Quote:
Originally Posted by eh?
While a dyno with load control is certainly convenient for mapping an engine from scratch, it isn't "necessary" for mapping AT ALL. If you want to map specific cells on your ignition or fuel tables, all you need to do is vary the throttle in different gears and you can very easily map entire fuel and ignition tables in no time. If you need more load at part throttle go up a gear. If you need more load at full throttle, go up a gear again. The Dynojet 248C has a 200mph speed limit. Don't let all those young fools or FFF tell you that a Mustang, Dyno Dynamics, or Dynapack is better because "it can control load". If you really think about it, when are you driving on the road and the car is held at a specific rpm or speed? The only time that happens is when you're doing 170mph in top gear on the way to Vegas and your STi is aero and/or gear limited. Otherwise your engine is ALWAYS accelerating and decelerating isn't it? This is also the case on an inertia type Dynojet. How's that for real world conditions?
|
If this is true then why do I always have cars in the shop FROM OTHER shops who need to use the DD because they are unable to tune portions of their cars maps while trying to simulate load regions?
It's impossible to hit many regions of these maps by just TRYING to simulate load by bouncing in and out of the rollers. It's also impossible to check tractive effort in stead state. To really put things in perspective he is also from a shop that has a reputation for using a load bearing dyno to do the actual map tuning and then throw their cars on the dynojet for big fat numbers to make clients happy...nothing wrong with that but XS used to always use load bearing dynos to tune their cars
We have cars in all the time from Dynojet shops who need to use the dyno dynamics because they have problem regions on their maps that they cannot hit no matter how hard they TRY to simulate it by bouncing in and out on the roller dynos