More Dyno numbers

[merc406]

Are in at the BlueOval site. Looks like a best of 253rwhp.www.blueovalnews.com

[SergntMac]

Thanks for the shortcut, Merc, this info may be helpful for us as our mods progress.

It appears that courtesy of BON, "The Dyno Shop" in Santee CA., has indexed a number of popular cars for base performance from the factory. The dyno used is an eddy-current style, a Dyno Dynamics 600. Here's the numbers for our MMs;

RWHP 254.1 @ 6610 RPM
RWTQ 246.6 @ 4591 RPM
AFR 12.5 @ 5700 RPM*

(* indicates declining AFR after 5700 RPM)

I didn't run a base dyno on my MM, so, I really didn't have anything to compare to after adding my chip, gears, stat and plugs. I agree that this is where I may have been, and I'm pleased with the results of my "Reinhart package" investment. My numbers are in my sig.

[Black Terror]

Marauder Dyno Chart (http://www.dynoperformance.com/search_details.php?ID=312)

[TAF]

Is it me or are those RWTQ numbers low??...

I know my stock, base-line RWTQ was much higher than that when it was done @ 2400 miles. Unfortunately, my RWHP was only 245, as well.

[SergntMac]

Could be Todd, an eddy-current dyno is known to be inconsistent in reproducing final tallies, and it invites a lot of "un-thought of" factors into the measurement, such as tire inflation, actual weight of car, strap down stretching and so on. Still not a bad place to start, I'll use them as my base "factory" power stats.

[jefferson-mo]

Well guys I was at the Dyno SHop Saturday 8th and ran my car. The numbers are slighlty different than shown on the website(he hasn't added my car yet). The guy running the dyno couldn't find a 'tach' signal so he did a gear ratio/rpm formula to get the results.
Mine are:
254 hp @6557rpm
245ftlb @4659rpm
A/F starts @ 12.4 drops to 10.0 @6000rpm

I was hoping for higher readings but it seems consistent with other cars:banana2:

[gonzo50]

SergntMac:
I've noticed that on all stock Dyno runs the horsepower was slightly higher than the torque readings, which were very consistant.
On your Dyno run with the Delta Chip the torque is very high: 285.0 ft-lbs. and the horsepower reading was 266.4. this is an increase of only 12.4 HP and a whopping 40.0 ft-lbs torque. Is the chip only worth 12.0 HP, the torque seems very high for only a 12.0 HP gain.
Please clarify this so I can weigh the differences. THANK YOU.

[SergntMac]

Originally posted by gonzo50
SergntMac:
I've noticed that on all stock Dyno runs the horsepower was slightly higher than the torque readings, which were very consistant.
On your Dyno run with the Delta Chip the torque is very high: 285.0 ft-lbs. and the horsepower reading was 266.4. this is an increase of only 12.4 HP and a whopping 40.0 ft-lbs torque. Is the chip only worth 12.0 HP, the torque seems very high for only a 12.0 HP gain.
Please clarify this so I can weigh the differences. THANK YOU.

Hmmm...You ask a good question Gonzo, but honestly, I'm going to have to guess at the answer. This is ALL IMHO, okay? Absorb it and decide for yourself.

Factory ratings are 302HP/318TQ. Base line numbers provided by The Dyno Shop we're looking at here are 254HP/246TQ. Jefferson-Mo reports 254HP/246TQ, which is consistent with the base line report, but not with the factory numbers. My personal best to date is 266HP/285TQ, which is consistent with the factory numbers. Who's upside down? I think your answer lies not in my numbers, but the test tool and/or method of testing.

In one test, measurement tools are bolted directly to the sample. The factory's dyno is bolted to the crank (flywheel) and my tool, a Dynapack 5000, is bolted directly to my rear axels. Both perform in essentially the same manner, removing the affect of all "flexibles," (with exception to my torque converter) from test data.

In the other tests, the sample is strapped down to the test tool, large rollers programmed to provide measured resistance against rear wheel power, and the flexibles are in. The flexibles produce, or, allow for a natural manipulation of the data (intentionally or not,) as it is collected. I'm not going to run through the whole list of flexibles, but it includes tire inflation, gasoline on board, strap stretching factors, and so on.

Gonzo, you note a "pattern" of differences in the data posted here, and I agree. I'd call that a "pattern of error" native to an eddy-current test tool. However, as long as that pattern of error is consistently present in every eddy-current dyno machine, the test should be relatively consistent in disagreement with other test tools, and from that you can extrapolate a norm, and move on. An eddy-current tool is better than no test at all.

The eddy-current machine has been around since I was a kid, over 30 years, therefore, its most likely that when someone does visit a test center, it will be an eddy-current machine in use, rather than newer and more accurate tools of newer technology. I've done five eddy-current dynos, and each pull produced different stats, with alarming spread. HP lows of 240 and TQ highs of 385Ftlb! I've also done three Dynapack 5000 dynos, each pull reproducing almost identical results, which I use here. Which should I believe? I had to hunt for my tool, and drive over 50 miles to get to it, but I wanted that accuracy. Maybe the Dynapack has one tenth of that market today, but they are out there, and getting more popular everyday.

[TAF]

My numbers, which were done @ 2,423 miles were:

Before:
Pure stock -
245.7 RWHP
263.9 RWTQ

After: (chip, gears, therm., plugs & driveshaft)

252.0 RWHP
283.6 RWTQ

This is from an in-ground "Dyno-jet" machine at my SVT Ford dealer. I certainly think that different machines have different reliabilities and variances.

Numbers be what they may...the "seat of the pants" feel with the mods is significant. Now, those of you on here that are much more fluent in this can explain why the differences or variances.

Thoughts?

[jefferson-mo]

http://www.dynoperformance.com/search_details.php?ID=312

Apparently these are the numbers for my car although the sheet they gave me is different.
Sarge, you bring up a good point about the tools. The guy runnin' the dyno couldn't find a tach signal so did some sort of a gear ratio/rpm calculation.......and then pointed to another set of rollers on the other side of the shop and said 'if we used that dyno it would be better but we're using this one 'cause it's linked to the website' so I plan to go back and check on the other one.
The one he used the car sat between 2 rollers and the 'other one' he pointed to the tires sat on top of a larger single roller. Is that what you're talking about?:cool:

[Macon Marauder]

I have to admit to being completely ignorant when it comes to dynos. But, Todd, do I understand that your before and after numbers are from the same machine? If so, then can we assume some consistency?

If that's the case, then I think I'm disappointed in the mods. Though I understand about the "seat of the pants."

[MAD-3R]

One thing about Todd's numbers, is that he only had 2500 Miles on it. I think the gains would be better on a little older car. Maybe a couple more on both sides.

[TAF]

Yes, same machine. About 2 - 2 1/2 hours apart on tthe day of adding mods. I think we had this discussion before (I can't find it though) on the effect (negative) of the gears in the HP equation. In other words, there IS an effect on the RWHP with the added gears as opposed to chip alone. Am I off-base for those that may remember?

[SergntMac]

Originally posted by toddalanfisher
My numbers, which were done @ 2,423 miles were:

Before:
Pure stock -
245.7 RWHP
263.9 RWTQ

After: (chip, gears, therm., plugs & driveshaft)

252.0 RWHP
283.6 RWTQ

This is from an in-ground "Dyno-jet" machine at my SVT Ford dealer. I certainly think that different machines have different reliabilities and variances.

Numbers be what they may...the "seat of the pants" feel with the mods is significant. Now, those of you on here that are much more fluent in this can explain why the differences or variances.

Thoughts?

Todd, despite what the numbers are, your numbers look good to me. 283.6 RWTQ is great. The HP will catch up, it is important, but it's the TQ that moves the car quicker. What we may have paid, and how we measure it aside, the "package" is worth the investment. There is nothing else you can do to the MM this cheaply, and get so much in performance results. Nice numbers, better seat of the pants.

PS. added after post;

Didn't see your add on about the gears. IMHO, the gear ratio has very little to do with development of HP, it only affects delivery of TQ to the ground. If you unstrapped the car for mods between tests, your "lab" consistency is lost. That is one of the negative side affects of the eddy-current style, no replication of static conditions. Still good numbers though, I'd keep 'em.

[TAF]

Frankly, my numbers (Dyno-sheets) are filed away in my MM collection of "stuff"(that ALL of us seem to have which will make mine NOT as unique as I thought)...they are NOT taped to the side window. But...when someone drives her...they sure can feel her...

Money well-spent.

[Macon Marauder]

Not trying to dog Todd or anyone else that has modified their Marauder. I was just expecting more from the chip. If the gears, etc. have a negative affect on the numbers, then OK. I admit that I don't know enough to say whether or not that makes sense. It's alot more complicated now than when I was playing with this stuff as a kid.

I'm probably in the minority here, so flame away! I don't think the Marauder needs anything "down low." I don't want to burn rubber or break 6 seconds in 0-60. My car will probably never be on a drag strip. So 4.10 gears don't appeal to me. This car is already so fast that it scares most people that ride in or drive it.

I'm more interested in performance across the board. Getting the most in the widest power band. I'd like to keep mine fairly stock. There's always a trade-off. What's the top speed of a "chipped" Marauder? Chipped with 4.10's installed?

I'm reminded of something that happened to me nearly 15 years ago. Some kind of factory hot rod VW sedan challenged my TBird Turbo Coupe to a race. Car and Driver had said the Bird topped out at 142. The speedo was only marked to 85, but it would get there quick and keep twisting the needle.

Anyway, I was shocked! We were practically in a dead heat for what seemed like miles on the interstate. Somewhere near "speedometer needle straight down" I started pulling away. Victory!

With a lower gear I could have gotten the jump on the guy, but he would gone screaming past me at about 135 (I reckon.)

So, that's my long-winded way of saying I had high hopes for the chip upgrade. Now, I'm not so sure...

[martyo]

Guys: I just picked up my MM last week. I just got off the phone with Dennis. He is setting me up with the package. I have not been able to find a dealer in the NY area to help with the gears, so I called a Mustang shop in Long Island (Mustang Magic) that set up my friend's Mustang. They have a dyno there and I will ask to have pulls done "before" and "after" the mods. I have very little familiarity with dynos. Are there questions I should be asking to ensure that we (I) have the most valuable information to share with you guys?

Please let me know. Thanks.

[MAD-3R]

I think part of the chip upgrade is to firm up the shift and to stop the annoying "hunt" for the gears. THats the main thing I'd be after.

[TAF]

I'm not going to flame you, nor do I take offense to your position. I can tell you though...

1) my car will probably never see a strip, as well
2) my feeling is Mercury had to make some "concessions" near the launch of the Marauder that has caused most of the negative press for it not being a "true, muscle car" in the REAL delivery of both crank and RW HP & TQ. This can be for Cafe or whatever reason. I think a compromise was made to be able to just claim of over 300HP at launch.
3) I can tell you that with Dennis' package, the car drives as (I feel) it should have out of the factory
4) I can attest to the top-end of the speedo being accurate with ALL the mods in place
5) The firmer shiftpoints from Dennis' chip ACTUALLY make the car MORE driveable around town as well as in that 40-80 range that you would normally use on an Interstate.

And last, but certainly not least...an offer from me...come to our breakfast this Saturday a.m. I'd like the opportunity to meet you and throw you my keys for a spin. I can tell you, "once you've had (real) black...you won't want to go back" - I didn't just say that did I?

[Macon Marauder]

Todd,

LMAO!

I'd love to meet you, Wayne and the rest and take you up on the offer. Sadly, my lovely, supportive, long-suffering, and understanding wife and I have a previously scheduled Valentine's weekend planned.

We may just have to come up to HotLanta for one of them there fancy breakfasts...

[jefferson-mo]

Back to the dyno numbers............the one on Blue Oval News is my car(it links you to dynoperformance.com) but the numbers chart(not the graph) is incorrect and Dean promises he'll change it tonight:coolman:

[TAF]

Macon - can't promise you fancy...but you can't beat an Uncle Hershals from the Cracker Barrel (No "cracker" jokes RF!!!)

And Jeff-Mo - you say those are your numbers on the properformance.com? Is that the site that claims the 60 HP gain from a Diablo chip? If not, sorry for the confusion...If so, I am REALLY interested in how a chip can gain 60 HP. Can you tell us more about it?

Thanks,

[TAF]

I stand corrected...it's www.pdqperformance.com that has the 60 HP gain...

Aren't we still waiting on more details from that one?

[SergntMac]

Originally posted by toddalanfisher
I stand corrected...it's www.pdqperformance.com that has the 60 HP gain...

Aren't we still waiting on more details from that one?

Don't know if we are waiting for anything or not, Todd, seems that boast, as I read it, was some diesel truck upgrade they did. Considering that our MMs are already fairly well tuned from the factory, I think we're seeing exactly what these low level mods will produce, which is, as you have mentioned, where the car should have been at delivery. And well worth it too.

No need to further crunch numbers or dis dynos, the mods are worth the results and expense. The MM is fairly well developed as is, it was built with power and performanced unmatched by any other car in it's class today. Had a chip boosted my number to that degree, I would have been more disappointed with the car, than impressed with the chip.

The next step, if anyone cares to go on, is a more efficient torque converter, and they are available. Should anyone take that step, I would expect likewise impressive performance for that money as well.

[jefferson-mo]

Isn't that what mensrea has?????


:rasta:

[TAF]

Spoke with Dennis today about a torque converter...."interesting...very interesting"

I'm with you Sarge.

[SergntMac]

You said you wanted something different from others, yes? Quite tempting, and the driveshaft is a must for this mod, no argument.

Did he say if any other components are needed along with the TC?

[TAF]

No...but I didn't ask specifically either. Says there is already a guy (Mid-Atlantic) that has it on his Marauder. Don't know if he's a member here or not...Hey!....if you're out there....we'd love to hear from you.....


think that will work?

[RF Overlord]

Originally posted by toddalanfisher
Macon - can't promise you fancy...but you can't beat an Uncle Hershals from the Cracker Barrel (No "cracker" jokes RF!!!)


I wasn't gonna say anything...honest... :rolleyes:

Just be sure he tries grits, black-eyed peas, and hush puppies...and some pecan pie for dessert!

Garontee!!

:lol:

[TAF]

I'm interested but curious about the "day-to-day" drivability. Would really like the opprtunity to drive one. What are your thoughts about any "cons" to the potential "pros".

And RF...you think you're making fun...but to boys like me...that just makes me hungry!!!

[gonzo50]

I'm very satisfied with the replies and the power gains stated.
I'm convienced that the total package that Dennis has is worth every penny. Thanks again SergntMac. :D

[merc406]

You all may do better with alittle 100shot of Nos..........

[Reaper948]

Originally posted by SergntMac
Could be Todd, an eddy-current dyno is known to be inconsistent in reproducing final tallies, and it invites a lot of "un-thought of" factors into the measurement, such as tire inflation, actual weight of car, strap down stretching and so on. Still not a bad place to start, I'll use them as my base "factory" power stats.

Sarge.....How much HP would be at the Flywheel?

To many people "At the wheels" usually doesn't mean a lot....I know that what's advertised is usually 20% less at the wheels....

But you know.....it sounds better when u have bigger numbers.......not like you're lying..I have 340 horse.....(at the flywheel).....ur just not saying where the power is :)

[Reaper948]

Originally posted by stanleyk
Guys: I just picked up my MM last week. I just got off the phone with Dennis. He is setting me up with the package. I have not been able to find a dealer in the NY area to help with the gears, so I called a Mustang shop in Long Island (Mustang Magic) that set up my friend's Mustang. They have a dyno there and I will ask to have pulls done "before" and "after" the mods. I have very little familiarity with dynos. Are there questions I should be asking to ensure that we (I) have the most valuable information to share with you guys?

Please let me know. Thanks.

StanleyK.....
WHere exactly is this place in Long Island?...Im not really finding anything in North Jersey...So ill try there

[Reaper948]

ALSO....sorry for the third one in a row.......

SARGE....... Do you really think our 0-60 times were 7.5 seconds to begin with as everyone says?.......I would think our car would sprint to that in about upper mid sixes...... That's what I'm doing around here with a stopwatch.... How many miles did you have on the car when you put the mods on?.......

To be honest with you I think our car has a potential to do better as time passes..I will do the mods this summer.....Maybe the extra mileage will be better?....

[SergntMac]

Originally posted by Reaper948
Sarge.....How much HP would be at the Flywheel? To many people "At the wheels" usually doesn't mean a lot....I know that what's advertised is usually 20% less at the wheels....But you know.....it sounds better when u have bigger numbers.......not like you're lying..I have 340 horse.....(at the flywheel).....ur just not saying where the power is :)

Whether one prefers flywheel ratings over rear wheel rating is a matter of personal opinion. I lean towards rear wheel numbers, because they are easier to measure once the car is built. The numbers will be lower than advertised, but they are more honest in reporting how well your chosen mods are performing. The MM was advertised as producing 302 HP and 318 ftlb TQ at the flywheel. The drivetrain will absorb, or cause a loss of, 20 to 25% of that power by the time it reaches the rear weeels. Rear wheels is where the "wheel" story is told.

I didn't measure my MMs perfromance before adding mods, but the Dyno Shop's test that opens this thread measures an apparently bone stock MM. I think the numbers The Dyno Shjop produced are a good place to start when measuring your RWHP and RWTQ after mods.

This 340 HP you mention having, Reap, just a figure of speech in the sentence, yes?

[SergntMac]

Originally posted by Reaper948
ALSO....sorry for the third one in a row.......SARGE....... Do you really think our 0-60 times were 7.5 seconds to begin with as everyone says?.......I would think our car would sprint to that in about upper mid sixes...... That's what I'm doing around here with a stopwatch.... How many miles did you have on the car when you put the mods on?.......
To be honest with you I think our car has a potential to do better as time passes..I will do the mods this summer.....Maybe the extra mileage will be better?....

Yes, Reap, I think the factory boast of 7.5 is reasonably accurate for a bone stock MM. The Reinhart package makes many improvements, and mostly in the lower end. I've got my MM down to 0-60MPH 6.03, and that is a direct result of a taller gear and chip programming. I expect it to only get better from here on in. Remember that this package is rather a light weight program, more a fine tune to the base product, than a major re-think of the whole car, as some mods require or lead to. Fantastic performance for just under 1000. on average.

[mensrea]

Sarge, I know you have been asked this before, but the 6 sec 0-60 was on the dyno, not at the track, correct?

[SergntMac]

My Lady hasn't seen a track yet, and the 0-60 time I list in my sig is an average of numbers taken in 8 dyno pulls, five on an eddy-current(friction loaded) machine, and three on a Dynapack 5000. The only factor I've removed from this testing, is my reaction time to the clock. On any dyno, the clock starts when I say go. The car proves it's 6.03, and is clearly capable of better.

[merc406]

Maybe this site will help show what hp is neededprestage.com/carmath/calc_HPforMPH.asp :coolman:

[merc406]

Other calculations are available on above site, very useful but are estimate's at best.

[mensrea]

I was trying to figure out if the 6 seconds was in real world driving or strapped to a drum.... interesting to see what it would do on the street.

[Reaper948]

Originally posted by mensrea
I was trying to figure out if the 6 seconds was in real world driving or strapped to a drum.... interesting to see what it would do on the street.

Hahaha I wanna know what YOUR 0-60 time is Mensrea.......:D

[mensrea]

Well if it doesn't beat 5.2 do you think I'd post it here???? Seriously, I have no idea what this thing will run, but I bet it's faster than a Sable (unless there is snow, rain, salt, etc..... :) )

[Reaper948]

Originally posted by mensrea
Well if it doesn't beat 5.2 do you think I'd post it here???? Seriously, I have no idea what this thing will run, but I bet it's faster than a Sable (unless there is snow, rain, salt, etc..... :) )

We'll say its a nice day.....maybe 67 degrees......

460 HP at the wheels baby, how much is that at the flywheel?

Im sorry but thats NUTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!: D

[mensrea]

Godddddddddddddd think of it! Who's got 460 ??????

[Reaper948]

Originally posted by mensrea
Godddddddddddddd think of it! Who's got 460 ??????

Hmmmmmmmm Dont know, you're in your own class....I mean a S600 or a S55 AMG (mercedes) has about 493....for 120 grand...........But thats an AWESOME number..... German Engineering, Japanese Precision.....

NO, AMERICAN MUSCLE BABY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!

Lemme do these flywheel calculation.......20% off of the flywheel equals the rear wheel.....that makes about 575 horsepower at the flywheel...................... ......Daaaaaaaaamn, yo!

[mensrea]

I meant who has 460.... my car isn't quite there without the Nitrous shot

[Reaper948]

Dude.....nitrous input would mean u would turn fully into the race car

so gut the leather seats, the radio the bla bla blabla

Come on man, This car's a sleeper and half.... U sure you want NOS?!

[joflewbyu2]

mercury claims mid 6 seconds to 60 mph and high 14s at 95 mph for the 03 MM. got it in writing from their intro pack for the salesman's ride and drive presentation.

[merc406]

Originally posted by mensrea
Go
dddddddddddddd think of it! Who's got 460 ??????


I Do................

[Mike M]

Nitrous is probably the least invassive method when compared to turbo or supercharging. Cost is about $6-700.00 compared to $4000.00 and up. Also your talking about 1-2 hours to install nitrous compared to 6-10 hours for turbos or superchargers. Also the NOS is not active unless you press a button where as the turbos and superchargers always are active to some degree even at idle they still spin.
I have experience with all 3 and all 3 are great but NOS is the most passive.
By the way my 68 Pro Street Camaro was dynoed at 748 HP at the flywheel all motor, no power adders. 548 big block chevy.
Will be happy to post a pictures and dyno sheet.

[Mike M]

Oh yea I'm also an original owner of a 87 Buick T-type (white) that has a chip and sticky street tires that just went 12.87 at 102mph. The car is ALL stock except for chip and tires.

[Reaper948]

Well isnt nitro only for a heavily built-on engine?.....cant you only turn it on at a certain speed.......

Sorry for my ignorance but i know nothing about the stuff

For me I think Nitrous shouldnt be used in competition..I think (no offense) its a crutch for lack of performance.....I mean come on...YOu automatically get an extra 200 horsepower just from a button? I mean, Its not like you did all the work, or anything yourself.......ur just strapping gas to your trunk and pressing a button...

Anybody else feel the same way?

[Billatpro]

Yep, I've never liked nitrous! Now NITRO that's another matter!

[LincMercLover]

I'll :beer: to that!

[Reaper948]

So whats NITRO?

[LincMercLover]

Really REALLY REALLY high octane gas...

Familiar with top fuel dragsters?

Or maybe Nittro RC cars?

[Marauderman]

LML--
Sure glad you clarified that --in case someone was thinking....
clycerin---:flamer: :lol:

[Billatpro]

Or Top Fuel Funny Cars! can you say "7000 HP"?