Dyno run and custom fuel map cost $?

[Lowndex]

I am scheduled to take my baby into a new shop for dyno and a custom fuel map. I welcome advice on typical charge for such services, please.:help:

[safado]

Its normally around 100 an hour plus what ever tuner/chip you'll need..

[Lowndex]

I am surprised only one Marauder owner responded. I thought a flood of replies would come on for a dyno/tune question.

[sailsmen]

Labor costs vary as much as 100%

[safado]

If you were closer I'd offer my sniper tune to you..

[BUCKWHEAT]

Plan on $500 or so.

[2,4shofast]

Labor costs vary as much as 100%

It all depends on the Shop and the time required to dial the car in.

[Lowndex]

which yielded 37 rear wheel horse power and 44.4 ft. lb of torque gains over RA provided tune!

It was worth every penny!:)

[Lowndex]

plus $60.00 to install the O2 sensor tap. I was there from 10:00 am until 2:00 pm (with one hr. lost for lunch). So, three hours, four runs, O2 sensor tap for $320.00 seems fair.

[sailsmen]

It would have been interesting to have seen the before and after on a Dyno Jet.

The database for MM is large on a Dyno Jet.

There are no operator inputs on a Dyno Jet. In theory peak HP and TQ numbers are the same from Dyno Jet to Dyno Jet and from operator to operator.

This is prob why Dyno Jet is used by NASCAR and SCCA governing bodies.

The greatest Hp/TQ I can remember seeing from a tune was 28/40 by Jerry W. on a stock MM.

[Lowndex]

It would have been interesting to have seen the before and after on a Dyno Jet.

The database for MM is large on a Dyno Jet.

There are no operator inputs on a Dyno Jet. In theory peak HP and TQ numbers are the same from Dyno Jet to Dyno Jet and from operator to operator.

This is prob why Dyno Jet is used by NASCAR and SCCA governing bodies.

The greatest Hp/TQ I can remember seeing from a tune was 28/40 by Jerry W. on a stock MM.

The SFI shop owner agrees with you. He has worked on Marauders before and stated I should expect 25-30 hp / 35-40 tq. SFI felt the bigger gains came from the prior torque converter settings/lock-ups being 'off'.

If properly calibrated, the Mustang is suppose to yield more real world numbers due to the simulated load it applies. Nonetheless, Dynojet and Mustang are suppose to be within 10 % of one another is both are calibrated and used properly. It does not matter which one you use as long as you are consistent: same dyno, shop, operator (if possible). The dyno will help measure incremental changes you make to your car. After that, all that matters is driveability and the 1/4 mile time at the track.

[red]

Dynojet also offers a brake (eddy current/loading) dynamometer (http://www.dynojet.com/automotive_dyno/224xLC_dyno/default.aspx), like the Mustang. So, if the goal is to be accurate, then the type of chassis dynamometer (brake or inertia) should be specified, not the brand of dyno. Brake dynos will provide "real world" numbers, which will be lower than what is read on an inertia dyno. Though the inertia Dynojet has a fixed mass, the operator can apply several corrections. For example, they can set the dyno on SAE or UNCORRECTED (depending on environment) for a before tune run and then switch to STD for the after tune run, yielding higher numbers. Also, smoothing can be used to manipulate the output; jagged "curves" will show higher peak numbers. Generally, the operator can make a before tune run while the car's heat soaked (say after driving it to the shop) and an after tune run on a cool motor, giving higher numbers. Another variation is running the before in the middle of the afternoon and the after in the evening. Other tricks include increasing the load on the car for before runs (e.g., turning on accessories or tightening the straps) and further software adjustments.

[Lowndex]

Dynojet also offers a brake (eddy current/loading) dynamometer (http://www.dynojet.com/automotive_dyno/224xLC_dyno/default.aspx), like the Mustang. So, if the goal is to be accurate, then the type of chassis dynamometer (brake or inertia) should be specified, not the brand of dyno. Brake dynos will provide "real world" numbers, which will be lower than what is read on an inertia dyno. Though the inertia Dynojet has a fixed mass, the operator can apply several corrections. For example, they can set the dyno on SAE or UNCORRECTED (depending on environment) for a before tune run and then switch to STD for the after tune run, yielding higher numbers. Also, smoothing can be used to manipulate the output; jagged "curves" will show higher peak numbers. Generally, the operator can make a before tune run while the car's heat soaked (say after driving it to the shop) and an after tune run on a cool motor, giving higher numbers. Another variation is running the before in the middle of the afternoon and the after in the evening. Other tricks include increasing the load on the car for before runs (e.g., turning on accessories or tightening the straps) and further software adjustments.

Thank you for the background. I was unaware Dynojet had a load simulated dyno.

[safado]

The SFI shop owner agrees with you. He has worked on Marauders before and stated I should expect 25-30 hp / 35-40 tq. SFI felt the bigger gains came from the prior torque converter settings/lock-ups being 'off'.

If properly calibrated, the Mustang is suppose to yield more real world numbers due to the simulated load it applies. Nonetheless, Dynojet and Mustang are suppose to be within 10 % of one another is both are calibrated and used properly. It does not matter which one you use as long as you are consistent: same dyno, shop, operator (if possible). The dyno will help measure incremental changes you make to your car. After that, all that matters is driveability and the 1/4 mile time at the track.


So, how does the car feel? did they use SCT? Did he tell you what he did?

[red]

Thank you for the background. I was unaware Dynojet had a load simulated dyno.
No problem. Please do not paste the info in a bunch of locations next time; you can simply link to it from other threads if necessary.

[sailsmen]

Every Mustang I have seen is a load dyno. I think Mustang only makes load dyn0s.

The same type of "correction" factors that are mentioned above for a Dyno Jet also apply to a Mustang. Operators can easily cheat w/ either type brand of Dyno

A Mustang Dyno is only as accurate as the inputted weight of the vehicle.

A Marauder w/ a Cobra engine and S/C will weigh more than a stock Marauder.

[red]

Every Mustang I have seen is a load dyno. I think Mustang only makes load dyn0s.
Mustang manufactures inertia dynos (such as the 1750 (http://www.mustangdyne.com/MD-1750-series.htm)), though the typical configuration includes the eddy current option. Which brings me back to my point that the type of dyno should be specified, especially as there are other dyno brands (e.g., SuperFlow and Dynapack) and other configurations on the market.


The same type of "correction" factors that are mentioned above for a Dyno Jet also apply to a Mustang. Operators can easily cheat w/ either type brand of Dyno
Agreed that there are correction factors and tricks on other dynos, and hence the use of "generally". I wanted to make it clear that a Dynojet does not protect someone from cheats.


A Mustang Dyno is only as accurate as the inputted weight of the vehicle.
A what dyno? Do you mean a brake (loading/eddy current) dyno? ;) Let's put it this way, it's up to the consumer to provide accurate information to the operator and to make sure the operator isn't pulling a quick one on them.

[Lowndex]

So, how does the car feel? did they use SCT? Did he tell you what he did?

Yes, SFI is an authorized SCT dealer. They used my SCT X3 and provided a custom map that far exceeded the one from RA.

Yes, SFI was very clear about the areas they changed.
- Primary focus was spent on the torque converter lock-up settings and their relation to all types of driving: in-town, highway and WOT.
- SFI recommended a new coil pack and to NOT use platium spark plugs (I has just installed new ones). SFI claims platium spark plugs cause misfires, especially in WOT.
- SFI inspected the MAF sensor to ensure it was clean and functioning properly.

[sailsmen]

"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/forums/showthread.php?t=3274&highlight=mustang+dyno+max+tor que

[red]

What you pasted from Mustang Dynamometer:

"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...."
What I stated:

Mustang manufactures inertia dynos (such as the 1750 (http://www.mustangdyne.com/MD-1750-series.htm)), though the typical configuration includes the eddy current option.
What Mustang Dynamometer says about the 1750 (http://www.mustangdyne.com/MD-1750-series.htm):

The optional single or twin eddy current power absorption feature allows for "steady state" testing at various speed and torque outputs...Which is why I mentioned the configuration of the dyno; the eddy current brake is an option. They go on to talk about the 1750 (http://www.mustangdyne.com/MD-1750-series.htm) saying:

The MD-1750's inertial based testing capability provides a practical and efficient means to gauge vehicle performance. Inertial based performance testing involves accelerating a cylindrical mass with a known inertia at wide-open throttle. In the case of the MD-1750, the immutable inertia encased in a 50" diameter roll, or drum, acts as the road-load mechanism. The rate at which the vehicle is able to accelerate the drum provides insight into the amount of energy transferred from the tires to the surface of the drum. Speed and torque combined produce instantaneous wheel horsepower data. These data are then plotted against time, speed, or distance to produce easy to use graphs. A database keeps track of testing records for future baseline test comparisons.This is the exact definition of an inertia dyno, even as stated by Mustand Dynamometer themselves in their FAQ (http://www.mustangdyne.com/FAQs/faq_03.htm):

The inertial dynamometer does not measure torque directly, but instead measures the acceleration of a known mass. To arrive at a power figure, it applies the f = ma equation to equate the force being applied to the drum surface.

The inertial-exclusive chassis dynamometer utilizes a large drum in order to achieve a high mechanical inertia, which acts as a static load...What I'm apparently not making clear is that the 1750 is an inertia dynamometer, as they state, but can provide brake loading via the eddy current brake option. As far as their claim that all of their dynos are loading, they're correct in stating this as a dyno is either inertia loading or brake loading. "Loading" by itself is probably a poor term to apply as it has a literal definition and an accepted meaning (i.e., with an implied "brake" prefix--[brake] loading). In this case, they appear to be using the literal definition to their advantage for marketing.

[sailsmen]

Comparing Dyno info requires the brand and model.

If brake Dyno info is compared an accurate weight of the Marauder & driver is needed.

If I am posting dyno info I will post the brand and Model. If it's a brake dyno I will post the weight that was input.

[red]

Comparing Dyno info requires the brand and model.

If brake Dyno info is compared an accurate weight of the Marauder & driver is needed.

If I am posting dyno info I will post the brand and Model. If it's a brake dyno I will post the weight that was input.
Sounds like an improved way of comparing results. :cool: Maybe another field for the profile? :D