Project Renntech Stage 5 - Eric's car
#1
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Fremont, CA.
Posts: 1,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SL55 AMG, 2006 Range Rover Sport with Kahn Design Package
Project Renntech Stage 5 - Eric's car
Hello guys,
Just want to help Eric out here to post his baseline/post mod dyno sheets. I am awaiting from DynoComp to give me the numbers but what i am hearing makes me grin from ear to ear. Eric's car had a 100 rwhp gain!
Just want to help Eric out here to post his baseline/post mod dyno sheets. I am awaiting from DynoComp to give me the numbers but what i am hearing makes me grin from ear to ear. Eric's car had a 100 rwhp gain!
#3
Super Member
Damn, this was posted before I even got home
A few of my comments:
1. Post-mod dyno was obtained with 3/4 tank of 91 octane fuel, topped off with 1/4 tank of 100 octane racing fuel. Pre-mod dyno was with only the 91 octane. Arizona summer fuel is crap and the 91 octane rating on our "premium" grade is probably optimistic.
2. HP gains are as promised, car is probably achieving close to 600 at the crank if you account for drivetrain losses, figure somewhere in the 1.19 - 1.26 range.
3. TQ gains are somewhat less, but look at the TQ from the stock engine -- about 460 ft-lbs at the rear wheels! This is quite a bit higher than the AMG spec. Stock HP is right around the AMG spec (may have been higher if better fuel was used during the pre-mod dyno).
4. I've read that Dyno-Dynomatics give lower HP & TQ numbers -- up to 10% -- than the Dyno Jet. For ****s and giggles, I may also get the car tested on a Dyno Jet for comparison.
It is nice to have the data showing the mods perform as advertised. Richard and Dyno-Comp do first class work, there have been zero problems since I picked the car up and it is about as fast as a two ton, rear wheel drive vehicle can be. Despite this, overall drivability has improved since more power seems available from low RPMs. Exhaust sounds great too, the roar during the dyno testing was pretty awesome I should have 1/4 mi times pretty soon -- hoping to be in the 11s.
A few of my comments:
1. Post-mod dyno was obtained with 3/4 tank of 91 octane fuel, topped off with 1/4 tank of 100 octane racing fuel. Pre-mod dyno was with only the 91 octane. Arizona summer fuel is crap and the 91 octane rating on our "premium" grade is probably optimistic.
2. HP gains are as promised, car is probably achieving close to 600 at the crank if you account for drivetrain losses, figure somewhere in the 1.19 - 1.26 range.
3. TQ gains are somewhat less, but look at the TQ from the stock engine -- about 460 ft-lbs at the rear wheels! This is quite a bit higher than the AMG spec. Stock HP is right around the AMG spec (may have been higher if better fuel was used during the pre-mod dyno).
4. I've read that Dyno-Dynomatics give lower HP & TQ numbers -- up to 10% -- than the Dyno Jet. For ****s and giggles, I may also get the car tested on a Dyno Jet for comparison.
It is nice to have the data showing the mods perform as advertised. Richard and Dyno-Comp do first class work, there have been zero problems since I picked the car up and it is about as fast as a two ton, rear wheel drive vehicle can be. Despite this, overall drivability has improved since more power seems available from low RPMs. Exhaust sounds great too, the roar during the dyno testing was pretty awesome I should have 1/4 mi times pretty soon -- hoping to be in the 11s.
#4
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Fremont, CA.
Posts: 1,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SL55 AMG, 2006 Range Rover Sport with Kahn Design Package
Sorry Eric! I was too excited. But congratulations and on behalf of Richard, DynoComp, Kronen and Renntech, drive safe and have fun!
Trending Topics
#9
Super Member
Originally Posted by JamE55
What is the rwhp? Sorry can't tell from the graph.
#15
Super Member
Exterior pics... will try to talk my gorgeous wife into posing with the car later
Let me know what you think of the drop. Module is set so that there is a 2" gap between top of the reverse chrome lip and the top of the fender arch in the front and back. Ground to fender distance is 1/8" higher in the rear than the front.
There is enough drop that camber is probably too much. I need to get an alignment and have either crash bolts or adjustable links added to fix this, otherwise the Pirelli PZeros will be done in a few thousand miles.
Let me know what you think of the drop. Module is set so that there is a 2" gap between top of the reverse chrome lip and the top of the fender arch in the front and back. Ground to fender distance is 1/8" higher in the rear than the front.
There is enough drop that camber is probably too much. I need to get an alignment and have either crash bolts or adjustable links added to fix this, otherwise the Pirelli PZeros will be done in a few thousand miles.
Last edited by Heisenberg; 07-21-2006 at 04:50 PM.
#17
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Fremont, CA.
Posts: 1,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SL55 AMG, 2006 Range Rover Sport with Kahn Design Package
Eric, as usual, your car is one of the best looking CLS nationwide. Thank you for joining our Renntech brotherhood.
#20
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Fremont, CA.
Posts: 1,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SL55 AMG, 2006 Range Rover Sport with Kahn Design Package
Oh btw Eric, I am leaving Kronen effective Aug 1. Feel free to call me if you do need help.
#21
Originally Posted by ekovalsky
1. Post-mod dyno was obtained with 3/4 tank of 91 octane fuel, topped off with 1/4 tank of 100 octane racing fuel. Pre-mod dyno was with only the 91 octane. Arizona summer fuel is crap and the 91 octane rating on our "premium" grade is probably optimistic.
Originally Posted by ekovalsky
2. HP gains are as promised, car is probably achieving close to 600 at the crank if you account for drivetrain losses, figure somewhere in the 1.19 - 1.26 range.
Originally Posted by ekovalsky
3. TQ gains are somewhat less, but look at the TQ from the stock engine -- about 460 ft-lbs at the rear wheels! This is quite a bit higher than the AMG spec. Stock HP is right around the AMG spec (may have been higher if better fuel was used during the pre-mod dyno).
Originally Posted by ekovalsky
4. I've read that Dyno-Dynomatics give lower HP & TQ numbers -- up to 10% -- than the Dyno Jet. For ****s and giggles, I may also get the car tested on a Dyno Jet for comparison.
Looking at your post-mod torque graph, there's about a 20 lb-ft dip between 3200 and 4300 RPM. This may be tire slip, but could also be caused by A/F ratio. Can you post the A/F ratio graph for this run?
#22
MBWorld Fanatic!
Looks great Eric, nice door locks
My dealer had your car fully loaded with 030 package, someone ordered it, and financing fell through, has 400 miles on it. I love that interior!!
So even with the new Renntech module your still getting a camber issue?
Did you have a camber issue when you had the washers on?
Also how many fingers can you stick between the top of the wheel and the fender on the front and rear?
My dealer had your car fully loaded with 030 package, someone ordered it, and financing fell through, has 400 miles on it. I love that interior!!
So even with the new Renntech module your still getting a camber issue?
Did you have a camber issue when you had the washers on?
Also how many fingers can you stick between the top of the wheel and the fender on the front and rear?
#23
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 19 Likes
on
18 Posts
V12-Biturbo
Originally Posted by JamE55
What is the rwhp? Sorry can't tell from the graph.
Freakin awesome CLS 1 of the best I've ever seen!!
Last edited by Thericker; 07-21-2006 at 09:51 PM.
#24
Super Member
Thanks for the compliments guys. Sorry Cylinder Head, but I think I'll be keeping this one for a while. I'm very glad I pulled the trigger on a 55 rather than wait for the 63.
The camber issue is inevitable when you lower, whether by Star Diagnostics or electronics module or mechanical means (washers, longer links, etc). When the car lowers the wheels don't move straight up or down but rather in an arc. With the washers and bracket repositioning I only achieved a drop of about 0.75". My drop is now at least 1.5" with the module, and along with the increased drop is the further deviation in camber. I can barely get one finger in the gap now, both front and back.
Grumpy thanks for your analysis. I appreciate comments from you and others who are knowledgable about this stuff.
I'll try to address some of your points...
I had fairly little driving between the modifications and the subsequent dyno, and even less driving (probably 20-30 miles) after the quarter tank of 100 octane racing fuel was added to the three-quarter tank of crap Arizona summer premium fuel. You are correct that the ECU may not have yet optimized the timing.
I have seen DT loss mentioned at 1.19 before. Renntech estimates 1.23 and the owner of Dyno-Comp seems it may be higher, up to 1.26. Regardless, I think Renntech's performance claims for PP5 (574 HP, 626 TQ) are probably being met on my car.
As far as the stock power, I think it may have been affected by the poor quality summer fuel here in Arizona. Although premium is sold as 91 octane, that is apparently very optimistic. So the ECU may have been retarding ignition timing. Now that I know where 100 octane fuel is available, I'll add some of this each time I fill up to get the equivalent of 93.
The fuel-air mixture data was not given to me, and I don't know if it was even obtained (maybe Adam can find out from Richard and post it if available). If the A/F mixture were suboptimal, would it not be unusual to have the affects only apparent at 3200-4300 rpm ? Some tire slippage is certainly possible.
I'm not aware of any environmental corrections made on the dyno. It has been hot as hell here recently -- 119 degrees today -- but the dyno is performed in their air conditioned workshop, with commercial blowers aimed at the heat exchangers. Still it probably was well over 80 in the workshop, with very dry air of course.
Since I haven't gotten the car tested on a Dyno Jet I have no idea how different the numbers would be. Now I've read the Dyno Dynomatics often give lower numbers than the Dyno Jet, up to 10%. My guess is that the machine at Dyno-Comp is pretty accurate for rwhp, and that many of the crank power numbers derived from Dyno Jet machines are overly optimistic. There are some shops with a Dyno Jet in the area, so one of these days I'll get the car tested on one.
No luck getting the wife to pose today but will keep trying
The camber issue is inevitable when you lower, whether by Star Diagnostics or electronics module or mechanical means (washers, longer links, etc). When the car lowers the wheels don't move straight up or down but rather in an arc. With the washers and bracket repositioning I only achieved a drop of about 0.75". My drop is now at least 1.5" with the module, and along with the increased drop is the further deviation in camber. I can barely get one finger in the gap now, both front and back.
Grumpy thanks for your analysis. I appreciate comments from you and others who are knowledgable about this stuff.
I'll try to address some of your points...
I had fairly little driving between the modifications and the subsequent dyno, and even less driving (probably 20-30 miles) after the quarter tank of 100 octane racing fuel was added to the three-quarter tank of crap Arizona summer premium fuel. You are correct that the ECU may not have yet optimized the timing.
I have seen DT loss mentioned at 1.19 before. Renntech estimates 1.23 and the owner of Dyno-Comp seems it may be higher, up to 1.26. Regardless, I think Renntech's performance claims for PP5 (574 HP, 626 TQ) are probably being met on my car.
As far as the stock power, I think it may have been affected by the poor quality summer fuel here in Arizona. Although premium is sold as 91 octane, that is apparently very optimistic. So the ECU may have been retarding ignition timing. Now that I know where 100 octane fuel is available, I'll add some of this each time I fill up to get the equivalent of 93.
The fuel-air mixture data was not given to me, and I don't know if it was even obtained (maybe Adam can find out from Richard and post it if available). If the A/F mixture were suboptimal, would it not be unusual to have the affects only apparent at 3200-4300 rpm ? Some tire slippage is certainly possible.
I'm not aware of any environmental corrections made on the dyno. It has been hot as hell here recently -- 119 degrees today -- but the dyno is performed in their air conditioned workshop, with commercial blowers aimed at the heat exchangers. Still it probably was well over 80 in the workshop, with very dry air of course.
Since I haven't gotten the car tested on a Dyno Jet I have no idea how different the numbers would be. Now I've read the Dyno Dynomatics often give lower numbers than the Dyno Jet, up to 10%. My guess is that the machine at Dyno-Comp is pretty accurate for rwhp, and that many of the crank power numbers derived from Dyno Jet machines are overly optimistic. There are some shops with a Dyno Jet in the area, so one of these days I'll get the car tested on one.
No luck getting the wife to pose today but will keep trying
#25
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Bay Area SF
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silver 2002 C32, Silver 2006 CLK 350
Originally Posted by adam@kronen
Oh btw Eric, I am leaving Kronen effective Aug 1. Feel free to call me if you do need help.