When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Okay...for better or for worse...here's the charts...
The first is just my car on 91octane, at 3,500ft altitude, and 24c (75f) running pretty cool. I'm only a little ways from the shop and the car sat for about an hour prior to going up on the dyno.
2013 MB C300 w/ Kleemann tuned ECU
While the numbers look stupid low to my un-dyno-educated mind...
Here is a comparison to a stock 2012 Subaru WRX STI...
Tuned ECU vs stock 2012 Subaru WRX STI
My understanding...and I'm still learning here...is that I'm naturally aspirated...aka...not breathing assisted. The Subaru is forced air...they get air shoved in. NA cars are at a disadvantage...and fall off the power faster than a turbo charged car when at altitude.
Also, research shows that Dyno Dynamics habitually rate lower (avg 15% or so) than other dynos...
So the fact that I'm only 8.7whp at the wheels off from a turbocharged 305bhp car...I'm actually pretty damned happy.
When I get a chance tonight, I'll go out and find a lonely road and record some 0-100kph times...
...and maybe show my tail lights to a couple S4's...hehe...
I did some quick googling for a dyno correction calculator and found one (http://www.bigdynodatabase.com/DynoCF.php). I put in your numbers and the correction for 3500ft altitude (26.3 inHg as opposed to 29.92 for sea level) and the corrected value came out to about 246 HP.
If you then multiply by 1.12 to account for drive line loss you get 275 HP.
If it is true that Dyno Dynamics habitually rate 15% lower than other dynos; multiply again by 1.15 and you get about 317 HP.
Needless to say, I am very interested in seeing your further dyno results on July 29th.
BTW, I have been stalking this thread for almost two years so it is nice to finally see some numbers coming in.
Thanks for the confirmation Laredo! Much appreciated!!
I have had almost no time at all since I left the shop last night to actually dig in get it all sorted. I only had the comparison to the STI to make me feel better...lol
I've been humming and hawing on this one for the past year and a bit. Kept meaning to get it done and then getting distracted with something else. Finally saw that Scuba didn't post his numbers and was inspired by Hellbent's song...LoL...
I have to say that all the things stated about Kleemann USA are true to nth degree. Cory was awesome with his patience for a relative newbie and provided great explanations for my questions.
When he didn't receive the ECU last Tuesday, he contacted me to make sure all was on the up and up. It obviously wasn't thanks to FedEx, but he kept in contact throughout the week to make sure they were ready for when it would finally show.
When they opened this past Monday, they received it around 09:45...and notified FedEx that it was ready to go by 11:45...Super fast turn around!
I got the ECU back yesterday with no issue. Got home and made my gf chuckle by not even changing out of my suit to go plug it in and try it out. Plugged in, replaced a couple ties to secure the cable that runs by the unit and cranked it up without even a little hitch.
I am truly baffled how no one has gotten even close to the hp claims. Even putting dyno types, drivetrain loss, no vehicle is created equal, etc there's been tons of examples in the E46M world to know what stock power is give or take and then tuning. No way our vehicles vary that much from rated hp no matter the dyno.
I did some quick googling for a dyno correction calculator and found one (http://www.bigdynodatabase.com/DynoCF.php). I put in your numbers and the correction for 3500ft altitude (26.3 inHg as opposed to 29.92 for sea level) and the corrected value came out to about 246 HP.
If you then multiply by 1.12 to account for drive line loss you get 275 HP.
If it is true that Dyno Dynamics habitually rate 15% lower than other dynos; multiply again by 1.15 and you get about 317 HP.
Needless to say, I am very interested in seeing your further dyno results on July 29th.
BTW, I have been stalking this thread for almost two years so it is nice to finally see some numbers coming in.
Now if what this gentleman is saying is true that the Dyno is off by 15% then this all makes sense. But, where would a salesman be at the end of every month if he/she was 23% off from meeting their quota's??? Without a job!!
How in the blue heck can a company produce a "Precision Measurement device" that is "well known" for being off by 15%? And they are still in business?
2014c300...take a look at the figures below by Laredo...they accurately explain what we're seeing and why the 213.6 on the dyno. Losses due to elevation, mechanical, and shear fact that DD's post lower scores.
Just from what I've felt, I would imagine that if you hook the engine itself up to a dyno and tested it at sea level, you would see around 330bhp.
Originally Posted by Laredo7mm
Nice, thanks for the charts.
I did some quick googling for a dyno correction calculator and found one (http://www.bigdynodatabase.com/DynoCF.php). I put in your numbers and the correction for 3500ft altitude (26.3 inHg as opposed to 29.92 for sea level) and the corrected value came out to about 246 HP.
If you then multiply by 1.12 to account for drive line loss you get 275 HP.
If it is true that Dyno Dynamics habitually rate 15% lower than other dynos; multiply again by 1.15 and you get about 317 HP.
Needless to say, I am very interested in seeing your further dyno results on July 29th.
BTW, I have been stalking this thread for almost two years so it is nice to finally see some numbers coming in.
I'm still trying to find another AWD dyno in/around Calgary for an objective comparison. But I think you can take the numbers above seriously.
I am also trying to set up a time for when I'm in San Diego to get it up and do a run while I'm there as well, but time is exceedingly tight for that trip.
There has been so much back and forth and speculation on this thread...I want to make sure that these numbers aren't just blowing smoke in the wind.
Last edited by genesisknight; 07-09-2015 at 01:06 PM.
I am truly baffled how no one has gotten even close to the hp claims. Even putting dyno types, drivetrain loss, no vehicle is created equal, etc there's been tons of examples in the E46M world to know what stock power is give or take and then tuning. No way our vehicles vary that much from rated hp no matter the dyno.
2014c300...take a look at the figures below by Laredo...they accurately explain what we're seeing and why the 213.6 on the dyno. Losses due to elevation, mechanical, and shear fact that DD's post lower scores.
Just from what I've felt, I would imagine that if you hook the engine itself up to a dyno and tested it at sea level, you would see around 330bhp.
I'm still trying to find another AWD dyno in/around Calgary for an objective comparison. But I think you can take the numbers above seriously.
I am also trying to set up a time for when I'm in San Diego to get it up and do a run while I'm there as well, but time is exceedingly tight for that trip.
There has been so much back and forth and speculation on this thread...I want to make sure that these numbers aren't just blowing smoke in the wind.
now all of this makes sense... hard reading everything in detail from my phone. I should have waited until i got home! but was too excited!
If these numbers are right then 317 whp then my god yes it is worth the money but way to many variables here..
none the less I really appreciate your information and you taking the time out to do all of this for the community. And you are right slightly off from a known BHP car @ 305hp I guess my initial reactions were off. I personally do not know much about subaru's.
question.. i am not sure if you posted somewhere else...
What Octane fuel were you running? Were you running a stock Air filter?
reason im asking is if you were on 91 octane and a stock paper filter... you may have closed the gap or even beat the Subaru with 93 octane and a high flow performance filter.
2014c300...take a look at the figures below by Laredo...they accurately explain what we're seeing and why the 213.6 on the dyno. Losses due to elevation, mechanical, and shear fact that DD's post lower scores.
Just from what I've felt, I would imagine that if you hook the engine itself up to a dyno and tested it at sea level, you would see around 330bhp.
I'm still trying to find another AWD dyno in/around Calgary for an objective comparison. But I think you can take the numbers above seriously.
I am also trying to set up a time for when I'm in San Diego to get it up and do a run while I'm there as well, but time is exceedingly tight for that trip.
There has been so much back and forth and speculation on this thread...I want to make sure that these numbers aren't just blowing smoke in the wind.
So your butt dyno feels a noticeable gain, right?
A healthy '12 STI should put down around 245-260awhp on a Dynojet. DynoDynamics dynos supposedly read about 10-15% less than Dynojets. Using this 'ricer' math, let's assume your car makes around 240-250awhp after the tune, on a Dynojet. Stock it probably put down around 230. With the parasitic loss from the AWD system and the automatic, it sounds about right.
For reference, stock B8 (S/C) S4's usually dyno between 280 and 320awhp depending on the dyno. They also seem to trap between 105 and 109 out of the box, so our cars have a little ways to go...
Last edited by 03basesedan; 07-09-2015 at 05:19 PM.
My SO was with me when we got the numbers and I seriously wanted to go home and rail against Kleemann. Thankfully...rationality kicked in and I had to see what variables were at play. Laredo got the point across very well for what the 'real world' numbers should look like.
This was with straight 91 octane and stock air filter that had been installed last year during its B service. Maybe 7,500km ago...I don't have to drive much...lol
My butt dyno would have been grinning ear to ear...if it had a mouth.
...or ears.
I only got to do one launch off the line. Put it in sport and got the revs up while holding the brake. My SO got pushed against the seat pretty darned effectively and admitted that she experienced a little it of feminine excitement while I climbed up to 100kph in roughly half a block.
I'm out with a buddy tomorrow morning when he drops his truck off for service. Will post a vid of the speedo doing its thing and you all can watch the zoom in real time.
Satisfaction level is pretty damned high right now.
If a stock sti puts down more who on this dyno than a tuned c300, no matter which dyno you go, it will still put down less power than the sti lol. That being said, the calculation above showing the c300 with over 300hp to the crank is a little hard to believe. Beside, it is normally hard to squeeze too much power from a NA car just from a tune. You would normally need bigger headers, high flow cats, cams, etc for little bit more power.
I would say around 280hp to the crank is more accurate. The drivetrain loss from an awd is normally around 60-70hp from seeing multiple dynos of subaru.
By the way, sti is a lot faster than c300 lol. I have both so I can confirm that
If a stock sti puts down more who on this dyno than a tuned c300, no matter which dyno you go, it will still put down less power than the sti lol. That being said, the calculation above showing the c300 with over 300hp to the crank is a little hard to believe. Beside, it is normally hard to squeeze too much power from a NA car just from a tune. You would normally need bigger headers, high flow cats, cams, etc for little bit more power.
I would say around 280hp to the crank is more accurate. The drivetrain loss from an awd is normally around 60-70hp from seeing multiple dynos of subaru.
By the way, sti is a lot faster than c300 lol. I have both so I can confirm that
Terrence,
The engine in the C300 is the M276...stock 248hp
The engine in the C350 is the M276...stock 302hp
They're the same engine. The C300 is just de-tuned. They don't have to do anything physically to the engine to bring it up to the 300hp mark...
...they just tune the ECU to allow the the engine to open up to its full potential.
I understand that the C300 and C350 have the same engine. Although, I thought I read it somewhere that the internal is slightly different but I could be wrong.
The dyno above already shows it makes less power than sti which was listed at 300hp hence I don't think it is making over 300 with just the tune.
I guess the only way to find out is a drag race between stock c350 vs a tuned c300
A tuned M276 should put down more power than a stock STI.
As a poster already said, "tuning" the ECU in a 2013-14 c300 essentially removes the C300 badge and replaced it with a C350 badge + some.
kleemans is claiming 330 crank hp a stock STI is 305 crank hp.
That STI could have had a few mods and that the guy did not disclose? He could added octane booster to 91 octane, he could have had a high flow air filter. We are only talking about 8 whp?
Put a high flow air filter in the C300 and 93 Octane I bet that is good for at least 8 whp. When I spoke to tuners out west US their tunes are all rated at 91 octane because that is all that is available. They told me I should see a little more with 93 octane and high flow filter About 5-10
3373 curb weight WRX STI
3400-3800 Curb weight C300
WRX is lighter depending on the 300's options. Stock STI vs stock C350 2014/13 would be a good race. To settle the dispute. Technically the WRX should have the weight advantage
Starting to believe that the M276 may in fact be different between the two models, because this shouldn't be that complicated otherwise.
Real question would be, if you go to a dealer and require a replacement engine for your C300, is it the same part number as the 350... That tells me whether the changes are internal or external to achieve the 50hp difference.
Edit: Well that was easy. All part numbers for the engine components that would be responsible for a power increase are the same between both models. Block, rods, pistons, cams, heads, valves, etc. So guess I will start comparing exhaust manifolds, intake, and maybe a few timing controls otherwise it's in the tuning...
C350:http://mbonlineparts.com/parts/2014/...iagram=F35J060
C300:http://mbonlineparts.com/parts/2014/...iagram=F35J060
Converting crank HP is going to be a guess at best without a baseline run of the same car at the same dyno. Even then the car don't always make the advertised HP so your correction factor may be wrong. The important part is the gain. Unfortunately we can't really see that. Based on the comparison vs the STi I'd be willing to say you gained some power, but wouldn't care to say if its more or less than a stock c350.
The one thing you can do it take it to a drag strip. Post of the time slips. We can get a lot of info out of those as well.
The one interesting thing I saw out of this is how flat that torque curve is. Compare that to the one scuba357 posted.
Well, you guys have to look at the powerband and the gearing. That chart does look every bit what a stock STI should make on that type of dyno, and they're not particularly fast in stock form.
While the C300 almost matches the STI's peak power it's left for dead under the curve. Check out the STI's massive mid-range torque. At one point, the STI is making almost 50awtq more than the 'Benz. Combine that with a lighter curb weight, aggressive gearing, and the C has a tough opponent. There has to be SOMETHING else that can be done to the M276 that'll net decent gains. That said, there is this Motor Trend test of a '13 C350 rwd coupe:
This one ran a 14.0@100.6 through the quarter mile at a 3642lb curb weight. I'm not sure how much slower the 4matic would be, but a 100.6mph trap speed is quite similar to a stock '12 STI, so maybe the fat mid-range advantage doesn't come into play when one is always above 4k rpm.
The best way to figure this out is for a before and after plot. I would absolutely take my car, but I have an M272. I will likely still do a before/after dyno (I have the convenience of a flash loader too), but it's not applicable to this scenario. Who wants to find a local dynojet and test this out?
I have access to my friend's dyno for a decent price but I don't think I want to drop $1300usd on the tune. Although, it would be great if there is a transmission tune as well since I found the response is quite slow.
I have access to my friend's dyno for a decent price but I don't think I want to drop $1300usd on the tune. Although, it would be great if there is a transmission tune as well since I found the response is quite slow.
Yeah, that much for an N/A tune on a non-AMG is absurd. That's why I went with OE Tuning on mine. The cost was a lot more... palatable, lol.
I don't think there are tranny tunes, but the regular tune did make my transmission more responsive.
I would like to see a stock dyno run on a C350 and then a C300 with 'any' tune. If it is a matter of just allowing the throttle plate to open all the way (separating the difference) then they should be quite close. That would be an improvement in of itself. If tuners can extract any additional power on a C350, then those should apply to the C300.
If these gains could be shown with dyno runs then I would definitely do this for my wife's C300 4matic.
07-08-2015, 01:48 PM
