it is 4th gear

 

Mustang dyno's read lower than say like a Dynojet. So if in fact if he is say around 330whp on a Mustang, he is probably more like 350+whp on a Dynojet.

 

*****.




aight, hour and a half I'll put up the correct one in it's place.




EDIT: Fixed on previous page.

 

Not really true.

The problem is that many Dynojet operators "correct" their numbers to something a bit more palatable to their customers.

We have one of just about every species of dyno here in Phoenix (Dynojet, Dynapack, Bosch, Mustang, etc.) and the operators are very sensitive to claims of one being more favorable to another.
Therefore, all of them will produce numbers that are within 1% - 2% of each other for the same car under the same conditions.

 

Solution: Buy your own dyno.

 

Working on it.

 

Don't take dyno numbers to heart. They are tuning tools and if your car has a nice tune in it, the engine will be happy for a long time. That is what you want. It is great to be able to say you make 300/400 ect, but dyno numbers can be smoothed, corrected for different conditions. It will make adjustments to the graph.

I tuned my 1st gen RX7 about 2 months ago. Made 56 pulls to 8500 RPM! lol The wide band wasn't working on the dyno and we were having problems datalogging AFR's. The very last pull it went from 22 psi down to 20. The boost had been rock solid the whole day too. We ended up cracking a seal. With a cracked seal and 20 psi the car made 468 RWHP :D. At 20 psi, we made about 20 pulls and they were all in the 472-475 range. So 80/30/30 compression on the rear rotor didn't pull the power down too much. Kinda funny I ran it at the track the following weekend and qualified number 2 at the import faceoff with a hurt engine haha. It went an 11.21 at 127 mph on ET streets driving like a granny lol. Regular drag radials the trap would be around 130.

 

That scanner of yours .............................. pretty slow huh ?

 

I have owned both a Mustang and Dynojet and the Mustang always reads around 10% lower than a dynojet under the same condition.

There is no way to fudge the numbers on a dynojet unless you are going from STD to SAE numbers.

 

informative thread
did the DIY boost control thread ever get made Kain?

 

Yes I did. I think it got stickied in the tuning section.

 

Been talking with a guy from Sydney who has the BNR upgrade .
he did the (watered down) wastegate mod I suggested and gets 10psi@ 6000 tapering to 7.5-8psi at 8000

Hoping he will post a dyno on here shortly

 

sweet

I'm still curious how J.Cab gets 9psi to redline with his upgrade

 

/\ me too - wish he would dive under his car and take a look for us .....

 

He installed it right..... HAHA.

 

What is even funnier is that we keep recommending this as an upgrade for the Greddy kit yet no-one has produced a decent dyno for it yet after a whole year despite numerous people having fitted it and tried ..........

 

What is even funnier than that is that people are recommending the turbo without a dyno (if that is in fact important to you)...... no customer owes a dyno, the shop could do one if they wanted assuming they thought it was important to get sales.


J Cab nearly killed himself trying to appease the RX8 dyno crowd; and always had some kind of mechanical issue.....**** happens.

 

It is only important to me in the sense that I would like to be able to recommend it to people knowing that it delivers all that it promises - that is all .

 

What else do you need? While it would be nice to have a dyno - algebra 1 works well here too....

X/Y = A/B | 284gs / 255 whp = 369gs / ????

 

fair enough - there is enough anecdotal evidence around as well .

But like you said it would be "nice" to have a dyno .

 

Yeah it really irks me how much stock people put in Dyno's they really only matter if you are doing a before and after on the same day... I have tuned a GTO that went from dyno A to dyno B and lost 50 WHP, then we re-tuned and he got 70 more... but he was still bummed that his numbers weren't that far over 400.... so which dyno was wrong / which one was right? And by how much etc?

All I can say for a fact is that due to XYZ changes to that tune he made 70 more horsepower.... that's it - and you know what, that should be enough. Every other single power pull dyno is just an estimate anyway.

 

But the reason we do that is that it is really the only 1/2 pie decent way of measuring power between different cars in different places .
We know it is not perfect but it is accepted worldwide as a comparison tool .

Comparing g/s logs is way less credible than a dyno

 

It takes time to produce numbers. With a rotary car, everything has to be set up perfectly to get clean runs. The more experienced people can produce numbers easily because they can troubleshoot. People that don't have that experience have to wait for experienced people to help get their cars strait.

I have built many 60-1 turbochargers for rotary engines. Most of them being full Garretts, but they all make really good power on cars that are set up properly.

The water cooled center is the only route to go with the greddy turbo. All of them (non water cooled center housings) I see, have coaked up bearings. That is because of the heat soak cooking the oil in the turbo. That carbon deposite the coaking makes will start to seize the journal bearing in the rear and then after that the piston ring will start to leak causing smoking.

Bryan@BNR
205 640 1193

 

/\ totally agree with you on the experience thing - it's almost like it's a must to be doing your own mechanical work and problem solving (and be good at it) on these things to get a decent result .

My oil cool Greddy has lasted 24000kms so far - it was built using 360 degree thrust brgs . I think that is helping a lot .

 

my next dyno day is march 28th, hopefully i can give a good representation of what capabilities it can produce. soo far, the more i know/understand the more confidence i have in how this upgrade is