Originally Posted by Equilibrium Tuning
I appreciate this level headed feedback. I do agree that sometimes I get frustrated with the inflated numbers flying around these days and it gets the best of me on occasion. I think I'm one of the few shops that has remained stubborn in our dyno calibration, but maybe that's causing more harm than good at this point. I'll have to seriously ponder this and maybe finally give in and get away from my low reading calibration. Its certainly better for marketing, making customers happy, and at this point it would be more in line with the majority.
Again, thank you for your unbiased opinion and feedback.
Its not about how low your dyno reads. Too many people on here say a dynojet reads to high, well in my experience I dynoed my stock 5.7 Tundra which was rated at 381hp and it made 313whp on dynojet on SAE correction. Which is 18% power loss on truck that was 4x4. Seems pretty realistic to me. From what I can tell all car manufactures rate their cars on dynojet SAE corrections. Another example, stock sti generally in 235-245hp on dynojet, that is approx 18% power loss through AWD setup which I find to be realistic. So rating car on low reading mustang makes it better how?????
I like fact that dynojet can't be manipulated unless you can change the elevation or weather, other than that no correction factor. I see mustangs read all over the place, some read very very low, and most are calibrated to read more like dynojet, but operators tell you its low reading cause it is mustang.
Anyways back to subject, I like the results from the fuel. It appears to have similar effects as nitromethane, but doesnt make as much power as nitro would. Very interesting, just wish it was $30+ a gallon. Does it have cooling effects similar to E85?