The numbers are in!

[F1erceK]

My Marauder is finally done, and I took it to the dyno for it's final tune and to get some numbers (see attached).

344wtq/312whp NA on 87

Pretty happy with it! Next up is boost, still deciding on what I want...

:beer:

[LG88]

My Marauder is finally done, and I took it to the dyno for it's final tune and to get some numbers (see attached).

344wtq/312whp NA on 87

Pretty happy with it! Next up is boost, still deciding on what I want...

:beer:

What do stock marauders dyno at rwhp?

[F1erceK]

http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/showthread.php?t=14491

Lidios post has that info.

[slickster]

242whp............

[Zack]

What are the specs? What type of dyno was used?

[camelgrundle]

What do stock marauders dyno at rwhp?

What he said^^ I was late

[Mr. Man]

87? You'll get more if you tune it for the recommended 93.

[F1erceK]

Yeah, that's why I mentioned the 87... I will be going back for 91 and 93 tunes next spring, for now I need to hold off and spend some time on other projects at home.

[Zack]

I went to your garage and copied this
You're telling us these are the engine mods?

POWERTRAIN
Teksid block (Bored 0.30 over)
Kellogg crank
Manley rods
Probe pistons (-1.0cc flat)
DC Heads
98 cobra cams (degreed)
JLT CAI
3.73 FRRP gears, CF clutches
Ford Racing Girdle
Circle D 3500 Stall
ARP Everything
Melling Oil Pump

[F1erceK]

Yup that's my build. 10.65:1

[babbage]

nice compression ratio. 93 = more timing

[WPG_Merc]

My Marauder is finally done, and I took it to the dyno for it's final tune and to get some numbers (see attached).

344wtq/312whp NA on 87

Pretty happy with it! Next up is boost, still deciding on what I want...

:beer:

:2thumbs: Nice #s :beer:

[Zack]

Go to a dynojet and get some real numbers.

If you think you made that kind of power, through an auto, on 87 octane, non-stroker, non-big bore with those cams......please give me the number of your drug dealer.

[F1erceK]

Leave your rude opinions out of my thread. Thanks.

[Zack]

Was it a dynojet?
It's not rude, just not too believeable

[Zack]

I just did a little research.
A DYNO-mite typically yields 8-9% more HP, and 14-15% more torque.

That would put you at 287/292, which is spot on for 87 octane and those mods.

[F1erceK]

Are you sure the DYNO-jet just isn't off by 8-9% / 14-15%?

I spent the thousands of dollars, many hours, many nights away from my family.

I spent the money to have it tuned.

Thanks but no thanks. Move along. This thread is a show of hard work and appreciation, its NOT a thread to debate my numbers and fire off rude comments or BS tech.

At this juncture I am retiring from posting my info here going forward. Between historical posts I have seen and now this, I see where the troll lives. And he's ugly!

[MOTOWN]

Zackary can be quite the character at times , but honestly he's right, your mods , and 87 octane does not equal 312rwhp , that's probably off by 22rwhp.

[Zack]

Many thanks^^^^^^

Not trying to beat you up OP

[Spectragod]

I'll have to agree with Zack and Roger, I think the dyno is off, the #'s just don't jive for a 87 tune with those mods......sorry.

[Mebot]

What's the difference between a dynojet tune and a regular dyno? Just curious. Why would there be different numbers?

Honest question no trolling

Can't stop the signal...

[sailsmen]

The beauty of a Mustang Dyno is the operator can set it up to do anything, 1/4 mile run, etc.
It is also the downside, name a figure you want, 1,336TQ and like Sgt Mac u got it. Conversely.

DynoJet 240 there is nothing an operator can do except SAE or Standard.
The sole reason DynoJet was created was due to exaggerated claims by MC after market performance parts.

"Mustang Dynamometers are unique. All Mustang Dynamometers are loading dynamometers designed to duplicate real world operating conditions. Our patented control system uses eddy current power absorbers to load a vehicle exactly the way it would be loaded on the street...."

"Q:
We ran a test for my car at 3500lbs, which is the approximate weight of the vehicle with me in it + 1/2 a tank of gas. Should we have used the curb weight instead?


A:
The weight entered should equal the weight of the car as you wish it to be simulated, it's that simple. Curb weight is used only when there is absolutely no info on the car. In some cases you may want to add a driver weight, fuel, etc. to the curb weight for better accuracy. Its up to you."
http://www.mustangdyne.com/portable.htm



DynoJet
"This Model 224xLC can perform load tests including step, sweep and loaded roll-on. Closed loop load testing is also available by targeting engine RPM, speed or percentage of load. A simple click of the mouse or keyboard can turn the 224xlc from an eddy current dynamometer back into an inertia only dynamometer or vice versa. The torque cell calibration routine takes less than a minute to perform."
http://www.dynojet.com/automotive_dyno/default.aspx"

"Typically, people tend to look at a dyno numbers as they do an time slip from a race track. That's not what it does, here's a link to a primer on all the styles. It's got a lot of pages, but the real 411 is easy to extract.

http://www.mustangdyne.com/ChassisDy...ng-article.htm

I agree, the DynoJet is the accepted industry standard. It operates on measuring the movement of a 3400 pound drum, or roller if you will, and the computer does the rest. It's best feature is it's popularity. The machines are precisely built and carefully installed, with the latest in refinements in AFR measurment and user training. It's also available in a trailer mounted portable version for trucking to meets. Some might say if it's not a DynoJet, it's not a dyno. That's up to you.

I don't think it's the most accurate test available, but it's close enough for what you need to learn about your particular car. Like running the quarter mile, no car will produce duplicate figures in back to back pulls. But, the differences will be minor, I would suggest you do three pulls and average your numbers. Again, it's the machine of choice and I think because of it's reliability. As a diagnostic tool, a DynoJet in Dallas will give you the same 411 as one in Chicago. It is S.A.E. corrected.

The eddy current style is probably the oldest technology in use today, and is marketed by Mustang. Here is where I have to disagree with Warpath. My first dyno experience on the MM was a Mustang, and it reported 363 RWHP, and 1336.6 RWTQ (remember, that thre pulls averaged). Oh really...From just 4:10s and a chip? I cannot support the Mustang because of it's lack of S.A.E. correction and AFR data. It does not S.A.E. correct, and your 411 is useless.

Both the Mustang and DynoJet take measurements from rollers or drums, and IMHO, tires, suspension, and stretching tie down straps have a lot to do with skewing the facts. I prefer the DynaPack 5000 dyno, which is probably in the "water brake" style mentioned above, though in more "up to date" technology.

The DynaPack removes the question of tires, suspension and tie down stretch from the measuring by side-stepping these distractors. The DynaPack attaches directly to the powered axles, you can read up more here, and there are pics in the photo section.

http://www.grdperformance.com/dyno.aspx

I've had a dozen or more dynos on my first MM while building her, all of them on the Dynapack 5000 and it performed quite consistently. I was able to duplicate pulls and not have to average my data. In fact, I was able to come back the next day and get data within 1.0 of the day before. My max power came in at 275.4 RWHP and 301.6 RWTQ.

I had one more dyno test after this, on a DynoJet for my Team Ford power tune. Before the tune, my numbers dropped to 261.1 RWHP and 283.2 RWTQ. That a significant difference between the DynoJet and DynaPack and it serves to show what loss can occur from tires, suspension and tie-down straps. After my tune, the numbers came back to 271.7 RWHP and 293.7 RWTQ.

In light of how well my MM performed, I wasn't disappointed by lower numbers, they are just numbers. The real 411 is in the graphs and charts. At 1900 RPM into the pull, I was pushing 233 pounds of torque to the ground. By 2500 RPM, torque rose to 275 pounds. That is one azz kicking hole shot for a 4200 pound beast, eh?

That's what you need to know from a dyno test and why it's a great diagnostic tool, and not a high performance poker game.

Just my .02c, from my personal experience." SergntMac


See thread for a good discussion and other posts
http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forum...yno+max+torque

[Mike M]

First off why would anyone use and tune for 87?

When I read the initial post I knew there was no way it was pulling those HP numbers.

[daddyusmaximus]

First off why would anyone use and tune for 87?

When I read the initial post I knew there was no way it was pulling those HP numbers.

I know almost nothing about dyno testing, I'm here to learn, but that whole "87" tune thing kinda blew my mind too.

[Bradley G]

Mustang dyno's read inherently high as compared to the Dyno Jet as mentioned.
The way it was explained to me, the Dyno Jet with the weather station maintains the differences like altitude, temperature, humidity, ect.
If you wanted those numbers on a Dyno Jet , you could tune the car for 93 octane.
The bonus in fuel mileage mileage would nearly offset the cost differential.
How do you like the way it drives now?
What was your power lever before?

[DWSTANG67]

WHY ARE YOU RUNNING 87

[martyo]

Yeah, that's why I mentioned the 87... I will be going back for 91 and 93 tunes next spring, for now I need to hold off and spend some time on other projects at home.

How come they didn't just do the multiple tunes at the same time?

[babbage]

Perhaps you could take it to the drags and get a time slip. 1/4 mile does not lie.

Usually the Torque on an MM is a bit less than the HP, and they are always pretty close together.

[Spectragod]

Perhaps you could take it to the drags and get a time slip. 1/4 mile does not lie.

Usually the Torque on an MM is a bit less than the HP, and they are always pretty close together.

Usually..... Unless your doing a glory pull for sheer numbers.

[babbage]

Usually..... Unless your doing a glory pull for sheer numbers.

I'd like to see antther MM Dyno where TQ is higher than HP. Have only seen it happen on a 5.3 BBS that was N/A

[TooManyFords]

Doesn't matter what the numbers are. As long as you use the same dyno every time you make changes, you can see what the last mod change did. Dynos are just a tuning tool and not to measure your dick.

[Turbov6Bryan]

Doesn't matter what the numbers are. As long as you use the same dyno every time you make changes, you can see what the last mod change did. Dynos are just a tuning tool and not to measure your dick.

+1

I have friends with 86-87 grand nationals. One dynos 350 hp and runs 10s
The other dynos 440 and runs mid 11s. Both set the same

Dyno is used as a tuning tool, do something to the car, see if it makes more or less hp
Do it on a dyno jet

[justbob]

I'd like to see antther MM Dyno where TQ is higher than HP. Have only seen it happen on a 5.3 BBS that was N/A


LowbuckMM's nitrous pull.


Sent from my iThrone using Tapatalk

[ChiTownMaraud3r]

Puts in work on motor, 10.65CR and uses 87? Da fook, thought I miss read something.

[FordNut]

I also thought the numbers didn't line up with others with similar mods. But the type of dyno makes a big difference. Dynojets are the standard for getting an accurate number to compare with other cars. For a before/after pull to see what a particular mod does, most anything will do.

I do see the sense in a 87 octane tune. I built mine to the hilt and got it tuned with 91 octane. I normally run 93, but if I were to go on a trip somewhere that I can't get 93 I want to be safe with a slightly lower octane rating. I have 9.5:1 cr and 16 lb boost with a 91 octane tune. I really am afraid of trying for 87 though.

[massacre]

I'd like to see antther MM Dyno where TQ is higher than HP. Have only seen it happen on a 5.3 BBS that was N/A

Well I degreed the cams and that was by design. Sounds like you all need to get out more lol. OMFG someone made more power than I think they should - it must be BS. Or maybe some people are good at making power, no need to be insulting.

And you guys doubting the dyno might be right, except you're not.
Some of you guys who actually race -like triple threat- may know Jake Conant, he uses the same guy Pete from Performance Dyno. He has one of the fastest '03 Cobras in the country I know Jake personally, maybe you can tell him that his dyno is off too LMFAO. Google "Jake Conant '03 Cobra" there are pages and pages he has been racing locally for years everyone knows him.
So it's not just "about the numbers" Jake races every weekend and is very successful with Pete's tunes.

[Joe Walsh]

I'd like to see antther MM Dyno where TQ is higher than HP. Have only seen it happen on a 5.3 BBS that was N/A

My Marauder made 325 RWHP and 340 RWTQ on the dyno.
Can't remember what type dyno it was... as this was back in 2005.

[babbage]

My Marauder made 325 RWHP and 340 RWTQ on the dyno.

Can't remember what type dyno it was... as this was back in 2005.



what was the engine setup for this? 5.3 bbs? 5.0'cammer?

[babbage]

Well I degreed the cams and that was by design. Sounds like you all need to get out more lol. OMFG someone made more power than I think they should - it must be BS. Or maybe some people are good at making power, no need to be insulting.



And you guys doubting the dyno might be right, except you're not.

Some of you guys who actually race -like triple threat- may know Jake Conant, he uses the same guy Pete from Performance Dyno. He has one of the fastest '03 Cobras in the country I know Jake personally, maybe you can tell him that his dyno is off too LMFAO. Google "Jake Conant '03 Cobra" there are pages and pages he has been racing locally for years everyone knows him.

So it's not just "about the numbers" Jake races every weekend and is very successful with Pete's tunes.



ok then. I see something different I ask questions. no witch hunt intended.

[Joe Walsh]

what was the engine setup for this? 5.3 bbs? 5.0'cammer?

5.0 Big bore w/ Crower cams.

Sad fact is....after $7,000+ dollars invested in my (now 'non-functioning') 5.0.... a factory 5.0 Coyote will lay down 360 Ft/Lbs RWTQ.

Modding these 'delicate' 4.6 motors is a waste of time when you look at what the Coyote has from the factory in regards to bottom end strength, valvetrain and HP.

[justbob]

LowbuckMM's nitrous pull.


Sent from my iThrone using Tapatalk


Thought I had it on video. 377/483
http://youtu.be/vByn9XZPrjs


Sent from my iThrone using Tapatalk

[MOTOWN]

5.0 Big bore w/ Crower cams.

Sad fact is....after $7,000+ dollars invested in my (now 'non-functioning') 5.0.... a factory 5.0 Coyote will lay down 360 Ft/Lbs RWTQ.

Modding these 'delicate' 4.6 motors is a waste of time when you look at what the Coyote has from the factory in regards to bottom end strength, valvetrain and HP.

Yeah I hear them Coyote motors are some bad muthas!;)

[Mike M]

5.0 Big bore w/ Crower cams.

Sad fact is....after $7,000+ dollars invested in my (now 'non-functioning') 5.0.... a factory 5.0 Coyote will lay down 360 Ft/Lbs RWTQ.

Modding these 'delicate' 4.6 motors is a waste of time when you look at what the Coyote has from the factory in regards to bottom end strength, valvetrain and HP.

I agree 100% with this statement.

[WPG_Merc]

Thought I had it on video. 377/483
http://youtu.be/vByn9XZPrjs


Sent from my iThrone using Tapatalk

Cool Vid. :2thumbs:

On my Xcal 4 I have 3 Mo's tunes a 92 Octane/94 Octane & NOS.

[sailsmen]

DynoJet is the standard. If anyone posts numbers from a dyno other than a DynoJet they will be questioned.
It is merely a measurement device.
I also have dyno pulls from a Mustang dyno. I have never posted them here, nor will I. Because they would only be relevant as a before and after comparison.

From my above post quoting another member - My first dyno experience on the MM was a Mustang, and it reported 363 RWHP, and 1336.6 RWTQ (remember, that three pulls averaged). Oh really...From just 4:10s and a chip?

For an interesting story about DynoJet;
http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/113-0603-dynojet-chassis-dyno/

[Bad_S55]

Yeah I hear them Coyote motors are some bad muthas!;)

Are you still wasting that car at 2 psi?

[MOTOWN]

Are you still wasting that car at 2 psi?

LMAO! Coyote is in the shop for tuning :P

[8UWITH6]

What is a dyno? What does it do? Why is someone running 87 octane in a high compression V8? Because they "can"? GTF outta here. I am catching on to this........ let me change my approach.

Nice job OP, you got all the experienced "experts" riled up. Nicely done. Quite entertaining.

On a serious note. Glad the car is running well and your happy with it because at the end of the day that is all that matters, screw everyone else. Being serious.

So what is next on the mods list?

[8UWITH6]

+1

I have friends with 86-87 grand nationals. One dynos 350 hp and runs 10s
The other dynos 440 and runs mid 11s. Both set the same

Dyno is used as a tuning tool, do something to the car, see if it makes more or less hp
Do it on a dyno jet

That is a lie! Buick's aren't fast......... and they can't run on 87 octane fool. Hell the "93" we have is borderline in boosted applications!