Is a dyno tune worth the money?

[lightning]

that would be a cool job cruising from dealer to dealer with a bone stock late model comparing dyno specs ....if buzz dont take it im in....

[Gas Man]

VRY... Well answer this...

If both dynojet and superflow are tuned to the day/temp/humidity/elevation/ect... and not padding the numbers. The superflow will come in under the dynojet...right? as far as actual numbers?

If so that is my complaignt.

I'm not trying to debate dishonest shops and dyno techs.

[VRYQUIK]

Originally Posted by Gas Man

VRY... Well answer this...

If both dynojet and superflow are tuned to the day/temp/humidity/elevation/ect... and not padding the numbers. The superflow will come in under the dynojet...right? as far as actual numbers?

If so that is my complaignt.

I'm not trying to debate dishonest shops and dyno techs.

Here is the problem with inflated dyno numbers. People getting inaccurate results from what they actually paid for. For an example: I have a customer that had an engine built and tuned by a nationally known builder. He came to me with a dyno sheet from his 103ci showing 130+ HP. Here is one question that you can ask to see if the graph could be accurate. “What size injectors are you using?”. The answer was “Stock”.
This is a 2004 Electra Glide. It came with 4.35 gms/sec (34.5lbs/hr) injectors. Using an online injector/horsepower calculator, the injectors have a potential to provide up to enough fuel to produce 110.4 HP. The 4.35 gms/sec is with the injector being new. An injector with a lot of miles would be partial clogged and the internal movement would be worn along with the electro magnet being weaker causing the injector not to flow the 4.35 gms/sec.
After explaining to this customer that the engine wasn’t capable of producing 130+ HP, the customer was really confused and naturally went with the printed proof of the dyno sheet. He bragged about his power and showed all of his friends his dyno sheet. Both of us entered a dyno shootout at Cape Fear HD and he ended up with 115 HP. The dynamometer at the shootout was a Dynojet also. This means that even these numbers were inflated compared to the SAE standard. The proof is, going back to the worn stock injectors. They cannot produce 115 HP. Who is this customer to believe? This customer paid a lot of $$$$ for this build and was told he had 130+ HP . The facts prove different. Later that month, I installed one of my nitrous kits. He now has a true 130+ HP. The next dyno shootout he had 160+ HP on a dynojet.

The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) designed a formula to be the standard for dynamometers. This formula is: TQ x RPM / 5252 = HP. Basically, when the Dynojet was being developed, Dynojet was using the SAE standard formula. They Tested a stock bike and found that it produced 90 HP. The bike’s manufacturer claimed that the bike produced 145 HP. The Dynojet designers decided to fudge the SAE formula so that the numbers would be the same as the bike’s manufacturer’s numbers. They did this by manipulating the TQ so that the formula would still work.

This next paragraph was copied and pasted from the article in the Hot Rod Magazine. It confirms what I have been saying. Just remember that any dynamometer can be manipulated to read what ever the operator wants it to.

Dynojet's final number-fudge was arbitrarily based on a number from the most powerful road-going motorcycle of the time, the '85 1,200cc Yamaha VMax. The VMax had 145 advertised factory horsepower, which was far above the raw 90hp number spit out by the formula. Meanwhile, existing aftermarket torque-cell engine dynamometers delivered numbers that clustered around 120. Always a pragmatist, Dobeck finally ordered his Chief Engineer to doctor the math so that the Dynojet 100 measured 120 hp for a stock VMax. And that was that: For once and forever, the power of everything else in the world would be relative to the '85 Yamaha VMax and a fudged imaginary number.

In a perfect world, Every dyno would use the same formula where all of the dynos would read very close to the same. There will always be small discrepancies in power due to things such as the location of the dyno’s weather station sensors. You can add heat to the dyno’s temp sensor and the power reading will increase because the dyno computer will compensate for the heat.
To answer your question. If the Superflow and a Dynojet where sitting side by side and running the same bike, the Superflow numbers would be lower but true ASE HP (if the formula wasn't manipulated).

Yes the Dynojet gives higher numbers but not true ASE HP.

Do you want true numbers or inflated numbers. Now that people are learning more and more about HD engines, do you want to go with a Dynojet numbers saying that a bike has 115 -120 HP with people knowing that it’s not possible if the bike is using components such as stock injectors?

This was pasted from the SE on line catalog.

SCR EAM IN’ EAG LE PRO HIGH FLOW INJECTOR
KIT – 58MM THROTT LE BODY
3
Injectors provide fuel delivery at the rate of 5.3 grams/
second, 23% more than Original Equipment injectors.
Recommended for use with engine configurations making
more than 100 rear wheel horsepower.

Injectors provide fuel delivery at the rate of 4.9 grams/
second, 25% more than Original Equipment injectors.
Recommended for use with engine configurations making
more than 100 rear wheel horsepower

[Gas Man]

Nevermind... cause you're missing my point.

I dont give a **** about the true SAE vs the 115hp. What I care is that a properly calibrated (as close to what they can get) dynojet showing 115hp on that motor in the shoot out it will show 115 on every other dynojet.

Regardless if its right or wrong... most dyno's are dynojet, and if they are running it right it creates a standard across the board. So then superflow comes along runs it true to reality and screws with the standard (that we already proved is not accurate but has become the standard).

115 hp dyno jet motor should get 115 on every dyno jet if its calibrated to the dynojet specs.

Same motor getting 105hp on a superflow because its REAL TRUE hp just screws with the standard.

Right or wrong the chief engineer set the standard and that is the number to measure by if you are comparing apples to apples.

[VRYQUIK]

Originally Posted by Gas Man

Nevermind... cause you're missing my point.

I dont give a **** about the true SAE vs the 115hp. What I care is that a properly calibrated (as close to what they can get) dynojet showing 115hp on that motor in the shoot out it will show 115 on every other dynojet.

Regardless if its right or wrong... most dyno's are dynojet, and if they are running it right it creates a standard across the board. So then superflow comes along runs it true to reality and screws with the standard (that we already proved is not accurate but has become the standard).

115 hp dyno jet motor should get 115 on every dyno jet if its calibrated to the dynojet specs.

Same motor getting 105hp on a superflow because its REAL TRUE hp just screws with the standard.

Right or wrong the chief engineer set the standard and that is the number to measure by if you are comparing apples to apples.

Actually, the facts are that both companies were established in 1972. The SAE standard was before both of them. Which company "screwed with the standard"? I have literature that shows that Harley Davidson (the company) uses Superflow. Richard Childress Racing (Nascar) uses Superflow. The S&S Horsepower shootout uses Superflow.

So, if your bike had 110 dynojet HP, I would race you any day for any amount of money on a bike that has 110 HP with a Superflow dyno.

115 hp dyno jet motor should get 115 on every dyno jet if its calibrated to the dynojet specs.

I've already shown that all of the Dynojets in NC doesn't read the same.
Here is a perfect example: This is my wife's bike at Thunder Tower HD and the next graph is of the same bike two days later at Curly's HD. I may be mistaken, but I cant see where these two dynojets are close to being the same. Let me know if you see it differently.





I can post more dyno results of the same bike at other HD dealers that will show that none of the dynojets read the same.
Maybe you can post some graphs using the same bike at different dealers and prove me wrong.

[mstngjoe]

Gasman:

I understand what you're saying. And in theory you would be correct. All DynoJets should give virtually the same numbers on a given combination. I would say all dynamometer mfgs strive for just that regardless of brand name.

However, in the real world I just don't see that as possible. The "human factor" is something you just can't count on for consistancy/accuracy.

Too many variables. Tire pressure, tie-down method, engine/oil temp, heat sink, air fuel probe calibration, operator input, etc.

Keep in mind....Dobeck fudged the math from the get go. Until they (DynoJet) correct that, the numbers will always be higher.

[VRYQUIK]

The thread was posted to create awareness that bikes could gain power, improve MPG and most important...make the engine run at a safe AFR.

The are a lot of people that think that when adding pipes and an air cleaner that it doesn't need to be remapped. Especially the new bikes w/ O2 sensors, not realizing that the factory O2 sensor tries to adjust the mixture to 14.6:1. This is fine for cruising but not for high throttle positions under loads. The O2 sensors are suppose to be turned off under these conditions.
Even the down loadable maps are usually quite far off. Remember that the HD download maps are design for SE modifications and not for after market modifications such as exhaust and cams.

Again...the thread was intended for AFR awareness, not dynamometer readings debate. There should have been another thread for a dyno debate.

[Gas Man]

Originally Posted by mstngjoe

Gasman:

I understand what you're saying. And in theory you would be correct. All DynoJets should give virtually the same numbers on a given combination. I would say all dynamometer mfgs strive for just that regardless of brand name.

However, in the real world I just don't see that as possible. The "human factor" is something you just can't count on for consistancy/accuracy.

Too many variables. Tire pressure, tie-down method, engine/oil temp, heat sink, air fuel probe calibration, operator input, etc.

Keep in mind....Dobeck fudged the math from the get go. Until they (DynoJet) correct that, the numbers will always be higher.

At least somebody understands...

and being a bit off topic is no biggie... calm should cometh over you.