Brainstormin' 440 vs 5.9 ...

[Sharpone]

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.

Thank you, an education for me. Makes sense
Dan

 

[318willrun]

My point is you are making the assumption that the motor didn't really make 500 hp at the dyno based on the mph at the track.without first verifying that the motor is or is not still making 500 hp.

If a top notch race team uploads at the track with there fresh off the dyno engine and it runs 100 hp slow on the mph are they going to say "Oh well our dyno must be wrong."

More likely they are going to check all the variables that could have changed since the motor came off the dyno to make sure that isn't the problem. Timing, fuelsystem, electrical compression, chassis etc. And if they don't find a problem anywhere first thing they are going to do when they get back to the shop is put the motor back on the dyno and make sure it is still making the hp it was. If it is then they might take the motor to another shop and verify their own dyno isn'tthe problem. If you don't systematically following a procedure to verify where you are at you are left just guessing.

Ok, so you won't answer the question if his combo vs mph sounds like 375 or 500. Got it (I am disappointed) . You assume what I'm thinking. But you are wrong. I said in my video, and I'll say it here, most times dyno HP doesn't show up at the track. People hear "500 hp", then see 87 mph, then think they need 500 hp in a like scenario to run 87 mph. And back to my original point, all the dyno numbers on 440's in the world will have no bearing on what my 440 runs in my truck (which is why I made the video). That is not a knock on dyno's, as I plainly stated that they are very valuable tool. And it isn't saying the HP wasn't real. It's saying that in most cases that HP doesn't show up at the track.

 

[92b]

Ok, so you won't answer the question if his combo vs mph sounds like 375 or 500. Got it (I am disappointed)

I did answer your question. If the motor is supposed to have 500 hp and the track is showing 375 then you need to find out why. Not just assume the dyno is wrong. It could be wrong but if you don't verify that it is wrong you will never run the true potential of the motor.

 

[Newbomb Turk]

Ok, so you won't answer the question if his combo vs mph sounds like 375 or 500. Got it (I am disappointed) . You assume what I'm thinking. But you are wrong. I said in my video, and I'll say it here, most times dyno HP doesn't show up at the track. People hear "500 hp", then see 87 mph, then think they need 500 hp in a like scenario to run 87 mph. And back to my original point, all the dyno numbers on 440's in the world will have no bearing on what my 440 runs in my truck (which is why I made the video). That is not a knock on dyno's, as I plainly stated that they are very valuable tool. And it isn't saying the HP wasn't real. It's saying that in most cases that HP doesn't show up at the track.

Im not speaking for 92b because he is fully capable of defending himself and his knowledge but I’m saying YOU think the dyno is wrong and I am saying it’s 95% likely it’s NOT wrong and the chassis and the other things I mentioned are what’s wrong.

And the gross misunderstanding of how correction factors work is a big issue.

If you’ve never been on a dyno yourself you shouldn’t criticize the the tool.

That’s why I rarely watch Joe. He’s not an engine builder and he’s certainly not a machinist.

And I blame the dyno operator where he’s going for not educating him on the tool.

I try and educate my customers but most of them watch YouTube dyno testing so they have zero clue of what it looks like in real life.

 

[318willrun]

I did answer your question. If the motor is supposed to have 500 hp and the track is showing 375 then you need to find out why. Not just assume the dyno is wrong. It could be wrong but if you don't verify that it is wrong you will never run the true potential of the motor.

Ok, so you are saying it's showed about 375 at the track. Something is wrong then. And I don't care what because the "what" wasn't my point. My point was it "didn't".

 

[Newbomb Turk]

Ok, so you are saying it's showed about 375 at the track. Something is wrong then. And I don't care what because the "what" wasn't my point. My point was it "didn't".

And we keep telling you that it’s likely NOT the dyno.

Did you read my post?

Edit: the quickest and fastest guys on the planet all dyno test. They must all be stupid for wasting the time, effort and money to do it.

 

[318willrun]

Im not speaking for 92b because he is fully capable of defending himself and his knowledge but I’m saying YOU think the dyno is wrong and I am saying it’s 95% likely it’s NOT wrong and the chassis and the other things I mentioned are what’s wrong.

And the gross misunderstanding of how correction factors work is a big issue.

If you’ve never been on a dyno yourself you shouldn’t criticize the the tool.

That’s why I rarely watch Joe. He’s not an engine builder and he’s certainly not a machinist.

And I blame the dyno operator where he’s going for not educating him on the tool.

I try and educate my customers but most of them watch YouTube dyno testing so they have zero clue of what it looks like in real life.

No where... literally nowhere.. did I blame the dyno. Not in my video. not here. I simply said the dyno numbers most of the time do not show up at the track. I used Joe's truck (after we talked on the phone and he knew what my video was) as the example.

 

[TT5.9mag]

Ok, so you are saying it's showed about 375 at the track. Something is wrong then. And I don't care what because the "what" wasn't my point. My point was it "didn't".

You kinda made it seem like the “what” was the dyno. There are a bunch of reasons why the hp “didn’t” show on the track and the dyno number likely isn’t one of them.

 

[Newbomb Turk]

No where... literally nowhere.. did I blame the dyno. Not in my video. not here. I simply said the dyno numbers most of the time do not show up at the track. I used Joe's truck (after we talked on the phone and he knew what my video was) as the example.

Right Tim, that’s blaming the dyno.

 

[318willrun]

You kinda made it seem like the “what” was the dyno. There are a bunch of reasons why the hp “didn’t” show on the track and the dyno number likely isn’t one of them.

If it seemed that way, it's only because "dyno sensitive" people sniffed something that wasn't there. I don't know how much more plainly I could have said it in my video and here. Dyno's are great tools. But more times than not, the HP doesn't show up at the track. NO WAY can I give all the reasons why in every scenario. That's for the car owners to figure out.

 

[TT5.9mag]

“We dont race dynos”
“ET slips are all that matters”
“I don’t dyno”

Those statements are all rather misleading.

 

[318willrun]

Right Tim, that’s blaming the dyno.

My point is the wallace calculator showed what's realistic in the present. Bad tune. Bad ignition. Call it whatever you want but there is no way 500 HP is pushing Joes truck to 87 mph. Not at the weight, and combo. No way. Where did the 125 horses run off too? I don't know, it's not my truck to figure it out. But you, even you, will say they are gone. Certainly. will you?? LOL

 

[318willrun]

“We dont race dynos”
“ET slips are all that matters”
“I don’t dyno”

Those statements are all rather misleading.

We dont race dyno's. Did you realize my truck is HEAVIER than Joes, and I have a 200,000 mile that is no where NEAR 500 hp, or 400 HP for that matter, and it's only 2.8 tenth's behind Joe's truck??? It's why we don't race dyno sheets. Now, we are so far away from my intended purpose of the video of the 440 is not going to care about every 440 dyno video in my truck. This is not about Joe's truck, or my truck vs his. His was just the example because he dyno's and races. We are of the rails !!!! LOL

 

[TT5.9mag]

My point is the wallace calculator showed what's realistic in the present. Bad tune. Bad ignition. Call it whatever you want but there is no way 500 HP is pushing Joes truck to 87 mph. Not at the weight, and combo. No way. Where did the 125 horses run off too? I don't know, it's not my truck to figure it out. But you, even you, will say they are gone. Certainly. will you?? LOL

What if he chicken foots it for half track? What if he shifts at 4000? The engine could still very well make 500. He just isn’t driving it to make 500. There are WAY TOO MANY VARIABLES for Wallace to be accurate all the time.

 

[Newbomb Turk]

My point is the wallace calculator showed what's realistic in the present. Bad tune. Bad ignition. Call it whatever you want but there is no way 500 HP is pushing Joes truck to 87 mph. Not at the weight, and combo. No way. Where did the 125 horses run off too? I don't know, it's not my truck to figure it out. But you, even you, will say they are gone. Certainly. will you?? LOL

No one is saying the power is gone.

Do you understand what I said about correction factors?

Did Joe publish the observed (uncorrected) power numbers AND the weather conditions?

I didn’t watch the whole video but I’m sure he didn’t. And I’m guessing he doesn’t know himself.

I’m not dyno “sensitive”. That’s a passive/aggressive way of saying the dyno is wrong and dyno guys are crying because the dyno is wrong and we won’t admit it.

The dyno wasn’t wrong.

 

[318willrun]

What if he chicken foots it for half track? What if he shifts at 4000? The engine could still very well make 500. He just isn’t driving it to make 500. There are WAY TOO MANY VARIABLES for Wallace to be accurate all the time.

There is no "what if'. Facts Friends! LOL Joe ran it hard and knows how to race.

 

[TT5.9mag]

There is no "what if'. Facts Friends! LOL Joe ran it hard and knows how to race.

Could you run faster in his truck?

 

[318willrun]

No one is saying the power is gone.

Do you understand what I said about correction factors?

Did Joe publish the observed (uncorrected) power numbers AND the weather conditions?

I didn’t watch the whole video but I’m sure he didn’t. And I’m guessing he doesn’t know himself.

I’m not dyno “sensitive”. That’s a passive/aggressive way of saying the dyno is wrong and dyno guys are crying because the dyno is wrong and we won’t admit it.

The dyno wasn’t wrong.

My entire point was all these 440 dyno videos sent to me will have zero to do with my RV 440 going into my truck. Again, I'm not solving Joe's issues, he's a smart guy and will solve them himself.

 

[318willrun]

Could you run faster in his truck?

I doubt it. Maybe he runs faster in my truck, what then? I don't think highly of myself as a bonified engine master, builder, or racer. I just play and have fun, and encourage others to do the same, even if on a budget

 

[92b]

Ok, so you are saying it's showed about 375 at the track. Something is wrong then. And I don't care what because the "what" wasn't my point. My point was it "didn't".

Your point was it showed 375 because the dyno was wrong. My point is I would verify that assumption before I come to that conclusion.

 

[318willrun]

Your point was it showed 375 because the dyno was wrong. My point is I would verify that assumption before I come to that conclusion.

Wow! Show me once that I said the "dyno was wrong". You are putting words in my mouth. You heard what I didn't say. LOL I said dyno HP doesn't usually show up at the track. And it doesn't. Why? Could be car, weather, driver, tune, or a 100 other reasons including a skewered dyno (they are not the infallible word of God) LOL. But read what you want to read in any of it.

 

[92b]

Wow! Show me once that I said the "dyno was wrong". You are putting words in my mouth. You heard what I didn't say. LOL I said dyno HP doesn't usually show up at the track. And it doesn't. Why? Could be car, weather, driver, tune, or a 100 other reasons including a skewered dyno (they are not the infallible word of God) LOL. But read what you want to read in any of it.

If I'm the only one who interpreted it that way then I apologize for misunderstanding you.

 

[318willrun]

If I'm the only one who interpreted it that way then I apologize for misunderstanding you.

No need to apologize, we're good Obviously, you aren't the only one either. Here is a bad analogy, but It's like if a person says "I don't use valvoline"... people will say "he hates valvoline." Which he didn't say that, he just may prefer GTX.

 

[Illahe]

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.

"I guarantee everyone that the dyno numbers were not wrong. The end user doesn’t understand how it works."

"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."

Testing on a dyno is not in my budget, but I believe the dyno charts are very informative. Especially when choosing a camshaft for a given compression/cylinder head combination within my budget.

On a budget, I strive to harness the steadiest torque curve published for given "said combination."

I recall reading Smokey's publications and he said, "I've seen very capable power plants underperform on the track because the user hadn't figured out his chassis first."

He went on to say that the successful operations had "mule engines" they used to "sort out the chassis" before they flogged the "race engine" in a poor preforming chassis.

Unfortunately, I've never read a drag race publication that admitted they hadn't understood their chassis tuning limitations.

My experience as of late with Smokey's approach has been fruitful. My combination has dropped its ET with less HP/torque because the power plant matches my tuning abilities.

 

[92b]

No need to apologize, we're good Obviously, you aren't the only one either. Here is a bad analogy, but It's like if a person says "I don't use valvoline"... people will say "he hates valvoline." Which he didn't say that, he just may prefer GTX.

My offer still stands. Free dyno session for the 440. We can run the Wallace calculator when we are done and enter that as my guess on your et.