C32 AMG, C55 AMG (W203) 2001 - 2007

Dyno today finally, a little disappointed.

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Rate Thread
 
Old 11-05-2012, 11:11 AM
  #76  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
GT-ER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 4,173
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
2005 E55 AMG
Why care if it puts down 400whp or not...you have a VERY quick car. If you wanted a quicker sedan you'd get an E55 but then it wouldn't be such a sharp handler. You gain in one area and give in another. Enjoy your car.
Old 11-05-2012, 07:48 PM
  #77  
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
 
91RS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: GA
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
2016 Chevrolet SS, 2006 Cadillac STS-V
Because I was expecting to have 400whp with just the SC and 450whp after the exhaust. If I would have known, I wouldn't have spent the money and just drove the car the way it was for a while and then probably upgraded to something else. If you look back earlier in this thread just about everyone else seemed to think I should have had 400whp before the exhaust, too. dre5373's car put down 377whp with just the Kleemann headers and custom exhaust (also on a Dynojet)!

Last edited by 91RS; 11-05-2012 at 08:00 PM.
Old 11-05-2012, 08:03 PM
  #78  
Member
 
GTibunny8v's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: CT
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
2005 C55
Something doesn't sound right. I don't understand how you ran a 109ish trap speed with a
blower. I was running that stock with 60F temps and I ran 110.5 with tune and secondary cats removed and true duals in 90F temps. Have you tried running in dyno mode?
Old 11-05-2012, 08:04 PM
  #79  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
GT-ER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 4,173
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
2005 E55 AMG
Originally Posted by 91RS
Because I was expecting to have 400whp with just the SC and 450whp after the exhaust. If I would have known, I wouldn't have spent the money and just drove the car the way it was for a while and then probably upgraded to something else. If you look back earlier in this thread just about everyone else seemed to think I should have had 400whp before the exhaust, too. dre5373's car put down 377whp with just the Kleemann headers and custom exhaust (also on a Dynojet)!
Yeah but you really need to wonder how one gets 377whp out of bolt ons. My friends C55 with kleemann headers, exhaust, renntech intake and ecu tune managed only 312whp. Plus, 377whp on a C55 would put it in the mid 12's on street tires. It just doesn't add up.
Old 11-05-2012, 08:06 PM
  #80  
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
 
91RS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: GA
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
2016 Chevrolet SS, 2006 Cadillac STS-V
Originally Posted by GTibunny8v
Something doesn't sound right. I don't understand how you ran a 109ish trap speed with a
blower. I was running that stock with 60F temps and I ran 110.5 with tune and secondary cats removed and true duals in 90F temps. Have you tried running in dyno mode?
The last two times I went I ran in dyno mode so I could do a proper burn out. Last time I had 12.8 @ 108 all night (8 runs). My best run I managed on my 255/35/18 street tires was a 12.7 @ 110. Once I bought the Mickey Thompsons 245/40/18, my best was 12.7 @ 109 (but I only did that twice on the first time out with them, typically was 12.8 @ 108). That was all before the headers and custom exhaust, so it still had the stock primary cats in place.

Last edited by 91RS; 11-05-2012 at 08:32 PM.
Old 11-05-2012, 08:16 PM
  #81  
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
 
91RS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: GA
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
2016 Chevrolet SS, 2006 Cadillac STS-V
Originally Posted by GT-ER
Yeah but you really need to wonder how one gets 377whp out of bolt ons. My friends C55 with kleemann headers, exhaust, renntech intake and ecu tune managed only 312whp. Plus, 377whp on a C55 would put it in the mid 12's on street tires. It just doesn't add up.
Was his car just Kleemann headers or was the rest of the exhaust completely redone as well? My exhaust was made based on Dre's car (it was what I would have done anyway, but he just had it first).
Old 11-05-2012, 09:42 PM
  #82  
Super Member
 
dre5373's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Maryland
Posts: 660
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
2006 C55, 1995 C36
Originally Posted by GT-ER
Yeah but you really need to wonder how one gets 377whp out of bolt ons. My friends C55 with kleemann headers, exhaust, renntech intake and ecu tune managed only 312whp. Plus, 377whp on a C55 would put it in the mid 12's on street tires. It just doesn't add up.
My best time was 12.796 at 109.89 on street tires. Just got my Hoosier DR's and light 16" wheels today. I'd like to do a run on them before the cams, intake and crank pulley go on, but MIR is on the 17th.

Can't really say why the dyno was so high, I am running catless, and the way the x-pipe was fabbed looks like it would do a much better job at promoting scavenging than any of the prefabbed stuff I've seen. The custom tune helped a good bit too.
Old 11-05-2012, 10:04 PM
  #83  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
GT-ER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 4,173
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
2005 E55 AMG
Originally Posted by dre5373
My best time was 12.796 at 109.89 on street tires. Just got my Hoosier DR's and light 16" wheels today. I'd like to do a run on them before the cams, intake and crank pulley go on, but MIR is on the 17th.

Can't really say why the dyno was so high, I am running catless, and the way the x-pipe was fabbed looks like it would do a much better job at promoting scavenging than any of the prefabbed stuff I've seen. The custom tune helped a good bit too.
Those traps are consistent with a 320-340whp C55. I ran 12.6@111mph on a 3500lb Pontiac Grand Prix with 340whp and horrible gearing ( the C55 gearing is far more aggressive ).

I hope I'm not coming off as a hater, on the contrary, I just don't find 91RS' C55 slow.
Old 11-05-2012, 10:05 PM
  #84  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
GT-ER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 4,173
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
2005 E55 AMG
Originally Posted by 91RS
Was his car just Kleemann headers or was the rest of the exhaust completely redone as well? My exhaust was made based on Dre's car (it was what I would have done anyway, but he just had it first).
Dual 2.25" mandrel bent all the way back.
Old 11-05-2012, 11:21 PM
  #85  
Super Member
 
dre5373's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Maryland
Posts: 660
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
2006 C55, 1995 C36
Originally Posted by GT-ER
Those traps are consistent with a 320-340whp C55. I ran 12.6@111mph on a 3500lb Pontiac Grand Prix with 340whp and horrible gearing ( the C55 gearing is far more aggressive ).

I hope I'm not coming off as a hater, on the contrary, I just don't find 91RS' C55 slow.
No worries, didn't interpret it that way at all
Old 11-06-2012, 11:17 AM
  #86  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Nachtsturm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
2015.5 Volvo V60 Polestar
Have you gotten a tune yet?

In a heavier CLK55, I just ran a best of 12.98 on all seasons, full weight. My traps were from 105-108.

Funny thing is my traps are down from when I just had only headers. Traps were 108-109.

I think I need a custom tune for this airbox.
Old 11-06-2012, 11:53 AM
  #87  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
betrezra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,589
Received 68 Likes on 44 Posts
C63 507 AMG DA Car #19
Nach - you might want to see what your fuel trims are doing via STAR DAS or OBDII scanner. I've heard some people reset adaptations for improvements on the dyno..... could help at the track as well.
Old 11-06-2012, 07:57 PM
  #88  
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
 
91RS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: GA
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
2016 Chevrolet SS, 2006 Cadillac STS-V
Originally Posted by GT-ER
Those traps are consistent with a 320-340whp C55. I ran 12.6@111mph on a 3500lb Pontiac Grand Prix with 340whp and horrible gearing ( the C55 gearing is far more aggressive ).

I hope I'm not coming off as a hater, on the contrary, I just don't find 91RS' C55 slow.
I'm not really saying it's slow. I'm saying for my expectations and the money I spent, I'm not happy with the result. And there's not really anything I can do about it unless I go dumping a ton more money into it.
Old 11-06-2012, 08:04 PM
  #89  
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
 
91RS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: GA
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
2016 Chevrolet SS, 2006 Cadillac STS-V
Originally Posted by Nachtsturm
Have you gotten a tune yet?
It has the Kleemann tune now that I've done the exhaust and removed the factory primary cats.
Old 11-06-2012, 09:28 PM
  #90  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
GT-ER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 4,173
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
2005 E55 AMG
Originally Posted by 91RS
I'm not really saying it's slow. I'm saying for my expectations and the money I spent, I'm not happy with the result. And there's not really anything I can do about it unless I go dumping a ton more money into it.
If only you had the autorotor you'd have a better shot of making big power but the mp112 isn't exactly great. :-(
Old 11-10-2012, 02:16 PM
  #91  
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
 
91RS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: GA
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
2016 Chevrolet SS, 2006 Cadillac STS-V
Well, of course you were right. Best run today was 375hp. But I'm just not sure I believe it, it doesn't make sense to me. How can a 10hp increase get 0.5 seconds in the 1/4? Kleemann told me the headers should be good for 50hp. I think it does have at least a little more in it anyway because it gets very rich by the top of the RPM range. The first run it was crazy rich and I backed off the Kleemann fuel pressure regulator about half a turn and after the next run another half turn. It lost a little power on the second run but gained a little back on the third run. Might have possibly been heat soaked by then. The fan probably wasn't providing the same amount of air flow as driving down the road at 100+. By red line it was going 155mph. All runs were in 4th gear. The A/F ratio looked better on the stock tune! Smoother if nothing else. Probably could use some tuning changes. I also completely forgot about checking the boost. I have videos, I just have to upload them.








Last edited by 91RS; 11-10-2012 at 02:25 PM.
Old 11-10-2012, 03:43 PM
  #92  
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
 
91RS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: GA
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
2016 Chevrolet SS, 2006 Cadillac STS-V
Old 11-10-2012, 03:54 PM
  #93  
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
 
91RS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: GA
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
2016 Chevrolet SS, 2006 Cadillac STS-V
Cobalt as well for anyone who may be interested.

Old 11-10-2012, 04:49 PM
  #94  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
betrezra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,589
Received 68 Likes on 44 Posts
C63 507 AMG DA Car #19
Afr could be increased up top. 10.8-11.2 would be better for power.

Low 12's is great!

Keep in mind dyno's run at kleemann co are corrected to sealevel........ So grain of salt.

Your car is great IMHO.
Old 11-10-2012, 05:12 PM
  #95  
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
 
91RS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: GA
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
2016 Chevrolet SS, 2006 Cadillac STS-V
My car has never been to Kleemann so I never had a dyno from them. I also never had a before dyno because I couldn't get the timing right. My before exhaust dyno was done on the same dyno with the same operator as todays, just almost a year ago.

I'm going to call Kleemann and see what Cory says about the A/F ratio and the tune. I also still have a Eurocharged tune I've paid for from when I was N/A, so maybe they can do something with it. Although, I don't think they have a way to do any data logs to make sure everything is good. Plus, at this time I don't have a way to install my A/F gauge because the damn plug seized up in the damn bung... I just removed one of the rear O2 sensors for the dyno.
Old 11-10-2012, 06:13 PM
  #96  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
betrezra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,589
Received 68 Likes on 44 Posts
C63 507 AMG DA Car #19
I'm pretty sure your car would make 400rwhp corrected in Colorado.

I have seen dyno shops simply stick a probe in the tail pipe.

Gl
Old 11-10-2012, 07:07 PM
  #97  
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
 
91RS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: GA
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
2016 Chevrolet SS, 2006 Cadillac STS-V
I have too, but you get a more accurate reading with the sensor before the cats. I had the extra bung installed because I wanted to install my A/F gauge permanently. It'll fit perfect where with the ash tray insert removed and I could still close the door and not see it when I don't want to. Now for my to do that I'll probably end up buying another left down pipe from Kleemann and have it welded in with two new bungs. I paid all that money for the exhaust, I wouldn't want it screwed up looking with 3 bungs in one spot. I would like to get the A/F ratio closer to 12.2:1 if that is possible. I know Cory told me once that there were some tuning issues which is why they don't use bigger injectors for the fuel system.
Old 11-10-2012, 10:51 PM
  #98  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
GT-ER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 4,173
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
2005 E55 AMG
Originally Posted by 91RS
I have too, but you get a more accurate reading with the sensor before the cats. I had the extra bung installed because I wanted to install my A/F gauge permanently. It'll fit perfect where with the ash tray insert removed and I could still close the door and not see it when I don't want to. Now for my to do that I'll probably end up buying another left down pipe from Kleemann and have it welded in with two new bungs. I paid all that money for the exhaust, I wouldn't want it screwed up looking with 3 bungs in one spot. I would like to get the A/F ratio closer to 12.2:1 if that is possible. I know Cory told me once that there were some tuning issues which is why they don't use bigger injectors for the fuel system.
12.2 on 11.1:1 compression and pump gas is a no-no dude...stick with low 11's to be ultra safe. The power gains will be minimal going from low 11's to low 12's and the safety net will pretty much disappear. High compression, inefficient supercharger and pump gas are a troubling combination. This is why E55's run 9:1 compression.

With that said, you are looking at peak numbers but perhaps the area under the curve got much better which could explain the great gains in the 1/4 mile.

Remember, I have a blown C55 engine in my garage right now....please don't join me.
Old 11-11-2012, 08:32 AM
  #99  
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
 
91RS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: GA
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
2016 Chevrolet SS, 2006 Cadillac STS-V
I'm not trying to blow it up, I'd never heard anyone say that wasn't safe on this engine. I've always heard everywhere that 12.2 was ideal for under boost and 14.7 when cruising. Even in betrezra's thread I'm pretty sure I'd seen that talked about, although I think he said his car was running around 11.2. My main thing was just how wavy the graph is, it was smoother on the stock tune. Do you think it's safe like it is or should I turn the fuel pressure regulator back to where it was? It looks like it was staying fine at 11 between 5k and 6k. I'm just OCD and want it "right." Whatever right may be. I spent so much time during the install to make it look "right." I've had quite a few people tell me it looks completely stock.

I just wish I had known all this information at the beginning. I think it was betrezra that said somewhere on here that people don't seem to want to share much information on how to make these cars fast. I might have still done it, but then I know at least I wouldn't have been irritated about the results.
Old 11-11-2012, 09:00 AM
  #100  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
GT-ER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 4,173
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
2005 E55 AMG
Originally Posted by 91RS
I'm not trying to blow it up, I'd never heard anyone say that wasn't safe on this engine. I've always heard everywhere that 12.2 was ideal for under boost and 14.7 when cruising. Even in betrezra's thread I'm pretty sure I'd seen that talked about, although I think he said his car was running around 11.2. My main thing was just how wavy the graph is, it was smoother on the stock tune. Do you think it's safe like it is or should I turn the fuel pressure regulator back to where it was? It looks like it was staying fine at 11 between 5k and 6k. I'm just OCD and want it "right." Whatever right may be. I spent so much time during the install to make it look "right." I've had quite a few people tell me it looks completely stock.

I just wish I had known all this information at the beginning. I think it was betrezra that said somewhere on here that people don't seem to want to share much information on how to make these cars fast. I might have still done it, but then I know at least I wouldn't have been irritated about the results.
I think 12.2 is way too lean for pump gas on such high compression. The car will never run perfectly as it should unless the regulator setup is removed, larger injectors are installed and the car is tuned for it. Keeping the regulator setup will be good enough though which is fine, just lower the pressure slightly and get your A/F ratio in the mid to high 11s. The wavyness of the graph can mostly be due to low timing, add race gas a raise timing and the wavyness should mostly be gone.

Also, 4th gear is a dyno with little airflow is a problem. You'll heat soak half way through the run. Dyno in 3rd, I ALWAYS dyno in 3rd.


You have already rated this thread Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 5.00 average.

Quick Reply: Dyno today finally, a little disappointed.



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:53 AM.