that seems low for a stage 2 dyno...and what the **** is up with that dyno never seen anything like that

 

Not real sure but maybe they were gaping the brake pad so its not touching the rotor?

 

It's a Dynapack. An inexpensive alternative to a real chassis dyno. Yes, taking the wheels off the cars does remove an amount of accuracy too.

 

I'm going to move this to the LNF section and make it a sticky

 

and then the motor will go b00m.

 

Wishing doesn't make it so

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Makes me want to drive one though....before the big bang

 

I doubt there's much to fear here...LNF has been quite dependable so far.

 

We will probably see more broken trannies then motors

 

Nice job, good numbers

 

agreed. with its expected "ease of modability" there will be far more people "pushing the limits" than the ss/sc methinks.

 

Synapse Motorsports (where we tested), is a few miles away from Schenectady County airport, which has a surveyed elevation of 378ft.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't know.

But as I had stated before, my intent was to compare a Stage 2 SC to an SS/T on the same dyno, on the same day, at virtually the same time.

I was not trying to compare our dyno numbers to what anyone else around the country had gotten.

And I think I succeeded!

Thanks!

I think it was as fair a test as you could do between 2 cars (dynoing them together).

Don't you think?

 

Yeah no one can argue about the numbers, these were good conditions, and great numbers for both, hopefully we can stop all the fitting. But thanks for taking time out of your day to figure all of this out.

 

OMG!

The first thread I ever started that became a "sticky".

Utter Coolness!

No problemo.

I was as interested as anyone else here as to how much whp/trq the two cars would make when they were dynoed together.

P.S. A small sidenote regarding a quote from the manufacturers of Dynapack dynos:
"Dynapack™ attaches directly to the axle(s), thereby overcoming all the disadvantages of tyre distortion including noise, torque steer, loss of traction, tyre heat and design variations in the tyre."

 

Well, they've learned here too...the TC does not have the 'wheel-hop-perpetuating-marshmalllow-mounts' that SC suffered from. Additionally, upgrades to the transaxle's internals have occurred.

Heh, as to be expected from an outfit selling such equipment. They fail to mention that these factors are also part of the car's overall behavior, and thus provide a more realistic depiction of the car's capabilities when it's on the only surface that really matters...the road or the track.

The inertial load alone of one's rolling stock (wheels/tires) is a significant aspect of the car's 'to the road' performance. Mind you, I'm not dissing the testing you guys did...I think it's cool and a very uniform session. Just addressing some of the unique aspects of this style of portable equipment.

 

I understand bro!

I'm no absolute expert on dyno types, I was just looking for a nearby dyno for the test.

And when Synapse reported they had an SS/T (and being they were only 20 min. from my home) it was a perfect place to go.

I'd love to see other people do a same day Stock or Stage 2 SC vs. SS/T test done on other dynos as well!

 

The only disadvantage about dynapack that I have ever seen is the setup time to get a car mounted on. Other then that I fail to see why having the wheels and tires on or off matters. Are you just suggesting that the numbers the dyno puts out are not as accurate as they could be, or that not having the weight and characteristic of the wheel/tire will affect tuning accuracy?

 

Well it looks like you TC guys can walk a stock SRT4 pretty well (on paper).

I'm waiting on you guys to get to the track and pull better than a 2.4 60ft & 14.3 1/4 time.

Goold ole' power

 

the dynapack is the most expensive dynamometer on the market, at more than double the price of a comparable dynojet. so im not sure what you mean by an inexpensive alternative to a "real" chassis dyno.

im just not sure what you are trying to get at with this comment, especially with such inaccurate information.

 

^Exactly what I thought you had mentioned to me before. Glad you said it!

And just for fun, I found this Youtube video where a dyno shop that had a Dynapack tested a car on their dyno and on a Dynojet Dyno on the same day (just a few hours apart): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZXbk3o-xHg

The car tested ran in 2 different modes, Low Boost and Medium Boost.

RESULTS:
Low Boost
Dynapack - 219whp/160tq
Dynojet - 245whp/183tq

Medium Boost
Dynapack - 303whp/197tq
Dynojet - 332whp/217tq

They found that the Dynojet generated between 8-10% higher numbers than a Dynapack at the 200-350whp level. Applying their results to the test that we did at Synapse (using the lower 8% correction factor), this would translate into:

Stage 2 SC - 254whp
SS/T - 265whp

I'm thinking that maybe the Dynapack might be closer to true whp numbers than a Dynojet ...

 

the actual numbers may be different but both dyno's are consistant and will allow you tune the car properly.

 

nice test.

 

sweet nice to see some #'s finally

 

Are you suggesting that over 100lbs of rotational mass wont make a difference?!?

 

Won't make any difference tuning the car no. Loading the engine you are still hitting the same map cells with or without wheels and tires. On a inertia dyno such as dynojet it indeed does make a difference. You can make more power by raising the air pressure way up. I am not saying negative about dynojet brand or any other for that matter. Just trying to clear up some confusion about dynapack and how they work. Seems to be lots of questions and misunderstandings on them. A skilled dyno operater/tuner can have great results on either.