Jump to content
TEAM SHELBY FORUM

Not very great dyno


ChrisSD

Recommended Posts

It wasn't hot, 10 mile drive and 20 minutes to put the car on and strap it down.

 

Car tick is ongoing w/ Ford. Were your numbers from a Dynojet and SAE corrected like mine? External emperatures don't matter when SAE.

 

I understand how dyno CF works. yes I only dyno SAE and yes external temps do matter. The car will pull lots of timing if downstream temps get too high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand how dyno CF works. yes I only dyno SAE and yes external temps do matter. The car will pull lots of timing if downstream temps get too high.

Can you post your sheet? The curve looks jacked up because of the way the dyno operator formatted the graph. I redid the graph myself using what everyone else seems to use and the curve looks normal now.

 

What A/F is everyone else seeing? This was a tailpipe sensor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I remember is the guy did not run a fan in front of the car. A lot of dyno vids I see people are using monster fans. Obviously no fan makes the intercooler and radiator coolant get hot as hell when stationary.

 

Anyway, I'm throwing it on a Mustang Dyno Wednesday.

This shouldn't matter this much, especially on the first pull. Good luck

 

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since I am so damn thorough, I collected dyno results from this car on a dynojet:

 

http://blogs.mustang50magazine.com/6563529...lers/index.html

 

..and made the following comparing my results to theirs, both were SAE on Dynojets

 

 

 

dyno.jpg

 

This car ran 1 point leaner than mine, and could have been even leaner since mine used a tailpipe wideband and read 10.5's. If there were something wrong with my car, I don't think the curves would look nearly identical as they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris--very inpressive analysis--just curiuos,where did you get the "richness" data from.Also, if all the cars use the same software to start with,why would some be richer/leaner than others.

 

They used a tailpipe wideband which is not very accurate. They usually show leaner than actual. They showed 10.5's on my car. It could have been in the 9's in reality. A wideband needs to be installed before the cat to be accurate. The car in the magazine article was reading 11.5's. I don't know the method used on that car. All cars have the same program but fuel type etc can change things up, variables etc. Here was their car:

 

RPM POWER TORQUE BOOST AIR/FUEL

1,500 93.87 328.66 4.56 14.86

1,600 105.38 345.91 4.87 14.77

1,700 115.22 355.97 5.06 14.75

1,800 126.19 368.19 5.41 14.54

1,900 142.42 393.68 5.66 13.41

2,000 152.16 399.59 5.86 12.69

2,100 161.70 404.40 6.06 12.20

2,200 170.54 407.14 6.36 11.96

2,300 180.29 411.70 6.63 11.74

2,400 188.65 412.83 6.74 11.58

2,500 201.20 422.68 7.22 11.48

2,600 211.87 427.98 7.52 11.38

2,700 221.18 430.24 7.57 11.38

2,800 230.56 432.47 7.64 11.42

2,900 242.31 438.85 7.68 11.41

3,000 251.35 440.03 7.76 11.29

3,100 262.75 445.17 7.81 11.39

3,200 275.05 451.43 7.88 11.41

3,300 286.52 456.00 8.20 11.50

3,400 296.24 457.61 8.51 11.56

3,500 308.01 462.20 8.62 11.56

3,600 317.37 463.01 8.91 11.55

3,700 326.88 464.01 8.86 11.53

3,800 336.38 464.92 8.73 11.49

3,900 345.24 464.94 8.94 11.57

4,000 355.55 466.85 9.01 11.64

4,100 365.82 468.61 8.97 11.51

4,200 374.33 468.10 8.91 11.48

4,300 384.15 469.21 8.81 11.48

4,400 392.24 468.20 8.79 11.49

4,500 402.20 469.42 8.77 11.52

4,600 407.86 465.68 8.73 11.57

4,700 414.54 463.24 8.67 11.45

4,800 422.20 461.97 8.53 11.33

4,900 423.02 453.42 8.46 11.19

5,000 429.63 451.29 8.75 11.43

5,100 437.51 450.55 8.97 11.59

5,200 447.00 451.48 8.75 11.65

5,300 454.15 450.05 8.81 11.59

5,400 456.80 444.29 9.07 11.56

5,500 459.63 438.91 9.30 11.48

5,600 462.19 433.48 9.54 11.22

5,700 462.94 426.56 9.75 11.18

5,800 469.88 425.49 9.83 11.17

5,900 472.66 420.76 9.84 11.09

6,000 475.96 416.63 9.91 11.09

6,100 477.08 410.76 9.83 11.12

6,200 473.11 400.78 9.57 12.67

 

 

Note the mid 11's, 1 point leaner than mine and ideal for more power. Mine, like I said, could have been below 10 even in reality. This would explain the 35RWHP disparity.

 

The Mustang Dyno on Wednesday will show the truth. If I come out with the same numbers, it means this Dynojet reading is BS. The Mustang Dyno should read lower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They used a tailpipe wideband which is not very accurate. They usually show leaner than actual. They showed 10.5's on my car. It could have been in the 9's in reality. A wideband needs to be installed before the cat to be accurate. The car in the magazine article was reading 11.5's. I don't know the method used on that car. All cars have the same program but fuel type etc can change things up, variables etc. Here was their car:

 

 

 

Note the mid 11's, 1 point leaner than mine and ideal for more power. Mine, like I said, could have been below 10 even in reality. This would explain the 35RWHP disparity.

 

The Mustang Dyno on Wednesday will show the truth. If I come out with the same numbers, it means this Dynojet reading is BS. The Mustang Dyno should read lower.

 

a quality, calibrated tailpipe sniffer would be pretty accurate. there's just a delay in the reading.

 

I think my AFR was similar to yours.. using tailpipe sniffer too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Dynojet I used was a 248c. I wonder if a lot of you guys are using the more common, newer 224xLC? They are known to read higher. Can't wait to find out tomorrow at the Mustang Dyno.

 

 

Definitely let us know how it goes. Hopefully, you just got a bad read or the newer dynos are just different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...
...