My Dyno results:

[BillyGman]

Here are the charts for the two dyno runs that were performed w/my Marauder today. I was very glad to see that I broke past the 300 HP mark. The one thing that I didn't like is that the guy performing the test began at 3800 RPM's for both tests. I was hoping to see what things looked like starting from 2500 RPM's, but I didn't remember to tell him that until after both tests were performed. I didn't have a Dyno test performed when my Marauder was bone stock, so I cannot provide the baseline numbers. So I guess that all I can do for a comparisant is consider the HP, and TQ #'s that most guys are getting w/their bone stock MM's. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the usual stock HP # is 242 at the rear wheels. So if we are to go by that, then perhaps we can assume that w/the mods I've performed, I gained about 65 HP at the rear wheels.

[BillyGman]

number two......

[Zack]

Im impressed but cant help but wonder exactly what brand of dyno was used here.
Please tell us.

[BillyGman]

Zack. How many brands are there? I really don't know a whole lot about Dyno machines. This is only the second car that I've ever brought to get Dynoed. The first was my 73 Vette, and I brought that car to this same Dyno place two years ago. So all I can tell you is that they've had their Dyno machine for atleast 2 years now.

But my Vette registered a 13.48 sec ET w/my "G-Tech" device while my Marauder registered a 13.5 ET w/it (just like the five 13.5's that I ran at the track in Atco, NJ). And my Vette registered 310 RWHP on this same Dyno machine, so I kinda figured that my Marauder would come in just a wee bit less than my Vette did on the Dyno since it registers just a bit slower on the G-Tech device. Now granted, the Vette is 1,000 lbs lighter, but atleast some of the extra weight of the Marauder is off set by the 4.56's gears that I've installed in it as opposed to the 3.70 gear ratio that I have in the Vette. And as you know, changing gear ratios will cause better acceleration w/out a HP increase. So it all sounds about right to me. :)

[martyo]

Nice Billy!

Oh, and don't bother inviting me with ya or anything.....

[BillyGman]

I suggested to you in one of my replies in that thread that I started in the Kook's forum(page 2) which you also posted in, that we should get together soon and go to that Dyno that you and I once talked about, and while you were here in Connecticut, you and I could also go target shooting. That was last week that I wrote that, and you had no comment. So I assumed that you had no interest.

But for what it's worth, I'm going target shooting outdoors again on Tuesday w/the big 50 cal since it's supposed to be in the 50's on Monday and Tuesday. Also, I'll be off from work from December 24th to Jan 5th, so if you want to meet up somewhere during that time, and go together to that Dyno place to have your car Dynoed, then let me know. I'll call ya tomorrow.

[JET]

Gman
Those are some sweeeeet #####'s.

[cyclone03]

AllthoughI wanted to see sub 3000rpm numbers too,the dyno operator showed me how he was unable to hit full throttle without a down shift with the rpm that low,no problem though.

BTW GREAT numbers, you moved the stock flywheel HP to the rear wheels!
Think about it guys hes making over 360HP at the flywheel!

[BillyGman]

Originally posted by cyclone03
.....BTW GREAT numbers, you moved the stock flywheel HP to the rear wheels!
Think about it guys hes making over 360HP at the flywheel!

Yep, that's what I figured too. I was told that the drivetrain eats up about 20% of the flywheel/flexplate HP. So if you add 20% of 306.9 HP to the total figure, then this adds up to 368 gross HP.

As far as the power under 3000 RPM's, I know what you mean. However let me tell you that the one biggest concern that I had when I was considering the last modification that I performed on this car(which was the Kook's headers/exhaust package) was weather or not the Kook's long tube headers would sacrifice low end power for high RPM power. And I can honestly say that the Headers actually added BOTH Low RPM as well as high RPM power to this car just like Nick at Kooks and LOGAN both told me they would. I noticed that as soon as I drove the car immediately after completing the exhaust work. I was able to leave an even longer strip of rubber from a dead punch on dry pavement than I was able to before the header installation. (as I had eagerly demonstrated to Marty when he was driving his Marauder behing me while returning home from the race track in Atco, NJ:D ).

[BillyGman]

Originally posted by JET
Gman
Those are some sweeeeet #####'s.

Thanks............that 12.7 ET that you ran is very impressive too. I know that you wanted better, but a 12.7 ET w/a 4,200 lb car is great.

[Mike M]

I have to get those headers!!! I called Kiiks and he said about $1300.00 for the headers back to my mufflers. Sound about right?
Also I will install the headers myself, how many hours do you estimate?

[BillyGman]

a couple things here:

First, keep in mind that I've installed the complete Kook's bolt-on exhaust system. That includes the headers, Hi-flow cats, X-pipe, AND the 18" Magnaflow mufflers which I highly recommend. Everyone of the male gender who hears my car says "Your car sounds great!!". BTW, those 18" magnaflows are the straight-thru design. So they not only sound great, but they will make more power.

For this complete exhaust from Kook's it was $1600 the last time I heard, other than that Christmas sale they were running. I thought that the $1300 price was for a short time only, and the system was back to it's regular price of $1600. But I could be wrong about that, so to be sure ask Nick if the $1300 that he quoted you includes the mufflers. But even if it doesn't I think you should still spend the extra $$ and get them.

The header install was tough as is any long tube header installation. Ofcourse some are tougher than others, yes, but any set of long tube headers will be more difficult to install than shorty headers will. It took me even longer than it otherwise would've since I opted to install them w/the "Stage 8" locking header bolts. It took me 8 hours just to install the locking clips on all 16 header bolts!!! It wasn't easy, but to me it was all worth it because of the results I've obtained. Ofcourse you can make things a little easier on yourself and simply use the existing exhaust manifold studs, although I'm told by other members who have also installed these headers that two of the studs cannot be used.

You can also simply use standard header bolts, however the reason I went through the added effort to install the Stage 8 locking bolts is because I don't want the bolts loosening up. I used a lift, and the entire exhaust including the headers took me three days. But I'll be the first to admit that it can be done quicker than that, especially if you don't use all 16 of the Stage 8 locking bolts. I'm also very picky, and methodical when I do performance work. For example, I'm probably the only one on the board who took the time to wrap the starter in a heat reflective material that I custom fabricated to fit precisely in order to prevent heat soak of the starter, and especially of the starter solenoid.

The extra heat being radiated from headers can really beat up starters, and on hot summer days cause starting of the engine to be difficult immediately after a long drive. Now perhaps the ceramic coating on these headers can prevent most of that from happening..........I dunno. But I wanted to be on the safe side anyway.

For the driver's side header, the steering linkage must be disconnected(which is simple since it only requires the removal of one bolt which is easy to get at). The tough part on the driver's side is removing and re-installing the dipstick tube. To re-install it, you have to do so after putting the header in place by resting it on the four bottom bolts that have been previously loosely placed in the heads, and BEFORE putting in the top four bolts!!! Furthermore you'll need to oil up or grease up the dipstick tube to get it back in the block since it is a tight squeeze between the two middle primary tubes of the header, as well as between the engine block and the motor mount. What makes this especially difficult is that the dipstick tube is extended several inchies on the bottom, and that several inch extension all goes into the block. Therefore it makes it tough to lean it which has to be done to fish it through the motor mount and the two header primary tubes. But it can be done. It took me about a half hour as well as some patience and persistence to do that.

For the installation of the passenger side header, it's been previously stated that the engine mount has to be loosened, however that is NOT neccessary at all. What will be neccessary is the removal (but NOT disconnection) of the air conditioning compressor, and you'll also have to unbolt(but NOT remove) the starter motor, and rotate it so that the solenoid is up in the 12:00 position towards the cylinder head in order to squeeze the header past it, and into place. Again, the best way that I found was to have the four bottom header bolts started in the block by only one or two threads each, and then just lower the header onto the four bolts. That can easily be done since the four bottom bolt holes in the flanges of the Kook's headers are slotted. Then after you tighten the starter back up, you can thread the top four header bolts into the cylider head and tighten them.

It will take patience for this installation, but if you've worked on cars a number of times before, then you can definately accomplish this yourself. If you haven't, then you'll probably be better off having the work done. But IMO either way, this exhaust system is worth it.

[martyo]

Originally posted by BillyGman
Everyone of the male gender who hears my car says "Your car sounds great!!".

I have heard a number of different MM's with a number of different exhaust combos. Billy's is the sweetest sounding (in an evil sort of way!). I am thinking of adding his mufflers to my current Reinhart fabricated set up to see what affect that will have on my MM's exhaust sound.

Mike, I would have to say that you ought to get a listen to Billy's exhaust; you won't be disappointed. I live in between (geographically) the two of you. Why don't we all make plans to get together -- this could actually lead to the next NorthEast meet which was supposed to happen here in Westchester, NY, anyway, but was canceled due to the @#%$ snow a few weeks ago.

[Agent M79]

Originally posted by BillyGman
I was told that the drivetrain eats up about 20% of the flywheel/flexplate HP. So if you add 20% of 306.9 HP to the total figure, then this adds up to 368 gross HP.

Billy, don't short yourself. Your math is wrong.

306.9RWHP is a net figure from a larger number. If you figure that you lose 20% of your HP getting power getting it to the ground, then 306.9 is 80% of the whole.

You don't add 20% to 306.9 but rather determine the number that 306.9 is 80% of.

306.9 is 80 units of 100. So 306.9/80=3.83625.

So, 1% of your engines power at the flywheel = 3.83625HP

The gross figure that 306.9 represents 80% of is 3.83625*100 for a grand total of: 383.625HP!

[Logan]

Can tell by the sheet that that's a dynojet sheet generated from their Winpep software...

[BillyGman]

M79, actuallyI was wondering about that, but since I wasn't really sure, I figured I'd go w/the math that would render the more conservative numbers so that nobody can accuse me of exaggerating. But now that you've posted that, it does sound more accurate to me. If 383 gross HP is more realistic, than my 73 Vette has more like 390 gross HP also.

Mike, and Marty, yes, Marty's suggestion sounds pretty good to me concerning a get together. I'm willing to go out of my way whenever I can to help other members of this board, since a number of you have helped me out sooo much(ie. Marty, MAC, TooManyFords, STUMPY, Logan,Constable, WolfeBros, and others).

Furthermore, it might be a good reason to socialize a little w/one another anyway. Since I usually am working nights, and I have from Dec 24th, to Jan 5th off from work, the timing would be excellent for me. And if anyone is interested in hearing the exhaust note of my MM, then I'd also be willing to give them a ride in it too(even you Marty if you fund my 2005 Ford GT dream:P )..........

LOGAN, I'm sure you know more about Dynomometers than I do. If the one that was used for my car was a "Dyno Jet" like you've indicated, are we able to draw any conclusion from that? What I mean is, does that neccessarily effect the results one way or the other???

[FordNut]

Congratulations on being the first NA MM to officially break the 300 HP mark. I expect to be there soon, when I can get my Kook's headers installed. Great track times, too. Keep up the good work.

[BillyGman]

Originally posted by FordNut
Congratulations on being the first NA MM to officially break the 300 HP mark.

Thanks FordNut. I was gonna ask you guys if anyone else had obtained better numbers than I have w/a N/A Marauder. I wasn't sure. So now you've answered my question.;)

Again allow me to point out that IMO these great power #'s were not only a result from the Kook's headers themselves, but also from the rest of the Kook's exhaust system (including the straight-thru design 18" Magnaflow mufflers) as well as Dennis Reinhart's computer Chip, AND last, but certainly NOT least, the Stallion Torque converter. Even though an after market torque converter can make your car faster w/out increasing the actual engine HP, and Torque, I attribute the good Dyno #'s in part to the Stallion converter that I have simply because the manufacture claims that their Stallion converter creates a Torque multiplication ratio of 2.53:1 and that most others (especially the stock ones) merely provide a ratio of 1.9:1. So according to what Precision Industries claim, their converter is putting more of the engine's power to the rear wheels, which ofcourse is where it's being measured at w/a chassis Dynomometer. Ofcourse the rear end gear change has effected my ET's in a positive way also, however a gear ratio change provides better acceleration w/out increasing the engine's power. Therefore I don't think that the choice of gears would effect Dyno results in any way.

[sailsmen]

Great numbers! Thanks for posting.

From what I know, which is very little, the Dyno Jet requires virtually no calibration by the operator resulting in more consistant readings from one Dyno Jet to another compared to some other dyno types that require calibration for each vehicles weight, gearing, ect.

Here are some adddresses to articles on Dyno's.

http://www.mustangdyne.com/?source=overture

http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/986/

(Note: the articles are hosted on a particular mfg's or sponsors site so of course the articles are complimentary, but hte info. is good.);)

[BillyGman]

thanx for that info. I didn't know any of that. The one thing I do know is that the guy had to calibrate the proper "wheel speed" according to what he told me. And BTW, I just called the place, and they have a recorded outgoing message on their answering machine that mentions the need to make appointments for their "Dynojet" Dyno. So obviously Logan was correct once again.

[SergntMac]

Outstanding job, Billy, I'm happy for you. Those are some great numbers. Your second dyno chart says you hit the ground running. Congrats Billy, you're hard work has paid off.

There are differences in dyno machines, Billy, big differences. OTOH, I suppose it's not important if it's WinPep software per se, and I guess it's not important if it's a DynoJet machine. That's just stuff people in racing, like NASCAR and the NHRA agreed upon, and if you're not racing under their rules, is it really important?

I see that the report identifies the data as "actual," and not S.A.E. corrected, one of your options at print time. WinPep or not, dyno software gives you at least 4 options on what data to view and how to display it. You don't need another pull to see this, Billy, just have the dyno guy pull up the file and print an S.A.E. chart. Better yet, ask for a column report, there's real 411 in those numbers.

Now I know someone is going to say "isn't actual" what I want to know?" Well, actuals are bigger numbers than the corrected numbers, I lost a chunk of reportable power in my last dyno by wanting the S.A.E. correction.

Calculating this stuff is quite a chore, and how the measurements are taken offers a hundred ways to calculate it, just like that RWHP to Brake HP calculation ^ there. There's more than one way to figure it, and the S.A.E. correction is an agreement on the method of calculation, that's all. A stamp of approval, like U.L. is for electric appliances. I lost a few ponies and pounds, but I have numbers I can stand on.

I am kinda thinking about the others here, because if I didn't use a DynoJet with S.A.E. correction, anyone who followed my lead in modding their MM, would be disappointed once they strap into DynoJet, with correction.

Any AFR data?

[sailsmen]

Serg is right about the colum report, lots more good info there.

Shows power/torque at different RPM.

[BillyGman]

I see MAC. So you're saying that my numbers would definately be a little lower if I asked this place for the "corrected S.A.E." numbers? If that's correct, then I'll call them tomorrow about this. How much lower do you think they will be???

As far as the airflow rate, they asked me if i wanted that, but because it was an extra charge, I told them that I didn't. But another reason why I didn't opt for the AFR is because i didn't see why knowing any of that would actually be of any help to me. What I mean is, whatever it is, it is. I'm not going to be able to change it. Right? Let me know if I'm missing something here.

[Logan]

Mac's right. Get them to print you your SAE corrected numbers, those are the standard numbers to use...

[BillyGman]

will do...thanks.

[Marauderer]

Billy, you can get your low RPM numbers as well by having them do your pulls in 2nd gear. Regardless of what others on here might say, there is no difference in output from the dyno jet between 2nd and 3rd gear pulls. You want to do as much "tuning" as possible in third gear as you are putting the car under a higher load and a 3rd gear pulls do give you a nice Looong graph, but "numbers" type HP pulls are just as effective when done in second, plus you don't have your car running at 140 MPH standing still :) Other than that, the only way to get a great full ranging 3rd gear pull is to modify your chip (SCT software, flip chip, etc) to not downshift from 3rd to 2nd while on the dyno.

Great numbers all the way around and I third the opinion that you should make sure to ask for SAE corrected numbers or you open yourself up to "smack". It is kind of funny as sometimes an over enthusiastic dyno operator will want to see you smile and hand you the larger number, not realizing (or caring) that other people will give you s??t later :)

Take it easy,

Bill

[FordNut]

Billy,
You should have the air/fuel ratio checked. True, it is what it is, but if it is too lean you could fry your engine. You can get your chip re-burned to correct it. If it's too rich, it probably won't hurt anything (maybe foul plugs) but you will make more power and get better mileage if it's not running rich. A re-burn will fix this too, but it's not as urgent.

[BillyGman]

the info guys. This has been educational. That's for sure. I'm surprised that none of this stuff has come up on this board before I went to the Dyno. But then again, perhaps it already has, and I just haven't read it. As far as the AFR, now you have me wondering about that also. I'd like to think that the chip that I bought from Dennis was burned properly in the first place so that the engine's AFR is what it's supposed to be. And perhaps it is. But in light of what's been said, maybe I should've payed the extra $25 to have the AFR done during the Dyno just to have peace of mind.:rolleyes:

All I know is the guy jumped in my car, and asked me how many gears there are,and went through the gears manually, and when he got to about 3800 RPM's in third, he stomped on the gas pedal until I heard the rev limiter begin to kick in. He did that a couple times w/a ten minute break between pulls, and then I payed the man.

But like I previously stated, I'll call him up tomorrow, and ask if I can get a print out of the "S.A.E. corrected" version for the two Dyno pulls that were done. If he says "yes" then I'll take a 20 minute drive before work to pick them up. And in that case, I'll post them in here for peoples' curiosity.:)

[BillyGman]

Originally posted by martyo
I have heard a number of different MM's with a number of different exhaust combos. Billy's is the sweetest sounding (in an evil sort of way!).

LOL:D .....yeah, I understand what you mean by that, but instead of "evil" I think of it as sounding powerful. It's a guy thing. It doesn't sound annoying like open headers would on the street driving in traffic would, but it has a macho sound to it. When you hear it, you know right away that this is a car that's owned by a man rather than a woman.

And that isn't a dig, but just a simple statement. It's kinda like how most guys aren't into going shopping at the mall for several hours, whereas most women are. yes, there are exceptions to that rule, but those are just that. Exceptions........

Likewise, w/an exhaust note like the one that my car exhibits, most women will not care for it, while most guys will. It's just a guy thang....that's all.:)

[MDC-1]

Well it's not a Marauder, but it is a "Ford Family Vehicle" LOL ;) BTW your Marauder motors are torquey mo-fos!

"Speed Sauce Racing Rx7 R1"

-KD Rotary streetport rotary motor with reliability and cooling mods
-'99 Japan-spec Type RS FD Rx7 twin sequential turbos
-Front mount intercooler
-Open element intake
-Koyo racing radiator
-1300 cc secondary injectors
-Competition fuel pump
-Fully programmable engine management
-Fully open exhaust

Tuner had to get out of the throttle due to ignition break-up @ 6500 rpm. You'll notice the truncated hp "peak". Theoretically if the tuner stayed in the gas to 8000 rpm redline, rwhp should peak to 400+.

Installing an ignition amp to rectify problem, and updated dyno plot will follow soon.

http://opentracking.com/ChalkedOutLicPl.Rx7%20Dyno%20P lot%203Jan04.jpg

[TAF]

Well it's not a Marauder, but it is a "Ford Family Vehicle" LOL ;) BTW your Marauder motors are torquey mo-fos!
I think you're the 1st person to EVER say that^^^:lol:

[MDC-1]

I think you're the 1st person to EVER say that^^^:lol:
to say which? that the Mazda Rx7 is a "Ford Family Vehicle", or that the Marauder motors are torquey "muthas" LOL :)

[SergntMac]

to say which? that the Mazda Rx7 is a "Ford Family Vehicle", or that the Marauder motors are torquey "muthas" LOL :)
No...That you would post a "mustang" style dyno report here, or even consider that as a legit dyno report to begin with. The only times I've heard of a "mustang" dyno mentioned here, is when we were telling jokes and busting balls. Please don't tell me you are serious about your "mustang" dyno numbers, this would be lke calling Bette Midler a "babe."

[MDC-1]

No...That you would post a "mustang" style dyno report here, or even consider that as a legit dyno report to begin with. The only times I've heard of a "mustang" dyno mentioned here, is when we were telling jokes and busting balls. Please don't tell me you are serious about your "mustang" dyno numbers, this would be lke calling Bette Midler a "babe."I don't understand your reference to Mustang Dyno numbers. I'm told Mustang Dyno numbers are actually LOWER than DynoJet chassis dyno numbers

For tuning purposes dynos are an important tool.

In the real world, only side-by-side racing will tell the story.

[TAF]

BTW your Marauder motors are torquey mo-fos!
I was actually talkin about this^^^

Most critics of the Marauder state that the don't have enough torque.

[SergntMac]

I don't understand your reference to Mustang Dyno

It's been my personal experience that the mustang is grossly innaccurate, easy to manipulate for false data production (which is why it's popular as an emissions dyno) and unable to replicate consistent tests conditions, i.e. baseline. It's the oldest dynometer technology there is, and as a tuning tool, worthless, IMHO.

I'm not that pleased with the DynoJet's final accuracy either, but at least I can travel across the country and get the same results, DynoJet to DynoJet. Car to car comparsions are fair too, if racing RW numbers is the game afoot. The DynaPack 2000 is the newcomer in dyno technology. It's highly accurate, easy to use and portable if you need that feature. However, it will be a while before it's value overcomes the popularity of a DynoJet.


In the real world, only side-by-side racing will tell the story.
Agreed. I've seen many an underpowered car take the win, dynos are for building and tuning.

[MDC-1]

It's been my personal experience that the mustang is grossly innaccurate, easy to manipulate for false data production (which is why it's popular as an emissions dyno) and unable to replicate consistent tests conditions, i.e. baseline. It's the oldest dynometer technology there is, and as a tuning tool, worthless, IMHO.

I'm not that pleased with the DynoJet's final accuracy either, but at least I can travel across the country and get the same results, DynoJet to DynoJet. Car to car comparsions are fair too, if racing RW numbers is the game afoot. The DynaPack 2000 is the newcomer in dyno technology. It's highly accurate, easy to use and portable if you need that feature. However, it will be a while before it's value overcomes the popularity of a DynoJet.


Agreed. I've seen many an underpowered car take the win, dynos are for building and tuning.Hmmm...you'll have to tell Rx7 Store they wasted their money on a brand new Mustang Dyno. Here's their website http://www.rx7store.net/ Here's the proprietor's contact info: Jason Baughman, jbaughman@ameritech.net Based on your opinion Jason was grossly mis-informed on his decision to buy and tune with a Mustang Dyno.

Tuning my engine management sytem on the street is not only dangerous (from the acceleration speeds), but hit-or-miss. At least with a Mustang Dyno you can vary engine loads to mimic road conditions.

Jason realizes that MD numbers don't necessarily match the DynoJet numbers, and thus has recalibrated his MD to read as DynoJet; my numbers are comparable to DynoJet numbers.

Not sure why you have a bias against the MD besides having the opinion that tuners falsely manipulate their numbers to inflate customers' egos, and justify customers' purchases. I think vendors are above board enough to not resort to under-handed schemes.

Many tuners in the industry praise the MD for its flexibility, and high-tech software, and denounce the archaic Chassis Dyno. At best it's just a ruler. As a business owner, it would be hard to justify the expense of a chassis dyno that only does ONE THING.

I've dyno'd my car @ Kenny Brown's Dyno Jet for a few years. Damn thing never displayed torque figures, b/c his techs could never figure out how to hook up the sensors.

At least now I have torque numbers with the MD.

I get the impression you don't believe 1.3 liters, 2 rotating combustion chambers, and twin turbochargers can put out those numbers, Mac?

It's no mystery how a turbo Wankel can put out big numbers--high revs and volumetric efficiency.

[SergntMac]

Hmmm...you'll have to tell Rx7 Store they wasted their money on a brand new Mustang Dyno. Based on your opinion Jason was grossly mis-informed on his decision to buy and tune with a Mustang Dyno.
I don't know Jason. His business plan is not my concern. I am sure he bought the dyno that's best for his business, more power to him. If you are pleased with his service, carry on.

Tuning my engine management sytem on the street is not only dangerous (from the acceleration speeds), but hit-or-miss. At least with a Mustang Dyno you can vary engine loads to mimic road conditions. Jason realizes that MD numbers don't necessarily match the DynoJet numbers, and thus has recalibrated his MD to read as DynoJet; my numbers are comparable to DynoJet numbers.
I agree Manny, and nothing I have posted here suggests that tuning on the street is acceptable behavior. In fact, I've noted the opposite, this is exactly why we use dynos (of any design), yes?

I am sure your numbers satisfy you, this is important. My opinion is that I'd like to see us all step up to the DynaPack 2000 technology, but that won't be happening soon. Until then, I'm pleased with the consistency of the DynoJet, one technology available nationwide, one always gets one result. I know that my DynoJet numbers from Chicago will be seen on a DynoJet in ATL, and I proved exactly that this past year.

Jason realizes that MD numbers don't necessarily match the DynoJet numbers, and thus has recalibrated his MD to read as DynoJet; my numbers are comparable to DynoJet numbers. Not sure why you have a bias against the MD besides having the opinion that tuners falsely manipulate their numbers to inflate customers' egos, and justify customers' purchases. I think vendors are above board enough to not resort to under-handed schemes. Many tuners in the industry praise the MD for its flexibility, and high-tech software, and denounce the archaic Chassis Dyno. At best it's just a ruler. As a business owner, it would be hard to justify the expense of a chassis dyno that only does ONE THING.

We do not entertain any MD vendors here, so, we don't have to wonder the manipulation factor. My bias against a MD stems from personal experience, I used one to test my first MM. This MD produced some wild numbers, and NEVER the same numbers twice. I came away with 7 legit dyno reports showing 385 RWHP and over 1,300 pounds of RWTQ. I won a lot of beer with them, and I don't think I have to explain more about "flexibilty."

There are two way to view this flexibility, and you embrace one of them. You seem aware that this flexibilty can go south when a less-than-honorable business man is involved. When everyone can get the the numbers they want from one particular shop, it's a candy store now, not a legit race shop. My Dyno dude is Mike Lopez, owner of High Speed Performance in Chicago Ridge IL. I like Mike because he will not allow any flexibility, it is what it is. Last Aug, Zack and I held a dyno day there (and we have more in planning) and one or two of the guys were not happy about the outcome, or the difference from their home based MD. Mike told them to come back anytime, it is what it is.

Again, I prefer a tool that is not flexible, and even the DynoJet can be manipulated to some minor degree. Lots of tools do just one thing, my collection of Phillips screw drivers has become a tool kit of it's own, I've modified a number of them to suit a specific use. But, they were designed and produced to be one tool, and if the business you want to get into is tuning, get the right tool, single purpose as it may be. You'll do more long term repeat business because of that.


I've dyno'd my car @ Kenny Brown's Dyno Jet for a few years. Damn thing never displayed torque figures, b/c his techs could never figure out how to hook up the sensors. At least now I have torque numbers with the MD.
You're throwng me here, you must mean AFR numbers, and I agree. Kenny is not presently equiped to monitor AFR. However, that upgrade is in his plans for his new production facility coming soon.

If you do not mean AFR, torque numbers need no additional sensor hook up, Manny, they are produced side by side with the HP numbers measured from the drum, and interpreted by a computer. BTW, we also adhere to S.A.E. correction, which does lower the numbers, but it's lower for us all. Without torque numbers, it's not a dyno, and this makes me wonder what you were getting from Kenny for a "few years."



I get the impression you don't believe 1.3 liters, 2 rotating combustion chambers, and twin turbochargers can put out those numbers, Mac? It's no mystery how a turbo Wankel can put out big numbers--high revs and volumetric efficiency.
Where did you get this? Never said anything of a sort, are you sure you were reading SergntMac? My remark about "underpowered" cars often winning the race notes the shortcoming of betting on a healthy dyno, and discounting a driver's talent. Anything more than this, is an outrageous interpretation of my remark. You sure I mentioned this?

Manny, when you're reading me, take me as I am, as I have stated. I never leave anyone to read between the lines, wonder what I mean, or, conclude how I feel about something.

I can be blunt at times, and I am always ready to be proven wrong, but I'm always honest. I'll be quick to apologize when I have unintentionally hurt someone's feelings, but every once in a while, I'll bit*h slap someone when it's due, no apology. The few times I ask others to think about something and reply with their opinion, I ask.

You're impressions of my opinion are misleading you, and taking that track is usually not necessary among us. Most of us often state what we mean. You're impression of me, is dead wrong. If someone is acting like a jerk, I'll say so.

Manny...You're almost acting like a jerk...Almost. Hang with us a while, see how it works here. You'll have a lot of fun on the best web site around. Believe me or not, some of us are actually friends!

[TAF]

Hang with us a while, see how it works here. You'll have a lot of fun on the best web site around. Believe me or not, some of us are actually friends!
'Cept for me and that New York Attorney....:uzi: :argue: :mad2: :shot: :flamer: :down: :mad: :nono: :fire:

[MDC-1]

I was actually talkin about this^^^

Most critics of the Marauder state that the don't have enough torque.It's all relative. I only have 281 lb-ft LOL :)

[MDC-1]

Please don't tell me you are serious about your "mustang" dyno numbers, this would be lke calling Bette Midler a "babe."I read this as..."you're putting too much stock in MD numbers--your motor doesn't make that much rwhp."

[MDC-1]

It's been my personal experience that the mustang is grossly innaccurate, easy to manipulate for false data production (which is why it's popular as an emissions dyno) and unable to replicate consistent tests conditions, i.e. baseline. It's the oldest dynometer technology there is, and as a tuning tool, worthless, IMHO.One bad experience makes all MD dynos bad? Based on my experience the MD does some pretty cool stuff. Love the software. There's a boost sensor, which KB's DynoJet didn't have. Jason's MD is brand new; how old is the MD you used? KB's sensor couldn't pick up torque signals for whatever reason. Jason's MD did. MD's more flexible with regard to how many input parameters you can track on the dyno plot. I'm definitely NOT acting like a jerk. I'm trying to understand your perspective. Anyone's post can be taken in ways the author didn't intend. It's tough with email. Best to stick with data. I posted my dyno plot to show data. It's not just a claim I make on a bulletin board (such as, "my motor makes 341 rwhp, but I have no data to back it up"). If you say my data's no good, then I have a problem with that, because you're invalidating my data based on your one bad experience with a Mustang Dyno. I've been checking out the personalities. Most have been welcoming, and I appreciate that.

[SergntMac]

One bad experience makes all MD dynos bad?
Bad? No sir, absoulutely not.

Unacceptable for our use here? Absolutely! Without question, IMHO. BTW, it wasn't one experience, Manny, but seven, followed by more than fifty good experiences with DynaPack and DynoJet machines after that. Again, the method of data collection has not improved from it's "old school" theory. In my experience, MDs cannot provide the same results run after run, nor reproduce baseline performance between machines separated by mileage.

As I was learning more about modern dynometer tecnology, I learned that major racing associations such as the NMRA, NHRA, Winston (Nextel) Cup and NASCAR, all approve the DJ dynometer as a base tech tool. Why is that?

Both MD and DJ use loaded "drive on drum" technology, however, the MD employs "eddy-current" drums, where magnetic "brakes" provide adjustable resistance, with infinite possibilities. Adjustable, dynamic, and highly unreliable from pull to pull.

OTOH, every DJ in the country, however wide, or, large the drum is ordered, employs a static and guaranteed 3400 pound weight resistance that does not change from pull to pull. The drum is the same resistance everywhere one may visit, and how any car moves that drum, whether it's Chevy in Canada, a Ford in California, or a Subaru in Florida, it's the same weight, and it's movement by the power tire is measured uniformly, with DJ specs for certification and compliance.

Could this consistency between automobiles and dyno machines thousands of years and miles from each other be the reason for association acceptance? I think so.

What Joe Racer tunes in his shop for the race track, may be racing class sensitive under rules at a "sanctioned" track thousands of miles from home. If he goes there believing he is within the rules, and gets inspected, is it not ultimately fair that he is held to a uniform standard? Measured by a standardized test tool available to him during his tuning? Yes, I think so.

Add to this, the fact that we here, have assembled an international web site with owners checking in from all over North America. When I tell someone "dude, do the undies, you'll get 10 HP," I know he will get 10. When he replies, "man-oh-man Sarge, I got 22 HP, thanks!" an alarm will go off. Likewise, when he screams "I got only five HP Sarge, WTF?"

In either event, I would ask "DynoJet dyno? S.A.E. correction?" before I would scramble to investigate another problem. Therefore, any lack of consistency between dyno machines is wholly unacceptable. To official racing associations, to me, and to all of us here.

Still, while I believe there is even better technology delivering more precise accuracy, who am I to challenge the proven track record of any DJ?
There's a boost sensor, which KB's DynoJet didn't have. Jason's MD is brand new; how old is the MD you used? KB's sensor couldn't pick up torque signals for whatever reason. Jason's MD did. MD's more flexible with regard to how many input parameters you can track on the dyno plot.
I have to guess that the MD I visited was under five years old at the time, based on my observations of the shop as a whole and it's surroundings. Software version is likewise a guess. the dyno operator seemed seasoned, he didn't guess about how to hook me up, or where to tie me down, despite the newness of the MM on the market at that time. in short, my confidence was high, going in.

Sorry, Manny, I cannot imagine your "boost sensor" feature you describe, or how it works. Can you help me with this? Anyone?

I know one of our trusted tuners here, Lidio (Alternative Automotive) can import supercharger boost on his dyno reports, and I believe he uses a DJ machine too. I also believe he is using a test tool outside of base DynoJet features, but I could be wrong. Lidio? Help us out?

When I see that a test tool uses a "sensor," to read "signals," the first thing I think of is a remote radio signal. During a DJ test of a MM, our O2 sensors sample air fuel ratios from the exhaust pipe and report "by wire" from a bung mounted wideband sensor, or, a "sniffer" stuck up our tail pipe. This is AFR stuff, measureing burnt gas.

My dyno experience tells me that HP and TQ are reported directly by the rotation of a drum by the back tires, and report direct input of rolling resistance to the computer that interprets this date, and calculates the HP/TQ numbers from that. I've never experienced any additional "torque sensor" for torque.

To be honest here, you may have features on your RX7 we do not share with you on our MMs. You may have sensors that report data by radio signals or direct wire hook ups we do not have. Without us watching each other hook up to any dyno, we will not really know.

Drive shaft rotation could be monitored on our MMs with a magnetic sensor, tire pressure sensors (very important in drum driven dyno technology) could involve a sensor reporting that data. Likewise, sensors watching axle rotation, and sensors watching tail shaft activity, and torque converter/flywheel behavior, could benefit from sensors and reveal driveline slippage. We can do all that with extra work, and a lot of extra parts.

Still, a "torque sensor" as you talk about here, is is something I've not had any contact with. Teach me, I'd like to learn more. Since Kenny uses a standard inground DJ, I am not surprised, or, disappointed he could not deliver the 411 you sought from him.


I'm definitely NOT acting like a jerk. I'm trying to understand your perspective. Anyone's post can be taken in ways the author didn't intend. It's tough with email. Best to stick with data. I posted my dyno plot to show data. It's not just a claim I make on a bulletin board (such as, "my motor makes 341 rwhp, but I have no data to back it up"). If you say my data's no good, then I have a problem with that, because you're invalidating my data based on your one bad experience with a Mustand Dyno.
Well, there you go now. I see what you mean...Do you see what I mean?

I said "almost a jerk," but already your reply is much better focused now, likewise my reply. Already it's getting better. I agree, this one dimensional medium sucks, and e-mail is not better. But, as long as we keep cool heads and keep digging for truth, it all works out.

You just took 10 steps away from my jerk line, Manny, please keep walking this way?

Believe me when I say that it was not my intent to invalidate your specs, or, performance. If you feel I have, I apologize for that. Yet, this was your impression, not my words.

I do not get by here by dissing anyone's car. I frown on the practice, no one earns my support when the target is "destroy an enemy."

We are all Galditors, let the best man win. None of us are p*ssys, and nothing good comes from name calling, except grudges. The MM.Net is a "no grudge zone."

Look at it from my point of view, Manny? No one has ever posted a MD dyno report here before. My remarks about comparing a "babe to Bette Midler" meant comparing any MD report against a DJ report, which has nothing to do with your car. I've said it before, and I meant it, if the MD works for you, cool. Fine with me, pal.

It's not the dyno of choice here, or, by the national racing associations governing the events we visit. It doesn't work for us in our exchange of 411 on the Marauder. The DJ is a level playing field we all play on, and you're the first to introduce a different playing field. If you want to show us something about your car, and that's in any MD dyno report, best to go get a DJ dyno first, with AFR data. Then we may understand you better?

Moreover, we have a few tuners here who sell us chips and hand held programmers, their services and products are in high demand by MM owners across the nation and across international borders. Their advice, wisdom and predictions are mostly right on the money, and if we could not reproduce their predictions in our own neighborhoods, none of this would have unfolded.


I've been checking out the personalities. Most have been welcoming, and I appreciate that.
I appreciate your presence among us too. This has been a stumulating exchange I suspect many are watching, and learning from. Thank you, but let's step away from the dyno stuff already.

You own and race an automobile remarkalbly different from our MMs Manny. You built your car quite differently than we have built ours.

You are visiting our web page, we are not holding this discussion on your web page. Let's knock off the confrontation, and just have some fun?

-30-

[MDC-1]

Mac,

Thanks for the introduction on dynos. I'll need to see what my car does on KB's DJ. My curiosity has been picqued.