A dyno graph worth a 1000 words: 362 rwhp / 344 rwtq
12-07-2007, 12:25 AM
#27
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Southern Cali (Ontario)
Posts: 3,466
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
10 Posts
look at the torque curver.. is flat like Kansas.
I rather have this torque curver than the 335 .. which spikes early and decreases over the RPM.
Your car should be 112+ easily mid 12's
your weight to power ratio is very good at this point.
I rather have this torque curver than the 335 .. which spikes early and decreases over the RPM.
Your car should be 112+ easily mid 12's
your weight to power ratio is very good at this point.
12-07-2007, 06:51 AM
#30
Super Member
12-07-2007, 09:29 AM
#31
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
12-07-2007, 10:27 AM
#32
The fan you used looks very small and if you ask specific questions they always seem to have an excuse so just try it with a much larger fan first its your best bet........you are gonna go back and forth and get fustrated over an answer when:
1. You could use a bigger fan to see if results differ.
2. Based on results from bigger fan you can get a re-tune to correct it.
Keep in mind the leaner the more top-end meaning more power so once corrected the power on your graph will drop and maybe drastically by as much as minus 20/20 RWHP/TQ...........don't be disappointed.
1. You could use a bigger fan to see if results differ.
2. Based on results from bigger fan you can get a re-tune to correct it.
Keep in mind the leaner the more top-end meaning more power so once corrected the power on your graph will drop and maybe drastically by as much as minus 20/20 RWHP/TQ...........don't be disappointed.
12-07-2007, 11:05 AM
#33
MBWorld Fanatic!
The fan you used looks very small and if you ask specific questions they always seem to have an excuse so just try it with a much larger fan first its your best bet........you are gonna go back and forth and get fustrated over an answer when:
1. You could use a bigger fan to see if results differ.
2. Based on results from bigger fan you can get a re-tune to correct it.
Keep in mind the leaner the more top-end meaning more power so once corrected the power on your graph will drop and maybe drastically by as much as minus 20/20 RWHP/TQ...........don't be disappointed.
1. You could use a bigger fan to see if results differ.
2. Based on results from bigger fan you can get a re-tune to correct it.
Keep in mind the leaner the more top-end meaning more power so once corrected the power on your graph will drop and maybe drastically by as much as minus 20/20 RWHP/TQ...........don't be disappointed.
Your right on the money here, but keep in mind that I HIGHLY doubt that a larger fan will change the A/F ratio AT ALL. Yes you will loose some power going to a richer 12.0 ratio, but it will be MUCH safer, espically if you get some bad gas like 89 octane in it.
See yeah
12-07-2007, 11:57 AM
#34
Hey c32used:
Your right on the money here, but keep in mind that I HIGHLY doubt that a larger fan will change the A/F ratio AT ALL. Yes you will loose some power going to a richer 12.0 ratio, but it will be MUCH safer, espically if you get some bad gas like 89 octane in it.
See yeah
Your right on the money here, but keep in mind that I HIGHLY doubt that a larger fan will change the A/F ratio AT ALL. Yes you will loose some power going to a richer 12.0 ratio, but it will be MUCH safer, espically if you get some bad gas like 89 octane in it.
See yeah
12-07-2007, 12:08 PM
#35
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 2,949
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2008 A8L, 2002 996TT X50, 2009 X5
Most agree that our C32's have about 17% driveline loss, which fits when people are dyno'ing mid-high 280s stock rwhp. The only advantage to using an overly optimistic driveline-loss assumption is artificially inflating the engine's estimated output (and, consequently, the owner's ego... "my C32's putting out about 460 hp" etc etc., when it really might be more like 435 - which, IMHO, is still really impressive for any C32, let alone a Stage I)
Agree w/ AMG4EVER, the track results will tell the story - I for one am excited to hear his results (hoping for 12.5 or better)!!
Last edited by c32AMG-DTM; 12-07-2007 at 12:15 PM.
12-07-2007, 12:19 PM
#36
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
I didn't see it in this thread but I wonder if he upgraded the H/E and I/C pump or even the I/C to a larger one....its by what I read the best way to control those high AF ratios. I definitely feel after a pulley install the H/E and I/C pump should be upgraded to control the extra heat produced by the pulleys.
Many people here have the same upgrades running for years so hopefully everything is fine. I'm going to change the fuel filter, spark plugs and clean the injectors as part of my 100K miles service.
12-07-2007, 12:26 PM
#37
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
The math part is easy, but where are you getting the 20-21% driveline-loss-assumption figure you're using? 349 x .79 = 276 rwhp... I don't know if AMG4EVER did a baseline dyno (i.e. stock everything), but if he did I doubt the figure was mid 270's.
Most agree that our C32's have about 17% driveline loss, which fits when people are dyno'ing mid-high 280s stock rwhp. The only advantage to using an overly optimistic driveline-loss assumption is artificially inflating the engine's estimated output (and, consequently, the owner's ego... "my C32's putting out about 460 hp" etc etc., when it really might be more like 435 - which, IMHO, is still really impressive for any C32, let alone a Stage I)
Agree w/ AMG4EVER, the track results will tell the story - I for one am excited to hear his results (hoping for 12.5 or better)!!
Most agree that our C32's have about 17% driveline loss, which fits when people are dyno'ing mid-high 280s stock rwhp. The only advantage to using an overly optimistic driveline-loss assumption is artificially inflating the engine's estimated output (and, consequently, the owner's ego... "my C32's putting out about 460 hp" etc etc., when it really might be more like 435 - which, IMHO, is still really impressive for any C32, let alone a Stage I)
Agree w/ AMG4EVER, the track results will tell the story - I for one am excited to hear his results (hoping for 12.5 or better)!!
The owner's ego is the only thing you measure by taking crank hp into consideration. Might be a selling point if you sell the car with mods included. My car is probably not even worth $18K by now. I'll be lucky to get $4K for all my mods if sold separately.
Up to now, we are schedule to go to the track Sunday.
12-07-2007, 01:29 PM
#38
MBWorld Fanatic!
I agree with you. I didn't do a baseline dyno because I never thought about making it this far with the car... I bought the "amg" to avoid the modding part, lol.
The owner's ego is the only thing you measure by taking crank hp into consideration. Might be a selling point if you sell the car with mods included. My car is probably not even worth $18K by now. I'll be lucky to get $4K for all my mods if sold separately.
Up to now, we are schedule to go to the track Sunday.
The owner's ego is the only thing you measure by taking crank hp into consideration. Might be a selling point if you sell the car with mods included. My car is probably not even worth $18K by now. I'll be lucky to get $4K for all my mods if sold separately.
Up to now, we are schedule to go to the track Sunday.
Dyno #'s really aren't my thing, as there is an old saying figures don't lie, liers figure, ha, ha. Or simply said, same car two dyno's = two different readings. WAY tooooo many variables on chasis dynos for my likings. Take it to the track and let you MPH do the talking my friend. Dyno's are for tuning, track is for REAL world. I have seen MANY HIGH HP dyno numbers on engines, only to see crap at the track.
See yeah
PS: COME ON 116+ MPH
12-07-2007, 10:39 PM
#40
Good luck AMG4EVER at the track, I think I can say, WE ARE ALL PULLING FOR YOU TO RUN LOW 12'S.
Dyno #'s really aren't my thing, as there is an old saying figures don't lie, liers figure, ha, ha. Or simply said, same car two dyno's = two different readings. WAY tooooo many variables on chasis dynos for my likings. Take it to the track and let you MPH do the talking my friend. Dyno's are for tuning, track is for REAL world. I have seen MANY HIGH HP dyno numbers on engines, only to see crap at the track.
See yeah
PS: COME ON 116+ MPH
Dyno #'s really aren't my thing, as there is an old saying figures don't lie, liers figure, ha, ha. Or simply said, same car two dyno's = two different readings. WAY tooooo many variables on chasis dynos for my likings. Take it to the track and let you MPH do the talking my friend. Dyno's are for tuning, track is for REAL world. I have seen MANY HIGH HP dyno numbers on engines, only to see crap at the track.
See yeah
PS: COME ON 116+ MPH
The track result is best! HP/TQ means nothing if it doesn't track well.
12-10-2007, 02:07 PM
#41
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Update: I couldn't make to the track this weekend due to scattered showers and other personal stuff.
My last chance to go this year will be this Friday or Sunday so I'll do my best to make it.
My last chance to go this year will be this Friday or Sunday so I'll do my best to make it.
12-17-2007, 04:03 PM
#42
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Hey guys - I wanted to report back. After all mods and dyno runs, my goal was to shave down half a second from my previous time (13.2). I made my first pass at 5:30 pm with the weather being in the 50s... I ran John (housclass) in his 04 S600. Cool guy with a lot of track knowledge. My result:
12.60 @ 111.56
So that's .6 seconds down from my personal record. Not bad at all. I'm definitely happy with the car. We'll see if next year I can shave it down another tenth or so.
After my first run, I decided to pump a higher octane fuel (104) to see what happened... I honestly don't know if it was me, the ECU or my tires, but I couldn't get any traction at all. My other two times were in the low 13s with my best reaction being .005 and my best trap 113.3 mph.
12.60 @ 111.56
So that's .6 seconds down from my personal record. Not bad at all. I'm definitely happy with the car. We'll see if next year I can shave it down another tenth or so.
After my first run, I decided to pump a higher octane fuel (104) to see what happened... I honestly don't know if it was me, the ECU or my tires, but I couldn't get any traction at all. My other two times were in the low 13s with my best reaction being .005 and my best trap 113.3 mph.
12-17-2007, 04:23 PM
#43
Hey guys - I wanted to report back. After all mods and dyno runs, my goal was to shave down half a second from my previous time (13.2). I made my first pass at 5:30 pm with the weather being in the 50s... I ran John (housclass) in his 04 S600. Cool guy with a lot of track knowledge. My result:
12.60 @ 111.56
So that's .6 seconds down from my personal record. Not bad at all. I'm definitely happy with the car. We'll see if next year I can shave it down another tenth or so.
After my first run, I decided to pump a higher octane fuel (104) to see what happened... I honestly don't know if it was me, the ECU or my tires, but I couldn't get any traction at all. My other two times were in the low 13s with my best reaction being .005 and my best trap 113.3 mph.
12.60 @ 111.56
So that's .6 seconds down from my personal record. Not bad at all. I'm definitely happy with the car. We'll see if next year I can shave it down another tenth or so.
After my first run, I decided to pump a higher octane fuel (104) to see what happened... I honestly don't know if it was me, the ECU or my tires, but I couldn't get any traction at all. My other two times were in the low 13s with my best reaction being .005 and my best trap 113.3 mph.
12-17-2007, 05:47 PM
#44
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 2,949
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2008 A8L, 2002 996TT X50, 2009 X5
Hey guys - I wanted to report back. After all mods and dyno runs, my goal was to shave down half a second from my previous time (13.2). I made my first pass at 5:30 pm with the weather being in the 50s... I ran John (housclass) in his 04 S600. Cool guy with a lot of track knowledge. My result:
12.60 @ 111.56
So that's .6 seconds down from my personal record. Not bad at all. I'm definitely happy with the car. We'll see if next year I can shave it down another tenth or so.
After my first run, I decided to pump a higher octane fuel (104) to see what happened... I honestly don't know if it was me, the ECU or my tires, but I couldn't get any traction at all. My other two times were in the low 13s with my best reaction being .005 and my best trap 113.3 mph.
12.60 @ 111.56
So that's .6 seconds down from my personal record. Not bad at all. I'm definitely happy with the car. We'll see if next year I can shave it down another tenth or so.
After my first run, I decided to pump a higher octane fuel (104) to see what happened... I honestly don't know if it was me, the ECU or my tires, but I couldn't get any traction at all. My other two times were in the low 13s with my best reaction being .005 and my best trap 113.3 mph.
Keep in mind that each incremental tenth is harder and harder to get (i.e. adding 50 whp to stock might shave half a second, but adding another 50 whp on top of that might only shave 3 or 4 tenths).
From your comments, sounds like the next item to address (if you choose to) is traction at launch, either with DRs, LSD, or both. Good stuff... congrats!
12-17-2007, 05:48 PM
#45
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: North Cuba/West Bimini
Posts: 2,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cars and boats!
fantastic times.... I ran a similar time a couple years ago in mine but have never been able to replicate that same time again. I'm running a similar setup to yours minus the resonator delete and cooling mods. I'm definately doing the cooling mods after the new year... it would help with heat soak (we get that bad in Miami) and will help with more consistant performance.
12-17-2007, 06:07 PM
#46
MBWorld Fanatic!
Hey guys - I wanted to report back. After all mods and dyno runs, my goal was to shave down half a second from my previous time (13.2). I made my first pass at 5:30 pm with the weather being in the 50s... I ran John (housclass) in his 04 S600. Cool guy with a lot of track knowledge. My result:
12.60 @ 111.56
So that's .6 seconds down from my personal record. Not bad at all. I'm definitely happy with the car. We'll see if next year I can shave it down another tenth or so.
After my first run, I decided to pump a higher octane fuel (104) to see what happened... I honestly don't know if it was me, the ECU or my tires, but I couldn't get any traction at all. My other two times were in the low 13s with my best reaction being .005 and my best trap 113.3 mph.
12.60 @ 111.56
So that's .6 seconds down from my personal record. Not bad at all. I'm definitely happy with the car. We'll see if next year I can shave it down another tenth or so.
After my first run, I decided to pump a higher octane fuel (104) to see what happened... I honestly don't know if it was me, the ECU or my tires, but I couldn't get any traction at all. My other two times were in the low 13s with my best reaction being .005 and my best trap 113.3 mph.
Two thumbs up for you and your toy
Good luck in the spring and buy some decent tires, or DR
See yeah
Merry Christmas and happy new years to all
12-17-2007, 06:40 PM
#47
SPONSOR
WOW!! I think your car is faster than mine....good job!
12-17-2007, 10:47 PM
#49
12-17-2007, 11:29 PM
#50
yes, but i did learn a lesson, don't go to the track when you are pressed for time... 
i wanted to go and get some runs in but i already had plans last night that i could not break, so i thought i could get a couple of quick runs in to see if i could take advantage of the good weather...
unfortunately i got 2 really bad launches, 2.0 60ft times and only managed to run a 12.6 and 12.7...
oh well, there is always next year...
if i can get back before the twin turbos go on the car, i will definitely do it...
i wanted to go and get some runs in but i already had plans last night that i could not break, so i thought i could get a couple of quick runs in to see if i could take advantage of the good weather...unfortunately i got 2 really bad launches, 2.0 60ft times and only managed to run a 12.6 and 12.7...
oh well, there is always next year...
if i can get back before the twin turbos go on the car, i will definitely do it...
