Just a data point. Take it for what it's worth.
Dyno with various weight wheels

 

OMG really... That is by far the worst example of a test using a DYNO I have seen in a while. BTW you are sort of new so a little info some will call it bragging but it is a point of fact..
I owned and operated sever performance shops. I have own a Chassis Dyno a mobile Dyno and an engine Dyno. In the some 40 years I may have Dyon'd at least close to or more then a 1000 vehicles and have even been an experienced source in a few car enthusiast magazines articles posting about Engine and Chassis Dynameters and how they really work. You have to look at whom all the contributing people are u may even find my name on a couple. LOL I was often at car shows invited by vendors to run the mobile/portable DYNO. I have also part timed a friends shops that have Chassis Dyno to run them or to calibrate them. So honestly when I see a video that someone measured less then 5 hp without several dozen runs and also posted the Delta's used to set up the DYNO you can see why its BS. LOL

But you did give me a good smile today reading your response. I look forward to seeing your DYNO results to support your recommendation and suggestion on this thread or other like it in the future.
Here you go a thread you may find entertaining or maybe useful and informative.?
What do you do or have done for a living - Mazda Forum - Mazda Enthusiast Forums

Is Your Dyno Lying? - Mazda Forum - Mazda Enthusiast Forums

 

Again, just a data point as mentioned. Not sure why you felt the need to disparage it so.

That said, yes, they could have made many more pulls and averaged the results, used the same tire on different wheels, etc. Still, it appears that the company doing the test "has a clue" how to do things (not exactly a "mom and pop" garage). Very well respected from all I could find.

Perhaps you could run your own test and post your findings then? That seems like the best way for you to be satisfied with the results.

 

the point is lightening up your vehicle does not produce more Horsepower of Torque. And that company is I believing trying to sell product. Maybe not to those that know some bs when they read it. LOL ? But never the less if you keep posting that poor information from a company trying to sell product in a fashion that is IMHO poor business practice I am going to comment on your responses. Or unless you do some of your own testing and post which IMO would be more credible, I am going to respond to you and at least post something for all members to think about before making an investment in wheels thinking that all the information on a thread is empirical in nature. It seems that you're not understanding how an engine power is produced. I might add that no one that I am aware of can feel 1-3 HP gains that are in the business and very few individuals can feel anything less than 10 HP on most vehicle's that are common. Now had they done G force and or skid pad testing those results in the eye of more informed they would have had more credible evidence of information about lighter wheels. They didn't because m,ost people do not understand those testing types. Even a 60-0MPH stopping measurement would have been more accurate then the use of a chassis Dyno. I think I mentioned those kinds of testing in this thread.
I see G force information every day in my Mazda and have heavier tire and wheel combo than the factory and the HP levels did not change even 1 hp loss on a chassis Dyno. I am pretty sure and would need to check but I do not think I saw any increase in my 60ft times and definitely not in the 1/4 mile times with those heavier wheels. Alos I might as well add that I did not increase any MPG comparing the stock info to the heavier wheels?
This is all by simple math calculations and confirmed time slips at the track.

Bottom line unless you are tracking a vehicle saving less then 10 pounds per axle will show negatable if any improvement on a street daily driven vehicle.

 

wow...impressive...you should write a book....

 

A relatively low powered daily driven street vehicle will feel it more (percentage reduction on trap times) than a high power to weight ratio car. The reverse of what you just said.

With all of those businesses you mention, I'm sure you could run your own test which seems to be the only way you'll be satisfied with the results.

 

BINGO!!! And this is Callisto in a nutshell. Unless he says it, it isn't true or worth discussing.

 

Well with you it is almost always not worth discussing . LOL
Not sure but your response is textbook TROOLING.. Love it! LOL

 

No no no this all depends on where the where and what the torque line and value is is in the RPM range. Otherwise please ....

I have raced the 1320 with low powered (whp) cars such as 210's,Mazda RX2's, ford escort, MGB, maybe a few others if I think about it. And no saving 40lbs off the vehicles GVW will not make the car quicker that is worth noting if any. LOL
The weight for improving traps times and speed starts at the 100lb mark GVW.

we could keep going on like this but I have yet to see any member besides myself actually at least claiming doing some generic testing? Look to me as seems to be the norm on forums members that run to the internet to find things that support there thoughts instead of .. Wizard of OZ scare crow and what did he want ? LOL

 

FWIW, for that RX2, an online 1/4 mile calculator (I tried several, this is about average) dropping 40lbs estimates a 1/10 second better time, and .6MPH better trap speed. I'd say that is "worth noting".

That said, we were talking rotational mass, not GVW which will produce a greater delta, but the weight alone does make a difference.