Misleading dyno numbers?

[rdane]

I suspect I am the last to grasp this fact but the dyno numbers a lot of us post are not always easy to compare.

We have seen "actual" which are uncorrected for SAE or DIN and run a good bit higher than either. The majority of dynos posted have been SAE and a few DIN. Posting uncorrected "actual" horse power causes some confusion on comparisons.

While you can't make direct comparisons from dyno machine to dyno machine and engine to engine you can eliminate some obvious variables and wild speculation.

Noah's 3.0 is a classic example and the one that has been bugging me for some time. His "actual" 203/175 is reasonable with his mods (1977 Carrera 3.0. At the time of this dyno run, my car had CIS injection, a 2.7 fuel distributor, SSI's, stock early muffler, JE 9.5:1 compression pistons, and 964 cams). Be a whole lot better if they were corrected to SAE.

My guess is they would come in 193/165 SAE. Anyone know the actual calculation?

Close enough to Charlie's new engine @

Originally posted by kstylianos 184 max rwhp 188 max torque. 82SC 3.0 liter, 9.8:1 CR JE's, single plugged with Elgin SC330 cams, SSI's and Dansk sport exhaust. The early 80's intake ports and runners were opened up to 36mm.

and Bobby Piper's @

The dynojet came back with 194.3 at the wheels. It's been rebuilt by FlatSix here in Bloomington with a few mods, namely the 9.8:1 Euro P/Cs. It has 964 cams and SSIs as well

Or mine if you add the expected 10hp increase for higher compression pistons from my stock 8.5 CIS. 182/168 to 192/178 with higher compression pistons. Amazing how close Bobby's and Noah's are. (or mine would be)
My uncorrected 3.0 numbers (which I found today) were 190/178.

One mystery solved. Just so many things that can be done to a CIS 3.0