When comparing dyno charts, one must be very careful on issues of calibrations and scaling. Using the later Dynojets with built-in tamper-proof weather-stations, one can be assured of proper corrections. However, even with mis-calibrated dynos, you probably won't see more than a 10% variation anyway. In most of the charts below, there are dramatic differences, so the calibration issue would yield insignificant changes. So I've put a fuzzy outline on the charts for a confidence window. Whenever two windows touch, there may be considered to be identical, such as the charts below from 3500-4250rpm.

The other issue with comparing charts between different runs, different cars, from different dynos (aside from calibration issue above),is the correct scaling and super-imposing of the charts. On my overlays below, I made sure that all the charts were sized to the correct axes with idental scaling (no 0-300 charts on top of 50-200 charts without correction).

---

Comparing cars of different capacities with different boost levels can be difficult. The comparison metric I prefer to use in this case is HP/liter·bar-boost (in absolute pressure):

     RearWheelHorsepower
----------------------------
LiterDisplacement X BarBoost

So from the dyno-comparison, we have:

Scott Gomes = 458.4hp / (2.8L x 2.38bar) = 68.8hp/ltr·bar
versus
Ferrari F40 = 383.3hp / (2.9L x 2.10bar) = 62.8hp/ltr·bar

Also interesting is the drivetrain loss faced by the Ferrari F40. Using the factory-claimed rating of 478hp at the crank, we see a 94.7hp loss through the drivetrain. That's a 19.9% loss, quite significant.