Koru_Kinshi

...

Always with the arguments.

Anyways, I do feel better w/Temjin's info about the hp ratings. And on a nicer note too, the owner of the shop did state that he believed my story. He said I probably won by a blinker...which was pretty much true, but I did win. He told me that it's what's under the curve that really matters, which in the C 32 is a large, flat plateau of torque. The BMW's is not as menacing, especially at higher revs.

Either way, it was still fun. No, it wasn't a convertible. No, it wasn't badged. It was the real deal for sure.

Improviz

Yes, we do have this penchant for calling out kill stories that would seem to require violating the laws of physics as we know them. I mean, what, we're supposed to just let any "kill story" pass unquestioned, regardless of how ridiculous it sounds given our knowledge and experience? Methinks thou doth protesteth too much, and that thou art ignorant of the ways of Internet forums.

Great: you've only got 120 or so rwhp to gain to catch up.

You mean the owner of the shop at which you were spending money? Surprised, I'd have thought he'd have laughed you out of there and lost your future business. What a dumb businessman he is.

Sure, you could win against an M6 in P400 mode. You could not, however, win against one in P500 mode, driving a C32 which dynoed at 292 rwhp.

This is laughable. I've driven an M6, and it pulls like a demon at higher revs.

But hey, let's just get down to brass tacks here. You seem to think that your 292 rwhp C32 will pull an M6 from 75 mph on up, yes? So how 'bout we set up a meet with one, let you guys do some runs, videotape the event, and get it out there on youtube or whatever and settle this?

If you can, then you'll be vindicated. If you can't, then we'll be vindicated. In either case, this will be settled. What say you? There are surely plenty of M6s in your neck of the woods. Just to give you a preview, here's a video of a modded C32 vs an M6 at a drag strip. The C32 killed him on the launch, and yet the M6 still caught, passed, and beat him by 0.5 seconds and 11 mph in trap, 119 to 108.

JM

This.

End case.

TemjinX2

Honestly, if you don't know the difference between the two dynos, you shouldn't compare them.

Do you know what kind of dyno a dynomite dyno is? A dynomite dyno is a load type dyno, similar to a dyno dynamics and mustang dyno. It measures actual tq to the ground and reverses the math to get tq and hp figures.

A dyno jet is a accerlation dyno. It measures the number of times the wheels can route the roller and reverses the math and to obtain hp and tq figures.

I don't disagree with you on your paper racing with the c32 and m6. On paper by all means the m6 should win in triple digit speeds.

I disagree with your dyno comparison because it was essentially wrong.

If you convert the op's load dyno numbers to a dynojet numbers 290/.90 = 322whp, which is within what i dyno'ed on a dynojet. 10% is a conservative number, most cases its closer to 15% but i tend to be conservative with my numbers.

When your comparing numbers like that, you should compare apples to apples. So it would be 322whp vs 290whp on the clk. Your previous post indicated he dyno similar to a stock clk55, which is wrong.

Your previous post implied they were post dyno jet numbers which they were not. I don't know if your were trying to spread misinformation or just not informed. If you didn't know then just admit it and move on.

TemjinX2

get EC 185mm pulley and EC tune. Honestly the powerchip tune is junk compared to the EC tune. You'll probably get another 10whp just from the Ec tune.

JG26_Irish

He may have been attempting to get the I-Drive to work, lol. Could have been the driver underestimated you and did not down shift? but that would not have happened twice. GK mate

Irish

Improviz

Actually, dynojets are inertial dynos, while dyno dynamics dynos are eddy current types. Dyno-mite, FYI, makes BOTH types (which you can see by looking here), so you cannot simply state that all Dyno-mite dynos are of the same type as the Dyno Dynamics, unless you can get the model number of the specific dyno the OP dynoed on and provide it.

Only because you read too much into it, ignored the nice little adjective which goes by the name of "roughly", and tried to turn the post into something it wasn't (a dissemination on the various types of dynos and their relative differences) while ignoring what it was (a statement of the obvious).

But let me restate the obvious again, in the hopes that it might actually sink in this time: I could give two *****s whether the dyno was a DD, dynojet, a mustang, dyno-mite, or whatever, because I pretty clearly stated that the dyno numbers for his car and a stock CLK55 were approximately the same, which does NOT mean identically the same, and that the number he got made it impossible to believe that he'd be capable of pulling an M6, given the H-U-G-E difference in hp between, well, frankly, either number you care to pick, 292 or 322, and an M6.

To illustrate this, I was pointing out that the OP's 292 rwhp is ROUGHLY the same (which means APPROXIMATELY the same) as a CLK55, and that it would therefore have no chance against an M6 in P500 mode (the second part being the main, point from which you keep trying to divert attention). I wrote:
...and this holds true regardless of whether he measures 292 rwhp on Dyno A or 322 rwhp on Dyno B.

Now, I don't know how you define roughly, but Websters defines it thusly:
I was using it more stringently than this, "roughly" being within 10% or so in this case; 290/326 = 0.9, well within realm discussed here, and as I pointed out, CLK55s have hit 301; 301/326 = 0.92, both being well within the realm of "roughly". So please, stop accusing me of writing something I didn't say: roughly = approximately != exactly. If you don't know the meaning of the words in English, then you shouldn't try to decipher other people's writing. If you don't know the meaning of "roughly", then just admit it and move on.

Now that we've clarified the meaning of the English in which I wrote my post, allow me to restate the other obvious again: I did this to show that it's laughable to believe that this car could outrun an M6 at highway speeds, and I think the race video, along with the Dyno Dynamics video of an M6 I posted of an M6, show this. And since the OPs car does dyno (using English) ROUGHLY the same as a CLK55, the point and comparison were, and are, valid.

And the videos I showed of one M6 waxing a modded C32 and another M6 dynoing 415 rwhp, 123 hp more than the OP's car on the same type of dyno, should drive the point home to anyone who has grey matter between their ears. The difference between the two cars is 140%, on the same type of dyno, red herring arguments aside.

TemjinX2

lol then you were roughly wrong. last i checked 27whp is pretty signifcant difference. 27whp

ok lets put this into crank numbers is rated at w208 clk55 is rated at 342 crank hp.

I normally say its a 20% drivetrain loss since its rwd and a auto, others go by 18%. Ok, lets go by 18% drivetrain loss 326/.82 = 397hp crank.

342hp vs 397hp...yes this seems roughly the same right?..

it seems like a pretty significant difference to me.

I don't understand why you keep bringing up the m6, when everyone said on paper the m6 will win on paper. I agree with you. I'm just saying your initial dyno comparison was wrong.

On paper the m6 should win, but it was a street race. Whats suppose to happen on paper doesn't always happen in real life. I was informed that the later model m6/m5 came in a manual.

Maybe the guy had a manual and was "granny shifting, not double clutching"..blahblah or maybe he had in p400 mode or maybe he got a naked text from megan fox was busy looking at that or maybe it was all three.

Maybe the OP just made up the story. Just give the guy a pat on the back and let it go. It wasn't your m6..just let this thread die.

Improviz

No, I'd say the problem is that you're roughly not understading what I wrote in plain English, and that you cannot quite comprehend the meaning of what is meant by the words "roughly" and "approximate". Spend some time with a dictionary and get back to me. YOU don't get to roughly re-define the meaning of words, nor are you The Final Authority on interpreting what I wrote, particularly when you're doing it as loosely as you are.

The usage of the word "roughly", a synonym of "approximate", does NOT mean the same thing as "exact", no matter how much hair-splitting you care to engage in. End of story.

Further, you have YET to establish that the OP was dynoed on a Dyno-Mite EDDY CURRENT dyno; as you can see by clicking here, Dyno-Mite produces both eddy current style dynos ***AND*** inertial style dynos.

Dyno Dynamics = eddy current type

Dynojet = inertia type (not "accerlation", as you put it)

Dyno-Mite the OP ran on = ?

As to your math: I love how you use dyno figures to compute one figure, and ignore them for the next. You cite an imaginary dyno number for the OP based upon an estimate and use this as 'irrefutable" proof that he's got 397 hp, then use the rated hp for CLK55s, even though they've dynoed between 290 (giving 290/0.82 = 354 crank using your 18% driveline loss) and 301 (giving 300/0.82 = 366 crank using your 18% driveline loss), and probably even more variances could be found.

But again, your 326 is NOT what the OP got in his car, it is an ESTIMATE of what he'd get on a DJ dyno, which is absurd; you say that "with the same mods, I got this number", well, whoop-de-do! If he was driving your car, that might be fine and dandy, but he's driving his car, not yours, and it was dynoed on a Dyno-Mite, not a Dyno Dynamics, and guess what:

1) you haven't established that the version he used is an eddy current model, and given that Dyno-Mite makes *both* types, this is kinds, sorta important;

2) even if you did manage to establish this, you haven't established that the scaling you're using from a Dyno Dynamics to a Dynojet would be reasonable for a Dyno-mite eddy current model, which again you haven't established that he used. Depending upon how it's constructed, the losses could be totally different.

3) your results are not The Gold Standard, nor will they be identical to what each and every C32 with those mods will hit, regardless of dyno brand/type used. You need a range.

In other words, your numbers are based upon what you *think* his car would run on a Dynojet, which you base upon what you ran in a different car, coupled with your assumptions that a) he ran on a Dyno Mite eddy current model, which you don't know, and b) that this dyno will exhibit the same rwhp losses as a DD.

But as shown, CLK55s have gone from 285 to 301 rwhp on Dynojets. That's a 16 rwhp difference between numbers, on the same car, with the same engine, mods, etc...and yet you're claiming it as The Gospel that the OP's car *will* dyno at exactly the same number as yours??

Well, *****, why not just assume his car was piloted by Martians as well? You've got equal evidence for that, after all.

You're arguing based upon conjecture. Come back when you've got some facts.

And as to crank hp, as numerous others have pointed out, 400 crank MAX in a C32 with a five speed auto isn't enough to overcome the more than 500 in a stock M5.

Koru_Kinshi

I will ask you nicely, but I will NOT ask you again. Do NOT insult the owner of the shop. He is a good friend and former classmate with my best friend, and tuning vehicles is his life. He's likely forgotten more about the trade than you have ever learned.

Koru_Kinshi

I'll definitely take it into consideration once my warranty is up. The Code 3's an easy removal for repair and besides, I don't want to **** anyone off at Mercedes more than I already have, heh. :P

Unless you think they won't know the difference in pulley size. They haven't noticed the SC pulley yet.

Improviz

Hey, pal...let's be clear here: I'll write what I want. And don't ever threaten me. Ever.

I wasn't insulting him (though if hi did tell you that the M6 motor is weak at high rpms, I would definitely say he knows nothing about that motor), I was stating the obvious: that he'd be a pretty foolish businessman if he basically laughed in your face and told you you were dreaming, sort of like it would be a pretty foolish businesswoman who owned a salon and told her clients the truth about how they look, even the ugly ones. Nothing insulting about that, merely pointing out the obvious: that he has a vested financial interest in keeping his clients happy, and has no real benefit to be gained from telling you that you won't take a well driven M6 in P500 mode.

Anyway, enough about that: are you willing to run an M6 and get it on video, so that all of us can see?

And for the third time now, how about posting some pics of all of these cars you own? You've been posting kill stories now in a bunch of cars, but no pics, and no scans of your dyno run either.

Koru_Kinshi

I only own one car. What are you talking about?

Wait, why is 'iraq' a tag on this thread???

And I decline your offer. I don't have anything to prove. What happened, did happen, and that is that.

Improviz

Aww crud, my mistake: running on fumes today, and I got you mixed up with another poster in the thread, my apologies about the cars. Would still like to see the dyno plot, however.

To be honest, I've been wondering that very same thing...perhaps it's because of the mention "Infantry" made of having served there, but that certainly doesn't merit the tag.

Actually, you have a lot to prove, based upon the relative horsepower-to-weight ratios of the vehicles involved and established performance criterion for both. But I can't say I'm surprised; if I were you I wouldn't want to get that sort of carnage on video either.

In a 1/4 mile run you could probably give one a decent run for his money **IF** you can launch well enough to get a good 60' time, but from 75 mph and up like you're describing it's all horsepower and gearing, and the M6 has a huge advantage. That's all everyone is saying, that the guy was prolly some dummy who was too stupid to engage P500 mode and ran you in P400 (400 hp) mode, which is in line with your results. If you want to argue this and insist without proof that he was in P500 mode running with the full 500 hp and fastest shifts, then you've got a pretty high standard of proof there based upon published performance figures, and should get something on vid to back it up.

Anyway, I've made my points....stick a fork in this thing, it's done.

TemjinX2

congrats you did your research on different dynos. You established dyno dynamics makes two different type dynos. Brake dyno and the inertia as you stated.

Given we have the same mods i dynoed at 326whp and he dynoed at 290whp..you can infer he used the brake dyno version of the dynomite dyno, since his number is about 10% below what I dynoed. No i cannot conclude for certain it was, but given the numbers its a fair assumption.

Maybe the OP can ask his friend which version he has.

My numbers are more accurate then the numbers your pulling out of your butt.

1. The op and I live within 40miles of each other, so humidity, elevation, fuel will be similar.

2. I have a 2002 and he has a 2003 and I'm providing a dyno of a car I actually own.

Yes amgs have about a 10-15whp variance including the c32's. My car isn't the golden standard, but my comparison is more relavent then the numbers your randomly stating for the reasons I stated above.

Here, I can provide random high c32 dynos. Here's one a stock c32 dynoing 330whp on a dyno dynamics with a $25 intake mod where he basically just opens a 3rd hole in the T splitter of the oem intake.



https://mbworld.org/forums/c32-amg-c...-tomorrow.html

Ok, since i saw one dyno of a c32 getting 330whp basically stock...all c32's must dyno that high. All c32's must start at 400hp+..its underrated...there you go..

The fact you don't own either car and using dyno numbers you randomly saw online makes your entire statement conjecture.

There's a online calculator where you can convert dyno dynamic, mustang and dynojet numbers. Its around 10% based on that and seeing dyno's between a dyno dynamics and dynojet with the same car. You can find it online yourself if you don't believe me.

You made a statement based on a assumption that was wrong, when someone called you out on it, your just trying to back pedal with your own interpretation what is a acceptable level of variance and similarity.

The fact that you think 30hp variance is similar power just shows your reaching to justify your incorrect statement.

Honestly would you buy a car where the salesmen said you car either has 300hp or 330hp or 270hp, there's a slight variance but its roughly the same..

All you had to say was that you didn't know the different dyno's read differently when you made that post and it would've been over with.

Instead, your trying to back pedal and try to over rationalize a comparison that distinctly wrong because you can't admit you were wrong.

Improviz

Yawn.....I pulled nothing out of my butt.

1) I documented and provided a link that a tuner on these forums had stated he'd seen 290 rwhp out of CLK55s on a DD dyno, which is within 2 hp of the OP's dyno. Apparently you think he's a liar. Fine. I also showed that there are CLK55s that have dynoed at over 300 on a DJ, which puts it a heckuvalot closer to your speculated DJ number of 322 for the OP's car than the 50-odd hp gain you were trying to pull off: 322/.82 = 393 crank; 301/.02 = 367 crank. That's a 25 crank hp difference, roughly the same in my book.

2) I also documented that you are, on one hand, using estimated numbers for his car, based upon your car, to provide an estimate of his crank numbers, which you then used to come up with an estimated figure for his car. You then turned around and used stock crank hp for the CLK55, despite the fact that using the very same methodology you used to arrive at the 397 crank figure you claim as The Gospel for his car, we would expect a CLK55 to pull between 354 and 366 crank, close enough for a "roughly" in my book, and in Webster's Dictionary as well.

Further, we've had CKL55s trap at 108-109, which is within 1-2 mph of what C32s with the OP's mods are trapping at and in fact equals a fair number of them; this is roughly the same trap speed, and in any event certainly doesn't indicate a 50 crank hp difference.

Obviously, you were trying to mislead people here and just hoped that nobody would notice. Too bad, I noticed.

3) as to the type of dyno used: it may well have been an eddy current dyno, but you haven't proven it. I also used the correct names to refer to them, and, unlike you, actually know how they operate and can express it using the proper terminology, instead of stupidly arguing that the Dynojet calculates its estimate using the number of revolutions of the drum as you did, here:
Um, no...actually it measures the acceleration of the dyno and computes the torque using the known inertia of the dyno's drum, but nice try.

4) It is interesting that you first state that Dyno Dynamics dynos run low, then provide a Dyno Dynamics dyno plot in your response that states a C32 with only an intake mode ran 330 rwhp on the same type of dyno, which seems to contradict your claim, unless of course you think an intake mod will pick up about 40 rwhp more than the mods you've done:
So there you go: on one hand you're arguing dyno plots from DD dynos run low, and now here you go presenting one that runs high. This hardly helps your argument that you can, on two different dynos with two different cars, predict with any level of certainty what the dyno of one will be when compared to another, particularly when the dynos being discussed are different brands altogether.

It's kind of funny, as you are basically poking holes in your own argument here. You're on one hand arguing that the results from two different cars on two different days on two different dynos "should" be roughly the same, and then turn around and produce data showing that the truth is anything but. So, dynos are reliable, except that they're unreliable.

Nicely done.

Wow, I just love how you redefine English to mean whatever you want it to mean. Very nice tactic, which unfortunately doesn't work to anyone who can access dictionary.com. Conjecture means speculation, and I'm hardly speculating if I'm using his actual numbers, or others' actual numbers.

No, there is no conjecture here: unlike you, I'm not speculating, I'm using the OP's actual dyno number, and comparing it to a multitude of dyno runs for the CLK55, as stated by CLK55 owners here and by a tuner, who stated that he's seen the CLK55 hit 290 on a DD dyno. No conjecture there, only data. You're the one engaging in conjecture by trying to pump up the OP's numbers to equal your own which, even if you did know the type of dyno used, is conjecture, because you haven't run your car on a DD, nor have you run it on a Dyno-Mite, nor have you run his car.

And again, you demonstrate your ignorance of the English language. "Roughly" has already been explained to you, twice, but you can't admit that you didn't comprehend what I meant, and so continue to engage in infinite hair-splitting, redefinition of words, and sophistry to try and make it sound that saying two cars whose rwhp is within 10% of one another have have "roughly" the same rwhp, particularly when comparing their relative performance to a car that's trapped as high as 119, possibly higher, in stock form, and which has dynoed 123 hp higher than your buddy's car on the same type of dyno, is some sort of huge snafu, even after I produced an authoritative quote from Webster's dictionary showing that it's well within the bounds of acceptable usage of the word.

Well, who the f*ck are you to claim that Webster's is wrong?? Unless you can come up with some authoritative source that states that "roughly", meaning "approximate" is not applicable to a 10% difference between two quantities, i.e. that my usage of the word was quantitatively incorrect, then all you've got is your own opinion, which given your performance thus far really doesn't count for much imo.

Are 12:54 and 1:06 approximately 1:00? That's a 10% deviation, and yet to Webster's they're approximately the same, as well as 12:50 and 1:10, which are 20% off. Yet to you, the self-proclaimed Master of All Things Approximate, I guess they're not.

Which is your opinion, but I really have no further desire to engage in subjective arguments with a half-wit such as yourself, particularly when you resort to outright lying and falsely accuse me of making up data, when I've provided links to each and every source I've cited. You can think that "roughly" isn't applicable here, but Webster's is one of the premier dictionaries of the English language, and Webster's English >>> your English, or as you would put it, "you're English".

Anyway, that's about enough time wasted on your little red herring jihad. Too many idiots, too little time.

TemjinX2

lol your right.. 290whp and 326whp is roughly the same power. Its only 36whp.

326whp of a c32 and 415whp of a m6 is roughly the same power. Its only 89whp.

13.5 quarter mile and 12.5 is roughly the same. Its only a one second difference.

A Mercedes c32 and a Mercedes McClaren Slr is roughly the same. There both mercedes.

A mercedes and Buggatti veyron is roughly the same. They both have 4 wheels.


This laughable use and interpretation of roughly, approximately is pretty fun...

Improviz

Double yawn...so, having failed at data analysis, conjecture, and ad hominem, our hapless hero now resorts to, what else, hyperbole! Oh, and then there's outright dishonesty...which would be your making the comparison in your silly hyperbole-stuffed analogy about the M6, wherein you compare the M6 in the video I posted, which dynoed at 415 whp on a Dyno Dynamics machine, to the dyno you ran on a Dynojet, which you state runs around 10% higher numbers than a Dyno Dynamics. Which would make it 290 vs 415 or 125 hp difference, not 89, a far cry from the 10% difference I was discussing; outright dishonesty + hyperbole =

Honestly, if you don't understand how these dynos work, you should just give it up....now who was it who said that? I mean, clearly your comparing whp numbers on a DD machine to those from a DJ machine and simply subtracting them shows that you don't know anything about them...hey, how 'bout that: your silly, vacuous non-logic works both ways!

You should really try taking an elementary debate course, or better yet an elementary school debate course, or even better yet any elementary school course, because man, you really suck at it.

Enjoy your C32...and when you guys get a vid of one of them with these mods pulling an M6 from 75-140 when it's not in P400 mode, please do share it with us unenlightened folk who actually comprehend both Physics and the English language. Maybe you can get a vid of one pulling a fighter jet as well, in keeping with your newfound love of hyperbole.

Buh-bye.

TemjinX2

Your right its waste of time arguing with idiots on the internet, so i'm just agreeing with you. I'm not the authority on how much of a variance can occur which should be associated with roughly or approximately.

290whp vs 415whp is roughly the same power.

dd and dj dyno's are roughly the same...lol...


So your approximately wrong....

wow these are fun words to use to over rationalize any point of view.

Improviz

One last thing, just to give you some more data to ignore. Here are some CLK55 dyno results for you. Let's see how they compare to your car and the OP's results, using your scale factor of 0.9xDynojet results to get estimated results on the type of dyno you think he ran on.

I'll put four numbers for each of these cars:
1) rwhp on the dynojet, and how much lower than your dynojet run that makes it in parenthesis;
2) calculated rwhp on the DD using your reduction of 0.9x, and how much less than this would be in parenthesis.

https://mbworld.org/forums/1612404-post1.html
1) 301 rwhp, dynojet (26 less than your dyno)
2) 271 rwhp = 0.9*301 (21 less than OP's dyno)

https://mbworld.org/forums/1612409-post2.html
1) 298.5 rwhp (28.5)
2) 269 rwhp (23)

Chappy got 304 rwhp in his dyno, see his sig =>
1) 304 (23)
2) 273.6 (18.4)

https://mbworld.org/forums/3598290-post10.html
1) 302 (25)
2) 272 (20)

http://www.dragtimes.com/2005-Merced...phs-10305.html
1) 311.6 (15.4)
2) 280 (12)

Roughly the same, and I'll have more on the different brands of dynos and how their end results compare in a moment. Plenty of CLK55s have dynoed in the same general range as the OP's car, like it or not.

Now, again, wrt my usage of the phrase that the OP's dyno results are "roughly the same" as those of a CLK55: if you have any quantitative or authoritiative, statement that indicates my usage of the term "roughly" in that example is inappropriate, then produce it. Hint: your opinion is neither quantitative nor authoritative, and silly hyperbole won't help you prove anything either.

As to the relative numbers the OP put down on what you believe to be an equivalent dyno to a Dyno Dynamics, let's have a look at a few modded C32s' dyno results on DD (and one Dynomite) dynos, and how they ran in the 1/4 mile with all of this power:

362 whp measured on a Dyno Dynamics:
1/4 mile run: 12.490
1/4 Mile MPH: 111.660

362 whp measured on a Dyno Dynamics:
1/4 Mile ET: 12.730
1/4 Mile MPH: 109.400

361 hp on a dynojet, which should make it slower and weaker than the 362 hp cars above measured on the Dyno Dynamics:
1/4 Mile ET: 12.605
1/4 Mile MPH: 111.560

Wow, that's strange: that Dynojet rating of 361 sure seemed to compare favorably to the 362-on-the-Dyno Dynamics cars, trapping 2 mph faster than one of 'em and tying the other even though being down 10% on hp by your figures...oh, well...must've been the DA helping him out, oh no wait, I checked it, and on 7/9/08 when he ran that in Houston, DAs were in the 1900-2300+ range, so it would be hurting him there. Go figure....I guess that 10% figure you cite may not always be spot on.

361.5 rwhp on a Dynomite, same dyno brand as OP's car got 292 rwhp on:
1/4 Mile ET: 12.600
1/4 Mile MPH: 109.830

Odd, I'd have thought it would have been in the 113+ range; using your scaling factor, this thing should be putting out 401 Dynojet hp, and yet....

341 rwhp, mustang dyno:
1/4 Mile ET: 12.662
1/4 Mile MPH: 109.810

Equally strange! This guy had a DA of -100, and yet dynoing as he did with 341 rwhp on a Mustang Dyno, which should put him (horsepower wise, using your correction factor he'd have 341/0.9 = 379 Dynojet hp) ahead of the car that got 361 rwhp Dynojet and ran a 111.6 trap in a 2000-ish DA...and yet, it doesn't work out that way, he trapped close to 2 mph slower despite his 18 Dynojet hp edge (as calculated using your correction factor) and gigantic DA edge.

Can you enlighten me, oh Great Bench Racer?

There were plenty of other dynos in this range, but unfortunately they didn't have 1/4 mile times; I posted the ones for which there were both.

Now, if with 350-ish rwhp these cars are running mid-upper 12's at 109-111 mph, regardless of whether the dyno was a mustang, dynojet, dyno dynamics or the dyno on which the OP ran, a Dynomite, and if the OP's car came in at about 60 hp less than these cars, well gee, I guess that the one and only possible conclusion is that his car is an M6 killer.

Oh, and that those guys who got their cars done on Dyno Dynamics, Dynomite, and Mustang dynos can't drive worth a flip, given that their cars didn't stomp the crap out of those cars dynoed at roughly the same hp on the Dynojet machines, which you claim should putting out 10% less actual horsepower if the measured hp is the same, even when the DAs were hugely in their favor; I guess those particular Dynojet machines didn't get the memo.

Anyway, there's some data for you to chew on, TemjinX2, no hyperbole or dishonesty required.

TemjinX2

Your right improviz..i roughly agree with you...