Paul, you retard, you didn't need all that badass shit to make 300whp on a 99 motor.
No way I'd post this over there cause it'd get deleted... somebody confirm or set me straight on this:
I understand that Dyno's are a tool.
I understand that track performance is a much better indication of power than a dyno.
I understand that the numbers any dyno produces can be greatly fudged by a motivated operator.
But look at it this way. When Paris comes up in casual conversation, you automatically assume Hilton or France. Nobody thinks Perris, California and tries to put the conversation in context.
When you hear someone quote a dyno-number, you automatically assume they're talking about Dynojet numbers... unless they quantify it by saying, Mustang/DD/DynaPack/L&S where the %age above or below Dynojet numbers can be "roughed" based on lots and lots of history comparing numbers between the various dynos. In short, I've always been under the assumption that Dynojet was the "standard"... which is why people ALWAYS quantify if they're using anything other than Dynojet. Am I wrong?
Since it's my money, I'd like to know whether or not FM's dyno reads 25-30% higher than a Dynojet, or if the Hydra is worth 70whp over a Megasquirt for an extra $1500.
If it's worth the 70whp, then I'm converted... otherwise I'm gonna have Chad build me an MS when the time comes for $1700 less
Does anybody know what dyno they use and is there any data to compare it against any other system.
I understand that Dyno's are a tool.
I understand that track performance is a much better indication of power than a dyno.
I understand that the numbers any dyno produces can be greatly fudged by a motivated operator.
But look at it this way. When Paris comes up in casual conversation, you automatically assume Hilton or France. Nobody thinks Perris, California and tries to put the conversation in context.
When you hear someone quote a dyno-number, you automatically assume they're talking about Dynojet numbers... unless they quantify it by saying, Mustang/DD/DynaPack/L&S where the %age above or below Dynojet numbers can be "roughed" based on lots and lots of history comparing numbers between the various dynos. In short, I've always been under the assumption that Dynojet was the "standard"... which is why people ALWAYS quantify if they're using anything other than Dynojet. Am I wrong?
Since it's my money, I'd like to know whether or not FM's dyno reads 25-30% higher than a Dynojet, or if the Hydra is worth 70whp over a Megasquirt for an extra $1500.
If it's worth the 70whp, then I'm converted... otherwise I'm gonna have Chad build me an MS when the time comes for $1700 less
Does anybody know what dyno they use and is there any data to compare it against any other system.
Reply
0
0
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
From: Republic of Dallas
No way I'd post this over there cause it'd get deleted... somebody confirm or set me straight on this:
I understand that Dyno's are a tool.
I understand that track performance is a much better indication of power than a dyno.
I understand that the numbers any dyno produces can be greatly fudged by a motivated operator.
But look at it this way. When Paris comes up in casual conversation, you automatically assume Hilton or France. Nobody thinks Perris, California and tries to put the conversation in context.
When you hear someone quote a dyno-number, you automatically assume they're talking about Dynojet numbers... unless they quantify it by saying, Mustang/DD/DynaPack/L&S where the %age above or below Dynojet numbers can be "roughed" based on lots and lots of history comparing numbers between the various dynos. In short, I've always been under the assumption that Dynojet was the "standard"... which is why people ALWAYS quantify if they're using anything other than Dynojet. Am I wrong?
Since it's my money, I'd like to know whether or not FM's dyno reads 25-30% higher than a Dynojet, or if the Hydra is worth 70whp over a Megasquirt for an extra $1500.
If it's worth the 70whp, then I'm converted... otherwise I'm gonna have Chad build me an MS when the time comes for $1700 less
Does anybody know what dyno they use and is there any data to compare it against any other system.
I understand that Dyno's are a tool.
I understand that track performance is a much better indication of power than a dyno.
I understand that the numbers any dyno produces can be greatly fudged by a motivated operator.
But look at it this way. When Paris comes up in casual conversation, you automatically assume Hilton or France. Nobody thinks Perris, California and tries to put the conversation in context.
When you hear someone quote a dyno-number, you automatically assume they're talking about Dynojet numbers... unless they quantify it by saying, Mustang/DD/DynaPack/L&S where the %age above or below Dynojet numbers can be "roughed" based on lots and lots of history comparing numbers between the various dynos. In short, I've always been under the assumption that Dynojet was the "standard"... which is why people ALWAYS quantify if they're using anything other than Dynojet. Am I wrong?
Since it's my money, I'd like to know whether or not FM's dyno reads 25-30% higher than a Dynojet, or if the Hydra is worth 70whp over a Megasquirt for an extra $1500.
If it's worth the 70whp, then I'm converted... otherwise I'm gonna have Chad build me an MS when the time comes for $1700 less
Does anybody know what dyno they use and is there any data to compare it against any other system.
Good point. I think they were making 260whp on the old dyno...and not sure if they had hydra then. That might explain the change in figures. I don't think that car would put down 300 on a dynojet, and I'm also not smart enough to buy a turbo kit or engine management based on dyno #'s. If hydra were $1-g bar cheaper, I'd have that instead of MS.
I don't give a **** which engine management you're using if fuel and spark are optimized from one system to another, you're going going to get that much of a difference in peak power.
Reply
0
0
Reply
0
0
I say we get FM to put up one of their cars against another builder/tuner combination and dyno on the same system. I recommend TurboTim and DIYAutotune vs. FM. MS vs. Hydra. Doesn't get anymore David vs Goliath than that. Then we can listen to them squeal that theirs is more reliable or easier for noobs or some **** like that.
Stock motors of the same year. Same turbo, GT2560R. Whatever exhaust and intercooler they want to set up.
Stock motors of the same year. Same turbo, GT2560R. Whatever exhaust and intercooler they want to set up.
Reply
0
0
I say we get FM to put up one of their cars against another builder/tuner combination and dyno on the same system. I recommend TurboTim and DIYAutotune vs. FM. MS vs. Hydra. Doesn't get anymore David vs Goliath than that. Then we can listen to them squeal that theirs is more reliable or easier for noobs or some **** like that.
Stock motors of the same year. Same turbo, GT2560R. Whatever exhaust and intercooler they want to set up.
Stock motors of the same year. Same turbo, GT2560R. Whatever exhaust and intercooler they want to set up.
Reply
0
0
Reply
0
0
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 846
Total Cats: 0
From: Austin, TX yall
No way I'd post this over there cause it'd get deleted... somebody confirm or set me straight on this:
I understand that Dyno's are a tool.
I understand that track performance is a much better indication of power than a dyno.
I understand that the numbers any dyno produces can be greatly fudged by a motivated operator.
But look at it this way. When Paris comes up in casual conversation, you automatically assume Hilton or France. Nobody thinks Perris, California and tries to put the conversation in context.
When you hear someone quote a dyno-number, you automatically assume they're talking about Dynojet numbers... unless they quantify it by saying, Mustang/DD/DynaPack/L&S where the %age above or below Dynojet numbers can be "roughed" based on lots and lots of history comparing numbers between the various dynos. In short, I've always been under the assumption that Dynojet was the "standard"... which is why people ALWAYS quantify if they're using anything other than Dynojet. Am I wrong?
Since it's my money, I'd like to know whether or not FM's dyno reads 25-30% higher than a Dynojet, or if the Hydra is worth 70whp over a Megasquirt for an extra $1500.
If it's worth the 70whp, then I'm converted... otherwise I'm gonna have Chad build me an MS when the time comes for $1700 less
Does anybody know what dyno they use and is there any data to compare it against any other system.
I understand that Dyno's are a tool.
I understand that track performance is a much better indication of power than a dyno.
I understand that the numbers any dyno produces can be greatly fudged by a motivated operator.
But look at it this way. When Paris comes up in casual conversation, you automatically assume Hilton or France. Nobody thinks Perris, California and tries to put the conversation in context.
When you hear someone quote a dyno-number, you automatically assume they're talking about Dynojet numbers... unless they quantify it by saying, Mustang/DD/DynaPack/L&S where the %age above or below Dynojet numbers can be "roughed" based on lots and lots of history comparing numbers between the various dynos. In short, I've always been under the assumption that Dynojet was the "standard"... which is why people ALWAYS quantify if they're using anything other than Dynojet. Am I wrong?
Since it's my money, I'd like to know whether or not FM's dyno reads 25-30% higher than a Dynojet, or if the Hydra is worth 70whp over a Megasquirt for an extra $1500.
If it's worth the 70whp, then I'm converted... otherwise I'm gonna have Chad build me an MS when the time comes for $1700 less
Does anybody know what dyno they use and is there any data to compare it against any other system.
You're not wrong that the Dynojet is the Standard. But, to play devil's advocate, it was a pretty big deal on the pointy board when they got their new dyno a couple years ago. I think it even toasts bread or something.
I am confused with how the Hydra can show those kinds of gains as well. Shouldn't the fuel and spark tables be pretty much the same? The only differences being better tuning or better resolution?
It'd be fun to see a shoot out. It's not like the MS is exactly a direct competitor to the Hydra. FM needs something any joe blow can hook up and run safely without worrying about it to much. You pay for Plug and Play. I'm sure the Hydra is also less of a Customer Service nightmare.
Chris
Reply
0
0
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,106
From: Sunnyvale, CA
No way I'd post this over there cause it'd get deleted... somebody confirm or set me straight on this:
I understand that Dyno's are a tool.
I understand that track performance is a much better indication of power than a dyno.
I understand that the numbers any dyno produces can be greatly fudged by a motivated operator.
But look at it this way. When Paris comes up in casual conversation, you automatically assume Hilton or France. Nobody thinks Perris, California and tries to put the conversation in context.
When you hear someone quote a dyno-number, you automatically assume they're talking about Dynojet numbers... unless they quantify it by saying, Mustang/DD/DynaPack/L&S where the %age above or below Dynojet numbers can be "roughed" based on lots and lots of history comparing numbers between the various dynos. In short, I've always been under the assumption that Dynojet was the "standard"... which is why people ALWAYS quantify if they're using anything other than Dynojet. Am I wrong?
Since it's my money, I'd like to know whether or not FM's dyno reads 25-30% higher than a Dynojet, or if the Hydra is worth 70whp over a Megasquirt for an extra $1500.
If it's worth the 70whp, then I'm converted... otherwise I'm gonna have Chad build me an MS when the time comes for $1700 less
Does anybody know what dyno they use and is there any data to compare it against any other system.
I understand that Dyno's are a tool.
I understand that track performance is a much better indication of power than a dyno.
I understand that the numbers any dyno produces can be greatly fudged by a motivated operator.
But look at it this way. When Paris comes up in casual conversation, you automatically assume Hilton or France. Nobody thinks Perris, California and tries to put the conversation in context.
When you hear someone quote a dyno-number, you automatically assume they're talking about Dynojet numbers... unless they quantify it by saying, Mustang/DD/DynaPack/L&S where the %age above or below Dynojet numbers can be "roughed" based on lots and lots of history comparing numbers between the various dynos. In short, I've always been under the assumption that Dynojet was the "standard"... which is why people ALWAYS quantify if they're using anything other than Dynojet. Am I wrong?
Since it's my money, I'd like to know whether or not FM's dyno reads 25-30% higher than a Dynojet, or if the Hydra is worth 70whp over a Megasquirt for an extra $1500.
If it's worth the 70whp, then I'm converted... otherwise I'm gonna have Chad build me an MS when the time comes for $1700 less
Does anybody know what dyno they use and is there any data to compare it against any other system.
Reply
0
0
Only 2 of those Dyno's in North America... hmmm.... no wonder there's no comparisons. I suppose if I was a shop owner and wanted my shop to post consistently higher dyno numbers than any other shop anywhere, I'd find a dyno from the other side of the world that nobody else had.
Then when my dyno posted huge numbers all the time and I got called out for it, I'd just say "a dyno is just a tool, numbers don't mean anything"... or the fanbois would do it for me.
I call bullshit. If Dynojet is the standard, then FM owes it to the community and to their customers to know how their machine stacks up against it. Take the next 5 cars that FM builds, put'em on the Rototest, let Jeremy work his magic. Drive straight to the closest Dynojet and make 3pulls. Corrected and Uncorrected vs. Same. Settle it.
^Sav, I'll let somebody else more eloquent than I take that thought process over there. If Keith or Jeremy would like to throw down, it would cost them less than $300 to put this thing to rest. I'll say it for the 4th or 5th time. I'm a potential Hydra customer. The money isn't all that important in the end. What should be important to FM is their reputation. I'd say 95% of the **** that gets talked about FM is directly related to their seemingly impossible dyno numbers that nobody else can reproduce. The "checkwriters" would never question the numbers and there's a large part of the community that resents that.
What's important to me is how much better Hydra is potentially than MS. If it's worth it, then I'm in... but FM will never get a dime from me and there will always be a doubt in the mind of the community that their dyno numbers are complete hogwash. The argument for a direct Dynojet comparison can't be dismissed. It's up them. I will sit back and watch now.
Then when my dyno posted huge numbers all the time and I got called out for it, I'd just say "a dyno is just a tool, numbers don't mean anything"... or the fanbois would do it for me.
I call bullshit. If Dynojet is the standard, then FM owes it to the community and to their customers to know how their machine stacks up against it. Take the next 5 cars that FM builds, put'em on the Rototest, let Jeremy work his magic. Drive straight to the closest Dynojet and make 3pulls. Corrected and Uncorrected vs. Same. Settle it.
^Sav, I'll let somebody else more eloquent than I take that thought process over there. If Keith or Jeremy would like to throw down, it would cost them less than $300 to put this thing to rest. I'll say it for the 4th or 5th time. I'm a potential Hydra customer. The money isn't all that important in the end. What should be important to FM is their reputation. I'd say 95% of the **** that gets talked about FM is directly related to their seemingly impossible dyno numbers that nobody else can reproduce. The "checkwriters" would never question the numbers and there's a large part of the community that resents that.
What's important to me is how much better Hydra is potentially than MS. If it's worth it, then I'm in... but FM will never get a dime from me and there will always be a doubt in the mind of the community that their dyno numbers are complete hogwash. The argument for a direct Dynojet comparison can't be dismissed. It's up them. I will sit back and watch now.
Last edited by samnavy; Aug 20, 2008 at 07:31 AM.
Reply
0
0
The problem really isn't the dyno, the problem is the 5000000' altitude in which they run the dyno. the correction factor they use isn't based on much.
as long as they perform before and after results on the same dyno, then the results are valid. But I always tend to simply ignore the power numbers as I can only take them with a grain of salt.
as long as they perform before and after results on the same dyno, then the results are valid. But I always tend to simply ignore the power numbers as I can only take them with a grain of salt.
Reply
0
0
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
From: Republic of Dallas
I like the people who are afraid to ask questions, like their dad is going to beat them. Its a simple ******* question..."how did you make the power?" If they threw down chicken bones on the dyno and lit and herb, at least they have something to explain it. Maybe I'm daft, probably not though considering my genetic superiority.
Reply
0
0
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,106
From: Sunnyvale, CA
The biggest problem with their numbers is the EBC on the Hydra, IMO. The Hydra uses closed-loop control to aim for a certain absolute pressure number, say 170kpa. So the car makes 10psi of boost at sea level.
Bring it up 5000 feet, and ANY other boost controller will make 2-3psi less. Just how turbo works. So FM adds a correction factor to bring their power numbers back up. It was always a little high, but no big deal, right? Until the Hydra comes along. Suddenly 10psi at sea level is the same 10psi at 5000', but they still add that same correction factor.
And what really pisses me off is that they seem to be totally oblivious to it. I know they can't say anything because it would discredit them, but come on, guys. Jeremy knows damn well that car isn't a 300whp car. You don't make that power on an 11psi GT2560R. You don't make 290whp on a 12psi GT2560R car with 93 octane, either. I don't care how they get their correction, or whether the corrections are SAE, FIA, or FBI sanctioned.
Bring it up 5000 feet, and ANY other boost controller will make 2-3psi less. Just how turbo works. So FM adds a correction factor to bring their power numbers back up. It was always a little high, but no big deal, right? Until the Hydra comes along. Suddenly 10psi at sea level is the same 10psi at 5000', but they still add that same correction factor.
And what really pisses me off is that they seem to be totally oblivious to it. I know they can't say anything because it would discredit them, but come on, guys. Jeremy knows damn well that car isn't a 300whp car. You don't make that power on an 11psi GT2560R. You don't make 290whp on a 12psi GT2560R car with 93 octane, either. I don't care how they get their correction, or whether the corrections are SAE, FIA, or FBI sanctioned.
Reply
0
0
Not that it really makes a difference, but the car was running and MBC with the Hydra and an EBC with the Link.
Reply
0
0
