What's the differance between a Mustang Dyno and a DynoJet???? I heard the Mustang generally gives lower numbers.

What's the differance between a Mustang Dyno and a DynoJet???? I heard the Mustang generally gives lower numbers.
Mustang Dyno is a load dyno. Dynojet is inertia. Think of a Dynojet like having a hookup for your bike where your rear tire is spinning on rollers but there is no added friction other than moving the rollers. The Mustang has a large roller that uses a giant brake from a train. The train brake applies force to create friction or load. The Mustang Dyno is more like the reality of driving on pavement therefore it takes more horsepower and torque to get the rollers moving, thus the lower numbers.

From what I understand, Mustang lets you adjust the load on the dyno to reflect the weight of the car. The dynojet is more static.

Somebody else can probably elaborate.. there are also quite a few threads on this around the board.

I've never had my car on a DynoJet, but heres my chart from the Mustang Dyno. This is before the supercharger was installed. I'm curious how it would have done on a DynoJet.
http://www.didraceengineering.com/gallery/96_bmw_328is/96_bmw_328is_stock_dyno.jpg

reading a chart like that hurts my brain...

good baseline tho

Dynojet's can be converted into load bearing units just like a Mustang.

Bump to get more opinions.:confused

My preference is alway to use a load bearing dyno whenever possible if I'm calibrating. It's important to load the engine the same way it will be used in the real world when you're trying to find the knock limit. The ability to hold the vehicle in a single speed/load point makes steady state tuning much more accurate as well.

The number that comes out of the dyno isn't really that important to me as a calibrator as long as I'm getting the right response from the ECU. The real test is how the vehicle performs in the real world after the tuning is completed. Load bearing dynos usually take a lot of the guesswork out of the equation by making the test conditions identical to the real world conditions. The real proof of power is in the timeslips, lap times, or passing speed on the street.

My preference is alway to use a load bearing dyno whenever possible if I'm calibrating. It's important to load the engine the same way it will be used in the real world when you're trying to find the knock limit. The ability to hold the vehicle in a single speed/load point makes steady state tuning much more accurate as well.

The number that comes out of the dyno isn't really that important to me as a calibrator as long as I'm getting the right response from the ECU. The real test is how the vehicle performs in the real world after the tuning is completed. Load bearing dynos usually take a lot of the guesswork out of the equation by making the test conditions identical to the real world conditions. The real proof of power is in the timeslips, lap times, or passing speed on the street.

This is a great reply.

We are getting an AWD dynojet for our shop. They are competitively priced, but there are better dyno's around. The problem is, when people typically dyno their cars, they are looking for bragging rights. They want to see big numbers. Most people would rather see 300hp on a dynojet instead of 2XX on a mustang. I use the dyno to compare results from tuning and mods. That is why comparing numbers from one shop to another is like apples:oranges. Also, numbers can be corrected/manipulated, etc.

I tune my cars on the dyno and the street. When I use the dynojet at my friends shop, I can tune the car to a certain AFR and boost level. If you take the car off the rolls and rip around on the street, it makes more boost, and has a slightly different response. I have to account for the increase in boost on the street vs the dyno. You don't have this problem on a load bearing dyno.