Natalya has a 1JZ! (56K Go Home)
- Thread starter BlackMKIII
- Start date
Wow, more torqe than HP, IMPRESSIVE!!!!
Hey you with the Doug picture. IlikecarsyesIdo: Are you Nate from G20.net?
Hey you with the Doug picture. IlikecarsyesIdo: Are you Nate from G20.net?
BlackMKIII;910029 said:
Nice....now how does that translate to numbers actually to the wheels....no one drives on axles ..... so does the dynapack actually account for the tire size/width??? Just curious as I only experience #'s with Dynojets and Mustang Dynos.....
What would be an equivalent dynojet numbers???
Take the average between a Mustang Dyno (276) and the DynaPack (325) and you get about 300. It's what I was expecting. 
I feel the DynaPack is more true because it eliminates variables like tire pressure, slippage, strap tension, etc.
I feel the DynaPack is more true because it eliminates variables like tire pressure, slippage, strap tension, etc.
BlackMKIII;910145 said:Take the average between a Mustang Dyno (276) and the DynaPack (325) and you get about 300. It's what I was expecting.
I feel the DynaPack is more true because it eliminates variables like tire pressure, slippage, strap tension, etc.
well....that does not make sense then if you have to average out and it comes to only approximately 300 HP @ 18psi. Shouldn't tuning take into account real life variables that a Dynopack just eliminated? This why i couldn't understand dynapack...
Shouldn't the car feel weaker in comparison to one that was tuned on a mustang or a dynojet ? Only reason I ask is I'm trying to compare the number's with Chris's as everyone was shitting on how low the numbers were on his approximately 17 psi.... yet your numbers prove at 18 psi that his was right on the money.
This is interesting
:biglaugh:. making me even more curious :icon_evil
But he made my Mustang numbers on a DynoJet. Mustangs read lower than Dynojets, DynoJets read lower than DynaPacks. Tell him to go down to Blacktrax, plunk down $80, then get back to me. I guarantee he won't hit 325.
Here:
And I DID beat his numbers (276), on a Mustang, at 17 PSI, WITHOUT a hint of tuning from the AFC. My AFR's were DEAD on 12.5. His injectors are killing him.
Here:
BlackMKIII;894427 said:
And I DID beat his numbers (276), on a Mustang, at 17 PSI, WITHOUT a hint of tuning from the AFC. My AFR's were DEAD on 12.5. His injectors are killing him.
suprastanger507mgte;910171 said:well....that does not make sense then if you have to average out and it comes to only approximately 300 HP @ 18psi. Shouldn't tuning take into account real life variables that a Dynopack just eliminated? This why i couldn't understand dynapack...
Shouldn't the car feel weaker in comparison to one that was tuned on a mustang or a dynojet ? Only reason I ask is I'm trying to compare the number's with Chris's as everyone was shitting on how low the numbers were on his approximately 17 psi.... yet your numbers prove at 18 psi that his was right on the money.
This is interesting
Dynapacks are pretty close to dynojet numbers.
Well, I don't want to use anything other than a DynaPack. It eliminates all variables and is easier to tune with.
its all about the good old dynojets, cause they take into account of real life situations not all real but close to it, doesnt matter what your axel is putting out only matters what the rubber to assphault is making I dont care if you put out 359 hp on an axel doesnt mean squat in a quater mile or any take off at a red light, I like the realist most suitable situation to judge horsepower, plus those dynapacks may run higher numbers than dynojets do but I think you just like themn cause your seeing higher numbers idk just seems like the dynapacks are just another penial enlarger thats just my take on things and just kidding about the manhood joke lol. who knows Ill probably get yelled at for this. lol
idk just seems like the dynapacks are just another penial enlarger thats just my take on things and just kidding about the manhood joke lol. who knows Ill probably get yelled at for this. lol
Those numbers are dead on for 18 PSI on stock twins. The dyno you used measures to the wheel horsepower, but the owner of that dyno has not done a software upgrade to show the correct header on the top of the screen.
Next thing for you to watch out for on pump gas is, the EGT's on those stock twins. They wont last if the EGT's get to high.
Now go on and buy some cam gears and get that extra 20 hp your are missing, if you are baller enough go ahead and get some 264 HKS cams and a DLI and break 400 RWHP on stock twins.
Next thing for you to watch out for on pump gas is, the EGT's on those stock twins. They wont last if the EGT's get to high.
Now go on and buy some cam gears and get that extra 20 hp your are missing, if you are baller enough go ahead and get some 264 HKS cams and a DLI and break 400 RWHP on stock twins.
That is what I expected at 17-18 psi at around 330 on a dynopack or dynojet. Like it said before those two dynos are pretty closed, but what's impressive is the torque.
And who said 1jz twins are weak and do not have torque.... :naughty:
And who said 1jz twins are weak and do not have torque.... :naughty:
soapra;910428 said:
LOL. 400 RWHP on stock twins. It's tempting. :biglaugh:
Thanks for the comments guys. Like I said, the DynaPack eliminates ALL variables. Remember that even the asphalt you drive on is a variable, so it's not possible to accurately depict "real world" conditions. But Blacktrax comes REAL close.
