Close

    • Dynocom vs. Dynojet Part 2 - Testing the same 2017 MKVII GTI on the same day on two different dynamometers + Supra B58 Dynocom results (Equilibrium Tuning)

      Dynamometers are machines which are a tool for the automotive industry. Enthusiasts often fight wars on forums over dyno numbers and those numbers are just part of a much larger picture. Recently, dyno numbers from Equilibrium Tuning and their output claims on a Volkswagen MKVII Golf R raised eyebrows.


      Practically immediately, two well known tuners contacted VWBoost and BoostAddict to state Equilibrium Tuning's Dynocom reads high. Not just high but very high.

      To be clear, BoostAddict has no association with Equilibrium Tuning and has no experience with their particular Dynocom. What was posted was what was sent to us and sometimes we write articles as a courtesy to those in the industry. It would be quite boring if every article was from a vendor, right?

      This is the second time this Dynocom vs. Dynojet debate is taking place.

      Tony Vargas of Vargas Turbo Technologies sent the following regarding the Equilibrium Dynocom:

      This is SAME DAY, SAME CAR, SAME TUNE. 2017 VW GTI. You can look at the power curve, and see its identical.

      E30 results
      VTT Dynojet - 405WHP


      EQT Dynocom - 476WHP


      The difference was 71WHP or about 18%

      So 609WHP - 18% = 109.62 or 499.38WHP. Basically a 500WHP MQB welcome to nothing special.
      Now, the same car on a Dynojet showing 18% less power is a huge difference. A difference of 71 wheel horsepower in that particular instance. Night and day.

      To add further fuel to this fire, Equilibrium Tuning recently tested a new Supra on their Dynocom:


      That is pretty darn close to what we all are seeing for the car and the torque figure might even be a tad conservative.

      What is the answer here? Who knows. Dynocoms in our experience do tend to read high and we believe VTT's results.

      Maybe a software update changed how the Dynocom at Equilibrium Tuning reads? Maybe weather or fuel was a factor? Maybe we should ask for multiple graphs from multiple machines to have more data to go on?

      Maybe, just maybe, we should take the numbers with a grain of salt and remember they are part of a larger performance picture which should be supported with quarter mile and GPS data as well.

      Make up your own mind.

      This article was originally published in forum thread: Dynocom vs. Dynojet Part 2 - Testing the same 2017 MKVII GTI on the same day on two different dynamometers + Supra B58 Dynocom results (Equilibrium Tuning) started by Sticky View original post
      Comments 34 Comments
      1. itslikeanegg's Avatar
        itslikeanegg -
        Here's a copy/paste from some of my other groups. Slower time was in S mode, faster time was manual shifting @ about 7500rpm. I started both runs @ around 50mph. This is my 2015 Golf R with EQT Vortex XL turbo:

        Finally had a chance to take the car out early morning for a Dragy run. Roads around here tend to be dense even @ 6am on a Saturday so only got two attempts in (one in each direction) so there's probably room for improvement. I had to let off at the end of the faster run as I was catching up with traffic but I think I captured what I needed. Full weight R with sub, tools, fire extinguisher, etc in the trunk and 260lbs driver.


        Click here to enlarge


        Click here to enlarge
      1. itslikeanegg's Avatar
        itslikeanegg -
        With a bit of weight reduction in the car and in my gut I may be able to get that into the 6's.
      1. Chris@VargasTurboTech's Avatar
        Chris@VargasTurboTech -
        Great times! Looks like your AWD Golf R is running comparable 60-130's to our FWD GTI did with just the "regular" version of our turbo, and much less optimal gearing in the DCT. 60-130's are a GREAT way to judge power only as the remove things such a launch etc from the equation.

        What has Ed's "609WHP" Golf R run in the 60-130? If its making almost 100WHP more than ours it should be well in the 6's. Would be easy enough to test, or it that too much work for him as well? Click here to enlarge

      1. itslikeanegg's Avatar
        itslikeanegg -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Chris@VargasTurboTech Click here to enlarge
        Great times! Looks like your AWD Golf R is running comparable 60-130's to our FWD GTI did with just the "regular" version of our turbo, and much less optimal gearing in the DCT. 60-130's are a GREAT way to judge power only as the remove things such a launch etc from the equation.

        What has Ed's "609WHP" Golf R run in the 60-130? If its making almost 100WHP more than ours it should be well in the 6's. Would be easy enough to test, or it that too much work for him as well? Click here to enlarge

        GTI's generally pull harder on the highway than R's for various reasons (less weight, drivetrain loss, etc). This same turbo on a GTI would be ridiculous. My runs were quick and dirty, if I removed seats, sub, etc like people typically do for quick times it would be a good bit faster as well.
      1. langsbr's Avatar
        langsbr -
        I saw this and the debate is funny. I've had a WRX and can say that EQ is well respected in the community there and I don't recall this whole "their dyno reads high mess". I know Ed used to have his own road dyno software, years before anyone had it with log dyno or VirtualDyno and it was always VERY low reading. Tony's rep in the BMW world on the other hand, is debatable at best, lol.

        One thing about the dyno variances - is the VTT dynojet inertia only? If so, that could definitely make a difference in results vs an eddy current Dynocom. I believe the dynojet rollers only weigh 2400lbs, so load would be less than on a properly loaded dyno with vehicle weight, or on the street. Just some things to think about.
      1. Tony@VargasTurboTech's Avatar
        Tony@VargasTurboTech -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by langsbr Click here to enlarge
        I saw this and the debate is funny. I've had a WRX and can say that EQ is well respected in the community there and I don't recall this whole "their dyno reads high mess". I know Ed used to have his own road dyno software, years before anyone had it with log dyno or VirtualDyno and it was always VERY low reading. Tony's rep in the BMW world on the other hand, is debatable at best, lol.

        One thing about the dyno variances - is the VTT dynojet inertia only? If so, that could definitely make a difference in results vs an eddy current Dynocom. I believe the dynojet rollers only weigh 2400lbs, so load would be less than on a properly loaded dyno with vehicle weight, or on the street. Just some things to think about.
        This is classic. You do understand every dynojet on earth is the same weight for the rollers right? It's called a bench mark. You cannot really alter readings by changing a few settings around. I love that people are seriously just covering there eyes, and yelling nah nah nah nah nah nah to the fact I dynoed, pulled the car off the dyno, drove 40-50 miles, put it on another dyno and it made 18% more power. So either our dyno reads 18% low (which would be amazing as we would have some high powered car) or his dyno reads high (as most dynocom do) he can prove his 600whp number EASILY with a simple 60-130 or trip to te strip which is an hour from him. We were there Friday, it's open. Drive the car over, prove your numbers. As far as reputation. VTT has grown 10 fold since we started selling BMW parts, so my rep must be fine with the people who are actually buying parts. As for Ed, the guy could have the best rep in the world. He proved he has little integrity with the small exposure I have had with him. The point of this post is hey Ed prove your numbers, but in typical internet fashion, it's become a well I like Ed, and I don't like Tony. Ed must be telling the truth. Pull your heads out of your asses. Cheers people
      1. langsbr's Avatar
        langsbr -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Tony@VargasTurboTech Click here to enlarge
        This is classic. You do understand every dynojet on earth is the same weight for the rollers right? It's called a bench mark. You cannot really alter readings by changing a few settings around. I love that people are seriously just covering there eyes, and yelling nah nah nah nah nah nah to the fact I dynoed, pulled the car off the dyno, drove 40-50 miles, put it on another dyno and it made 18% more power. So either our dyno reads 18% low (which would be amazing as we would have some high powered car) or his dyno reads high (as most dynocom do) he can prove his 600whp number EASILY with a simple 60-130 or trip to te strip which is an hour from him. We were there Friday, it's open. Drive the car over, prove your numbers. As far as reputation. VTT has grown 10 fold since we started selling BMW parts, so my rep must be fine with the people who are actually buying parts. As for Ed, the guy could have the best rep in the world. He proved he has little integrity with the small exposure I have had with him. The point of this post is hey Ed prove your numbers, but in typical internet fashion, it's become a well I like Ed, and I don't like Tony. Ed must be telling the truth. Pull your heads out of your asses. Cheers people
        The problem is you didn't even address what I wrote. That's the key issue - you get so bent out of shape you just start ranting. When did I say your dynojet rollers weigh different? You don't seem to understand the difference between an eddy current dyno and an inertia dyno.

        Your rep precedes you basically because of posts like yours. You say you come across as matter of fact, but you just come across as a whiny loser.
      1. vw671's Avatar
        vw671 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by langsbr Click here to enlarge
        I saw this and the debate is funny. I've had a WRX and can say that EQ is well respected in the community there and I don't recall this whole "their dyno reads high mess". I know Ed used to have his own road dyno software, years before anyone had it with log dyno or VirtualDyno and it was always VERY low reading. Tony's rep in the BMW world on the other hand, is debatable at best, lol.
        FWIW EQT changed their dyno calibration at the end of 2017.

        Per Ed:
        That chart was done at the beginning of 2017 when we were using a correction factor to artificially lower the numbers that the dyno put out. We were doing this back then to match up our numbers to a couple very low reading mustang dynos in the area. Back then our business was mostly local and mostly focused on Subaru. The Subaru market here was very used to the heatbreaker numbers, so we ran the correction factor to make our dyno read the same. This was good for the local market, but it presented challenges when we started expanding to other platforms and releasing products because our results were always compared to other Dynocom dynos around the world which of course read significantly higher. In 2018, we upgraded our dyno software and decided it was a good time to revert to the native Dynocom calibration so that our results were directly in line with all the other Dynocom dynos. So any charts posted after 2017 are using the 100% native calibration from Dynocom and can be compared directly to other Dynocom numbers. Over the last year, we've found the native Dynocom calibration reads very similar to Dynapak dynos, within 2-5% of most Dynojets, and 5-15% higher than most Mustang Dynos.
      1. billvp's Avatar
        billvp -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by vw671 Click here to enlarge
        FWIW EQT changed their dyno calibration at the end of 2017.

        Per Ed:
        That chart was done at the beginning of 2017 when we were using a correction factor to artificially lower the numbers that the dyno put out. We were doing this back then to match up our numbers to a couple very low reading mustang dynos in the area. Back then our business was mostly local and mostly focused on Subaru. The Subaru market here was very used to the heatbreaker numbers, so we ran the correction factor to make our dyno read the same. This was good for the local market, but it presented challenges when we started expanding to other platforms and releasing products because our results were always compared to other Dynocom dynos around the world which of course read significantly higher. In 2018, we upgraded our dyno software and decided it was a good time to revert to the native Dynocom calibration so that our results were directly in line with all the other Dynocom dynos. So any charts posted after 2017 are using the 100% native calibration from Dynocom and can be compared directly to other Dynocom numbers. Over the last year, we've found the native Dynocom calibration reads very similar to Dynapak dynos, within 2-5% of most Dynojets, and 5-15% higher than most Mustang Dynos.
        I don't know any of the parties, but this sounds sketchy - if they previously used a fake correction factor to lower their dyno numbers to help with sales, I wouldn't put it past them to use a fake correction factor to raise their dyno numbers to help with sales.
      1. stosh1's Avatar
        stosh1 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by billvp Click here to enlarge
        I don't know any of the parties, but this sounds sketchy - if they previously used a fake correction factor to lower their dyno numbers to help with sales, I wouldn't put it past them to use a fake correction factor to raise their dyno numbers to help with sales.
        I'll add my Click here to enlarge here...after speaking w/numerous dyno operators in my region, I actually totally get where EQT is coming from w/regards to their dyno calibration. As a business owner, you need to cater to your base, and that's exactly what he was doing prior to 2017. As business (platforms) expands, you have to pull the blinders away and take a more holistic approach. I've heard this from numerous dyno operators. I've even seen Mustang dyno operators 'recalibrate' their dyno's to more closely resemble DJ numbers because they didn't want to scare ppl away. You see, it's strictly a business thing. What I was told was that Mustang operator guy was losing business because the kids were use to seeing DJ numbers and claimed his dyno was 'broken'...and so they stayed away from Mr. Mustang's 'heartbreak' dyno. They either couldn't take the time to learn the differences between dyno's, and/or just wanted bragging rights to have the highest dyno number possible. You might view what EQT as sketchy, but as long as ppl are made aware that the calibration has changed, and it's for legit reasons, who cares!?

        At the end of the day, ppl need to stop arguing over whose dyno reads high, or whose dyno reads low, and just use it as the tuning tool that it was meant to be...as long as you use the same dyno for base and for mods/tuning, you will be fine. Stop frick'n worrying about whose dyno reads high or whose dyno reads low! Ppl will eventually figure out for themselves if someone is selling 'happy dyno' tunes that appear to make 20 more HP than anybody else-lol. Cheers!
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by stosh1 Click here to enlarge
        At the end of the day, ppl need to stop arguing over whose dyno reads high, or whose dyno reads low, and just use it as the tuning tool that it was meant to be...as long as you use the same dyno for base and for mods/tuning, you will be fine. Stop frick'n worrying about whose dyno reads high or whose dyno reads low! Ppl will eventually figure out for themselves if someone is selling 'happy dyno' tunes that appear to make 20 more HP than anybody else-lol. Cheers!
        The thing is though Dynojets actually make comparing output pretty easy because there isn't 2038510583035 ways to fudge the settings.

        If all of these people didn't play with their settings, they would be reliable comparison sources as well.
      1. Tony@VargasTurboTech's Avatar
        Tony@VargasTurboTech -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by billvp Click here to enlarge
        I don't know any of the parties, but this sounds sketchy - if they previously used a fake correction factor to lower their dyno numbers to help with sales, I wouldn't put it past them to use a fake correction factor to raise their dyno numbers to help with sales.
        Ding Ding Ding Ding. Just the single experience I had with this person showed us how sktchy he actually was. From lying about what boost, and timing he was running, to now saying his turbos are making 600+WHP when in fact they are not even close. As for the guy saying use dynos as they tool they are. Well obviously people try, but when you have companies that will manuiplate the dyno numbers to try to make their product appear superior that is when you run into serious integrity issues, and bad business practice. Like it not power numbers sell products, as long as this is true you will have sketchy people trying to inflate their numbers.
      1. stosh1's Avatar
        stosh1 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        The thing is though Dynojets actually make comparing output pretty easy because there isn't 2038510583035 ways to fudge the settings.

        If all of these people didn't play with their settings, they would be reliable comparison sources as well.
        Right, DJ's are probably the most consistent/repeatable dyno's out there that I'm aware of anyway. Again, if EQT changed settings to appeal to a wider customer base...as long as customers are aware and their ('high reading') settings remain the same from car to car-that's one thing. But, if they're randomly/knowingly fudging settings/numbers on their dyno just to generate 'likes' on IG and/or sales then...that's a completely different story. They should be called out if proof exists.
      1. Sticky2's Avatar
        Sticky2 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by stosh1 Click here to enlarge
        Right, DJ's are probably the most consistent/repeatable dyno's out there that I'm aware of anyway. Again, if EQT changed settings to appeal to a wider customer base...as long as customers are aware and their ('high reading') settings remain the same from car to car-that's one thing. But, if they're randomly/knowingly fudging settings/numbers on their dyno just to generate likes and/or sales then...that's a completely different story. They should be called out if proof exists.
        Their unwillingness to go to a Dynojet is proof enough, IMO.