Guides – by Hussain Boxwala
Dynojet vs Mustang vs Hub: No, Hubs Don't Read Low
TL;DR
In general, hub dynos read higher than rollers, not lower. Mainline themselves publish a 30-40 hp gain in their own documentation.
The hub-vs-roller gap doesn't shrink on big-power cars; it amplifies. The math, the physics, and Mainline's own customer data all agree.
Track data settles power claims dyno math can't. Trap speed validates raw HP. ET validates the whole package.
Before you read all of this, please understand the intent. I'm not here to call anyone out or say that all shops are liars. I just want to dispel the misinformation so that you all can make better decisions when researching your future tunes, setups, and cars. Everything can be manipulated when it comes to dynos, and I talk about correction factors and DA elsewhere. This is just so you can understand what you're looking at when comparing different cars on different dynos to get an idea of where your car is or should be at.
Anyway, a good example I use for people when they ask is this: a customer came in for a retune from another shop in town, complaining that the car didn't feel like it was making the power. It was originally dyno'd on a Mainline Hub with a dyno sheet reading 500whp. We strapped it on our DynoJet 224x days later and read 450whp on the old tune. Same car, same tune. Whose number is "right?"
If you spend any time on tuning forums or enthusiast group chats, you've heard the universal claim: "hub dynos read low." People parrot this everywhere, especially the armchair racers who want to feel accomplished and get their ego hurt when someone with a higher dyno number comes around. It's the ultimate cop-out, "well, I would have made 10% more on a DynoJet." Even shops put it in their marketing. Much like misconceptions about DA and correction factors, people are misinformed, and shops are intentionally misleading you.
It's my goal to explain to you exactly why the same car read two different numbers, why the "hub dynos read low" line is wrong, why Mainline themselves publicly contradict it, and how to read a dyno number without getting played.
Three Ways to Measure
Inertia roller: drum sitting on rollers, engine accelerates the drum, power is calculated from the drum's known mass and angular acceleration. The DynoJet 224x is a prime (and the most ubiquitous) example.
Eddy-current absorber roller: a roller dyno with a magnetic brake (eddy current or "electromagnetic retarder") that the operator can dial up to apply load. Capable of fast inertia-style ramps AND held-load steady-state. Mustang's MD series, the Dynojet 224xLC, and Dyno Dynamics' Dynotech Series II all live here.
Hub dyno: bolts directly to the wheel hubs, no roller, no tire interface. Uses an eddy or AC absorber to load the engine. Mainline's ProHub is the popular tuning-shop unit; Dynojet's Vector-X4000 and Dyno Dynamics' HUB2000 are also hub dynos.
So when someone tells you "Dynojets read high vs hubs," what they're really implying (but probably don't know) is that inertia rollers read high vs hubs, which isn't true. When someone says "Mustangs read low," they usually mean eddy-current rollers operated with conservative load calibration, which is somewhat true. The brand name on the side of the dyno is mostly a distraction. Same hardware can produce different numbers depending on how the operator runs the test, and three different brands can produce nearly identical numbers if you set them up the same way.
Dynos measure torque. Horsepower is calculated.
A quick physics lesson before we get too far into this. Every chassis dyno on the planet measures rotational speed (RPM or angular velocity), plus either a reaction force directly from a load cell (eddy-current rollers and hub dynos) or angular acceleration from how fast the drum speeds up (inertia rollers). Both paths calculate torque from those raw measurements. Power is then always derived from torque × angular velocity. There is no dyno on Earth that measures horsepower directly.
Power = Torque × Angular Velocity
In SI units, kilowatts equals newton-meters times radians per second. In US imperial, the equation gets rearranged with a unit-conversion constant:
HP = (Torque in lb-ft × RPM) / 5252
You might also recognize 5252 at the point at which the HP and torque curves on a dyno chart cross. It's just a unit conversion: 1 HP equals 33,000 ft-lb per minute, and there are 2π radians in one revolution, so HP = T × 2π × RPM / 33,000 = T × RPM / 5252.11. Of course, this is only true on dyno charts that read in HP and lb-ft.
Each type of dyno gets this measurement and calculation differently:
Inertia roller: torque is back-calculated from drum acceleration. T = I × dωdt, where I is the drum's known polar moment of inertia (this is provided by the manufacturer and part of the initial calibration process when you buy a dyno). The dyno measures how fast the drum is speeding up, multiplies by the drum's mass distribution, and gets torque.
Eddy-current absorber roller: torque is measured directly from the absorber's reaction force on a strain-gauge load cell, multiplied by the load cell's known arm length. T = F × r. There is also likely some combination of accounting for the rollers inertial mass, but Dyno companies are notorious for not releasing the specifics about their calculations.
Hub dyno: same idea as the eddy-current roller, but the load cell sits on the absorber housing at the wheel hub. T = F × r, just at a different location in the system.
All three then multiply T × ω to get power, and convert to HP or kW for the printout. The "truth" in any dyno number depends entirely on the accuracy of those two raw measurements: the torque (whether back-calculated from acceleration or measured by a load cell) and the angular velocity. Everything downstream of that is unit conversion and atmospheric correction. SAE J1349 specifies the standard power equation in detail.
How an inertia roller works (DynoJet 224x)
An inertia dyno just measures from one part: the drum. The vehicle's drive wheels accelerate the drum. The dyno's controller measures roller speed and computes angular acceleration. Power is then a one-line equation:
P = I × ω × dωdt
Live readout from our DynoJet 224x during a S58 stock turbo 93 octane pull. Power on the left, torque on the right, RPM on the bottom.
Where I is the drum's polar moment of inertia (a fixed, known number from the manufacturer), ω is angular velocity, and dωdt is angular acceleration. Multiply rotational power out and you have your "wheel power" reading.
The advantage of a pure roller dyno is that it's mechanically simple. A pull takes 5-15 seconds depending on the power and gear. Calibration drift is nearly zero because there's nothing to drift; the drum mass doesn't change. That's why DynoJet's own data correlates well to itself across years and across shops running the same model (except for botched correction factors designed for NA cars).
The downside is that the dyno is measuring power going into accelerating the drum. It doesn't know how much was lost due to the engine's own rotating assembly, the flywheel, the clutch, the driveshaft, the differential, the axles, and the wheels.
Now, everything but an actual engine dyno will experience the losses from the drivetrain, but hub dynos stop at the hub. They don't experience the loss from spinning up the combined weight of the wheels and tires. On a fast inertia ramp, those rotating masses are climbing through 6,000+ RPM right alongside the drum, and the dyno never sees the energy that went into spinning them up. Coast-down measures the parasitic drag of those parts at steady speed, but it doesn't measure the inertial penalty of accelerating them.
A Nissan Z on our DynoJet 224x. The tire sits directly on the knurled steel drum, and that contact patch is where slip and patch losses happen.
The other main issue is tire-to-roller slip. Force can't transfer between two rotating surfaces without some deformation and slippage; that's just how rubber on steel works. PEREK's technical write-up on tire slip walks through the Michelin friction model and lands on a useful number: in the acceptable measurement range, slip sits somewhere between 5% and 15% depending on the tire and roller combo. PEREK's companion piece on engine power calculation quantifies the wheel-roller contact patch as costing about 8% of transferred power experimentally, and notes that this loss is treated as part of the engine-side correction, not the wheels-side reading.
How an eddy-current roller works (Mustang MD series, Dynojet 224xLC, Dyno Dynamics)
An eddy-current roller looks similar from the outside but adds a magnetic absorber to the roller shaft. Apply current to the absorber, the magnetic field induces eddy currents in the rotating mass, and those eddy currents generate a torque opposing rotation. The dyno operator controls how much. Mustang's MD-AWD-1100 spec sheet lists the absorber as an "Air-cooled eddy current power absorber (model MDK-250)" with a strain-gauge load cell measuring reaction torque, and describes their load control as "Vehicle Simulation technology where the dyno automatically controls the loading to simulate actual on-road conditions." SAE Technical Paper 980406 covers the use of eddy current absorbers for transient simulation in chassis dynamometry.
Dyno Dynamics, the Australian manufacturer that's been building chassis dynos since 1982, calls their absorber an "electromagnetic retarder" but it's the same eddy-current principle. Their current Dynotech Series II 2WD chassis dyno uses a 450 kW / 600 HP electromagnetic retarder per shaft, upgradeable with a twin retarder to 1,200 HP. They also sell the DynoDynamics HUB2000 hub dyno. Dyno Dynamics is the source of the "Shootout Mode" standardized test that became infamous on tuning forums for reading conservative, and that mode is still listed as a feature on their current site.
What an eddy-current roller gets you that the inertia-only dyno can't: held-load steady state, road-load simulation, controlled-rate sweeps from any RPM to any RPM, and the ability to load the engine at low RPM for tuning part-throttle areas of the map. For diagnostic and ECU-mapping work that's exactly what you want. It's especially useful in calibrating track cars that don't just see WOT all the time, and for dialing in daily driving loads if you've extensively modified the vehicle to the point where OEM calibrations in those areas are no longer useful. But, to be fair, you can also do these with real world logs in different situations, it just requires more time and customer input.
The downside: load calibration is subjective and chosen by the manufacturer, and this shows in the spread of readings across different brands. The eddy current load curve gets baked into the software defaults. Dyno Dynamics' Shootout Mode was famously conservative and that reputation followed the brand for decades, even though their newer Dynotech firmware can be operated with different calibration. A roller dyno with eddy-current load can also be operated as a quick-ramp inertia-style pull (turn the absorber off, run a short sweep), and at that point it behaves much closer to a DynoJet 224x. So the same physical machine can produce different numbers depending on whether the operator runs a long loaded sweep, a held-load Shootout-style test, or a fast unloaded ramp.
Roller dynos aren't all built the same
Calling something a "roller dyno" lumps together two structurally different machines that produce different numbers for the same car.
Single big drum (DynoJet 224x and the older 248). One large-diameter drum spans the full wheelbase. Both drive wheels sit side-by-side on the same drum surface. The 224x's drum is 24 inches in diameter, 81 inches wide (60.96 cm × 205.74 cm per Dynojet's pre-installation guide). The original Dynojet automotive model, the 248, used a 48-inch drum, literally twice the diameter, with much more rotating mass, and is preferred by a lot of tuners who can still get their hands on them. A bigger drum has more rotating inertia, which means more of the engine's energy goes into accelerating the drum during a pull and the test "feels" the drum more. It also means the dyno is more stable and less twitchy run-to-run.
Twin-roller cradles (Mustang MD series, Dyno Dynamics Dynotech). Two smaller-diameter rolls per axle. Each tire sits in a cradle between the two rolls, contacting both. This adds a roller-roller interaction on top of the tire-roller interaction, but lets the manufacturer build with less rotating mass per dyno. Mustang publishes their rotating-inertia spec in their 2025 catalog: it ranges from 630 lbs (MD-150-SE, 8.575-inch rolls) to 2,530 lbs (MD-1750-SE, 50-inch rolls), with popular tuning-shop models like the MD-1100 sitting at 1,500 lbs. Dyno Dynamics doesn't publish a rotating-inertia number on their current product pages.
An empty Mustang twin-roller bay. Each tire sits in the cradle between two smaller-diameter rolls instead of on a single big drum.
Why does this matter? The lower the rotating inertia, the more the eddy-current absorber controls the measurement and the less the drum's own physics dominates. A Mustang MD-150-SE with 630 lbs of rotating mass is an "absorber-driven" dyno: turn the eddy off and there's almost nothing for the engine to push against. A DynoJet 224x is the opposite, with its single big drum having substantial inertia, and a 224x without the eddy upgrade can run a full pull on drum acceleration alone. Same calculation framework (T × ω = P), but very different physical setups, different sources of measurement noise, and different tradeoffs between repeatability and absorber-control flexibility.
To be fair, DynoJet doesn't publish a rotating-mass-equivalent inertia spec for the 224x in their public manuals, only total dyno weight (3,500 lb / 1,588 kg), which includes the frame and electronics, not just the drum. Dyno Dynamics is the same. Only Mustang publishes per-model inertia numbers. So a clean apples-to-apples cross-brand inertia comparison from public data isn't possible. You can compare drum geometry and total weight, and Mustang model-to-model, but a complete "DynoJet vs Mustang vs Dyno Dynamics drum inertia" table doesn't exist publicly. Even then, the logic stands. You can't compare roller dyno numbers to each other, even within the same brand.
How a hub dyno works (Mainline ProHub, Dynojet Vector-X4000, DynoDynamics HUB2000)
A hub dyno cuts out the rollers and the tires. The car's wheels come off, hub adapters bolt directly to the studs, and each adapter spins a shaft connected to an absorber. The absorber is typically eddy-current or AC, and the load measurement is the reaction torque on the absorber housing measured through a load cell. You're closer to "real engine power" technically, since you've eliminated inertial losses from spinning up 60lbs of wheel+tire on each corner.
Mainline ProHub bolted directly to the hubs of an R35 GTR. No tires, no rollers, no slip — just the engine spinning the absorber shafts through the OE drive flange.
The cleanest source for what a hub dyno measures and why it reads differently than a roller dyno comes from Mainline themselves. Their Hub Dyno vs Roller Dyno information sheet exists specifically to explain the gap, and it's signed by the same engineers who design the ProHub. Their own words:
"First and foremost, wheels and tyres of a motor vehicle are an 'inertial mass', and as such, consume horsepower during acceleration. The 'acceleration' we are interested in is the acceleration of the wheels and tyres during a 'Ramp' or 'Graph' test on a typical roller type dynamometer."
And then the part the "hubs read low" community never quotes:
"To make it easy to understand for all technical levels of readers of this article, the average amount of horsepower consumed to accelerate a set of street car wheels and tyres, is around 30-40 horsepower and this number increases as the acceleration rate increases. So at a bare minimum, typically you will gain at least 30 to 40 horsepower just by taking your wheels off and bolting your car up to, and running on, a hub type dyno."via Mainline Automotive Equipment, Hub Dyno vs Roller Dyno information sheet
That's Mainline directly stating their hub reads at least 30-40 hp HIGHER than a comparable roller dyno on a typical street car, before tire slip is even in the picture. The same document goes on to give two real customer examples: an XR6 Turbo Falcon that picked up 100 RWKW (134 hp) when moved from roller to ProHub, and a heavily modified R35 GTR that went from 1,300 RWHP on a roller to 1,500+ AHP on a PH4000 hub.
Even if you think I am full of shit and trying to promote the dyno numbers from my shop (I'm not, we have enough Dragy data to back those up), you can't argue with the manufacturers.
But let's say you don't want to take Mainline's word for it. Maybe we can find a peer-reviewed academic study. Oh, just kidding, no one in the aftermarket automotive world has done such a study, because at the end of the day the majority of shops in this industry are run by people who don't even know how a dyno works.The best I could find in academia was a 2022 paper on emissions dynos published in Energies by Giechaskiel et al. in which they aimed to test the feasibility of hub dynos for emissions testing in place of currently accepted roller dynos. "Why are you talking about emissions?" Stay with me. The part we care about is where they state that in calibrating the dynos against real emissions from a road test, the hub dyno required two extra inputs (dynamic wheel radius assumed at 650 mm, tire longitudinal slip estimate) to translate hub-shaft rotation into equivalent vehicle speed/distance, since there's no tire to give a rolling radius. If you're smart, you realize this is the mirror argument to what I've cited above from Mainline.
Why the same car reads three different numbers
1. Drivetrain inertia consumed on fast accel ramps (the biggest one)
An inertia dyno only measures power going into accelerating the drum. It has no way to see the power that's simultaneously being used to accelerate the engine's flywheel, the transmission's input shaft, the driveshaft, and the wheels themselves. PEREK's write-up calls this out directly: "In measurements other than steady state, [engine elements inertia] absorbs part of generated power. It can be roughly estimated from engine displacement. If engine inertia value is correct, engine power measured on different gears should be the same."
That last sentence is the clue. If a chassis dyno can't account for engine and drivetrain inertia, you'll see different power numbers in 4th gear vs 5th gear vs 6th gear on the same car. Slower gear ratio means slower angular acceleration of the engine, less inertia tax, higher reported number. That's exactly what every tuner sees when they sweep different gears on a DynoJet. It's also why some shops will dangerously, in our opinion, run a car in 6th gear for a true "1:1" despite the vehicle reaching speeds upwards of 180mph. It shows a higher number than if they ran it in 5th, and their marketing team can yap up the fact that it was run in the "true 1:1" gear.
Mainline's hub-vs-roller paper puts a number on the wheels-and-tires share of that inertia tax: 30-40 hp on a typical street car, scaling with acceleration rate. A hub dyno doesn't see the wheels and tires at all (they're not on the car), so that 30-40 hp recovers automatically. The remaining drivetrain inertia (driveshaft, axles, gearbox shafts) is similar between hub and roller, so the difference is the wheel and tire mass.
Roller dyno companies don't bake corrections for tire/wheel inertia or contact patch slip into their power formulas. They can't, honestly. There are infinite combinations of wheel size, tire compound, pressure, and strap-down out there, and any baked-in number would just make the dyno wrong by a different amount on every car. The DynoJet Power Core User Guide doesn't use the word "drivetrain" once, and Mainline's hub-vs-roller paper says it explicitly: "the vehicle's drivetrain's inertia is an unknown fact... the inertia of the vehicle's drivetrain should not be assumed." Estimating it would just make the number dishonest in a different direction.
2. Tire-to-roller slip on roller dynos
You've seen the videos of people loading up in the trunk or backseat of a car strapped to a Dynojet. No matter what you do, some cars just spin on the rollers when going WOT. It's why you generally switch to hub dynos when tuning above 1000whp. Mainline's Craig made the case in a 2017 Street Machine article on roller dynos as bluntly as anyone has: "Tyres are the biggest killer from a drivetrain loss perspective… As tyres heat up they absorb energy that isn't being transferred to the roller. Tyres distort, the circumference of the tyre changes and the contact patch is reduced, resulting in traction loss. All tyres slip a little on a roller dyno, but as long as the tyre slip is consistent and repeatable, it's fine from a tuning perspective. But the more horsepower you're dealing with, the greater tyre loss becomes."
And the punchline: "You can add retarders to a dyno but it won't help traction, and with anything over 1000hp, you're generally wasting your time on a roller dyno."
Mainline's hub-vs-roller paper backs this with a concrete analogy: a drag car that runs over 300 kph at the strip but is "speed-limited to 240 kph" on a roller dyno isn't really speed-limited; the rest of that delta is significant tire slip. A peer-reviewed 2022 paper in Mechanics Based Design of Structures and Machines built a twin-roller chassis dynamometer model that explicitly included tire-roller slip interactions and showed that ignoring slip produces large modeling errors that you only see correctly when you account for it.
The PEREK piece estimates the wheel-roller patch alone costs about 8% of transferred power experimentally, and slip itself eats more on top depending on the strap-down, the tire compound, and the roller surface. A drag radial at 20 psi being asked to put down 800whp through a single drum is going to give back more than a sticky street tire at 35 psi making 350whp. That's why you can't apples-to-apples a 305 drag radial pull against a 245 street tire pull on the same DynoJet, let alone against a hub dyno that doesn't see any tire at all.
The bottom line? The power gap between a roller and a hub compounds as you accelerate faster, both through the power required to spin up the wheel and tire, and the slip between tire and roller on torquey cars.
3. Load curve and sweep speed
Eddy-current rollers and hub dynos both let the operator decide how much load to apply during the pull. Run a fast unloaded sweep (close to inertia-mode) and the dyno behaves like a roller. Run a slow loaded sweep with the absorber holding the engine at a controlled accel rate and you maximize the percentage of engine power that goes to the dyno load, which inflates the reading.
Held-load testing is the entire reason eddy and hub dynos exist. The number on the page reflects how the test was run, and the same operator can produce two different "peak power" numbers from the same car within the same hour by changing the sweep parameters. Forum-grade comparisons that ignore this end up being meaningless. A Dyno Dynamics Shootout pull and a fast inertia-mode pull on the same machine are not the same test, and the printout says so.
The "hubs read low" myth, debunked
The universal forum and shop marketing claim is "hub dynos read low." It's just misconception and old tropes that have carried over in the tuning world, kind of like how old gearheads will tell you ethanol will hurt your car.
The most damning evidence against the myth comes from the manufacturer everyone points to as the canonical "hub reads low" example. Mainline's own published documentation says the opposite. Their hub-vs-roller paper explicitly states their hub picks up at least 30-40 hp over a roller on a typical street car, and gives a real customer pickup of 100 RWKW on a Falcon and a 200+ RWHP pickup on a GTR. Anyone marketing "hubs read low" while running a Mainline ProHub is contradicting Mainline's own engineering team in print.
From Mainline's own Hub Dyno vs Roller Dyno information sheet. The bottom paragraph is the smoking gun: a heavily modified R35 GTR went from 1,300 RWHP on a roller to 1,500+ AHP on a Mainline PH4000 hub. Their words, not ours.
Sweep rate, briefly
Sweep rate is how a dyno operator decides how much load the absorber applies during a pull. It's expressed in RPM/sec or MPH/sec, and it sets how long the pull takes from starting RPM to ending RPM. Pick a fast sweep and the absorber doesn't load the car enough, the boost doesn't fully build, and the dyno reads low. Pick a slower sweep and the car loads correctly, or overloads, and the dyno reads higher. The 30-40 hp figure Mainline quotes is on a sweep rate that's properly calibrated for the specific car.
Mainline, Dynapack, and Dyno Dynamics all publish guidance on sweep rate selection, but in practice it's the operator's call, and most operators end up bowing to customer pressure on what the numbers should look like. So, can a hub dyno read lower than a roller? Sure, if the sweep is way off, the boost is wrong, and the load is wrong. Can it read higher than a roller? Sure. Can it read the same? Sure.
Which brings us back to the main point. The numbers don't matter. Baseline, gain, and street performance are what matter. I'd rather see hub dyno operators take pride in the fact that their dynos eliminate the wheel and tire losses, let the numbers read high, explain it to their customers, and use the dynos the way the manufacturers intended.
Back to our customer data: 500 vs 450
Customer came in wanting a retune, so we decided to get a baseline on his old tune. Luckily he had the old dyno graph for us to view. Both pulls performed with the same fuel, same tune, same tires.
Mainline ProHub: 500whp peak, slow loaded sweep, absorber doing the work.
Racebox DynoJet 224x: 450whp peak, fast inertia sweep.
That's a 50whp delta. Now that you've read through the article, you know that all of it is some combination of:
Inertia tax on the DynoJet (the stock turbo's narrow peak window means the engine and drivetrain are accelerating fast through the measurement window, and that energy doesn't show up). Mainline pegs the wheels-and-tires share at 30-40 hp on a typical street car; that alone covers most of the gap.
Tire and patch losses on the DynoJet that the hub doesn't see at all. PEREK's experimental ~8% wheel-roller patch loss accounts for the rest.
Sweep methodology difference (loaded sweep on the hub vs. fast inertia sweep on the DynoJet).
If you ran the hub with a fast inertia-mode sweep instead of a slow loaded sweep, the hub number drops noticeably. If you somehow ran the DynoJet with held-load (you can with the 224xLC eddy upgrade, but the 224x can't), the DynoJet number rises noticeably. The cars don't lie. The dynos don't lie. The methodology gets the credit and the blame.
Dragy and track data, not dyno math, settles big-power claims
Drivetrain inertia tax on a roller scales with power. Ptax = Idrivetrain × ω × dωdt. A 1,500whp big-single accelerates the same drum and drivetrain harder than a 500whp stock-turbo, so dωdt is higher at peak, and the absolute hp lost to drivetrain inertia is bigger on the more powerful car. As a percentage of engine power, the tax stays roughly fixed. It's set by wheel/tire mass, drivetrain mass, gear ratio, and the dyno's drum inertia, none of which depend on engine output.
Patch loss is the same story. PEREK quantifies it as roughly 8% of transferred power experimentally. 8% of 500whp is 40 hp. 8% of 1,500whp is 120 hp. Bigger absolute hp lost, same percentage. Tire slip also gets worse at higher torque, not better. Every mechanism we've covered either holds steady in percentage or grows in absolute hp as power scales up.
Mainline's own documents back this up. Their hub-vs-roller paper gives two real numbers: an XR6 Turbo Falcon picked up 100 RWKW (134 hp, ~17% gap) moving from a roller to a Mainline ProHub, and a heavily modified R35 GTR went from 1,300 RWHP on a roller to 1,500+ AHP on a PH4000 hub. That's 200+ hp / ~15% gap. Percentages similar, absolute hp gap bigger on the bigger-power car.
So why does the dyno-vs-dyno argument feel less important on a 2,000whp big-single than on a 500whp street car? Because the 2,000whp car has track data. The 500whp street car usually doesn't.
Trap speed validates raw engine power directly. A purpose-built track car running an 8-second 1/4-mile pass with a 175 mph trap is making the engine power its dyno number suggests. Trap speed can't lie because at the strip the air, the road, and gravity don't care which brand was on the dyno. A 500whp stock-turbo street car with no strip data has nothing independent to validate against. The dyno number is the only data point.
ET tells you something different and arguably more important: how the whole package performs. Engine power is one input. Weight, traction, gearing, transmission tune, launch, and driver execution are all inputs too. Look at Qzilla, our VR30 world record car: 825 whp / 674 wtq on a Dynojet 224x, with twin Garrett G25-550s, full E85, and our VR30 tune. Plenty of built-motor VR30s make more power than that. None of them run quicker. Qzilla owns the platform record outright at 8.89 @ 148.40 in the 1/4 mile and 4.60 in the 60-130. And the cleanest data point we've got to show it's not all in the power is Qzilla going from a 5.06 60-130 to 4.60 just by adding our custom RE7R TCM tune. Same engine, same turbos, same dyno number. Half a second came off the ET.
Qzilla on a Dynojet 224x: 825 whp peak, 674 wtq peak, on stock engine and stock trans.
So when people flex dyno numbers online or at a car meet, just ask them what they run. If they don't have Dragy or track data to back it up, it doesn't matter.
How to actually read a dyno number
We tell people this all the time. Dyno's are just tools. They are only as good as the operator, and as the data provided. Every experiment in science needs a control to establish context, and changes. You need the same with a dyno.
Always get a baseline. Yes, we have approximate power ranges for what certain cars on certain setups should make, but you really should only be looking at how much power you gained.
Don't compare dyno vs dyno. A 500whp ProHub number and a 500whp DynoJet number on different cars are not the same. Even on the same car they wouldn't be the same. Treat absolute peak HP as a marketing number unless you have track data backing it up. A good shop will be happy to back it up with customer Dragy and track data.
Look at correction factors. On Dynojet, ask for the run conditions and look for yourself. On Mustangs, Mainlines, and others, ask them to display atmospheric corrections and the total correction factor "TCF." This is the one that's the most telling. And more importantly, make sure the correction factor is the same across all runs.
Flip side: if the strip backs up your dyno number, your dyno was legit. If it doesn't, the dyno was lying regardless of what brand was on it. That's the test you can't game.
So which Dyno is "right?"
They all are. That's the point! Every dyno is right in its own regard. As long as you have a baseline, run conditions, and correction factors displayed, you have the information you need to make a solid conclusion. The facts are that most dynos have a custom correction factor that operators can apply to skew the results. So even if a Mustang Dyno out of the box reads low, the dyno operator can add a TCF and bring all the readings up. A Dynojet operator doesn't have a custom TCF to play with, but they can always stick the ambient sensor somewhere really warm just to bump up the numbers. Then there's always the sweep rate on load absorber based dynos that will result in different numbers as well.
Most shops aren't out there to deceive you, but occasionally you'll spot the TCF and wild numbers if you're looking, and it's important to know that so you don't fall for sleazy marketing. Operators can make the dynos intentionally read lower, too. There's a reason SCCA horsepower limited classes require runs on a Dynojet - it's harder to fake or lower the number.
At the end of the day, the actual numbers themselves don't mean as much as the power gained. If your Q50 dyno'd at 450 on E85 but runs a solid 7.5s 60-130, then you know the dyno read low. If it made 550 and runs a 9s 60-130, you know it read high.
Final Thoughts
Look, I know the majority of you reading this care a lot about dyno numbers. Hell, we advertise tunes based on dyno numbers. But we also have the times to back it up. When we throw dyno numbers at customers, we tell them approximate 60-130 times. We encourage them to get out there and run. We only advertise the dyno numbers because we know what they mean. And it is my honest hope that most shops operate the same way. There are definitely some that hide behind big dyno numbers, and a lot try to underplay their hub readings to sell tunes. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter as long as they're putting out the results. The problem is, a lot of them don't.
And I'm not saying dyno numbers are useless. We know you guys like to see them. We even post things like "highest HP records" and shit. But we don't caveat everything with "hey but its hot, it would have made more up north!" and, more importantly, our claims are backed up by record setting times.
The next time someone on Facebook tells you "well my car actually would have made MORE if it were on a DynoJet," call them stupid and move on. And if a shop is telling you that? Steer clear, they're just trying to market with lies.
Sources
Dynojet 2WD Automotive Chassis Dynamometer Model 224x product page (inertia-only base unit; eddy-current upgrade sold separately)
Dynojet 224xLC product page (224x with eddy current absorber bundled)
Dynojet Vector-X4000 Hub Dynamometer product page
Mustang Dynamometer MD-AWD-1100 product page and specifications (eddy current absorber MDK-250, Vehicle Simulation load control)
Dyno Dynamics company history and product line (founded 1982, Australia)
Dyno Dynamics Dynotech Series II 2WD chassis dyno product page (electromagnetic retarder spec)
Dyno Dynamics HUB2000 hub dyno product page
Mainline Automotive Equipment, "Hub Dyno's vs Roller Dyno's" information sheet (manufacturer's own primary documentation; 30-40 hp hub-vs-roller delta, real customer examples)
Street Machine, "Tech Torque - Roller Dynos" (March 2017) with Craig from Mainline DynoLog quoted on tire loss
Mainline DynoLog Premium Range Dynamometer Information Guide (PDF, 51 pages, Oct 2013)
PEREK technical documentation, "Tire slip on roller chassis dynamometer" (5-15% slip threshold for valid measurement)
PEREK, "Engine power calculation on roller chassis dynamometer" (~8% wheel-roller patch loss experimental, engine inertia absorbs power in non-steady-state)
Lourenço, M.A.M., Eckert, J.J., Silva, F.L., Santiciolli, F.M., Silva, L.C.A. (2022). "Vehicle and twin-roller chassis dynamometer model considering slip tire interactions." Mechanics Based Design of Structures and Machines. DOI: 10.1080/15397734.2022.2038199
Giechaskiel, B., Forloni, F., Otura, M., Engström, C., et al. (2022). "Experimental Comparison of Hub- and Roller-Type Chassis Dynamometers for Vehicle Exhaust Emissions." Energies, 15(7), 2402. DOI: 10.3390/en15072402
SAE Technical Paper 980406, "Eddy Current Dynamometers Suitable for Transient Simulation"
SAE J1349 standard, "Engine Power Test Code"