my correction factor will be 6%. On some days I’ve seen damn near 13% correction!
That means on that day the engine is making that percentage LESS on the dyno (observed power) and no more.
Here’s another catch. Even the OBSERVED (uncorrected numbers) are only valid when the weather conditions are the same as they are on the exact day the engine was on the pump.
As dyno operators we need to do better at explaining this stuff to the end users. No matter what correction factor is used it’s only correct for that day and those conditions.
No matter what the observed numbers are, they are only correct for those conditions.
The correction factor (whatever CF is used) is only used so I can test an engine in August of 2023 and again in January 2026 and be able to take weather out of the equation so I can compare numbers.
If we didn’t use a CF then the same engine tested in August would make less power (typically) than it would in January.
So how would I know if any updates and upgrades I did to the engine made more (or less) power if I’m chasing weather?
It’s impossible.
I guarantee everyone that the dyno numbers were not wrong. The end user doesn’t understand how it works.
Joe didn’t get burned by dyno testing. He doesn’t know what he doesn’t know.
Oh, here’s another one of my favorite power loser issues.
The fuel system on my dyno is capable of well over 1200 hp. Easily.
When the customer puts the engine in the car and the fuel system is questionable at best and I’ve seen some real garbage fuel systems out there and the car is slow it’s never the fuel system either.
I forgot about water pumps. I see way too many guys testing with electric water pumps on the dyno and they use a mechanical pump in the car.
I’m going to test my engine with an electric pump, a mechanical pump at 6% over driven and the same pump at 20% over driven so I can see the power losses.
Again, that testing is only valid on my engine with my pumps and pulleys. But the numbers will be valid.
So if we just look at the losses from dyno headers to chassis headers (let’s just say it’s 12 hp), cold coolant (10 hp), weak fuel system (10 hp), weak ignition or an ignition with a different retard rate (15 hp) and an electric water pump (10 hp) that’s 57 (FIFTY SEVEN) hp difference right there.
And I believe those to be minimum losses. I know I’ve seen more losses than that.
I blame us, the dyno operators for not doing a better job of educating the end user about how this tool works, its limitations and its benefits and I hold the end user equally responsible for not testing as close as can be done on the dyno like it is in the car and for neglecting chassis and chassis tuning and blaming the tool (dyno) rather than taking a long look in the mirror for some of the problems.
That’s just my .03 cents from dyno testing stuff for close to 30 years now.
