Before and After Dyno Charts

[bjmsam]

I am increasingly frustrated by dyno charts and horsepower and torque figures that lack context. It seems reasonable that any vendor of components advertised to increase power (turbos, heads, exhaust, etc., either individually or as a package) would want to offer dyno charts produced from the same car on the same dyno by the same operator in the gear closest to 1:1 both before and after installation. For example:

1. dyno stock vehicle (including torque, horsepower, boost, A/F, etc.)
2. dyno again after adding FIPK and boost controller at maximum safe boost (the most power safely produced with standard BPU mods)
3. dyno again after installing insert mod here at maximum safe boost (the most power safely produced after modification)

This ain't rocket science, right? I remember years ago when AWD dynos were scarce in the USA, but now they are common and cheap. Surely I am not the only one interested in knowing how a car performs with a modification compared to without it? The lack of such data is precisely why I still have 9Bs after eight years of ownership.

So what do you say DN? GT-PRO? ESP/FFT with your new in-house dyno? Would providing unambiguously measured impact of what you sell be too much of an investment for potential customers?

[FastOldGuy]

I agree, Bryan of GTPro told us they were going to do a pre and post dyno on their new manifold. I'm still waiting to see if the results live up to the hype. I'm wondering if the manifold is bling or performance.

[A/V dude]

Yea, when i worked for Hypertech, we didn't release any product without extensive dyno testing.

After all, thats the only way of knowing if the product is worth selling

[oohnoo]

I agree totally and have done this exact same thing on a couple of things. All of these were done on Ray's dyno, I've done before/after's on the PST cfds and also with the PRO-M.
How some of these vendors make slaims without and before/after numbers is beyond me, easy sellng point.

[VR4neophyte]

This is a good topic for discussion, because it comes up in multiple threads as being important to prospective buyers of parts for modifications. My wife and I are both in the marketing profession, and we were talking about it the other night.

The way you wrote your post, I hear you suggesting that parts resellers would do more business if they'd add dyno information to their marketing. I hear you saying the key to your potential purchase of upgrades is associated with having solid, credible proof points from dyno testing. I know some others feel the same way you do.

If my business was selling performance auto parts, I would work very hard to keep costs down. I would do exactly and precisely what I had to do to move any given product at a profit. If there was a common understanding in the marketplace that a product improved performance, I'd offer the product with a good description of its materials, features, workmanship, price, etc., and I'd call it a day and take orders.

The only time I'd consider spending more (and therefore cutting my profit) to improve my credibility and add proof to my advertising is if the product really demanded it. Some examples might include a CFDS, Stage X heads, or turbos as you say. You'd appreciate dyno testing. Others would get that same feeling of confidence and credibility by seeing it work in a similar situation. Whether we're discussing cars or detergent or flouride, numbers can be presented in such a way to mislead, so I tend to trust customer testimonials (and lots of them) more than advertisers' claims. (That may sound ridiculous to those who really want the numbers, but think of the bogus test results that have come from the 'tornado' and the various octane boosters on the market, some of which even use 'dyno testing' to make their points.)

So if the product is expensive or makes claims that some would find unbelievable, I like to understand what previous buyers have already experienced, first individuals, then the broad marketplace. The sellers of the parts like DR, GT-Pro, 3SX, and other tuners have the most fun... they 'advertise' by building a car using their recommended parts, drive it to amazing performance, then tell you about it on forums like this one. Then they point you to their website so you can buy. Every post is an advertisement, and every real-world experience is more evidence for prospective buyers like me that the product claims are credible. If the experiences don't deliver, every post to that effect is advertising contrary to the seller's claims, eroding their credibility. 3si members are never shy about telling you what works, and telling you what doesn't, even at the risk of looking like they blew several thousand dollars and didn't get what was promised. The 'marketplace' really does hold sellers of parts responsible for what they sell.

You brought up turbos, so let's pick on the big turbo suppliers. Virtually no one questions whether 15gs will do what they're advertised to do. There are so many people running them, and their experiences are so consistent, that no seller of 15gs needs to provide dyno testing. It is common knowledge what 15gs can do after years of experience. No need to make claims there. You can do the same for DR500s or DR650s. Even the names of these turbos implies the claim they'll make crank HP of 500 and 650 HP respectively, but no one demands that information from DR because you can ask a very large, unbiased audience of real-world users who will tell you they do what they're supposed to do. If you're still running 9bs, I'm not sure why. All the information you need is available BETTER than a dyno because, in effect, the marketplace has spoken.

How about CFDS? The broad claim is for 25awhp. Users have even verified this on a dyno. But neither DR, nor ACPT, nor PST, nor 3sx needs to claim the 25 awhp because people are willing to buy the CFDS without dyno testing. Why pay for dyno testing, add it to advertising, then have to deal with buyers who don't think they got the same results if you don't have to? 3si members are happy to buy a CFDS based purely on the experiences of existing owners of CFDS.

Recently, several threads have argued the value of upgraded cylinder heads, and demanded the numbers. I respect that others need dyno testing to feel confident in laying down the cash. But I feel 100% comfortable knowing 200 people have DR heads, and many more probably have heads done elsewhere, and they're almost all getting the experiences they were hoping to get. DR's bet is that word of mouth and proven track performance is better (and cheaper) than dyno testing. In this case, Matt suggests that if you don't feel good about his claims, you shouldn't buy his heads.

This discussion is all about establishing marketplace credibility for a given product, and efficient markets don't lie. Big tuners rely primarily on real world experiences and word of mouth to sell their products, and that conveys credibility well-enough to support their businesses. That makes for cheap advertising, and greater profitability, andn I wouldn't do it any differently.

Some are more discriminating, and need the numbers to feel good about laying down their cash. Unfortunately for them, the manufacturers of turbos, CFDS and heads are doing quite well without those folks. Those prospective buyers are skeptical. They doubt what the marketplace says, and want instead to hear dyno testing numbers from the seller. But if I were skeptical and requiring proof points, I would first trust unbiased users of the product in the market before I would trust claims of dyno tests run by those who stand to make the profit. Skeptics tend to be skeptical of even dyno tests on 3si. I've seen many posts where dyno results are questioned, so they don't provide irrefutable proof and credibility.

To answer your question, would providing unambiguously measured impact of what you sell be too much of an investment for potential customers? Yes. It would be too much considering it isn't needed from their financial perspective.

Erik

[VR4neophyte]

Originally Posted by FastOldGuy

I agree, Bryan of GTPro told us they were going to do a pre and post dyno on their new manifold. I'm still waiting to see if the results live up to the hype. I'm wondering if the manifold is bling or performance.

This kind of testing makes more sense when the majority of the marketplace for the product is not established. Using aftermarket manifolds on a 3/s is not established, and there aren't a bunch of people out there running them with great testimonials. To move this product at this price, he'll have to do something to establish credibility. Great example.

[red_3000]

It can also get complicated because somemods will give different gains depending on what you already have. Such as largen injectors with a stock car, you won't get much if any gains over stock. But with upgraded fuel pump and turbos, you'll see a huge gain over stock injectors.

But I whole heartedly agree. Numbers are proof, proof I need before make a financial decision.

[shaker69]

At least they did it with the tornado.

[bjmsam]

Originally Posted by shaker69

Skeptics tend to be skeptical of even dyno tests on 3si. I've seen many posts where dyno results are questioned, so they don't provide irrefutable proof and credibility.

How can one accept any dyno chart for which there is no baseline? For example, a dyno sheet for the Stage 2 Unichip upgrade with DR-500 turbos and 550cc injectors (great idea!) is used to claim an amazing 40% horsepower increase from only 5% more torque compared to my '99 BPU setup (discussion here). Everyone loves to claim third-gear (mechanically-advantaged) horsepower "at the wheels" when in many (most?) cases it clearly (mathematically) cannot be the case (some posted charts explicitly indicate flywheel horsepower!). It doesn't take much of a skeptic to question such statements (though 3SI seems to have an enthusiastically faithful membership). Dyno charts are incredibly useful in the context of a baseline but invariably misleading when viewed in isolation or when compared to charts produced elsewhere.

Originally Posted by shaker69

All the information you need is available BETTER than a dyno because, in effect, the marketplace has spoken.

What clear, objective message is the marketplace presenting that quantifies relative performance? To use your example, what would it be like to upgrade from 9Bs to 13Gs vs. GT-347s / DR-500s vs. 15Gs vs. GT-357s / DR-650s? Clipped vs. unclipped? Pump vs. race gas? Are the "huge gains" being compared to 9Bs at stock boost or to 9Bs at maximum safe boost? We see some reporting low to mid 12s with 9Bs and fuel, while many, many others have made considerable investments in turbos, FMICs, intake, exhaust, etc. only to realize frustratingly similar results. The knowledge base is overly subjective.

One must wonder how many testimonials are given by those attempting to justify the expense of upgrades that ultimately failed to live up to their expectations (followed by lots of bandwagon-jumping). How many times have we heard claims that such and such cat-back exhaust made a car "way faster" even though the restrictive precats are still in place (psychoacoustics?), or that such and such front brake upgrade made a car stop "way harder" on the street despite the resulting bias imbalance (especially if the calipers are red and the rotors cross-drilled)? When it comes to power gains, the "real world experience" is almost always in the form of drag numbers, where driver proficiency and myriad mechanical variables influence the outcome and where trap speeds reflect peak power without characterizing overall engine flexibility.

Originally Posted by shaker69

Some are more discriminating, and need the numbers to feel good about laying down their cash. Unfortunately for them, the manufacturers of turbos, CFDS and heads are doing quite well without those folks.

This is of course absolutely correct, and if vendors are satisfied with the current demand, then perpetuation of the status quo is justified from their perspective. If, on the other hand, an emerging vendor takes the initiative and makes the minimal investment required to offer statistical credibility (preferably from an objective source), it will gain significant market share.

[GTO NEMESIS]

I realy agree with this!
In the UK we run the car in 4th as this is as close to 1:1 on a 5 speed box as you can get.
In addition to this the limited number of stock or close to stock cars in the US quote figures that can only be flywheel figures as they are pretty much what Mitsi spec's the car at.

In the UK we measure the figures in BHP and I think that this is the same (+/- 2%) of what you chaps call AWHP.

I f you think about it, how can a HKS airfiler on a stock car give 288AWHP as claimed by someone last year? Well it can't this is obviously a 3rd gear run and a crank HP figure.

Mark