Dyno Correction Factor Calculator

Newport Viper

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Posts
4,657
Reaction score
0
Location
Newport Coast, CA
Dyno Correction Factor Calculator

Speed versus RPM calculator

Engine Tuning Calculator - dew point

Interesting website.....

Dyno Correction Factor and Relative Horsepower
So what's all this correction factor stuff anyway??
The horsepower and torque available from a normally aspirated internal combustion engine are dependent upon the density of the air... higher density means more oxygen molecules and more power... lower density means less oxygen and less power.
The relative horsepower, and the dyno correction factor, allow mathematical calculation of the affects of air density on the wide-open-throttle horsepower and torque. The dyno correction factor is simply the mathematical reciprocal of the relative horsepower value.
Originally, all of the major US auto manufacturers were in or around Detroit Michigan, and the dyno reading taken in Detroit were considered to be the standard. However, as the auto industry spread both across the country and around the globe, the auto manufacturers needed a way to correlate the horsepower/torque data taken at those "non-standard" locations with the data taken at the "standard" location. Therefore, the SAE created J1349 in order to convert (or "correct") the dyno data taken in, for example, California or in Tokyo to be as if the data had been taken at standard conditions in Detroit.
What's it good for?
One common use of the dyno correction factor is to standardize the horsepower and torque readings, so that the effects of the ambient temperature and pressure are removed from the readings. By using the dyno correction factor, power and torque readings can be directly compared to the readings taken on some other day, or even taken at some other altitude.
That is, the corrected readings are the same as the result that you would get by taking the car (or engine) to a certain temperature controlled, humidity controlled, pressure controlled dyno shop where they measure "standard" power, based on the carefully controlled temperature, humidity and pressure.
If you take your car to the dyno on a cold day at low altitude, it will make a lot of power. And if you take exactly the same car back to the same dyno on a hot day, it will make less power. But if you take the exact same car to the "standard" dyno (where the temperature, humidity and pressure are all carefully controlled) on those different days, it will always make exactly the same power.
Sometimes you may want to know how much power you are really making on that specific day due to the temperature, humidity and pressure on that day; in that case, you should look at the uncorrected power readings.
But when you want to see how much more power you have solely due to the new headers, or the new cam, then you will find that the corrected power is more useful, since it removes the effects of the temperature, humidity and atmospheric pressure and just shows you how much more (or less) power you have than in your previous tests.
There is no "right" answer... it's simply a matter of how you want to use the information.
If you want to know whether you are going to burn up the tranny with too much power on a cool, humid day, then go to the dyno and look at uncorrected power to see how exactly much power you have under these conditions.
But if you want to compare the effects due to modifications, or you want to compare several different cars at different times, then the corrected readings of the "standard" dyno will be more useful.
How's it calculated?
The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) has created a standard method for correcting horsepower and torque readings so that they will seem as if the readings had all been taken at the same "standard" test cell where the air pressure, humidity and air temperature are held constant. Furthermore, the standard includes an assumed mechanical efficiency of 85% in order to provide an estimate of the true engine horsepower (without accessories).
The equation for the dyno correction factor given in SAE J1349 JUN90, converted to use pressure in mb, is:
You must be registered for see images

where: cf = the dyno correction factor
Pd = the pressure of the dry air, mb
Tc = ambient temperature, deg C
The pressure of the dry air Pd, is found by subtracting the vapor pressure Pv from the actual air pressure. For more information about pressures and calculation of the vapor pressure, see Air Density and Density Altitude.
The relative horsepower is simply the mathematical reciprocal of the correction factor.

SAE J1349 Update:
In August 2004 the SAE released J1349 Revised AUG2004 which specifies that the preferred method of determining the friction power used by the motor accessories is actual measurement, and that the assumption of 85% mechanical efficiency (as formerly used in SAE J1349 Revision JUN90) should only be used when actual friction data are not available.
The equation for computing brake horsepower, assuming 85% mechanical efficiency, was very slightly revised (and is presented here converted to use pressure in mb) as:
You must be registered for see images


The AUG2004 revision also makes it clear that this correction factor is not intended to provide accurate corrections over an extremely wide range, but rather that the intended range of air temperatures is 15 to 35 deg C, and the intended range of dry air pressures is 900 to 1050 mb.

Horsepower and Torque:

Power is the rate at which work is done. When the engine torque is turning the crankshaft and power is being delivered, the resulting horsepower may be expressed as:
You must be registered for see images

which can be simplified as
You must be registered for see images

where: hp = horsepower, hp
t = torque, ft-lbs
rpm = engine speed, revolutions per minute

This is a great formula. Basically it says that if you can keep the same amount of torque, then the more rpm you can turn, the more horsepower you get!
That's why Formula One and CART and IRL engines all turn incredible rpm. The faster the engine turns, the more power it can make (when it's properly tuned to operate at that speed).
It is sort of humorous that the NASCAR CUP cars all have strictly defined aerodynamics, strictly defined engine displacement, even strictly defined carburetors... but no limitation on RPM, and hence no limit on horsepower (since power is highly dependent upon engine RPM, as shown above).
Consider for example: a normally aspirated internal combustion engine typically produces about 1 to 1.5 ft-lbs of torque per cubic inch when it is properly tuned to operate at any specific rpm. With a 2 liter (about 122 cubic inches) engine, producing 1.5 ft-lbs of torque per cubic inch, you would expect to get about 180 hp at 5200 rpm... but you will get a whopping 415 hp if you can get it to run at 12,000 rpm.
The 3.5 liter IRL engine is reported to produce about 650 hp at 10,700 rpm. That would be about 1.5 ft-lbs per cubic inch.
The Ferrari 3.0 liter Formula One engine is rumored to produce about 860 hp at 18,500 rpm. That would be about 1.33 ft-lbs per cubic inch.
Frankly I suspect that these ridiculous RPM values are one of the reasons that CART, IRL and F1 racing are so poorly received here in the USA. People want to see and hear race cars that they can identify with, cars that have something in common with the spectator's own cars, not these silly motors that sound like enraged hornets. And if NASCAR fails to specify some reasonable RPM limits, they too may be doomed to the same fate.
And at the other end of the rpm spectrum, one model of the 360 cubic inch four cylinder Lycoming IO-360 aircraft engine produces 180 hp at 2700 rpm, which is 0.97 ft-lbs per cubic inch.
In general, production automobile engines that have a broad torque band will produce about 0.9 to 1.1 ft-lbs per cubic inch. Highly tuned production engines, such as the Honda S2000 or the Ferrari F50 are in the range of 1.1 to 1.3 ft-lbs per cubic inch. Highly tuned race engines such as NASCAR, IRL and Formula One are often in the range of 1.3 to 1.5 ft-lbs per cubic inch.

Conversion Factors:
To convert to other units, try the DigitalDutch or NIST web sites.

enjoy..
http://wahiduddin.net/calc/cf.htm
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Posts
4,969
Reaction score
0
Location
Omaha NE.
Attention Dynojet operators... .85 correction factor (assumed) without accessory drives. I have a lot more faith in our .75 numbers that's for sure just like I've always said. Actually I have seen this long ago and we stick with it for that reason. :2tu:
 

pteam

Viper Owner
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Posts
774
Reaction score
0
Location
Cleveland Ohio
Attention Dynojet operators... .85 correction factor (assumed) without accessory drives. I have a lot more faith in our .75 numbers that's for sure just like I've always said. Actually I have seen this long ago and we stick with it for that reason. :2tu:

hehe if thats the case my 592 rwhp on your mustang dyno with .75 correction factor would be 789 horsepower! (592 / .75 = 789) Still deciding if I should get the license plate "750 HP" or "800 HP" . But the license plate "800 HP" is actually taken! What to do... lol

Hey I got nothing better to do but drive my cars with less horsepower and sit around and think about license plates! lol
 
Last edited:

Canyon707

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 21, 2007
Posts
1,405
Reaction score
0
Location
Napa California
I get different numbers each time I dyno. Been on the Mustang and the dyno jet more than once. My thoughts on this is track times, driving abilities, There is so much more than hp that makes you fast.
Still working on this. It's addicting.
 

rcl4668

Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 17, 2002
Posts
1,675
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon, USA
Thanks for posting this.

When I did an inital Mustang baseline run on my 08, I had the following data:

529 rwhp

505 rear wheel torque

At: 70 deg F, 29.9 inches Hg and humidity of 34.27%

Can I convert the pressure or humidity figures into vapor pressure (the last required field in the dyno correction calculator) or am I out of luck?

/Rich
 

pteam

Viper Owner
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Posts
774
Reaction score
0
Location
Cleveland Ohio
Rick I don't think 529 rwhp on an 08 is on a mustang dyno.

http://forums.viperclub.org/srt10-srt10-coupe-discussions/616618-08-rwhp-dyno.html

Mark tested an 08 an their mustang dyno and it put out 481 rwhp. 529 sounds like a dynojet

Also in that thread above DC's dyno is a dynojet and their stock 08s tested put out 507, 521, 515, 523.

So my conclusion is that your number of 529 is on a dynojet and possibly even sae corrected. Or your on one of those mustang dynos that work like a dynojet (I think its called load bearing) and is really only a 15% correction factor. I don't even think its possible to have 529 stock on a mystang dyno with 25% correction factor that puts you at like 700 horsepower. 529 at a 15% correction factor would put you at 622 hp.
 

rcl4668

Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 17, 2002
Posts
1,675
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon, USA
Rick I don't think 529 rwhp on an 08 is on a mustang dyno.

http://forums.viperclub.org/srt10-srt10-coupe-discussions/616618-08-rwhp-dyno.html

Mark tested an 08 an their mustang dyno and it put out 481 rwhp. 529 sounds like a dynojet

Also in that thread above DC's dyno is a dynojet and their stock 08s tested put out 507, 521, 515, 523.

So my conclusion is that your number of 529 is on a dynojet and possibly even sae corrected. Or your on one of those mustang dynos that work like a dynojet (I think its called load bearing) and is really only a 15% correction factor. I don't even think its possible to have 529 stock on a mystang dyno with 25% correction factor that puts you at like 700 horsepower. 529 at a 15% correction factor would put you at 622 hp.

Pteam --

Thanks for the response. Here is my dyno graph:

2008_Viper_Baseline_Dyno_Run.jpeg


So I know the dyno is a Mustang dyno. I also thought that all Mustangs were, by definition, load bearing dynos. But I share your observation that my numbers--especially for a Mustang--seem quite high compared to numbers from other Mustang dynos. On the other hand, when I apply a 12% correction to my figures I get 601 hp which would seem reasonable given the factory rating of 600 hp. When I apply 15% like you I get 622 hp which also seems in the range of what the SRT engineers were getting for 2008 engines on engine dynos (614-620 flywheel hp). I believe Tom Wong, the owner, said he typically sees a 15% correction factor for other Vipers he has dynoed although I don't think he had previously dynoed an 08.

What I am trying to say is that I am still confused by all this dyno stuff. Seems like a black art to me.

Bottom line I suppose is that I will be bringing the car in to the same dyno in a few days to see what effect, if any, my Belanger system had on performance. So at a minimum the dyno wil be useful to show the delta or change in hp and torque figures.

/Rich
 

RTTTTed

Viper Owner
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Posts
6,438
Reaction score
0
No correction factors for Mustang versus Dynojet? So which one's numbers do you add to???

It's a good thing they're just numbers.

Ted
 
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Posts
4,969
Reaction score
0
Location
Omaha NE.
The Mustang dyno can be run without the "loaded" mode. You can run the dyno in a simulation mode that will not try and recreate actual road loads that change the request to the PCM. I do not know the dyno operator and an not trying to discredit anyone here but the torque curve looks suspect to me. It should be much flatter and then gradually drop off as HP takes over. This is an odd looking graph that resembles the "simulation mode" I have seen. with real time load on the car from 2500-6000 things smooth out more from what we have seen.

Just my 2 cents,
 

rcl4668

Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 17, 2002
Posts
1,675
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon, USA
The Mustang dyno can be run without the "loaded" mode. You can run the dyno in a simulation mode that will not try and recreate actual road loads that change the request to the PCM. I do not know the dyno operator and an not trying to discredit anyone here but the torque curve looks suspect to me. It should be much flatter and then gradually drop off as HP takes over. This is an odd looking graph that resembles the "simulation mode" I have seen. with real time load on the car from 2500-6000 things smooth out more from what we have seen.

Just my 2 cents,

Thanks Mark. I will bring this up with Tom Wong when I see him in a few days for the post-Belanger dyno. In order to capture the "delta" or change in performance, however, my assumption is that we will want to run the dyno the same way it was run for the baseline to avoid any variables in the setup of the dyno.

/Rich
 

KenH

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 7, 2001
Posts
1,462
Reaction score
0
Location
Portland, OR, USA
Rich,
Tom's Mustang dyno puts out Dynojet type numbers based on other cars we have dyno'd there. I would use a 12% correction along with a 10hp fudge factor which gets you 529+10/.88 = 613HP.

--- Ken
 
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Posts
4,969
Reaction score
0
Location
Omaha NE.
The fudge factor of 10 hp does not even cover the actual accessory drag on the motor. We always use 1.25 for our numbers based on feed back from the engineering staff I work with. I know everyone has different views I just trust "them" and not the dyno jet numbers. Too each his own as they say.
 

pteam

Viper Owner
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Posts
774
Reaction score
0
Location
Cleveland Ohio
Rich,
Tom's Mustang dyno puts out Dynojet type numbers based on other cars we have dyno'd there. I would use a 12% correction along with a 10hp fudge factor which gets you 529+10/.88 = 613HP.

--- Ken

This is what I thought. Its one of those Mustang dynos that puts out dynojet numbers which is 12-15%. A true mustang dyno like Mark's at woodhouse has a 25% correction factor and the rwhp numbers are always much lower than on a dynojet or dynojet equivilant.
 

KenH

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 7, 2001
Posts
1,462
Reaction score
0
Location
Portland, OR, USA
Here are some other number from Wong's dyno. While most Mustang dynos give lower numbers, these look like typical DynoJet numbers to me.

'95 RT/10 w/ tubes and filters = 380RWHP
''95 RT/10 w/tubes and filters, exhaust, arrow rebuild = 413RWHP
'01 RT/10 w/ tubes and filters, HF Cats, catback = 440RWHP
'01GTS w/ Roe 6.5lb SC and exhaust = 571RWHP
'06 Ford GT stock = 533RWHP

My '01 when it was bone stock made 394RWHP on another more typical mustang dyno. With Corsa catback and smooth tubes and filters it made 432RWHP on a dynojet.
 

rcl4668

Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 17, 2002
Posts
1,675
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon, USA
Guys, especially Ken, Mark and Pteam --

Thanks for the great information. Just one question, what does the 10 hp fudge factor in Ken's hp equation represent?

I have always just taken rwhp (or rear wheel torque) multiplied by 100 then divided by 88 or 85 (12 or 15% correction factor) to estimate flywheel numbers.

Thanks again for your help.

Ken -- it was good seeing you and the rest of the group at the Oregon Viper Club meeting the other week.

/Rich
 
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Posts
4,969
Reaction score
0
Location
Omaha NE.
An actual fudge factor to me is 1% accounting for dyno variances per run on the same day and conditions. So if that is what he means that's close, if not it is a guess at the loss due to accessories which i would disagree.
 

rcl4668

Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 17, 2002
Posts
1,675
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon, USA
An actual fudge factor to me is 1% accounting for dyno variances per run on the same day and conditions. So if that is what he means that's close, if not it is a guess at the loss due to accessories which i would disagree.

Mark -- just to clarify: your previous post suggests that even more hp is lost because of the accessories? Just curious, if I am trying to figure out how much hp I actually have at the engine's flywheel, isn't that with the parasitic effect of the accessories? Again, thanks for educating a dyno novice.

/Rich
 
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Posts
4,969
Reaction score
0
Location
Omaha NE.
Rich,
Yes the number you are referring to is the HP minus drive line drag and minus accessory drag, which I believe is closer to my 25% that most peoples 15-18% FWIW.

Mark -- just to clarify: your previous post suggests that even more hp is lost because of the accessories? Just curious, if I am trying to figure out how much hp I actually have at the engine's flywheel, isn't that with the parasitic effect of the accessories? Again, thanks for educating a dyno novice.

/Rich
 

KenH

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 7, 2001
Posts
1,462
Reaction score
0
Location
Portland, OR, USA
I think the point that keeps getting lost is that different correction factors need to be applied to different dyno setups to arrive at the correct predicted flywheel numbers. I am not arguing that using a correction factor of *1.25 on Mark's dyno is incorrect in any way. Just that it can't be automatically applied to Wong's dyno data that has obviously been adjusted to give higher RWHP numbers which more closely match typical DynoJet numbers.

Dynojets have the benefit of tending to give similar numbers so that they are easier to compare results across dynos and engine to chassis the loss tends to be about 12% for Vipers. Other cars may have more drivetrain loss than a Viper.

Mustang dynos are more powerful and can be setup different ways and therefore can give quite different RWHP numbers making comparison across mustang dynos more difficult. The correction factor of one Mustang dyno cannot be arbitrarily applied to another Mustang dyno unless you know they are configured the same way.

If a car dyno's 529RWHP on a particular dyno and we make the assumption that the engines are putting down about 615HP at the flywheel (stock) based on the engines that were observed on the dynos at the factory, we can calculate a correction factor to correlate those two numbers. 615/529 = 1.16 (multiply) or 529/615 = 0.86 (divide). As long as we continue to apply the same correction factor on the same dyno, a reasonably accurate flywheel HP estimate can be made. You stick your headers on and make 565RWHP, that would be about 565/.86= 656HP at the flywheel.

The other big question that comes up that I have not seen anyone answer is whether the correction factor actually stays constant as you go up significantly in RWHP. At least some of the losses should be constant and not a function of how much RWHP a car makes.

For the record, the formula I gave (RWHP+10/.88) originally came from one of the Viper tuners who dyno'd an engine alone and then in the chassis and determined a formula for the difference based on the dynojet that they were using for a gen II. I have since lost the original reference. I assume that the fixed fudge factor may relate to the fact that some chassis losses are constant and not a percentage of RWHP.
 

rcl4668

Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 17, 2002
Posts
1,675
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon, USA
I think the point that keeps getting lost is that different correction factors need to be applied to different dyno setups to arrive at the correct predicted flywheel numbers. I am not arguing that using a correction factor of *1.25 on Mark's dyno is incorrect in any way. Just that it can't be automatically applied to Wong's dyno data that has obviously been adjusted to give higher RWHP numbers which more closely match typical DynoJet numbers.

Dynojets have the benefit of tending to give similar numbers so that they are easier to compare results across dynos and engine to chassis the loss tends to be about 12% for Vipers. Other cars may have more drivetrain loss than a Viper.

Mustang dynos are more powerful and can be setup different ways and therefore can give quite different RWHP numbers making comparison across mustang dynos more difficult. The correction factor of one Mustang dyno cannot be arbitrarily applied to another Mustang dyno unless you know they are configured the same way.

If a car dyno's 529RWHP on a particular dyno and we make the assumption that the engines are putting down about 615HP at the flywheel (stock) based on the engines that were observed on the dynos at the factory, we can calculate a correction factor to correlate those two numbers. 615/529 = 1.16 (multiply) or 529/615 = 0.86 (divide). As long as we continue to apply the same correction factor on the same dyno, a reasonably accurate flywheel HP estimate can be made. You stick your headers on and make 565RWHP, that would be about 565/.86= 656HP at the flywheel.

The other big question that comes up that I have not seen anyone answer is whether the correction factor actually stays constant as you go up significantly in RWHP. At least some of the losses should be constant and not a function of how much RWHP a car makes.

For the record, the formula I gave (RWHP+10/.88) originally came from one of the Viper tuners who dyno'd an engine alone and then in the chassis and determined a formula for the difference based on the dynojet that they were using for a gen II. I have since lost the original reference. I assume that the fixed fudge factor may relate to the fact that some chassis losses are constant and not a percentage of RWHP.

Good points Ken. Not that this is news to anyone but this just confirms the variability in using chassis dynos to determine flywheel hp. It seems that the dyno would be the most effective in determining changes after modifications assuming the use of the same dyno using the same calibrations. I realize that there will also be other variables such as temp, humidity, vapor pressure but it seems that for the average enthusiast like me, this is the best I can do to measure the changes.

/Rich
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
153,200
Posts
1,681,922
Members
17,698
Latest member
Tombala
Top