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 30 Comments
      1. Arin@APR's Avatar
        Arin@APR -
        Excellent data.
      1. itslikeanegg's Avatar
        itslikeanegg -
        Given how close EQT's Supra dyno is to various other dynos this just confirms their dyno reads average and VTT's reads low so they are salty about it.
      1. Sticky2's Avatar
        Sticky2 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by itslikeanegg Click here to enlarge
        Given how close EQT's Supra dyno is to various other dynos this just confirms their dyno reads average and VTT's reads low so they are salty about it.
        VTT's Dynojet does not read low.
      1. itslikeanegg's Avatar
        itslikeanegg -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky2 Click here to enlarge
        VTT's Dynojet does not read low.
        Sure does. Easy to confirm that EQT's dyno reads close to many others. It's not a heartbreaker but no moon dyno either. Once you adjust for correction, EQT is reading under 10% higher than VTT's low reading dyno.
      1. itslikeanegg's Avatar
        itslikeanegg -
        FYI, Ed at EQT also confirmed no software changes for Supra dyno pull, further confirming its average reading.

        Comment from Ed via Facebook:

        I was just shown this article. The explanation is very simple. Tony did not run the same tune as he claims (he doesn't exactly have the best reputation when it comes to honesty). Tony brought his car to our shop to compare his turbo against ours as he claimed that it would spool faster and make more power. He brought it in with a laptop in the passenger seat, trying to crank up the tune as much as possible. Unfortunately for him, our turbo still made better power and spooled about 1000RPM faster. Tony left with his tail tucked between his legs and has been nothing but salty ever since.

        The facts are clear... our turbo outspools and outperforms just about every other bolt-on turbo for the platform. Our shop car currently holds the 1/4 mile record for bolt-on turbos and is a hair shy of the stock motor record. And that was achieved with about 30whp/50ft-lbs less than it currently runs.
      1. Sticky2's Avatar
        Sticky2 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by itslikeanegg Click here to enlarge
        FYI, Ed at EQT also confirmed no software changes for Supra dyno pull, further confirming its average reading.

        Comment from Ed via Facebook:

        I was just shown this article. The explanation is very simple. Tony did not run the same tune as he claims (he doesn't exactly have the best reputation when it comes to honesty). Tony brought his car to our shop to compare his turbo against ours as he claimed that it would spool faster and make more power. He brought it in with a laptop in the passenger seat, trying to crank up the tune as much as possible. Unfortunately for him, our turbo still made better power and spooled about 1000RPM faster. Tony left with his tail tucked between his legs and has been nothing but salty ever since.

        The facts are clear... our turbo outspools and outperforms just about every other bolt-on turbo for the platform. Our shop car currently holds the 1/4 mile record for bolt-on turbos and is a hair shy of the stock motor record. And that was achieved with about 30whp/50ft-lbs less than it currently runs.
        Wouldn't a simple solution for EQT be to back the numbers up on an independent Dynojet?
      1. itslikeanegg's Avatar
        itslikeanegg -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky2 Click here to enlarge
        Wouldn't a simple solution for EQT be to back the numbers up on an independent Dynojet?
        It's not a bad idea but he typically just takes it to the track. His car ran a 10.46 quarter earlier this year while making a lot less power. There is a thread on the golfmk7 forum with an exchange between Ed / Tony which explains the 9% true difference between their dynos but I cant post it due to new user account. Tony / VTT is definitely fudging the numbers and his reputation is less than stellar.
      1. Tony@VargasTurboTech's Avatar
        Tony@VargasTurboTech -
        Every Dynocom can read high, its just a fact of the world. You can also easily manipulate a dynocoms numbers as with other dynos. You want to sell more VW turbos, make it read higher. You want to "prove" your dyno is not reading high, baseline a supra make it read lower. The testing we did with EQT proved the guy is willing to be untruthful to sell products. I won't get into it, but lies were told about boost being run etc. UM one of the best/most trusted tuners on the platform went over the results, and straight up said, they are lying about the boost they claim they were running. Take it as a grain of salt, as for the guy above trying to equate an ET to a WHP figure. Face palm people. If you actually know what you are talking about ET has much less to do with power, and more with traction. Traps show your power. Notice there is one guy arguing here, he is obviously a lemming who buys into the Eds garbage. There is a really easy solution here, Send Ed down to our dyno with his car. We cannot manipulate a dynojet. If it reads what he claims, case closed. Tick Tock

        Edit: I truly hope our dyno reads 10% low. That means our 915WHP N54 is making well over 1000WHP, our S55 on 93 only made 700WHP, our GTI was making 580WHP not 525 (even though our traps showed 500ishWHP), our RS3 is making 600WHP on an OTS tune stock motor, man the possibilities are endless if our dyno reads 10% low.
      1. itslikeanegg's Avatar
        itslikeanegg -
        So your conspiracy theory is that Ed bought a Supra and then fudged the numbers? You realize this is crazy right? There is a reason you have a poor reputation on the Golfmk7 forums, the MK7 international Facebook group, the Ford community, etc. Ed recently etuned a Golf R with the Vortex XL on a AWDTuning's Mustang dyno and that car put down the following in these conditions:

        560hp/510tq
        92F / 67% humidity

        It's all within reasonable distance of his own dyno. Keep being salty, I know it hurts to take your product to a competitors shop and find that they have a superior offering.
      1. itslikeanegg's Avatar
        itslikeanegg -
        BTW, with respect to me being the only one commenting, the answer is simple. This is a fairly obscure forum for the MK7 community so not many will comment (I can't even post links at this time to support my view). I just don't like untruthful vendors talking crap about a respected competitor products. Feel free to discuss this on the GolfMK7 forums where you'll get a lot more feedback.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by itslikeanegg Click here to enlarge
        Given how close EQT's Supra dyno is to various other dynos this just confirms their dyno reads average and VTT's reads low so they are salty about it.
        Not necessarily, you can change settings.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by itslikeanegg Click here to enlarge
        Sure does. Easy to confirm that EQT's dyno reads close to many others. It's not a heartbreaker but no moon dyno either. Once you adjust for correction, EQT is reading under 10% higher than VTT's low reading dyno.
        It does not from my experience.

        EQT could easily just back their numbers up on a Dynojet to end speculation.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by itslikeanegg Click here to enlarge
        The facts are clear... our turbo outspools and outperforms just about every other bolt-on turbo for the platform. Our shop car currently holds the 1/4 mile record for bolt-on turbos and is a hair shy of the stock motor record. And that was achieved with about 30whp/50ft-lbs less than it currently runs.
        So why not run it on a Dynojet then? If it was my shop and car I'd provide as much data as possible as it is in my best interest for business.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by itslikeanegg Click here to enlarge
        This is a fairly obscure forum for the MK7 community so not many will comment (I can't even post links at this time to support my view). I just don't like untruthful vendors talking crap about a respected competitor products. Feel free to discuss this on the GolfMK7 forums where you'll get a lot more feedback.
        Whether it's popular in the MK7 world or not doesn't change it is a popular place to get facts on any platform.

        I'd appreciate you not telling users to go elsewhere when the MK7 forums will delete/censor anyway.

        And you can post links now...
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by itslikeanegg Click here to enlarge
        It's not a bad idea but he typically just takes it to the track. His car ran a 10.46 quarter earlier this year while making a lot less power. There is a thread on the golfmk7 forum with an exchange between Ed / Tony which explains the 9% true difference between their dynos but I cant post it due to new user account. Tony / VTT is definitely fudging the numbers and his reputation is less than stellar.
        At what trap?

        I'm all for track times but that doesn't refute or prove the dyno questions as only pulls on an independent dyno can do that. The longer this is not done, the more speculation there will be.

        It's easy to put this to rest and again it's not just Tony who raised issues with the claimed output figures.

        Resistance to providing more data absolving EQT makes me wonder if there is something to the claims.
      1. VF-Engineering's Avatar
        VF-Engineering -
        One day (or maybe this is just wishful thinking), peak figures will become less
        and less important, and consumers will become more diligent about requesting
        to see dyno plots showing full before and after results, and will learn how to
        properly interpret deltas - and understand the value of area under the curve.

        In a perfect world they would also understand correction factors, and will ask
        for uncorrected plots (or to have the run conditions displayed within the plot )
        so
        they can see why correction factors are only sometimes appropriate/useful.
      1. vw671's Avatar
        vw671 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by itslikeanegg Click here to enlarge
        So your conspiracy theory is that Ed bought a Supra and then fudged the numbers? You realize this is crazy right? There is a reason you have a poor reputation on the Golfmk7 forums, the MK7 international Facebook group, the Ford community, etc. Ed recently etuned a Golf R with the Vortex XL on a AWDTuning's Mustang dyno and that car put down the following in these conditions:

        560hp/510tq
        92F / 67% humidity

        It's all within reasonable distance of his own dyno. Keep being salty, I know it hurts to take your product to a competitors shop and find that they have a superior offering.
        Full disclosure it was 560/510 corrected, 529/482 uncorrected on a built block.
      1. Tony@VargasTurboTech's Avatar
        Tony@VargasTurboTech -
        I love people like this its like an egg guy. We have them coming over here just to try to make a stand that Ed's dyno does not read high when everyone knows it does. I also love that according to him our dyno reads low. Which is awesome, it means we have some seriously over powered cars if we need to tack 10% onto all our numbers to get them real world.

        Bottom line is this, I did a pull on E30 on our dyno, and saved the graph. LITERALLY pulled the car off the dyno, drove it to Eds shop, pulled it onto his dyno, made no changes, did not add fuel, did NOTHING. He strapped it down, and it made 18% more power. That is what is called an apples to apples test, and if that doesn't prove his dyno reads high then I am not sure what does.

        I really should have been more strict on him proving his boost, and timing by showing us logs, but when you expect people to play on the same level of integrity as we do, you are often let down.

        Again OPEN invite, Ed can bring the car down anytime. We cannot manipulate our dyno even if we wanted to. If his car makes 600WHP we will make a post on here saying we were wrong. It will never happen for 2 reasons. 1. He wouldn't show hiw face down here after the snake moves he pulled, and 2. He knows damn well his numbers wont even be close to what he showed on his dyno. So he will keep feeding the sheep elevated dyno numbers, and they will keep eating them up.

        As for VF, take a look at most of our dyno postings. They are always showing corrected, AND uncorrected numbers, we rarely focus on peak numbers. We use the dyno as a tool, we judge power by 1/2 mile, 60-130, and 1/4 mile traps.
      1. VF-Engineering's Avatar
        VF-Engineering -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Tony@VargasTurboTech Click here to enlarge
        As for VF, take a look at most of our dyno postings. They are always showing corrected, AND uncorrected numbers, we rarely focus on peak numbers. We use the dyno as a tool, we judge power by 1/2 mile, 60-130, and 1/4 mile traps.

        The post above was directed at consumers, and their fixation on peak numbers ...
        ... not at any specific tuner/brand, as that is absolutely their own
        prerogative to
        advertise and market their own products however they choose.


        An educated consumer will eventually learn how to (literally) read between the lines.
        And those who are not as knowledgeable, or actually like feeding into the number wars,
        well,... we all know those are the customers you'll never be able to please anyways.

        1/2 mile, 60-130, 1/4 mile trap speeds ... those are all indeed real world metrics that
        demonstrate real world performance! And we regularly see cars making "less power"
        run quicker / faster / longer than cars making notably "more power" on paper.






      1. Arin@APR's Avatar
        Arin@APR -
        Something I want to note on Stock numbers:

        Normally when it's hot outside, you'll make less power and when it's cold, you'll make more power. However, many modern turbocharged vehicles, such as Audi, VW, and Porsche, are able to compensate for weather. So, when it's hot, the ECU gets a little more aggressive and ends up making the same power as it would in standard conditions. Likewise, when it's cold the ECU dials back power and makes the same power as it would when it's hot or in standard conditions. The same applies to altitude and other environmental factors. The ECU does the correcting, so if you dyno in multiple conditions (barring extreme examples), and compare uncorrected numbers, they will likely be very close.

        The reason I bring this up is because when we see a dyno comparing before and after, if a correction factor was used to compensate for environmental variables, it may work fine for a tuned, maxed out turbo or supercharger, but it can completely skew the stock figures.

        Examples:

        Hot weather, ECU corrects power up, Dyno corrects power up even higher. Stock numbers are now High.
        Above sea level, ECU corrects power up, Dyno corrects power up even higher. Stock numbers are now High.

        Cold weather, ECU corrects power down, Dyno corrects power down even further. Stock numbers are now Low.
        Below sea level, ECU corrects power down, Dyno corrects power down even further. Stock numbers are now Low.

        Keep that in mind when viewing "Raw" or "Real" dyno charts.

        When I share data, I've found it best to mostly share stock data as uncorrected, and tuned data as corrected.

        -Arin