Quote:
Originally Posted by RCZ
Ben, what did you get for your baseline again? I think you are thinking the DD reads a lot lower than it does. I think the DD and the MD are close. You are not making 323WHP on a Mustang...that's craziness.
|
I never did a baseline, but we ran a baseline on bullitt5897's stock Z right before my run on the same dyno and he got 254, remember? As for number comparisons between the different dynos, I'm just applying the information I found and posted to your
http://www.the370z.com/vq37vhr/2199-...html#post46179 thread. Specifically, I'm going by this part:
"The closest in numbers (at low HP) is the mustang, but using the above example, the same 300hp car was dyno'd back to back on a Dyno Dynamics 450 LowBoy (what we have) and a Mustang AWD500E (what some other guys have), and that 300hp rated car consistently read 223 on the Dyno Dynamics and 249 on the Mustang. One hour apart, exact same car, same town, same altitude, etc."
If you do the math, 249/223=1.11659. i.e., 223 x 1.11659 = 249 (rounded). So if these numbers are correct, then take my 291.7 on DD, multiply by the same, and you get 325.7 (I was only multiplying by 1.11 when I said it comes to 323).
But I think emphasis has to be placed on the
if in "if these numbers are correct." And that's why I'm getting two dynos today -- one on DD, and one on a DynoJet. You see, that same article says that you multiply a DD number by 1.18 to get an approximate DynoJet equivalent. Well, I want to see if there's any validity to that. I want to see if it's even in the ballpark. It'll at least tell us whether or not that article has any credibility. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying that if it turns out that their multiplier for DD to DynoJet is correct that we must therefore automatically consider their multiplier for Mustang to also be correct. I'm just saying that this is a first step in assessing the basic credibility of the information in that article.