Newbomb Turk
Well-Known Member
Ohhhhhhhhhhh...dayum. You can NOT say a 1970's designed intake is quicker than the much vaunted AG.
I know on the dyno an AG looks good compared to single plane stuff. BUT, like I always say the dyno will lie to you if you let it.
What a conventional water brake engine dyno can NOT do and AFAIK never will be able to do and that is measure the ability of the engine to rpm.
I'm not talking about rpm to the moon, I'm talking about how well the engine recovers from a shift. Or off the clutch/ T brake. Or even foot braking.
A water brake engine dyno will never be able to measure that.
So what does all that mean? That just because it looks good on the dyno doesn't mean it will be faster at the track.
I have a set of dyno tests that were done on the Revolution engine dyno. It is an inertia engine dyno with some very cool features.
It will measure the the engines ability to rpm.
They tested 6 intakes IIRC. on the same engine on a water brake and this inertia dyno.
The results were pretty close to inverse. IOW's what looked good on the water brake dyno looked bad on the inertia dyno. The best intake on the inertia dyno was either the worst or second worst.
They then tested the intakes in the car at the track.
Guess what?? The intake that was the best on the inertia dyno was the best at the track. The best intake on the water brake dyno was slower.
The upshot is dyno numbers are great. I love them. But you have to know and understand the limits of the tool or you will get fooled into running the wrong parts.
