chikai

I got to dyno my CL-S over the weekend on a Mustang Dyno.

was a little surprised at how much power is lost between the crank and the wheel. 185hp (wheel) vs 260hp (crank)

I also ran the 1/4 mile on the dyno. I first tried with the Sport Shift, but i hit the rev limiter btw second and third gear because I forgot there is a slight delay before the brain tells the tranny to shift.

Then I did it in automatic and damn, the car just about hit redline on ever shift. It was beautiful how well the car did in plain auto drive.

Anyway, the best I did was a 14.77 seconds on the 1/4 mile. I estimate ~15 sec. in real life because the dyno basically didn't let the car spin tire at all during launch.

I also did a quickie install with a K&N filter and did a comparison btw the stock and the more free flowing filter.

By the way, I was running 94 octane fuel.

Here's the link to the rest of the pics and the dyno results: http://www.chikaihuang.com/dyno.html

Enjoy!!!

NOVAwhiteTypeS

185?? That seems a little low. you sure u dynoed it in 3rd gear?

chikai

Yes sir...was in sport shift in 3rd gear, steady at 35mph...then gun-ed it to about 105mph and/or rev limiter.

Speedy3.2CL-S

Mustang dynos are always about 15% off or more....dynojet are the accurate ones.

DRM600

which k&n filter, direct replacement or a CAI? what was the difference between the filters?

JRock

Is that in someone's GARAGE?! lol
looks like a front lawn outside and a garage door.

chikai

Hehe...actually neither. We did took off the top part of the air box and stuck the funnel looking type K&N filter into the rubber hose. Basically just like what we did to the M3 (see attached picture)

chikai

Acutally it took place at Speed Nation ( http://www.speednation.com ).

Mike, the owner and operator of this place has written books about Hondas and has built many Honda race cars as well. You can't see it in the pictures, but the garage we were in also housed two fully race prepped Hondas (ol' school civics and I think a CRX)

Akim711

yeah... the numbers should be adjusted to SAE.

chikai

And how exactly do you do that??? Is there a standard formula???

Nashua_Night_Hawk

185 HP from a CLS is a problematic... You should see 200-205 HP Stock!

Do another dyno using a DynoJet.

chikai

I think for my purpose right now, showing 185hp is ok. From what I saw of the other Type-Rs that have been there previously, the Mustang dyno showed very consistent results, even after five runs. So the number I got will only be used as a baseline for when I do future enhancements.

Johann

The distance between the filter and the AFM isn't long enough.
Maybe this is the cause of the lower power reading.
The air going thru the AFM is to turbulent this way.

spiroh

Why do you still instist that we should see 200-205hp stock, when the best I did was 192. There quite a few people around that area with me.

Nashua_Night_Hawk

Spiroh,

Do not tell me that your CLS with all those performance mods are netting only 192 HP.... You were braeking at 14.2s 1/4 mile... That is not 192 HP for sure... There should be somthing wrong there...

We have seen few stock dynos at 200+ HP... This is why I am doubting low numbers.

spiroh

With all the mods listed I put down 226hp to the wheels. When I ran my car with the AEM intake(and just the intake) I ran a 196.

moomaster_99

This is true...everything with the exception of my exhuast only yielded 227hp....it's only a number...if you're running low 14s at the track...that's all that matters. Let someone underestimate you because you have ONLY 227 hp.....and then rip them a new one..

doug

never kick a man when he is down

bnavarro

how much and how long did it take for ur car?

chikai

$65 for the first time. It gets cheaper the more times you go...down to ~$25 per run I believe.

I ran the HP test 3 times, the 1/4 mile 3 times, the 0-60mpg 2 times.

I spent the entire day there because there were about 7-8 cars that dynoed. Some took longer than others depending on the mod they wanted to do to their car between runs.

BNut

Very nice pics of the meet on your web page.

I noticed the dyno sheet said you only had 3,700 miles on your engine? Chances are your engine is still a little green and will improve with additional milage.

EricL

If the car is hitting the rev limiter, that means the Mustang dyno is "including" the rotational inertia in a much bigger way than a Dynojet dyno. The slower the "ramp up speed", the less the rotational inertia of the engine, gears, shafts, wheels, and tires will affect the "computed" power and torque.

Depending on the break-in, the 3,700 could be considered “broken-in”, but it really depends on the “driver”…

Nealoc187

Mustang Dynos are loading dynos whereas Dynojets are not. Mustang dynos ALWAYS show lower figures than Dynojets do. Do not be dismayed by your numbers, I say again, Mustang Dynos ALWAYS show lower numbers than Dynojets do because of how they work. They use a magnetic motor to put drag on the drum, whereas a Dynojet does not do this. A dynojet is not "more accurate" but rather uses a different method of calculating wheel hp. There is a website dedicated to the mechanical and calculation differences between mustang dynos and dynojet dynos, but I can't remember it off the top of my head. I'm sure if you searched on google you could find it.

BNut

On the Mustang dyno, the drive wheels sit b/w TWO rollers, so you know that the tires are correctly situated b/w the rollers. This should make for easily repeatable results. If the rollers are load based rather than inertial, it should take longer to rev and thus give you a lot more points to plot data on over the course of a dyno run.

On a DynoJet dyno, the drive wheels sit on top of a SINGLE roller. I'm assuming if the tires are not in the same spot in relation to the roller it could have an affect on your results b/w different dyno runs?

If my assumption is totally off feel free to flame.

EricL

If you can adjust the "resistance" to motion, then the operator will have a large impact on the results of the dyno tests.

If the "load" can be varied, then the "ramp up speed" can be changed. The "should" take longer to rev is a "may" take longer to rev (I can certainly see how a "variable" load would allow static testing and also allow someone to set that load arbitrarily low). If someone sets that load very low, they would "amplify" the inertial aspects of a cars engine and drivetrain. (The opposite effect could be obtained with the load adjusted to be similar to an "engine dyno", where there is essential "zero sweep".)

The smartest response from all of the “gossip” on Mustang vs. Dynojet is to NOT compare them..


“>Josh,
>Apples to oranges. Rear wheel #'s are always lower on a Mustang dyno. On
>their dyno your crank HP would exceed 370. If you had read the rest of
>the page you would have noticed this link in large font above the
>graphs... http://www.activeautowerke.com/dyno/...gVsDynojet.asp
><http://www.activeautowerke.com/dyno/...gVsDynojet.asp>
>Typically a 1.21 multiplier is used with a dynojet and a 1.31 with the
>Mustang.
>
>
>Josh A.”


(I would use that multiplier with caution – and the minute you have a “variable load”, the operator can use it like a scalpel – for great results or horrible results.

And this link C5 link might be of some use:

http://www.cfivevette.com/pitroad1.php


And a FAQ from the "Mustang" side of the dyno universe:

http://www.mustangdyne.com/FAQs/faq_main.htm