Dyno Days open house this weekend.

[BAD LS1]

Well im not sure how the dyno could be off to the point #'s were be skurred so bad... I was skeptical of settings and such because of the dipshit that used to work there and run the dyno prior, that has all be double checked and even the RPM cross at 5250 for spark ignited vehicles has been fixed. Perhaps its simply the vehicles dont really perform as well as the owners hoped? I dont know. BTW, comparing dyno pulls from a dynojet to a mustang dyno IMO is not really apples to apples either. Again this thing is a tuning tool, not a ego generator.

Class winner #'s will be posted as well as some video in the next couple days.

[Josepy]

nice place everyone is really nice but wasn't happy with dyno results my truck put out more power with a crappier fueling system not as much tune 8 months ago....not sure if it was dyno set up but it was the same result with my friends truck...oh well, still wasn't bad

The dyno is spot on. ran my car saturday. Made 578. That is down from 611.
I was only pushing 5lbs of boost instead of the usual 7 and the conditions were way different from when it was tuned. That and brad just had the dyno looked at not too long ago and it all checked to be working properly.

[WickedSix]

I was just clarifying how far off it was, the point of more concern was the actual graph itself peak torque occured near 3000 rpm when it should have been down around 2000. I thought the truck must have spun all to hell on the roller because ~430 hp and 720 lb-ft of torque on that truck doesn't make any kind of sense at all. and between the last two dyno runs the truck audibly pulled up faster and it only reflected a 1hp gain(with a 175 hp tuning change). It must have smoked the tires but none of us could see that with any certitude.

[Josepy]

I was just clarifying how far off it was, the point of more concern was the actual graph itself peak torque occured near 3000 rpm when it should have been down around 2000. I thought the truck must have spun all to hell on the roller because ~430 hp and 720 lb-ft of torque on that truck doesn't make any kind of sense at all. and between the last two dyno runs the truck audibly pulled up faster and it only reflected a 1hp gain(with a 175 hp tuning change). It must have smoked the tires but none of us could see that with any certitude.

Which truck is in question. I can check the video.

[Anakonda69]

i agree thats it's not an ego builder. he dynoed his truck as a tool to see what his next move should be and his numbers don't match-up quite right. even some of the numbers for truck information don't make sense. not complaining about how things went i thought things out there were handled pretty good, just wondering where the wrong doings could have come from. any chance of his truck being to large for the dyno or his tires spinning on the rollers? these are things we had wondered might have been an issue.

[Anakonda69]

black cc duramax with single 5" stack

[BAD LS1]

The only variable is weight, because it takes that into account for how much load to apply against the wheels. however, the weight has to be off by thousands of pounds to see a substansial change in the numbers. Spinning is a very real possibility as well and would alter actual output. This thing applies load consistently, where the dynojet spins a 3,000lb drum, and if the vehicles weighs more or less it can affect the #'s too.

[Josepy]

black cc duramax with single 5" stack

Oh yeah. Nice truck. I cant tell anything from the video. Is 430 and 731tq bad for that truck.

Your best bet would be to call brad.

[WickedSix]

431 and 731 is weird for that truck with that horsepower the torque should be closer to 900 lb-ft

[Anakonda69]

yeah also weird cuz with a stock fueling system and less tuning it did 424 and 886 at hucksdorf in the fall. it now has better tuning along with more horsepower tuning and an upgraded fueling system.

[Josepy]

yeah also weird cuz with a stock fueling system and less tuning it did 424 and 886 at hucksdorf in the fall. it now has better tuning along with more horsepower tuning and an upgraded fueling system.

Yeah I would call brad. I know he would try to get them to start at the perfect rpm and so the wouldnt down shift. If the other places you were at allowed them to downshift that would cause a spike in the numbers.

Just call Brad if you have any more questions on it. I know he will be happy to talk with you.

[BAD LS1]

Werent Huskstorf brake torquing to get a torque spike on purpose though?

[SmokinRAM114]

Werent Huskstorf brake torquing to get a torque spike on purpose though?

the only way to get the charger on a diesel to spool correctly is under a load. you can do that on a stick by fueling it hard from a slow roll in a high gear but when you have a AT diesel with no lock up switch or a tech 2 (dmax) it will not fuel hard enough in high rpm to spool the turbo correctly resulting in low numbers. also to get a very large charger to light on a diesel you will almost need to hold the brakes to even get it to light!! it will just over fuel over fuel

[BAD LS1]

Yeah thats not real good for this type of dyno to jabbing on the brakes to try and load the engine more. So thats probably why #'s weren't as good because it just pours the coal to it before the boost can hit.

[Monstr913]

to me it sounds like your saying there dyno isn't step up to run diesels or they don't have the experience at running diesels, i don't know...its just my truck and my friends have had a bunch of work done since our last dyno event and our numbers don't match what they should...i mean dyno challenge is a bragging rights with friends but mostly so i know where the weak link is...everyone there is cool and is a nice set up

[juicedimpss]

to me it sounds as though some of the "other" dyno shops are doing tricks to make it appear as though they are making more power than they really put down in the real world.

[Anakonda69]

to me it sounds as though some of the "other" dyno shops are doing tricks to make it appear as though they are making more power than they really put down in the real world.

except we have other trucks who dynoed at both places as well and they saw their gains. for me at least it throws that theory out. i think it was a wheelspin issue.

[WhatsADSM]

This is a mustang brake dyno, and most shops and people are used to an inertia dynojet complicated by the fact that other shops are brake torquing to spool and WBD didn't. Makes sense the numbers will be different...

Remember a dyno is a tool, nothing more.

Want real bragging rights, go to the track...

[juicedimpss]

except we have other trucks who dynoed at both places as well and they saw their gains. for me at least it throws that theory out. i think it was a wheelspin issue.

so the "other" trucks were run at both dynos before and after the mods?
i can think of quite a few times we tried things on bikes that "had to" be an improvement over what was previously done and showed no gain,or even worse a power loss. as for tire spin,that should show in the software,it would be a noticable flatline or even a dip on the MPHvsRPM chart.

[Anakonda69]

no i just stated that the trucks were in a similiar situation for the sake of argument. yes they had dyno runs on the exact same dynos before and after mods. we were just trying to understand where the problem lies. yes we all thought his numbers should have been higher but also we know they were 2 different dynos, it's more that for the hp put down the tq doesn't quite fit. it's kind of confusing how his hp stayed the same and tq went down with better/more tune. i know i'm fairly new to dyno's but even some other guys there with a diesel thought it looked funny.