My dyno numbers
 

Ok, so not really related to tuning, but couldnt find where to post(admins please move if necessary, sorry and thanks). Today i did a few baseline runs on my completely stock 2013 Z and here are the results:

270whp
220 tq

I know these are just numbers, and while i feel good about whp, i guess i expected to see a bit higher tq number, what do you guys think?

Runs were made on 4th in a mustang dyno. Humidity was high and Temp was about 92 degrees. I'll try and post the graph later on.

Comments/opinios are welcome :hello:

Should be in 5, BUT without a tune, you'll hit the speed limiter

Thats what i was told! But the guys at the dyno said that it'd hit 130 in 5th and their response was basically "at my one risk" and "normally we just do it in 4th "and this and that". They werent being jerks but i guess it was my own fault for being ignorant as this was my first time "dynoing" a car. I guess also trusting them since they do this everyday and just listening to their recommendations. What was cool and did not expect was, that since i wasnt tuning or anything, they let me do 2 of the pulls plus the 1/4 mile simulation. Ive always seen the tuners doing the pulls but obviously because the cars were being tuned :icon14:

Not saying they don't know their stuff but not everyone knows everything about every car. I'd have no idea my gear ratios if I didn't own this thing. You shoulda asked or really told them, no 5th is the correct gear in this car with this ratio. But no never mind, from now on do the runs in 4th so you have a good baseline to go off of.

Thanks! :tiphat: I could always run a baseline again in 5th this time. I do plan on modding, but probably not for a while, so I think I have some time before then.

U will top out in 5th though but everything below 155mph you'll be good on.

Got it! Thanks again.

Just do 2-3 runs in both, that's what I did. And once I was ON the dyno, they didn't care how many runs I did


Also, don't know if PR has one, but use a dynojet

We do! But from what what i was told, they are older versions which are not as accurate as the newer ones. Dont know if this is true, since honestly i know nothing about dynos :shakes head:

Oh, I really don't know either, but do a few runs in both gears. Again, once you're ON the machine, the difference in time of 3 pulls and 6 pulls is 5 min? And if the shop knows you'll be coming half decently often, they shouldn't mind. Even if you never come back, they shouldn't mind

Defintely doable! The guys in the shop are pretty cool, including the owner who even gave me a discount since i was doing a baseline and was the first in their shop to do a baseline in a Z(they work on Z's, but mostly work on evos, sti's, mustangs and their specialty.... GTRs!

4th is fine -- less wear and tear on the motor.

Those numbers are in line with expectations, and that particular dyno is calibrated to read close to a dynojet.

EDIT: Correction; the whp figures are close (although on the lower side) but the wtq readings a very low relative to a dynojet.

Hi,

On the mustang dyno, there is a factor that says "HP@50 Miles/hr". May I ask what number is keyed in?

Did not notice, does that appear in the graph or just in the computer screen in the dyno?

I apologize for my noobiness

You should see it at the bottom of the main screen. Mustang has a list of cars with these figures which the Dyno operator must key in but unfortunately, Mustang stopped updating the list since 2007. Our cars are not listed and that can affect the Dyno figures....

Did a quick search, and apparently there is a value computed by the EPA referred to as Track Road Load Horsepower (TRLHP) @ 50 mph used to calculate fuel consumption -- I cannot find a clear table that lists it for a given car.

Anyone know more about this?

Might be why my dyno chart shows that I have an infiniti G37 and not a 370z :icon14:

In theory, that value should be about the same for both the G37 and Z, so assuming the value they entered was correct for the G, you should be in the ball park.

I'm just wondering where the public can find these values listed.

It should be public domain info but I can only find references to it and no actual tables with data :shakes head:

Anyway, notwithstanding the degree to which any given dyno reports "true" values, I find that you get less consistent results between load holding dynos vs. inertia dynos because different values may be entered between shops.

I say, find a place with a dynojet. Your numbers will be easier to compare and contrast as the key value of relevance (the weight of the drum the wheels accelerate) is fixed from unit to unit, and thus results are far more consistent (i.e., reliable). Then you just have to note SAE values vs uncorrected and or STD, as well as the gear you are in (4th is fine, although derived torque values tend to be a bit lower relative to 5th).

In other words, the values different individuals get from shop to shop on Mustang dynos are harder to compare than the values folks get from dynojets, and at the end of the day, THAT is how to most clearly conclude anything about how your VQ37 compares to others.

If you go, ask for the drf (actual data file) -- if you email it to me I can make comparison graphs of your output vs several others.

Nevermind

But if we can just get the number from Mustang somehow, it'll be a lot more accurate than Dynojet. On the Dynojet it's like you are running in cyber space...wouldn't that affect the AFR readings too?

Accuracy is relative -- you'd really have to pull the motor out for a "true" value anyway.

What matters is consistency.

For an individual car, that means sticking with the same shop; across cars, that means the same values must be entered for the formulas used to estimate power and torque -- on dynojets, that value is fixed (known weight and diameter of drum) on load bearing dynos, that value may be quite different from shop to shop.

Load holding dynos are better for tuning, and perhaps for making comparisons for a single vehicle, but they make it much harder to evaluate the results for any one specific vehicle in relation to data gathered from other vehicles at different shops.

Finally had some time to look for this info... HP@50MPH is 13.13

I meant accuracy on power you are making at the wheels. If given values are keyed in correctly on a Mustang, we should be getting a more "real-life" measurement of power rather than one that only includes the weight of the rollers in the algorithm. And what's most important is AFR....without load (Dynojet), wouldn't that be extremely different when you are actually driving on the road?

Awesome! So if all the mustang dyno operators are
using this value and also stay consistent to the values of the car's actual weight, we all can have a better comparison! Thanks for your effort!

And thank you for your time and information :tiphat:

my new numbers!
 

Went to the dyno today, this time not stock :stirthepot:

Today:

Temperature: 92 degrees
Dyno: Mustang dyno
Gear: 4th
Fuel 93 oct
Mods: z1 maf hoses + k&n filters, ark grip exhaust
Max WHP: 302
Max TQ: 235

Stock baseline a few months ago:

Temperature: 92 degrees
Dyno: Mustang dyno
Gear: 4th
Fuel: 91 oct
Max whp: 270
Max TQ: 220

Nice gain on essentially just the Ark and filters!

Thanks! Im :happydance:

I tried to go to the dyno before installing the exhaust, to see the gains in just the maf and filters since it was my first mod, but the ark exhaust arrived so quickly, i just couldnt wait anymore!!!

Oh, i also tried to look at the MPH while on the dyno, but never got a chance to see it at 7.5K. I know that when i let my foot of the gas i was at over 130mph on the 3 passes i did. :driving:

Plus tune?

No, no tune. :tup:

Well that's just not possible. Sorry but this is why I hate mustangs.

Explain....(not being a douche, just want your input)

I was surprised at the numbers as well, but took into account that vs last time, i have been using 93oct fuel for some time vs the baseline runs i did a few months with 91oct. I KNOW that fuel did not contribute to all this extra power, but felt it helped a lot. Fuel + exhaust + MAF hoses and K&N filters. Could it be possible that 2013+ models/ECUs react better to these mods? Dont know if changes in the ECU programming were made in 2013. Just throwing some ideas around, but im no expert as you can see :icon14:

Eh, I dunno... a 12% gain in power and a 7% gain in torque from those mods sounds a tad high with the factory cats, but not impossible. The higher octane might have coaxed a little more timing advance out of the ECU as well.

Still, yes, I much prefer dynojets too...

It's just way to much. 32hp is unreal. A CBE doesn't do to much and even if you went full stillen gen 3 you're looking at only 15hp if you're lucky. There are single parts that when added do add a lot but the more you add the lower the increase. Unless im mistaken you only did a CBE right? Whats the cat situation?

I dyno'd with a cai and CBE and only made 3 more vs a car with only test pipes. Then I did a LTH and went up 13. The guy with the TP's wouldn't have a chance to gain 32hp with a cai and CBE beating my new number by 16hp. It just couldn't happen without a tune.

Fuel isn't going to change anything on a dyno. Octane just prevents knock which pulls timing. Just because you add more octane, the ecu can't increase timing within the stock map unless it's told to. It will only run whats set. Now if you tune a car and add octane, then you can add more timing till you knock and make more vs a lower octane where you'll have to tune for less timing since it will knock sooner. Only a car like a turbo regal with an alcohol sensor can increase timing on the fly when it notices you went from gas to e85. Now I will say this...unless you were knocking in the runs before, then yes, the fuel would add power and the parts would add 32hp. But from the looks of the graph I don't think you were knocking and 270hp is pretty much what every single stock 370 has put down on almost any dyno ever. So you see the only real variable that changed was something on the dyno. Nothing else adds up.

PS it's not a big deal. Long as the car runs good and you're happy that's all that matters. I just know people like to make customers happy so sometimes a few clicks here and there happen to show more. Hell my tuners even admitted it. A guy demanded like 500hp so he just clicked std vs SAE and boom, 19 more hp for the final run.

Only if he was knocking before. My last session was running 22-23 degrees on 93. I know if I added 110 VP my timing wouldn't just shoot up unless I tell it to. There's no sensor on the car that reads octane. Just a O2, MAF, and knock sensor that can't. Again if I knocked at 24 degrees on 93 then we know 23 is all I could run. But with the VP I could shoot for 24-25-26 etc. but I'd have to go into the timing advance and push beyond 23 first.

There's a bunch of transient modifiers that can lead the ECU to pull back a bit of timing, the big ones being oil temp and IAT. In PR with 92* F temps, I could see that initial run being on the low side on 91 AKI if there was even a hint of knock.

Also, I have no idea what correction factors were used -- that's going to bump things up or down by a few points.

That said, I think it boils down to a slightly low baseline dyno and a slightly high reading post-mod dyno, but the overall proportionate gains don't seem wildly off base.

It would be interesting to see what it puts down on a dynojet with SAE correction, that's for sure.

Yeah that could be. it does look like a richer run before which helps keep timing up and knock at bay. After it leaned way out which will add power but could help produce knock more. Either way though the graph looks to good to be pulling timing from knock but like you said it could be low on timing if his IAT was way up. But again I don't think so just because 270 hp is such a great average stock number.

I bet you're right, correction changed or something. With these mods, SAE, dynojet he'd be right where I was, about 280hp. I just think filters are good for about 10hp and CBE's don't do to much.

I have so much to learn :shakes head:

On the other hand, i will read up some more on your suggestions guys :tiphat:

One of the things i was afraid of was what synolimit mentioned, and its a dyno shop trying to make me "happy" with higher numbers. But just like i was telling jordo and synolimit was saying, im happy with how the car feels, so thats whats important, and not the hp/tq my cas has. Ill have to try my luck on another dyno like a dynojet to see what kind of results i get. I always opted for a mustang dyno for this same reason, and that was thinking that i would get a real number and not a higher unrealistic number or result. Guess i didnt do a lot of research, but again, i have a lot to learn.

PS i love this forum and the helpful people here :hello: thanks!!!

It really comes down to measurement variance; dynojets have less in the way of specific calibration options to enter, so you tend to see less variance between different units -- that's really the only reason I like it so much, but it's an important reason because it minimizes uncertainty in interpreting the effects of various mods.

The only real "fudge factors" on a dynojet are the correction factor used (I tend to view SAE as a "lower bound" and STD an "upper bound"), the weather data used by the dynojet software to calculate the correction, and, finally, the actual weather, including air pressure (and BTW, no correction factor can perfectly compensate for this).

As to the car itself, oil temps, fuel trims, knock sensor response, gear used for the run, air temps, and coolant temps, and good old fashioned wheel slip all create some measurement variance.

That said, if one tries to keep oil and air temps consistent, uses the same gear for each run, is aware of how quickly the ECU can approach target fueling (usually about 3 runs to redline, or so it seems), and makes sure the tires aren't slipping, you will still see remarkable consistency in dynojet readings across units.

That sort of sounds like a lot to keep in mind when measuring things (and it is), but so long as you do keep these ideas in mind, interpretation becomes far easier and clearer.

I have ton's of dynos posted that show differences in gear, effects of weather, etc floating around on here (especially the so-called "Proven Power Dyno Thread") as well as in my picture gallery.