Muzzy full system.
This is a discussion on Muzzy full system. within the Can-am Maverick Accessories forums, part of the Can-am Maverick Forum category; 1) the Dyno(s) used was dynojet
2) with muzzy and their fuel programmer (junk) the car made 59 hp but lost 8 pounds of torque ...
1) the Dyno(s) used was dynojet
2) with muzzy and their fuel programmer (junk) the car made 59 hp but lost 8 pounds of torque and the clutch had to be lighten...the stock commander out ran it
3) switch to the Pc5, added a weller intake, larger TB, and the peak hp was up to 65 hp on the same dyno...Torque gain was +2 still down from stock
4) my pure stock commander had 60 hp and 4 lbs more torque
5) In a race side by side on the street the stocker and the muzzy commander were identical...in otherwise I had to add a weller intake, bigger TB, re-tune my clutch and pc5 just to accelerate as fast as pure stock commander
The stock exhaust on the Maverick is pretty good and if I'm going to be convinced that 1000.00 aftermarket exhaust is better I will need to see more than dyno numbers but an actual race that shows the muzzy Maverick beating a stock maverick. I know that BRP did a great job on the stock exhaust on the commander. After having one of the best engine builders look at the Maverick the exhaust system on it is even better than the commander and getting significant power from the exhaust is going to be tough.
Last edited by usaguy; 02-02-2013 at 07:09 PM.
There's plenty of room for improvement on the Maverick exhaust. I'll have better info. next week.
Originally Posted by usaguy
Your results on the Commander, while not equal to ours, did bring to light some important points. With any aftermarket performance exhaust, a properly adjusted fuel tuner is critical. Likewise, adjustment of the stock clutch is sometimes necessary as well. This makes sense given the increase in power that is typical of a Muzzy exhaust system.
The Muzzy fuel programmer (Digi-Tune) is a very effective tool for adjusting the Air/fuel ratio. To say that it is "junk" tells me that you either didn't understand how to adjust it or didn't care to learn. The PC5 is also a very capable tuner. Both have pluses and minuses. In the end, it's really a matter of preference. If you want to go the more traditional cell based tuning method and create a "map" for your configuration, then the PC5 is the way to go. If you want a fast "injector load" based tuner that doesn't need a computer and allows simple "adjustment on the fly", then check out the Muzzy Digi-Tune. Muzzys offers both.
Arent the stock maverick head pipes double walled for heat retention purposes? If so, does the Muzzy have double walled pipes or some kind of shield to keep the heat down?
All I want is "PROOF". Stock vs Muzzy Maverick running against one another. BTW if I spend 1000.00 dollars on a muzzy exhaust and I need fuel but I can only get the fuel good on the bottow and mid with poor results on the top or vice verse then why would I want the Digi-tune as my programmer even though it is simple and it doesn't need a computer? The PC5 is so much better than the digi-tune that I took mine off and never could sale it cause everyone ask why and I had to tell them the truth. The "junk" comment came from 2 different shops that tried to get it work just right and I still thing it is in my "junk" box in the garage.
Originally Posted by mmacneill
Originally Posted by usaguy
Can you post the actual print out of the results? It would hold some credibility to the results you posted above. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying your numbers are BS because I have done what you did with my commander and I agree with what you posted. I am simply saying if you posted the actual graph from the dyno it would be nice to look at and maybe help fine tune the Mav.
BTW, I had some pretty good results with the Muzzy setup with the Digitune on my Rhino. Of course that was after I added the K&N Airbox and a bored TB.
I had great results with my rhino but only after I went big bore motor. On a pure stock setup it made noise only. I have my commander at a builder right now who is building a set of headers for the muzzy system on my car and he told me exactly why the setup loss power. I cant post or explain the config yet but I will when he is done. The setup will be on the car president day weekend if anyone wants to see the real world results.
Originally Posted by mojosxs
I promised results and here they are:
Muzzy PRO Maverick Exhaust - 11% gain.
Seat of the pants difference is incredible.
Sound is awesome, deep, throaty, but very tolerable. (Sound testing to be completed tomorrow)
i would like to see a dyno graph of the difference, and a video of the runs please.
i also have put commanders on the dyno before and after exhausts swaps, and the full muzzy on a commander lost ALOT of torque. i hope it does not do that on the mav because if so, your sales will hurt. muzzy has a good name at putting out good products, because the vast majority of the stuff muzzy puts out is mad sexy, and makes good power. the problem with the commander exhaust is that while it looked mad sexty, it lost power, and folks didn't wanna buy it, which has the maverick owners skeptical. muzzy will need to put up dyno graphs before and after along with videos of improvements and side by side comparisons. 11% gain where? at 4300RPM or at 8100RPM? an 11% gain at 8100RPM where the motor is while you are accelerating means you went from 101hp to almost 113hp which should relate to at LEAST 2 car lengths in a 300ft race. 12 more horses is HUGE if its a useable power. if it gained 11% power at 4000RPM then its unusable and useless to market it as an 11% gain.
so about a 11hp gain ?
Originally Posted by mmacneill
04. Jeep Wrangler Unlimited LJ , Locked & Loaded !
99. 1100 JetSki
2013 maverick xrs
2007 rhino se
Originally Posted by ///AIRDAM
The gains posted are always in the usable RPM range.
Search tags for this page
can am maverick muzzy
can am maverick muzzy exhaust
can am maverick programmer
muzzy exhaust can am maverick
muzzy full exhaust can am maverick
Click on a term to search for related topics.