Dyno Results :: Baseline and Without Charcoal :: 2010 C63 P31
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Bellevue, WA
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
'10 C63 AMG P31, '88 Porsche 911 Carrera Coupe, '78 Toyota FJ40, '10 Audi Q7 TDi
Dyno Results :: Baseline and Without Charcoal :: 2010 C63 P31
My Car:
"Alejandro" - 2010 C63 AMG P31 w/ 3,600 Miles running 92 Octane (Shell)
My purchase thread.
Context:
July 17, 2010
I wanted to get a baseline on my P31 using the same dyno that many others in our region were using. Both to provide me with a baseline and to see just what the P31 provides compared to other tunes.
I decided yesterday that I had time to do it today and I had read on the forums that Even Money was already planning on being there; having someone to coach me given I'd never done it before would be great!
Conditions:
Temp: 73-78 Degrees F
Barometer: 30.10 in-Hg
Humidity: 34-40%
Elevation: 200-ft
Dyno:
Carburator Connection Kirkland, WA
Dynojet Model 424xLC2
All pulls (except one) done in 4th gear w/ SAE Correction Factor & Smoothing 5 on the same day, on the same dyno.
Results:
Baseline (no mods) (Before pulls)
428.09 RWHP / 377.90 RWTQ
426.61 RWHP / 381.90 RWTQ
423.60 RWHP / 389.06 RWTQ 5th Gear
Average for 3 runs = 425.35 RWHP / 381.97 RWTQ
Baseline + Charcoal Filters Removed (After pulls):
422.75 RWHP / 381.75 RWTQ
420.38 RWHP / 381.30 RWTQ
418.91 RWHP / 380.55 RWTQ
Average for 3 runs = 420.56 RWHP / 380.63 RWTQ
Gains:
Power / Torque vs. Same Day Baseline
Using average: -4.79 (-1%) RWHP / -2.33 (0%) RWTQ
Using max: -4.53 (-1%) RWHP / -6.43 (-2%) RWTQ
Conclusion:
Using the typically accepted 18% loss @ the drive train it appears my car is putting out just over 500HP / 450ft-lbs at the crank. Well in excess of the factory rating of 481HP / 442ft-lbs. I'm not complaining.
It appears the P31 tune + lighter crank, rods, & pistons provide roughly similar performance gains to a standard C63 with a Kleemann K1 tune (See @superlubricity's thread here).
On this day, for some unexplicable reason, removing the Charcoal filters caused a ~%1 LOSS in horsepower / torque. I won't lose any sleep over it and will keep them removed.
4th vs. 5th gear appears to have little or no effect except that on my stock P31 the speed limiter cut in at 174MPH which was at about 6700RPM cutting the run short of redline.
Running in 5th gear was a hell of a lot more fun though. First, you get to stand on the accelerator much longer and second, it's wicked cool watching the speedometer hit 175!
I really wished I would had grabbed my phone and video recorded the runs! Next time...
Thanks Will, for helping me out!
And thanks to @superlubricity for setting the standard on how to post results like this :-).
Graph/photos
My last 3 baseline runs (including the one we ran in 5th gear):
![](http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4094/4803081702_c389c94004_b_d.jpg)
My last 3 runs after we removed the charcoal filters:
![](http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4141/4802451271_fb50885d60_b_d.jpg)
A graph showing the best baseline compared to the best run without the charcoal filters:
![](http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4121/4802451711_8ae68e86fe_b_d.jpg)
Lastly a shot of Easy Money's '09 next to my car. Crappy mobile phone picture...
"Alejandro" - 2010 C63 AMG P31 w/ 3,600 Miles running 92 Octane (Shell)
My purchase thread.
Context:
July 17, 2010
I wanted to get a baseline on my P31 using the same dyno that many others in our region were using. Both to provide me with a baseline and to see just what the P31 provides compared to other tunes.
I decided yesterday that I had time to do it today and I had read on the forums that Even Money was already planning on being there; having someone to coach me given I'd never done it before would be great!
Conditions:
Temp: 73-78 Degrees F
Barometer: 30.10 in-Hg
Humidity: 34-40%
Elevation: 200-ft
Dyno:
Carburator Connection Kirkland, WA
Dynojet Model 424xLC2
All pulls (except one) done in 4th gear w/ SAE Correction Factor & Smoothing 5 on the same day, on the same dyno.
Results:
Baseline (no mods) (Before pulls)
428.09 RWHP / 377.90 RWTQ
426.61 RWHP / 381.90 RWTQ
423.60 RWHP / 389.06 RWTQ 5th Gear
Average for 3 runs = 425.35 RWHP / 381.97 RWTQ
Baseline + Charcoal Filters Removed (After pulls):
422.75 RWHP / 381.75 RWTQ
420.38 RWHP / 381.30 RWTQ
418.91 RWHP / 380.55 RWTQ
Average for 3 runs = 420.56 RWHP / 380.63 RWTQ
Gains:
Power / Torque vs. Same Day Baseline
Using average: -4.79 (-1%) RWHP / -2.33 (0%) RWTQ
Using max: -4.53 (-1%) RWHP / -6.43 (-2%) RWTQ
Conclusion:
Using the typically accepted 18% loss @ the drive train it appears my car is putting out just over 500HP / 450ft-lbs at the crank. Well in excess of the factory rating of 481HP / 442ft-lbs. I'm not complaining.
It appears the P31 tune + lighter crank, rods, & pistons provide roughly similar performance gains to a standard C63 with a Kleemann K1 tune (See @superlubricity's thread here).
On this day, for some unexplicable reason, removing the Charcoal filters caused a ~%1 LOSS in horsepower / torque. I won't lose any sleep over it and will keep them removed.
4th vs. 5th gear appears to have little or no effect except that on my stock P31 the speed limiter cut in at 174MPH which was at about 6700RPM cutting the run short of redline.
Running in 5th gear was a hell of a lot more fun though. First, you get to stand on the accelerator much longer and second, it's wicked cool watching the speedometer hit 175!
I really wished I would had grabbed my phone and video recorded the runs! Next time...
Thanks Will, for helping me out!
And thanks to @superlubricity for setting the standard on how to post results like this :-).
Graph/photos
My last 3 baseline runs (including the one we ran in 5th gear):
![](http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4094/4803081702_c389c94004_b_d.jpg)
My last 3 runs after we removed the charcoal filters:
![](http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4141/4802451271_fb50885d60_b_d.jpg)
A graph showing the best baseline compared to the best run without the charcoal filters:
![](http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4121/4802451711_8ae68e86fe_b_d.jpg)
Lastly a shot of Easy Money's '09 next to my car. Crappy mobile phone picture...
![](http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4114/4802474375_37781dd611_b_d.jpg)
#3
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thanks for the post, looks like MB just changed the tune to those of their upper class models plus the upgraded internals. Also the torque figure is much more in line with what every tuned C63 is putting down unlike that other p31. Thanks also for an end to the charcoal debate temporarily. It does nothing in or out worth noting.
#4
MBWorld Fanatic!
Wow....that is even a few more HP than my K1.
Of course, different conditions. Is the P31 internals lighter? It would be great to be able to flash to a factory tune.
I wish you read my bumper plug DIY thread first: https://mbworld.org/forums/c-class-w...-plug-diy.html
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
I wish you read my bumper plug DIY thread first: https://mbworld.org/forums/c-class-w...-plug-diy.html
![](https://mbworld.org/forums/attachments/c63-amg-w204/162798d1249421439-dealer-drilled-holes-my-new-car-plug-1.jpg)
Last edited by Sincity; 07-17-2010 at 06:29 PM.
#6
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,513
Received 433 Likes
on
356 Posts
2012 C63;1971 280SE 3.5(Sold);2023 EQS 450 SUV 4 Matic (Wife's)
cek - Congrats those are great numbers. I'll bet you are very happy with them. The P31 package appears to be stronger than advertised, which is a nice bonus. Maybe the factory rating is on a load bearing dyno or they are just being conservative for some reason. Either way the results are very strong.
Thanks for posting the data. I for one sure appreciate it.![Big Grin](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
Hope you had a great time!
Thanks for posting the data. I for one sure appreciate it.
![Big Grin](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
Hope you had a great time!
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
#7
MBWorld Fanatic!
2010 C63 P31
Good to see you again Charlie! When I can figure out signing up for youtube, I'll post a video, for some reason my gmail login is causing problems.
The car ran really strong on all the pulls....Based on this the P31 is a bargain! It's certainly higher than 481 at the crank.
A couple of notes from today:
1. This dyno is consistent and accurate. I've been there twice and seen multiple runs. My car, '09 with K1 today ran a 406 whp/370 tq which was nearly identical to what I ran a few months back. The only diff was today I had drag radials and last time I had winter tires..go figure...
2. I'll send you all my files super..
3. The dyno operator changed the orientation of my intake tubes after the first run so that they were more vertical and thus could get more air from the fans....this netted 20 whp!
4. I'm going to get a K1 reflash. I think this might get me more on par with other folks who had K1 tunes. Reason? I compared my runs with folks who are getting about 425 whp and my hp/tq curves are virtually the same until about 4,000 rpm...where mine start to shallow out for some reason.
5. 4th gear and 5th gear pulls were virtually the same...except I got to see 180 on the speedo![EEK!](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/eek.gif)
All in all it was good to see the P31 run so well....maybe I'll have to trade mine in!
The car ran really strong on all the pulls....Based on this the P31 is a bargain! It's certainly higher than 481 at the crank.
A couple of notes from today:
1. This dyno is consistent and accurate. I've been there twice and seen multiple runs. My car, '09 with K1 today ran a 406 whp/370 tq which was nearly identical to what I ran a few months back. The only diff was today I had drag radials and last time I had winter tires..go figure...
2. I'll send you all my files super..
3. The dyno operator changed the orientation of my intake tubes after the first run so that they were more vertical and thus could get more air from the fans....this netted 20 whp!
4. I'm going to get a K1 reflash. I think this might get me more on par with other folks who had K1 tunes. Reason? I compared my runs with folks who are getting about 425 whp and my hp/tq curves are virtually the same until about 4,000 rpm...where mine start to shallow out for some reason.
5. 4th gear and 5th gear pulls were virtually the same...except I got to see 180 on the speedo
![EEK!](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/eek.gif)
All in all it was good to see the P31 run so well....maybe I'll have to trade mine in!
Trending Topics
#10
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
2013 Chevy 427 Torch Red
Does the P31 package include lighter two piece rotors? Looks like this package may be more than MB is advertising, to bad the car mag comparisons haven't seemed to notice. Might knock down their beloved M3 from its best car in the world status.
#12
Newbie
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: in the woods
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10 C63 P31, Kubota L 4330 etc.
Thanks for such a detailed description, I think your results are more accurate than the data we got from our P31 dyno (P31 DYNO post). HP is relatively consistent between yours and ours, so around 420 - 425 RWHP is probably accurate for P31.
#13
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,021
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'14 911S (garage queen) '13 X3 (family hauler)
awesome post--about time we get some solid P31 results.
Makes me feel a little better about signing over that big check next month when mine comes in
Makes me feel a little better about signing over that big check next month when mine comes in
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
#14
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Bellevue, WA
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
'10 C63 AMG P31, '88 Porsche 911 Carrera Coupe, '78 Toyota FJ40, '10 Audi Q7 TDi
"AMG high-performance braking system with compound front rotors:
14.2-inch compound construction brake rotors with 6—piston fixed caliper
at front axle, perforated and internally ventilated for optimum weight
and enhanced fatigue strength."
14.2-inch compound construction brake rotors with 6—piston fixed caliper
at front axle, perforated and internally ventilated for optimum weight
and enhanced fatigue strength."
I do not know how these differ from the brakes that come on the standard C63. I have been unable to find any additional specs beyond the above and would appreciate it if someone could point at some.
#15
Super Moderator Alumni
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 2,189
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
4 Posts
2011 GLK 350, 2013 GT-R, & 2013 RAM 1500
The brakes in the P31 package are described thusly:
I do not know how these differ from the brakes that come on the standard C63. I have been unable to find any additional specs beyond the above and would appreciate it if someone could point at some.
"AMG high-performance braking system with compound front rotors:
14.2-inch compound construction brake rotors with 6—piston fixed caliper
at front axle, perforated and internally ventilated for optimum weight
and enhanced fatigue strength."
14.2-inch compound construction brake rotors with 6—piston fixed caliper
at front axle, perforated and internally ventilated for optimum weight
and enhanced fatigue strength."
I do not know how these differ from the brakes that come on the standard C63. I have been unable to find any additional specs beyond the above and would appreciate it if someone could point at some.
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
#16
Good to see you again Charlie! When I can figure out signing up for youtube, I'll post a video, for some reason my gmail login is causing problems. The car ran really strong on all the pulls....Based on this the P31 is a bargain! It's certainly higher than 481 at the crank. A couple of notes from today: 1. This dyno is consistent and accurate. I've been there twice and seen multiple runs. My car, '09 with K1 today ran a 406 whp/370 tq which was nearly identical to what I ran a few months back. The only diff was today I had drag radials and last time I had winter tires..go figure... 2. I'll send you all my files super.. 3. The dyno operator changed the orientation of my intake tubes after the first run so that they were more vertical and thus could get more air from the fans....this netted 20 whp! All in all it was good to see the P31 run so well....maybe I'll have to trade mine in!
#18
MBWorld Fanatic!
I do not think the filter removal caused any loss. Had you kept em in you would notice a bigger decrease in hp as you IAT's were likely higher after the first round of pulls. No fan will ever get the car back fast enough.
I am impressed with this P31 , I would expect some stellar 1/4 mile times coming soon..:-)
I am impressed with this P31 , I would expect some stellar 1/4 mile times coming soon..:-)
#19
cek - Congrats those are great numbers. I'll bet you are very happy with them. The P31 package appears to be stronger than advertised, which is a nice bonus. Maybe the factory rating is on a load bearing dyno or they are just being conservative for some reason. Either way the results are very strong.
Thanks for posting the data. I for one sure appreciate it.![Big Grin](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
Hope you had a great time!![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
Thanks for posting the data. I for one sure appreciate it.
![Big Grin](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
Hope you had a great time!
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
#20
Based on the one photo I've seen of the P31 rotors I expect them to be a little lighter than the P30 rotors...the P31 appears to be two-piece but no longer floating...I don't see any assembly clips/buttons on the P31 rotors. It's missing that great "technical" look of a floating rotor IMO. I need to see it in person though to be sure.
#21
MBWorld Fanatic!
I didn't do a stock baseline on this dyno. I ran 386 then the dyno operator realized my inlet tubes were probably not getting enough flow due to their horizontal orientation in relation to the dyno fans. Once I get the video posted, you'll see that if you remove then replace the inlet tubes in an almost vertical postition, they're able to capture much more air. After I did that, I was making about 406. Cek went after me, so his inlets were properly oriented from the start.
#23
Super Moderator Alumni
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 2,189
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
4 Posts
2011 GLK 350, 2013 GT-R, & 2013 RAM 1500
I didn't do a stock baseline on this dyno. I ran 386 then the dyno operator realized my inlet tubes were probably not getting enough flow due to their horizontal orientation in relation to the dyno fans. Once I get the video posted, you'll see that if you remove then replace the inlet tubes in an almost vertical postition, they're able to capture much more air.
This is how all of my previous dynos (59 of 'em
![EEK!](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/eek.gif)
I agree you should call up James and see about getting a K1 reflash. Something doesn't seem right with your output.
#24
I didn't do a stock baseline on this dyno. I ran 386 then the dyno operator realized my inlet tubes were probably not getting enough flow due to their horizontal orientation in relation to the dyno fans. Once I get the video posted, you'll see that if you remove then replace the inlet tubes in an almost vertical postition, they're able to capture much more air. After I did that, I was making about 406. Cek went after me, so his inlets were properly oriented from the start.
#25
There is no more air to capture. As long as you've got good/strong fans running (which they do at CarbConn) and you leave them in the stock location you'll get the right results. There is no need to make them look like snorkels.
This is how all of my previous dynos (59 of 'em
) were done at CarbConn; same for avb, nrgy, cek, etc.
I agree you should call up James and see about getting a K1 reflash. Something doesn't seem right with your output.
This is how all of my previous dynos (59 of 'em
![EEK!](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/eek.gif)
I agree you should call up James and see about getting a K1 reflash. Something doesn't seem right with your output.