View Single Post
Old 10-30-2005, 07:25 PM   #8
mnavarro
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 51537
Join Date: Dec 2003
Vehicle:
2004 WRB WRX STI
62 Corvette/11 Cherokee L

Default

I think this information pulls layers of obfuscation away. I've been blasted before in threads when people where claiming outrageous numbers on 91 at high altitude with insane correction factors.

Secondly, I think there's some confusion about the use of the mustang dyno to record hp when dyno tuning vs inertial dynos like dynojets. For tuning sessions it is appropriate to enter the hp@50 mph to simulate the load of real world driving. I've been told these numbers affect torque curves more than outright hp, but nonetheless should be considered less important when measuring outright hp.

What's good everybody is now more aware about the vagaries of interpreting dyno numbers. The question is how to make them more meaningful for interpretation. Some increasingly report a low stock reading car as evidence of the validity of power output. Providing as much information as possible, including dynos from difference turbos, logs and 1/4 mile trapspeeds all demonstrate what a car can put down. I'm a fan of including mile trapspeeds because it's the validation of everything that has gone into the tune and system of parts.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
mnavarro is offline   Reply With Quote