# My Litchfield stage 5 Dyno Results



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

Hi guy as some of you will know I sold my MY11 three weeks ago and purchase my new beast from Litchfields, it's a MY12 which is a Litchfield stage 5 car and has the upgrade Litchfield race Dominator intercooler. I had the car Dyno'd today at MSL PERFORMANCE in Birmingham on there recently fitted Dyno Jet Dyno and I was really pleased with the results. We ran 4 times and did Fourth and Fifth gear runs, results below. 

4th gear run made: 733.01whp with 662.15lb wheel torque 

4th gear run made: 733.01whp with 657.09lb wheel torque 

4th gear run made: 733.01whp with 649.96lb wheel torque 

5th gear run made: 716.58whp with 674.72lb wheel torque 

To get engine bhp and torque add 12% 

Well chuffed with the results :chuckle:


----------



## TEAM_KHAN (Oct 8, 2007)




----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

What did it make on litchfields dyno? I thought the stage 5 is quoted at 750 at the flywheel! Yours is making 821 at the flywheel.

Funnily enough this is exactly what we see with US quoted power. The dyno jet figures they quote at the wheels are pretty consistent with the non dyno jet power we quote at the flywheel. Looks like that's holding true.


----------



## Anders_R35 (Jul 20, 2011)

God bless Dyno jet, must be every tuners dream!

I'd trust Litchfield's figures, or you best book in for rod upgrade.

Anders


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

Well we put a stock a stock my11 on the dyno before mine and that made 469.04 wheel horse power and in the past we've put a few Litchfield and svm cars on there which achieved near enough the figures expected.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

In that case the correction factor works at lower power levels but diverges as things climb. Doesn't make sense any other way.


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

On Litchfields dyno it made 756bhp with 688.9lb foot of torque


----------



## Anders_R35 (Jul 20, 2011)

I'd trust that figure. Btw does not detract from the great car it is, it will feel just as fast tomorrow :thumbsup:


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

It's confusing because MSL PERFORMANCE is a mercedes specialist and dynos car on a daily basis and they all map them, I've seen many of the cars dyno'd before as stock and then after mapping and the figures it makes before mapping is almost the same as the manufacturer states so it's hard understand how it can be correct on every other vehicle. And I have seen 10-11 gtr's from stock to stage 4.5 run on the same dyno and they have made almost identical to what they were told they should be by the tuners.


----------



## paulmc (Oct 31, 2004)

Even taking your lowest torque and adding 12%, 726lbs of torque on a standard bottom end is surely asking for trouble??

you 100% sure that is not Flywheel figures??

I guess the turbos run out of flow around 6000rpm otherwise would would make some serious power top end.


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

paulmc said:


> Even taking your lowest torque and adding 12%, 726lbs of torque on a standard bottom end is surely asking for trouble??
> 
> you 100% sure that is not Flywheel figures??
> 
> I guess the turbos run out of flow around 6000rpm otherwise would would make some serious power top end.


Dyno Jet Dynos if I'm not mistaken give only wheel horse power and MSL also say it's whp. And for the turbos they are upgrade latest EFR Borgh turbos so I'm not sure about running out of flow at 6000rpm... I'm not that technical to be honest


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

Don't know much about dynos... But what I do know is that this beast is effing scarey fast.... Lol


----------



## G2GUV (Dec 16, 2012)

Takamo said:


> On Litchfields dyno it made 756bhp with 688.9lb foot of torque


I take it Litchfields figures above are flywheel???


----------



## paulmc (Oct 31, 2004)

Looking at your graph they either run out of flow around 6000rpm (which I doubt if they are big EFRs) or Litchfiled wound it back a bit top end to save the engine.

I agree it will be a very fast car.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

These turbos are 6758s. They can in theory touch on 980bhp at the fly wheel.

For as long as I can remember American dyno jet figures are similar to uk flywheel figures even though they measure at the wheels. 

Dyno jets are a very basic dyno concept, unlike others you may know such as dybo dynamics, maha, superflow or dynapack. Dynojet works very simply by measuring the acceleration of a known mass (drum) to calculate the power applied to it. Which probably explains why peak torque varies but power is pretty constant. 

Great in theory, only trouble is they are only good for power runs and don't work well as a tuning tool as you can't hold them at a specific power level for the purposes of mapping an ecu.


----------



## G2GUV (Dec 16, 2012)

Adamantium said:


> These turbos are 6758s. They can in theory touch on 980bhp at the fly wheel.
> 
> For as long as I can remember American dyno jet figures are similar to uk flywheel figures even though they measure at the wheels. Which probably explains why the power is different between gears. Interesting peak torque varies but power is pretty constant.
> 
> Dyno jets are a very basic dyno concept, unlike others you may know such as dybo dynamics, maha, superflow or dynapack. Dynojet works very simply by measuring the acceleration of a known mass (drum) to calculate the power applied to it. Great in theory, only trouble is they are only good for power runs and don't work well as a tuning tool as you can't hold them at a specific power level for the purposes of mapping an ecu.


Adam - where the f^*k do you store all this information??? :bowdown1: :bowdown1::bowdown1:


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

Adamantium said:


> These turbos are 6758s. They can in theory touch on 980bhp at the fly wheel.
> 
> For as long as I can remember American dyno jet figures are similar to uk flywheel figures even though they measure at the wheels.
> 
> ...


Too technical for me.... I only eat two wheatabix.... Lol


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

G2GUV said:


> Adam - where the f^*k do you store all this information??? :bowdown1: :bowdown1::bowdown1:


I read a lot and my job requires me to be at the forefront of and understand a lot about technology relating to vehicles and their development.


----------



## twobadmice (Jul 2, 2013)

Well we are either going to have to call Adamantium Spock or Scotty. My vote is Scotty.


----------



## G2GUV (Dec 16, 2012)

Adamantium said:


> I read a lot and my job requires me to be at the forefront of and understand a lot about technology relating to vehicles and their development.


Fair play to you mate. I have certainley gained knowledge from a lot of your posts. Ever thought about being at the forefront of an all new GTR tuning center in North/West London???? :chuckle:


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

To be fair, I could be talking complete bollocks. It's not unrealistic that someone will point out I've understood it all wrong.


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

If a dyno measures every car put on it almost give or take 10hp difference compared to manufacturers specification would you say that is measuring correctly or not


----------



## Anders_R35 (Jul 20, 2011)

Takamo said:


> If a dyno measures every car put on it almost give or take 10hp difference compared to manufacturers specification would you say that is measuring correctly or not


Lets say the figures are correct, are you going to risk running that power (especially torque) on stock motor or book in for a forged engine?


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Takamo said:


> If a dyno measures every car put on it almost give or take 10hp difference compared to manufacturers specification would you say that is measuring correctly or not



It is not correct to add 12% to get flywheel figures, add about 30 hp then it will be realistic imo similar to a dynapack


----------



## FullThrottle (Apr 5, 2012)

I'd say drivetrain losses are more likely to be in the region of 20-25%!
Which taking your lowest figures would make your car 874bhp/792 lb/ft (assuming 22% losses) Don't think the stock engine would last 5mins!
So I would say these are flywheel figures.


----------



## R35 Boxer (Aug 12, 2012)

I'd trust Litchfields dyno as they do GTRs day in day out. Either way it's a quick car :thumbsup:


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

It's all very confusing because I've seen many stock cars go onto the dyno and show stock figures and also modified cars go on and achieve the figures they were also told it was by the tuners... So how can that be


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

We had this same discussion last year when I dyno'd my MY11 stage one which made very strong power and also did a 10.7 @ 131.04MPH at the pod, some of you guys were saying it's incorrect figures so to to prove a point MSL PERFORMANCE offered to do ten free dynos to compare and prove that there dyno wasn't giving incorrect readings. Some of the forum members and some others turned up and we all dyno'd our cars at the same time with the same setting's and conditions and still my car made stronger power than some Litchfield stage 4 cars and SVM 650 cars. So I'm as confused as of you guys.


----------



## paulmc (Oct 31, 2004)

Confusing and a worry (for you) on a stock engine.

What boost do you run, peak and at the red line?


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

1.4 Barr


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

It should make more power than stage 4 and 650r cars, it's meant to have more power than them.

What numbers were they making?

I've read previously that dyno jets have a fudge correction factor that alters the measured power reading, apparently this was historical and based on the expected out out of a single cylinder motorbike that made an industry standard expected output with certain mods. When dynojet released their dyno and it read the real power which was lower than the market expected, it was a sales flop. The software was then revised to boost confidence from the market and it has remained ever since. Apparently.

Anyway, if there's a compensating fudge factor that's a function of the measured power then it's entirely possible for cars to be appear accurate at lower power but grossly over read at high levels. Of course it's just as possible for the Litchfield dyno to be wrong but given the Maha pedigree amongst oems versus the famous dynojet fudge factor history, I'd go with Litchfield's numbers over MSL's.


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

No I'm talking about my Litchfield stage one my11 that made more power then the Litchfield stage 4.25 and SVM 650 cars, I know this car will but I'm giving my old car as an example.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

Ok, well I can't explain that.

But I did find a link to a forum talking about the original dynojet fudge factor.

dyno day this weekend in NH - Trick Engineering March 25, 2006 - Page 4 - Dodge SRT Forum


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

I'm not knocking Litchfields dyno in anyway and I'm sure what your saying can be correct but then you explain why cars which were modified and mapped by Litchfields and SVM made less power on the same dyno under the same setting's and conditions and we're stated to be more power than my stage one, yesterday before my car was dyno'd they put a stock mercedes GLA 45 on the dyno which made 387whp then once mapped it made 430whp.


----------



## Tiler (Mar 28, 2014)

I will be a guinea pig. As My car has been on litchfields dyno. :bowdown1:


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

Tiler said:


> I will be a guinea pig. As My car has been on litchfields dyno. :bowdown1:


I'll have a word with the guys at MSL performance but I think you may have to pay a little something, they normally charge £70 for a session but he did mine for £40 so if your ok with that ask for ya.


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

Tiler yours was one of the cars that day at MSL when we dyno'd the gtr's


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

Takamo said:


> I'm not knocking Litchfields dyno in anyway and I'm sure what your saying can be correct but then you explain why cars which were modified and mapped by Litchfields and SVM made less power on the same dyno under the same setting's and conditions and we're stated to be more power than my stage one, yesterday before my car was dyno'd they put a stock mercedes GLA 45 on the dyno which made 387whp then once mapped it made 430whp.


Once mapped it should increase in power but a stock GLA Amg should be 355 at the fly wheel not 387 at the wheels.


----------



## Mrw (Aug 22, 2012)

Dyno figures are just something to brag to your mates about. Go to the drag strip and your terminal speed will tell you what power you are making.


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

You could be rite there, I wonder if it's at flywheel power, I'm gunna speak to msl today


----------



## Litchfield (Feb 26, 2008)

Rab,

I’m glad you’re enjoying your new car and it is performing so well but I won’t read too much into dyno figures they will vary between almost everyone. Dyno debates have raged for as long as I can remember on ever make and forum going 

On a dyno that measures WHP differences between cars can easily be explained away by transmission temps, wheel weights, tyre pressures etc all for cars that may have exactly the same engine power. Hence one of the reasons why you got different results in different gears. As a tuner you are only interested in how accurate the results are on the same car run after run to see if your changes are making a difference. I’m sure the Dynojet is good at doing this as they are very popular in the US.

When we gave your future Stage 5 car a quick power run prior to making available for sale it produced 756bhp and based on our experience of over 100 similar conversions in the last few years we are happy to warranty this car at that power level. If you take it to another dyno and the results come out higher, I can live with that 

Regards

Iain


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

i have done a 1/4 mile pull using 6800 rpm as shift point on vpower which is 825 hp peak at shift point, and my trap speed was 144.7 mph

so if you've really got 821 hp you will trap around 144 mph

i cant see it tbh, it seems very odd that you've had 2 cars on msl dyno and both have been miracle cars showing way over the top power...........


----------



## paulmc (Oct 31, 2004)

Is you car on Garretts or EFRs?? I see from Litchfields site stage 5 uses Garrett turbos??


----------



## Litchfield (Feb 26, 2008)

Paul, the car is on Borg Warner EFR turbos but we set the power/torque limits the same on all our Stage 5 cars. The EFRs just respond quicker and spool earlier. We have been using them for a long time (first to try these) but need to update our website page.

Iain


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

[asasQUOTE=Litchfield;3575602]Rab,

I’m glad you’re enjoying your new car and it is performing so well but I won’t read too much into dyno figures they will vary between almost everyone. Dyno debates have raged for as long as I can remember on ever make and forum going 

On a dyno that measures WHP differences between cars can easily be explained away by transmission temps, wheel weights, tyre pressures etc all for cars that may have exactly the same engine power. Hence one of the reasons why you got different results in different gears. As a tuner you are only interested in how accurate the results are on the same car run after run to see if your changes are making a difference. I’m sure the Dynojet is good at doing this as they are very popular in the US.

When we gave your future Stage 5 car a quick power run prior to making available for sale it produced 756bhp and based on our experience of over 100 similar conversions in the last few years we are happy to warranty this car at that power level. If you take it to another dyno and the results come out higher, I can live with that 

Regards

Iain[/QUOTE]

Thank you Iain, as you know I'm very impressed with the car and it does what it says on the tin as they say. My 3rd gtr that Has been done by yourself and must say they have not missed a beat.... Cheers


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

Adamantium said:


> Once mapped it should increase in power but a stock GLA Amg should be 355 at the fly wheel not 387 at the wheels.


My mistake, just spoke to msl and they told me that the GLA didn't make that power at the wheels that was at flywheel after and induction kit and tuning box. So my bad but they are 100% sure that all readings given are wheel horse power and he's told me that anyone can come down and Dyno there car to compare against any other dyno, so TILER bring it down buddy


----------



## bhp (Sep 13, 2008)

yep i got the email from Ian yesterday :chuckle::chuckle:


----------



## Tiler (Mar 28, 2014)

Takamo said:


> My mistake, just spoke to msl and they told me that the GLA didn't make that power at the wheels that was at flywheel after and induction kit and tuning box. So my bad but they are 100% sure that all readings given are wheel horse power and he's told me that anyone can come down and Dyno there car to compare against any other dyno, so TILER bring it down buddy


No problem,
See if any one else on here want's to join in. It could be a mini meet in Birmingham.
Just make it a Saturday.


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

Come on you guys bring it on let's see how big ya kahoonas are... Lol msl are adamant that there dyno is 100% bang on so he's quiet happy to prove his point.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

How does running a load of cars prove his dyno is bang on? Only way to do that is with a known quantity or some kind of calibration device.

He'll never convince me as ALL dynojets have the fudge factor I referenced above built into the software.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Why do we need big kahoonas to go on a dyno that will show more power than we really have, surely that caper is for guys with small kahoonas lmao

I don't get it do you work for msl or something? dynojets don't need 12% corrections to get to flywheel figures this is where the confusion lyes the same as on the dynapack imo.

No dyno figures can accurately be compared imo, certainly not the wheel figures but if you know a correction that correlates to accurate flywheel figures for each dyno then they can atleas be partially comparable all imo of coarse


We know litchfields maha will be close so 756 hp is good enough, so your 733 needs 23 hp added losses to get flywheel figure, simple.

I dare bet if you go back to your last gtr dyno plot and add that same 23 hp for losses the flywheel figure will then be close to what it should be.


----------



## samgtr (Aug 4, 2010)

Surely its the track were you can see who has the biggest kahoonas not a dyno??


----------



## Anders_R35 (Jul 20, 2011)

Takamo said:


> Come on you guys bring it on let's see how big ya kahoonas are... Lol msl are adamant that there dyno is 100% bang on so he's quiet happy to prove his point.


You seem set on believing the dyno jet figures no matter what. Of course MSL will state their dyno is spot on, they spent a few bucks buying it. But if the info in Adams link is correct, then what does a motorbikes drivetrain have to do with a car? No rear diff, chain instead of drive shaft, one wheel putting power down...

If you want to believe dyno jet figures just be prepared to be a little disappointed if you run car on a non dyno jet dyno.

You'd be better off taking your car to Santa pod and seeing what terminals you make as someone else already said.

Anders


----------



## keithmac (Mar 1, 2014)

As people have already said, the proof of the pudding is in the quarter mile trap speed. 

No fudge factors there..


----------



## twobadmice (Jul 2, 2013)

Obviously the only important fact is that your car will be significantly quicker than a stock M6 or Bentley GT.


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

Bring down your car's and prove MSL'S dyno Jet to be incorrect and No I don't work for him, my last gtr was a Litchfield stage one which made 653.24bhp flywheel power and no one would believe that and I proved it to be correct when we dyno'd 11 other gtr's and my car made more power then Litchfield stage 4.25s and SVM 650s and it ran 10.7 @ 131.04MPH so go on tell me those figures were also incorrect.. So let's put it to the test and that way we will all know whether it's over inflating the figures. I'm Not being funny or sarcastic it would just be interesting


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Takamo said:


> Bring down your car's and prove MSL'S dyno Jet to be incorrect and No I don't work for him, my last gtr was a Litchfield stage one which made 653.24bhp flywheel power and no one would believe that and I proved it to be correct when we dyno'd 11 other gtr's and my car made more power then Litchfield stage 4.25s and SVM 650s and it ran 10.7 @ 131.04MPH so go on tell me those figures were also incorrect.. So let's put it to the test and that way we will all know whether it's over inflating the figures. I'm Not being funny or sarcastic it would just be interesting



I have no interest in a dyno plot that shows over 1000 hp for my car when it's under 1000 hp and I'm a very busy man and don't have time to waste Doing pointless dyno pulls.

In a stage 1 my09 indigo did 10.99 125.4 mph and that's around 520 hp so I don't think it's hugely over the top to get 131 mph from a newer car that's more hp standard and has been tuned, matt gtr did 134 mph with svm 650 and ur below that so..........


Your car is 750 hp it's as simple as that really imo


----------



## Conrad (Jul 29, 2004)

For reference in this dyno comparison debate (again) FWHP (and thus FWHP - WHP = Transmission losses) is NOT calculated by multiplying WHP by a %.

Example: 

You make 750whp then multiply by 12% for FWHP you get 840 FWHP (90hp transmission loss)

You then turn up the boost and make 1000whp then multiply by 12% for FWHP you get 1120 FWHP (120hp transmission loss)

Errrrr..... So I upped my power and lost another 40hp through the same transmission???

I don't think so, transmission loss is a fixed value that may vary slightly depending on oil grades, oil temperature, tyre temps, drag from brakes, etc etc

I hope that clears that up.


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

No problem, but if anyone is willing then you can pm me.


----------



## paulmc (Oct 31, 2004)

Conrad said:


> For reference in this dyno comparison debate (again) FWHP (and thus FWHP - WHP = Transmission losses) is NOT calculated by multiplying WHP by a %.
> 
> Example:
> 
> ...


Not sure that is the case. I agree tranny losses are more or less fixed but at a % not a fixed value. Heat, Friction, Load etc etc all affect losses. So losing more power as power increases is probably correct.

good example attached. They did Engine dyno then chassis dyno. You can see losses are around 20% Test C, as power increase so does power lost

Drivetrain Power Loss - Car Craft Magazine


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

scoooby slayer said:


> Why do we need big kahoonas to go on a dyno that will show more power than we really have, surely that caper is for guys with small kahoonas lmao
> 
> I don't get it do you work for msl or something? dynojets don't need 12% corrections to get to flywheel figures this is where the confusion lyes the same as on the dynapack imo.
> 
> ...


Firstly I don't work for anyone may be you do i have several of my own business's and secondly what I meant is not the owners size of kahoonas but the cars... It's a joke don't know why your taking it so literal or personal dude not trying to slag off anyone here, like I said it's very confusing because different tuners say different things so it would be interesting to get a comparison. Like I said have seen stage 4.25 cars SVM 650R cars achieve less on the same dyno as my stage one car was dyno'd on on the same day under the same setting's and conditions with same tyres, and we are not talking about one or two we are talking of eleven cars, so may be you can see why I'm surprised and believe that it may be correct. If anyone on here has a stage 5 Litchfield car and would like to dyno for free to see what it makes that would be interesting please. Cheers guy's and please no one take any offence none meant.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Conrad said:


> For reference in this dyno comparison debate (again) FWHP (and thus FWHP - WHP = Transmission losses) is NOT calculated by multiplying WHP by a %.
> 
> Example:
> 
> ...




While i do agree a percentage cannot be used for dynapack or dynojets dynojets, dyno dynamics use it and it works quite well but only because the wheel figures are alot lower.


With an accurate wheel figure I think a true correction would be a small fixed amount and a small percentage, the reason being if you think about it, the harder/faster you turn something the harder it actually is to turn it, think of a spoon in liquid and turning it, the more force you apply to that spoon it will turn faster, quicker but it will take more force to do it


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Takamo said:


> Firstly I don't work for anyone may be you do i have several of my own business's and secondly what I meant is not the owners size of kahoonas but the cars... It's a joke don't know why your taking it so literal or personal dude not trying to slag off anyone here, like I said it's very confusing because different tuners say different things so it would be interesting to get a comparison. Like I said have seen stage 4.25 cars SVM 650R cars achieve less on the same dyno as my stage one car was dyno'd on on the same day under the same setting's and conditions with same tyres, and we are not talking about one or two we are talking of eleven cars, so may be you can see why I'm surprised and believe that it may be correct. If anyone on here has a stage 5 Litchfield car and would like to dyno for free to see what it makes that would be interesting please. Cheers guy's and please no one take any offence none meant.



I think you misunderstand me I'm not being funny at all mate just having a conversation, I own/run a 300 acre farm and a 21 piece strong contracting company I'm my own boss too  

I havnt taken any offence, I've just tried to explain how things can vary slightly, your obviously very good at getting the best from a gtr at the drag strip, your 1.55 60 ft is quickest on the board for road tyres I believe


Your car is 750 hp same as your old on was 600 odd hp if you add 30 hp losses, you just use every single one and fair play to you for using the car for what it's built for


----------



## Tim Radley (Aug 3, 2013)

paulmc said:


> Drivetrain Power Loss - Car Craft Magazine


"The biggest culprit in this power-loss chain is the automatic transmission"

Really? How is this journo qualified to make a statement like this? How is he basing such a statement? Where are his calculations?

Question:- How much power does it take to rotate two rear wheels/discs/tyres? Is it more or less than it takes to rotate a few small diameter gears and a couple of shafts running in oil?

If the trans loss increased by 40bhp due to the flywheel figure doubling, then its an internal loss - which translates to heat. Why does the transmission not overheat on the dyno then? 40bhp in loss is a huge amount of heat. Like huge.


----------



## Tim Radley (Aug 3, 2013)

Adamantium said:


> Dyno jets are a very basic dyno concept, unlike others you may know such as dybo dynamics, maha, superflow or dynapack. Dynojet works very simply by measuring the acceleration of a known mass (drum) to calculate the power applied to it. Which probably explains why peak torque varies but power is pretty constant.
> 
> Great in theory, only trouble is they are only good for power runs and don't work well as a tuning tool as you can't hold them at a specific power level for the purposes of mapping an ecu.


That's not strictly true. It depends which model you have. The very early ones were a simple roller much like many other brands but for the last 15 years dynojet have been selling proper eddy current controlled dyno's.

I had one myself for over 10 years (now sold). You can use it in inertia test or you can add load. The load can be a percentage or a custom sweep. I could take actual data from places like the TT and replicate the acceleration rate exactly on the dyno, it was a very powerful tool. It would also step test and hold load at any point you desired. So you could hold at a cell and read real time torque from a proper strain gauge if you bought that upgrade with the dyno which i did.

I've yet to find a car dyno more powerful for tuning but i've used plenty of main brands which don't have half the features. Also I always ran it on inductive pickup so no errors which rpm readings. The dynojet has a graph that lets you check wheelslip when using this pickup method for RPM so it's very easy to repeat exactly.

The heavy roller is not only very good for doing accurate coastdown tests but also means the eddy brake has less work to do on the acceleration runs.

If you have a good handle on things like slip and coastdown losses it is very easy to check your repeatability. I've witnessed first hand some huge errors by dyno operators who are not familiar or don't have the tools to check these things.

You can very easily for example see something Litchfield just mentioned on here which is wheel weights affecting your readings. Again this is a problem when using a calculated flywheel figure from wheel power measurement because if you go from heavy wheels and tyres to lightweight versions and see a 30bhp gain in wheel horsepower then your flywheel figure has now jumped up 40bhp for no increase in engine power whatsoever. This is why it is so important to understand this subject matter if you want realisitic numbers and repeatability. If you just want to fire cars through all day and just make maximum profit then i guess it doesn't matter.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

Tim Radley said:


> That's not strictly true. It depends which model you have. The very early ones were a simple roller much like many other brands but for the last 15 years dynojet have been selling proper eddy current controlled dyno's.
> 
> I had one myself for over 10 years (now sold). You can use it in inertia test or you can add load. The load can be a percentage or a custom sweep. I could take actual data from places like the TT and replicate the acceleration rate exactly on the dyno, it was a very powerful tool. It would also step test and hold load at any point you desired. So you could hold at a cell and read real time torque from a proper strain gauge if you bought that upgrade with the dyno which i did.
> 
> ...


Fair enough, thanks for the insight.

Still doesn't explain why us dynojet numbers at the wheels are comparable to UK calculated flywheel power.


----------



## paulmc (Oct 31, 2004)

Tim Radley said:


> "The biggest culprit in this power-loss chain is the automatic transmission"
> 
> Really? How is this journo qualified to make a statement like this? How is he basing such a statement? Where are his calculations?
> 
> ...


No idea (i did not read the whole article) that was not the point i was trying to make. Just trying to show the losses as power rises. Scooby Slayer makes a good simple point with his spoon


----------



## Tim Radley (Aug 3, 2013)

Adamantium said:


> Fair enough, thanks for the insight.
> 
> Still doesn't explain why us dynojet numbers at the wheels are comparable to UK calculated flywheel power.


You will find the answer in this article from the man that started Dynojet 

The Story Behind the Dynojet Chassis Dyno - The Truth Meter - Hot Rod Magazine


----------



## Tim Radley (Aug 3, 2013)

paulmc said:


> No idea (i did not read the whole article) that was not the point i was trying to make. Just trying to show the losses as power rises. Scooby Slayer makes a good simple point with his spoon


Yes and it is a valid point but its still comes back to an actual loss. If you take a 500bhp GTR and fit large turbos that take it to 1000bhp then going buy some dyno claims the losses will also double. So if a 500bhp gtr has 100bhp of losses then a 1000bhp gtr will have 200bhp of losses. The losses have increased by 100bhp for exactly the same drivetrain? A loss in the transmission from extra energy being put into it translates into heat. 100bhp of extra heat loss is 254,000BUT/hour which is equivalent to what a large industrial propane workshop heater outputs.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Tim Radley said:


> Yes and it is a valid point but its still comes back to an actual loss. If you take a 500bhp GTR and fit large turbos that take it to 1000bhp then going buy some dyno claims the losses will also double. So if a 500bhp gtr has 100bhp of losses then a 1000bhp gtr will have 200bhp of losses. The losses have increased by 100bhp for exactly the same drivetrain? A loss in the transmission from extra energy being put into it translates into heat. 100bhp of extra heat loss is 254,000BUT/hour which is equivalent to what a large industrial propane workshop heater outputs.



very true and the oil would boil away and the transmission seize and explode.
I like to use a small fixed figure for dynapack plots and although not accurate I feel its close enough as a good guide imo.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

Tim Radley said:


> You will find the answer in this article from the man that started Dynojet
> 
> The Story Behind the Dynojet Chassis Dyno - The Truth Meter - Hot Rod Magazine


That gives me no faith in dynojet numbers at all.


----------



## Tim Radley (Aug 3, 2013)

Adamantium said:


> That gives me no faith in dynojet numbers at all.


Lots of dyno manufacturers are the same. Its very sad really. All we as end users want is consistency but some of them seem hell bent on making the highest reading machines.

It's not just chassis dyno manufacturers. The engine dyno's suffer from this too. Steady state, step test, sweep, all vastly different readings on a boosted engine on the same test bench.

All you need to look for is accuracy in measurement and repeatability. Without that one is urinating into the wind.

What would be awesome would be if there was an international standard by which every manufacturer produced the equipment and calibration standards which had to be adhered to. That way everyone who was serious about the kit they manufacture would essentially all produce the same numbers.


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

I wonder what SVM think about the Dynojet dyno as I believe they have one, as guys who work day in day out on gtr's they would have the better understanding of its results. I know that Litchfields dyno (maha) has loads of different factors entered into its calculations, in a nut shell the Maha dyno gives you road power figures because it takes road surface , air pressure, tyre traction, and all sorts of other factors into its calculations, I was speaking to iain Litchfield and he told me that they did like 6 months of research and development and trials on runways to get all the different factors. I now understand why the Maha dyno gives a harsh figure which I suppose is better because we ain't gunna drive our beasts on the dyno but on the road so suppose better to know what's available to us on the road.


----------



## paulmc (Oct 31, 2004)

But this all brings me back to a point I have argued for years. Why do we insist on reporting Flywheel HP. Flywheel HP never hits the road. We should only measure and report Wheel HP. At the very least that removes all these daft % or what ever calcs are made, thay can only ever be wrong!!

I guess there are still some calcs to be done even with Wheel HP but surley if we remove the Flywheel guess work we will be closer to the truth??


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

paulmc said:


> But this all brings me back to a point I have argued for years. Why do we insist on reporting Flywheel HP. Flywheel HP never hits the road. We should only measure and report Wheel HP. At the very least that removes all these daft % or what ever calcs are made, thay can only ever be wrong!!
> 
> I guess there are still some calcs to be done even with Wheel HP but surley if we remove the Flywheel guess work we will be closer to the truth??


I agree, makes sense I suppose Litchfields dyno is closer to reality in that case


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

The dynojet wheel power reading still includes the nonsense fudge factor!

You can compare dynos at the wheels but the maha and dyno dynamics still vary hugely from the dynojet. 

Takamo, as has been said before in this thread, if you're going to pay any attention to the dynojet numbers you'll be needing to seriously consider strengthening the rods otherwise the engine's days are very much numbered.


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

Iain is happy to warranty the car as he feels it's running safe power so that's good enough for me, but cheers for the advice as always fella


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

So basically iain doesn't believe the dynojet numbers either then!


----------



## FullThrottle (Apr 5, 2012)

Takamo said:


> Bring down your car's and prove MSL'S dyno Jet to be incorrect and No I don't work for him, my last gtr was a Litchfield stage one which made 653.24bhp flywheel power and no one would believe that and I proved it to be correct when we dyno'd 11 other gtr's and my car made more power then Litchfield stage 4.25s and SVM 650s and it ran 10.7 @ 131.04MPH so go on tell me those figures were also incorrect.. So let's put it to the test and that way we will all know whether it's over inflating the figures. I'm Not being funny or sarcastic it would just be interesting


Interesting how your stage 1 car was given a Flywheel figure/graph and your Stage 5 car was given a Wheel figure/graph? Just out of interest do you have a copy of your Stage 1 graph?


----------



## Tim Radley (Aug 3, 2013)

Adamantium said:


> The dynojet wheel power reading still includes the nonsense fudge factor!
> 
> You can compare dynos at the wheels but the maha and dyno dynamics still vary hugely from the dynojet.
> 
> Takamo, as has been said before in this thread, if you're going to pay any attention to the dynojet numbers you'll be needing to seriously consider strengthening the rods otherwise the engine's days are very much numbered.


The dynojet figure is estimated flywheel according to that article and my experience. Why everyone calls in wheel horsepower I don't get as it doesn't say wheel power in the software. Must be an American thing lol


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

FullThrottle said:


> Interesting how your stage 1 car was given a Flywheel figure/graph and your Stage 5 car was given a Wheel figure/graph? Just out of interest do you have a copy of your Stage 1 graph?


No I don't have it anymore as I sold the car and gave it to the new owner and it didn't have flywheel power they only give you wheel horse power figures and on the graph you have to calculate it yourself because they do mercedes mainly so there loses are different to gtr's, they were advised by AMS in the states to add 12% for drivetrain loses


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

Adamantium said:


> So basically iain doesn't believe the dynojet numbers either then!


No he does believe them but explained as to why they would be different, he explained that the Dynojet don't minus certain factors as where Maha dyno take other factors in to the equation and will give a different result. It's not a case of wrong or rite it's more of different styles of tests in my opinion.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Takamo said:


> No he does believe them but explained as to why they would be different, he explained that the Dynojet don't minus certain factors as where Maha dyno take other factors in to the equation and will give a different result. It's not a case of wrong or rite it's more of different styles of tests in my opinion.



It is absolutely wrong if 12% is added, just add 23 hp for flywheel guesstimate, job done. 

Otherwise it's not comparable at all as it reads alot higher at the wheels.


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

No its not wrong it's just a different result based on different factors , it's like running a car on a dyno with no drag factors and it making 200mph but out there on the runway tops it'll do 185mph then one would say his car would do 200mph but because of the factors it's only doing 185mph but that doesn't mean that it's not capable of 200mph now is it


----------



## gtr mart (Mar 29, 2004)

sounds like you chaps need to sign up for my runway event...

let the results do the talking 

http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/334410-runway-day-main-event-thread.html


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

Takamo said:


> No its not wrong it's just a different result based on different factors , it's like running a car on a dyno with no drag factors and it making 200mph but out there on the runway tops it'll do 185mph then one would say his car would do 200mph but because of the factors it's only doing 185mph but that doesn't mean that it's not capable of 200mph now is it


So all rolling roads are accurate they just measure different things? I call bullshit.

Could you not consider the possibility that one of the readings has a significant amount of inaccuracy?

The percentage difference is just way too big to be just different measurements.


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

Let's agree to disagree


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

How about we just agree you are wrong?


----------



## gtr mart (Mar 29, 2004)

How about you both come to my event and let the cars do the talking?


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Takamo said:


> No its not wrong it's just a different result based on different factors , it's like running a car on a dyno with no drag factors and it making 200mph but out there on the runway tops it'll do 185mph then one would say his car would do 200mph but because of the factors it's only doing 185mph but that doesn't mean that it's not capable of 200mph now is it



It is wrong to add 12% to your wheel figures to get a flywheel figure, your car doesn't magically have 821 hp, it has 750 hp, it's not a matter of opinion it's just the way it is. I could add 12% to my dynapack run at 928 hp at the hubs which would make mine 1040 flywheel hp, but it isn't it's 950 hp or thereabouts at the crank


----------



## Fryman (Sep 4, 2014)

paulmc said:


> But this all brings me back to a point I have argued for years. Why do we insist on reporting Flywheel HP. Flywheel HP never hits the road. We should only measure and report Wheel HP. At the very least that removes all these daft % or what ever calcs are made, thay can only ever be wrong!!
> 
> I guess there are still some calcs to be done even with Wheel HP but surley if we remove the Flywheel guess work we will be closer to the truth??


completely agree, being an aussie we always quote rwhp not flywheel, what the engine makes and what actually gets to the floor are more often then not two different things.


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

Adamantium said:


> How about we just agree you are wrong?


Nope I don't agree with your theory..... Lol


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Fryman said:


> completely agree, being an aussie we always quote rwhp not flywheel, what the engine makes and what actually gets to the floor are more often then not two different things.


The problem is 2 different dynos have been used here, I'l give an example my car made 700 whp on dyno dynamics, same tune on dynapack made 812 whp so there miles apart, dyno dynamics use a fixed percentage to get to flywheel power which puts mine at 840 hp which is a very close realistic figure, so my dynapack plot needs just 28 hp adding to make it Comparable ish lol


The wheel figures are miles apart, so that's how I make a comparison, I've even had arguments with people (Glenn) who believe adding 22% to a dynapack plot is accurate lmao


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

I don't understand all the debate.

Litchfield have done all the work on the car and have tested it and provided a quoted power output.

Tuners are not in the habit of grossly underquoting power.
It makes around what Litchfield say.

Case closed.


----------



## Tim Radley (Aug 3, 2013)

As stated earlier, all dyno manufacturers should just quote wheel power and do that based on a strict standard. Clearly this isn't happening right now based on comments for wheel power measurements alone. This estimated flywheel is purely that and should be ignored. And the dynojet figures i think we can all agree definitely are not wheel power.


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

As consumers this isn't fair on us as we pay for a service which basically is incorrect according to different schools if thought and isn't worth the paper it's printed on.... Long cut short it's all bullshit then. Sorry for the bad language but really annoying


----------



## Kenco (Jul 25, 2003)

That is why I like the philosophy of a tuner like nine excellence who tune Porsches.

They are well away of the dyno figure lottery so quote the time it takes their tuning packages to go from 0-300kph (186mph). As an example their 9e25 pachake takes 25s to get to 186mph from a standstill. This they stand by and will gaurantee via the use of a Racelogic box (and a long runway), as a minimum.

I like this idea, it is very clear & as a consumer you know what you are getting for your money.

The added benefit of quoting such high mph figures is that their tuning packages are producing the goods in extreme conditions. And the cars don't heat soak even at these levels (inlet temp wise) unduly.

Lots of discussion on Porsche forums in the past where tuners had packages that were producing good power on the dyno, but we're actually slower than standard cars to 300kph, due to high inlet temps which led to timing being pulled (and over fuelling to cool things down) by the ecu to protect the engine. 997 turbos with their variable vane technology were particularly succeptible to this.


----------



## Anders_R35 (Jul 20, 2011)

Takamo said:


> As consumers this isn't fair on us as we pay for a service which basically is incorrect according to different schools if thought and isn't worth the paper it's printed on.... Long cut short it's all bullshit then. Sorry for the bad language but really annoying


Thinking of an analogy for this. You invite three estate agents to value your house, you get three different values (all their opinion of your properties value). One is way off (dyno jet), the others are in the ball park so you accept them as being realistic.

Anders


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

Anders_R35 said:


> Thinking of an analogy for this. You invite three estate agents to value your house, you get three different values (all their opinion of your properties value). One is way off (dyno jet), the others are in the ball park so you accept them as being realistic.
> 
> Anders


But you still use the guy overpricing it as you want to believe it'll sell for more. :chuckle:


----------



## Anders_R35 (Jul 20, 2011)

CT17 said:


> But you still use the guy overpricing it as you want to believe it'll sell for more. :chuckle:


Yep and six months on you realise the other were correct


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

Anders_R35 said:


> Yep and six months on you realise the other were correct


Indeed.
Good analogy.

In the meantime you get to tell everyone how your house is worth more than thiers, even if it isn't.


----------



## goldgtr35 (Aug 15, 2012)

How about if you got a Swing in your garden. and next doors havent.
opcorn:opcorn:opcorn:opcorn:


Goldie


----------



## Conrad (Jul 29, 2004)

scoooby slayer said:


> The problem is 2 different dynos have been used here, *I'l give an example my car made 700 whp on dyno dynamics, same tune on dynapack made 812 whp so there miles apart, dyno dynamics use a fixed percentage to get to flywheel power which puts mine at 840 hp which is a very close realistic figure, so my dynapack plot needs just 28 hp adding to make it Comparable ish lol*
> 
> 
> The wheel figures are miles apart, so that's how I make a comparison, I've even had arguments with people (Glenn) who believe adding 22% to a dynapack plot is accurate lmao


Actually, yours didn't make 812whp on Dynapak, that's a guestimate too because Dynapak "measures" power at the hubs..... I'll get my coat lol


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Conrad said:


> Actually, yours didn't make 812whp on Dynapak, that's a guestimate too because Dynapak "measures" power at the hubs..... I'll get my coat lol



lol you know what I ment, I used it as a comparison as im sure the dynapack reads similar at the hubs to what a dynojet reads at the wheels, whereas the dyno dynamics is more inline with what a maha will give ie a realistic figure.


its a similar difference between the two hence me using the example.


----------



## Conrad (Jul 29, 2004)

scoooby slayer said:


> lol you know what I ment, I used it as a comparison as im sure the dynapack reads similar at the hubs to what a dynojet reads at the wheels, whereas the dyno dynamics is more inline with what a maha will give ie a realistic figure.
> 
> 
> its a similar difference between the two hence me using the example.


I know, I'm just playing... Lol :chuckle:


----------



## Voyager (Jul 20, 2012)

Until a recognized international std is written and adhered too, then all Dyno's will measure different its just how things are, accept it and deal with it, the arguments over which is more accurate have been done to death both here and on every other car forum since the dawn of forums, and previously in the bar on a weekend.
An individual dyno (assuming you always use the same dyno, same operator, who can correct for ambient conditions) is a useful tuning tool and is the best way to assetain whether the mods you make actually improve your HP/TQ figures, as you move on from your baseline pull, whether the figure has any bearing in the real world. or in comparison to another car on another dyno, or the same car on another dyno is pointless.
all that matters is that after you make a tuning change, your graph on the same dyno has either improved or not.
saying that tuner A gets X hp and tuner B for the same mods gets Y hp is great for PR and marketing but in reality is pointless, 
there seems to be so many folk around who get butthurt when hp figures and dyno charts get posted, it just seems a waste of effort.
1/4 mile ET or Vbox data is your real world test, rely on that and use dyno charts as a tuning tool only, IMHO.


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

Thank you guys for all your comments and suggestions


----------



## Tim Radley (Aug 3, 2013)

So are all the guy with charts showing measured wheel horsepower and estimated flywheel power now going to change their signatures to remove the flywheel figure? Just saying :wavey Don't forget to tell the mates at the pub you are actually 160bhp worse off lol

Dynapack is hub reading with 4 wheels sapping 25+bhp each removed. If they are honest with their calculation method (i've no idea) then they should be engine power minus drivetrain losses.


----------



## G2GUV (Dec 16, 2012)

Takamo said:


> Thank you guys for all your comments and suggestions


Mate, you have one LOVELY looking GTR that moves quicker than ET going home!!! 756 hp (or what ever it was) at the fly is a superb figure! Don't get caught up in all these 'package labels' and different Dyno results.

Litchfields built your beast and Im certain if they could realistically claim it was 820 hp - THEY WOULD!!! Its every tuners dream! So I would just trust their figure and sit and enjoy your car to the max!!! 

As has been said before - you are probably one of a very few pilots who can make use of EVERY HP you have available when getting your car off the line!!! (I have seen you in your MY11 at the POD achieving spectacular results!) :bowdown1:

I'd just be over the moon that you have a Litchfields LM750 car that ACTUALLY HAS 750+ HP under the hood! I remember I once wanted an SVM650R badge on my arse - but soon realised that it doesn't actually have 650 horses!!!  Lol

My knowledge on DYNO's is on parr with my knowledge of the ambient air temperatures in Pluto!!!  But in this case - I would say trust Litcho's.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Voyager said:


> Until a recognized international std is written and adhered too, then all Dyno's will measure different its just how things are, accept it and deal with it, the arguments over which is more accurate have been done to death both here and on every other car forum since the dawn of forums, and previously in the bar on a weekend.
> An individual dyno (assuming you always use the same dyno, same operator, who can correct for ambient conditions) is a useful tuning tool and is the best way to assetain whether the mods you make actually improve your HP/TQ figures, as you move on from your baseline pull, whether the figure has any bearing in the real world. or in comparison to another car on another dyno, or the same car on another dyno is pointless.
> all that matters is that after you make a tuning change, your graph on the same dyno has either improved or not.
> saying that tuner A gets X hp and tuner B for the same mods gets Y hp is great for PR and marketing but in reality is pointless,
> ...



I have a v box I use myself and I have found dyno dynamics to be very accurate with there flywheel figure, I made 840 hp and 30-130 mph in 6.8 seconds which proves it has a solid 840 hp, then dynapack at 812 hubs power which proves the hub power is approx 28 hp less than flywheel roughly, also trapped 144.7 mph on that tune.

Operated correctly and with j1349 correction applied I don't see why any dyno can't be repeatable and with a known wheel or hub to flywheel correction applied be comparable ish......

I prove my power with timed pulls so I'm not interested in bull silly figures, but I do like to know if my car is supposed to be 950 hp that it is actually making 950 hp, my supra I bought from jdm (more fool me!) was sold as a over 900 hp car but in reality it was barely 800 hp!


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

Personally having seen what the Maha does to calculate drivetrain losses and the examples so far of unmolested cars, I'm more than happy to rely on their flywheel rating when my car goes on the Litchfield dyno.

I'll never trust a dynojet regardless of their measuring technology until they remove their fudge factor and therein discredit every dynojet power reading ever previously published. In short, never going to happen.


----------



## Voyager (Jul 20, 2012)

no matter what dyno used, they all have a fudge factor, technically known as algorithm, but this is a fixed "fudge" (some operator tweaking helps) but is dependent on so many variables, barometric pressure, ambient temp, heat soak, tyre wear, roller condition, tie down force, wheel bearing grease temp, trans temp, clutch slippage etc etc, in fact i have seen dyno's vary by 20hp due to changes in the 3ph supply voltage over the day, (especially to eddy current dyno's)
Maha, dynojet, dynopack, happy shopper, it doesnt matter, all that matters is that each power addition, induction, exhaust, cams, gives you the results you are happy with on the same dyno each time. 
tuners sell HP, so the more they give the better they are considered to be (engineering ability aside)
tuners buy dyno's !!

i think people like to quote flywheel HP for only one reason, ITS A BIGGER NUMBER THAN WHP.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

Voyager said:


> no matter what dyno used, they all have a fudge factor, technically known as algorithm, but this is a fixed "fudge" (some operator tweaking helps) but is dependent on so many variables, barometric pressure, ambient temp, heat soak, tyre wear, roller condition, tie down force, wheel bearing grease temp, trans temp, clutch slippage etc etc, in fact i have seen dyno's vary by 20hp due to changes in the 3ph supply voltage over the day, (especially to eddy current dyno's)
> Maha, dynojet, dynopack, happy shopper, it doesnt matter, all that matters is that each power addition, induction, exhaust, cams, gives you the results you are happy with on the same dyno each time.
> tuners sell HP, so the more they give the better they are considered to be (engineering ability aside)
> tuners buy dyno's !!
> ...


An algorithm that outputs a correction factor as a function of multiple measured or assumed parameters is not there just to appease the market, it's there to make the dyno output MORE accurate in a variety of conditions.

The dynojet fudge factor makes the dyno output LESS accurate in all conditions and is only there because an old motorcycle tuning market wouldn't have bought it otherwise.


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

G2GUV said:


> Mate, you have one LOVELY looking GTR that moves quicker than ET going home!!! 756 hp (or what ever it was) at the fly is a superb figure! Don't get caught up in all these 'package labels' and different Dyno results.
> 
> Litchfields built your beast and Im certain if they could realistically claim it was 820 hp - THEY WOULD!!! Its every tuners dream! So I would just trust their figure and sit and enjoy your car to the max!!!
> 
> ...


Thank you bro, it'll be interesting to see how this one behaves at the pod .I'm looking forward to it.... Cheers


----------



## Tim Radley (Aug 3, 2013)

Adamantium said:


> An algorithm that outputs a correction factor as a function of multiple measured or assumed parameters is not there just to appease the market, it's there to make the dyno output MORE accurate in a variety of conditions.
> 
> The dynojet fudge factor makes the dyno output LESS accurate in all conditions and is only there because an old motorcycle tuning market wouldn't have bought it otherwise.


The correction is only used for atmospheric conditions. Still doesn't help if you have fudge factors (incorrect data fed to the correction calc) added by companies like Dyno Dynamics or Dynojet or maybe most of them. Any flywheel figures unless measured at the crank on an engine dyno is still purely a guess.

It would be interesting to pose questions to the manufacturers as to how they can all have such different wheel power figures. I've asked and was never given straight answers - they are wrong, we've tested etensively, blah blah. I guess though most people just want the highest number. As i said earlier, if it was proven 100% that a dyno dynamics flywheel figure ona big power car for example was a complete lie then how many people would stop quoting it and go back to the wheel power figure? Probably none as it doesn't sound as impressive.

I'm sure plenty of tuners purchase a dyno based on the fact its the highest reading one as that is what a lot of people want to hear. Ask any low reading dyno operator how many times he hears "that's too low" "that can't be right".


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Tim Radley said:


> The correction is only used for atmospheric conditions. Still doesn't help if you have fudge factors (incorrect data fed to the correction calc) added by companies like Dyno Dynamics or Dynojet or maybe most of them. Any flywheel figures unless measured at the crank on an engine dyno is still purely a guess.
> 
> It would be interesting to pose questions to the manufacturers as to how they can all have such different wheel power figures. I've asked and was never given straight answers - they are wrong, we've tested etensively, blah blah. I guess though most people just want the highest number. As i said earlier, if it was proven 100% that a dyno dynamics flywheel figure ona big power car for example was a complete lie then how many people would stop quoting it and go back to the wheel power figure? Probably none as it doesn't sound as impressive.
> 
> I'm sure plenty of tuners purchase a dyno based on the fact its the highest reading one as that is what a lot of people want to hear. Ask any low reading dyno operator how many times he hears "that's too low" "that can't be right".



with a decent dyno operator theres no reason a dyno dynamics cant be used, if anything id say my flywheel figure of 840 hp is on the conservative side with a 60-130 mph time of 5.49 seconds as that proves its easily making that power imo. 

if we used a dyno dynamics wheel figure its something like 700 whp for my car, whereas on a dynpack for arguments sake its 812 hub hp. 


as long as the vehicle is strapped the same to the rollers and the ambient temp isn't messed with it should be comparable, that's the whole point of shootout mode I think so its like a level playing field at least for dyno dynamics anyway. 

I havnt run on a dyno jet but Im sure my car would make over 800 whp which may well be accurate if theres only 40 hp loss from the crank to the 4 tyres, but im sure theres more loss than that each tyre must have quite a bit of resistance for a start. 


I have plots from a cosworth yb that made 838 hp on an engine dyno, then went on to make 809 flywheel hp on a dyno dynamics which is very feasible, of coarse any dyno can be fudged all it takes is a cup of tea for instance...... but with a known good operator the results are certainly not irrelevant.


my view is a dynapack is the best as theres no strapping or tyre issues and there very repeatable due to this, and the drivetrain loss is very small approx 28 hp on my gtr give or take.

im not suggesting its exact but it is a close guess not just a number pulled out of thin air.



with wheel figures varying so much between each dyno manufacturer how do we know how much we really have ? by a best guess factor to bring them inline imo, hence doing what I do trying to work out roughly what those figures are. 

look at takamos, 733 whp dyno jet, I guess the maha was around 650 whp or there abouts ?

You say we should quote whp only but which dyno? They can vary by over 100 hp from one to the other for the same tune....


----------



## Tim Radley (Aug 3, 2013)

scoooby slayer said:


> my view is a dynapack is the best as theres no strapping or tyre issues and there very repeatable due to this, and the drivetrain loss is very small approx 28 hp on my gtr give or take.
> 
> You say we should quote whp only but which dyno? They can vary by over 100 hp from one to the other for the same tune....


Tyre slip is a big problem many miss. So in this respect a hub dyno is very good.

On your 2nd point. Totally agree. But when you have a 100bhp error for measured wheel power on 2 different dyno then either something is a miss with the test procedure or one manufacturer is lying massively. Or maybe both are wrong.

I also think no dyno should be able to calculate rpm off roller speed as tacho's are often way off actual rpm which leads to massive errors once again. Same dyno same operator and you can have a huge calibration error here on different days.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

Tim,

Do you have any first hand experience of the new Maha dyno at Litchfield?

Iain told me a while back that tyre slip was simply not a problem at all even without the mega special coating that he no doubt paid an arm and a leg for.


----------



## Tim Radley (Aug 3, 2013)

Adamantium said:


> Tim,
> 
> Do you have any first hand experience of the new Maha dyno at Litchfield?
> 
> Iain told me a while back that tyre slip was simply not a problem at all even without the mega special coating that he no doubt paid an arm and a leg for.


No not yet. I had a look inside the cell a few weeks ago when i was up there and its very impressive. A lot of thought and money has gone into the design and Iain and I were discussing airflow paths and such so he's really on the case with this. Having built 3 dyno cells now I know what works and what doesn't so it was refreshing to hear he'd done his homework as many don't

I'd be keen to try a decent power car on there and measure the slip. This cannot be done on calculated rpm though. They offer a clamp rpm pickup for it http://www.maha.co.uk/cps/rde/xbcr/SID-EB86A567-A81D849D/maha_uk/BRO_MAHA_alle_LPS_EN.pdf


----------



## Louis_Tunmore (Mar 24, 2014)

Hi, wheel speed was logged from a very high power GTR early on in testing whilst roller speed was logged from the Dyno's own speed sensors. The guys were ensuring that they had no slip before they started working with customer cars, and experimenting with speed/torque vectoring between axles and testing the effect on centre diffs.


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

Ran it again on Litchfields dyno about 10 days ago and it made 807. 8 bhp and 699.5lb of torque, then iain tuned it down to 772bhp and 690.2lb of torque and removed a minor torque spike in the map.


----------



## paulmc (Oct 31, 2004)

good figures. I am getting twitchy re that amout of power on standard bottom end already started looking at rods lol


----------



## gtr mart (Mar 29, 2004)

Does that mean that the msl runs were not as far out as people originally suggested?


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

Takamo said:


> Ran it again on Litchfields dyno about 10 days ago and it made 807. 8 bhp and 699.5lb of torque, then iain tuned it down to 772bhp and 690.2lb of torque and removed a minor torque spike in the map.


That's impressive indeed.

As others have said, given an apparent upturn in engine issues for those North of 600lbsft, i'd probably be asking Ian for some hardware upgrades or turning the torque down a little further.

On the matter of Dyno's, i'd have been surprised if your original plot was AWHP as given the losses on a GT-R would (as said) be more like 20+% rather than the 12% you were told, it's safe to say they were not AWHP figures.

A RWD car could expect lower losses but AWD is likely to be North of 20%. It's also not a measure i've seen gathering momentum in the UK. For some reason those in out US colony like quoting AWHP rather than crank which seems daft given Mfctr's only quote crank figures.

That said, still a great output & she'll no doubt be a fast one


----------



## AdnanK (Jun 11, 2013)

I'm really surprised Ian has let this go with torque so high unless the rods have been upgraded.


----------



## Tariq (Mar 24, 2008)

AdnanK said:


> I'm really surprised Ian has let this go with torque so high unless the rods have been upgraded.


I'm also surprised.

He turned mine right down to 765/640.

T


----------



## Litchfield (Feb 26, 2008)

Just be clear, this car has all of our latest Stage 5 upgrades so is a bit of an expectation, I’ll try and explain.

We warranty our Stage 5 conversion at 750bhp and approximate 620-650lft (depending on spec). We have performed well over a hundred Stage 5 conversion starting with our original IHI based conversion then later moving to Garrett based turbos before pioneering the BorgWarner EFR turbos. The original IHI turbos were running about 1.5bar at peak power to achieve 750bhp on the 76mm Milltek and as things have naturally improved we now only need to run circa 1.30-1.4bar to achieve the same. Over the years this conversion has proven exceptionally reliable on road and track. We are therefore happy to fully cover it under our scheme 

This car is running EFR turbos, our 102mm exhaust, our huge Race Intercooler and intake kit so it achieves the power easily and has a very conservative tune. Coupled with the fact that we know what great care Rab takes with his cars we are happy to extend the cover to him at this higher power level. We discussed it a length with him and we will be there to support him should he experience a problem :wavey: 

When we were doing some dyno test work prior to the car being sold we gave the car a run and it produced 756bhp but it had an overboost spike at lower rpm (but with no knock) which lifted torque to 688lbft. 










This was prior to any customer viewing the car so we adjusted the low down boost and then when Rab decided to buy the car we agreed to run it on the dyno again and fine tune the following week. The 802bhp figure quoted was after we had installed one of our new base maps and then adjusted it down from their (sorry Rab  ) We ended up with a much smoother graph with slightly less peak torque but a smooth curve and a bit more power. 










We have subsequently refined it further but the power is still the same.

We have produced a number of Stage 5.5 800bhp cars that use our complete manifold kit (at the same peak boost levels) and are still running the standard engine. We have explained to these customers that we would warranty these at 775bhp but could give them 800bhp if they would like but won’t cover them under warranty. I personally don’t think these will these will be under too much extra strain as the torque doesn’t change in the mid-range (in fact we run less boost to achieve the same figure on our Manifolds) but we don’t have the years of data to risk ours, and our customers’, expectations on reliability. Obviously we would cover these cars should they upgrade to one of our built engines 

I hope that helps explain how higher power cars and our warranty scheme work. Any questions or concerns about tuning the GTR feel free to give us a call, we've done a few 

Regards 

Iain


----------



## paulmc (Oct 31, 2004)

So I guess what keeps it safe is a combination of uprated parts and the nature in which the torque is eased in up to around 3800rpm then easied back off again over 6000rpm.

Good t know seeing what seems like a ever increasing number of rod failures.

What do you think contributes to killing rods. high Boost or over aggresive ingntion advance?? of maybe a combination of both??


----------



## AdnanK (Jun 11, 2013)

Thanks for the clear up Ian.

What Torque does your Stage 1 give? It's not stated on your website.

Edit - I've found the figures Ian.


----------



## Litchfield (Feb 26, 2008)

Paul there are so many factors that will contribute to rod failures anything that can be done to smooth the power delivery will help. Poor mapping will cause problems but we have seen standard cars fail so it's just as likely to be something other than just the map i.e split hose, fuelling, lack of servicing, abuse etc. Relatively speaking the Rods are the weakest part in the engine so they are the thing that will break first unfortunately. 

I don't think there is anything to be overly concerned about, we see 5-6 cars per day and engine problems are VERY rare but as cars become older there will naturally be more issues. We now do a number of check on higher mileage cars to inspect the engine health and hopefully catch problems early


----------



## Jonndogg (Oct 27, 2012)

Can't knock that, warranty on stock motor to this kind of level is excellent!


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

Litchfield said:


> Just be clear, this car has all of our latest Stage 5 upgrades so is a bit of an expectation, I’ll try and explain.
> 
> We warranty our Stage 5 conversion at 750bhp and approximate 620-650lft (depending on spec). We have performed well over a hundred Stage 5 conversion starting with our original IHI based conversion then later moving to Garrett based turbos before pioneering the BorgWarner EFR turbos. The original IHI turbos were running about 1.5bar at peak power to achieve 750bhp on the 76mm Milltek and as things have naturally improved we now only need to run circa 1.30-1.4bar to achieve the same. Over the years this conversion has proven exceptionally reliable on road and track. We are therefore happy to fully cover it under our scheme
> 
> ...


Cheers Iain for explaining that  the second dyno graph isn't the final one by the way, the second fine tune one is missing


----------



## Tariq (Mar 24, 2008)

Takamo

Is all this power going through a standard clutch and gearbox?


T


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

Tariq said:


> Takamo
> 
> Is all this power going through a standard clutch and gearbox?
> 
> ...


Salaams T yes bro


----------

