Saaboteur

Was surfing over on another forum, and saw that stockish C43s dyno about 225rwhp.

Can anyone with a 55 swap chime in and advise what they dyno at, with the stock C43 ECU? Curious as to the tangible gains.

DRBC43AMG

Ah Saaboteur, I see you have been snooping around on the forum across here in Europe

Saaboteur

Heh, I just registered again on MBclub.co.uk - some good stuff there. Still looking for a comprehensive DIY for the folding mirrors. I have the cached version from club202, but that one was a bit too vague in some areas.

ProjectC55

285 to 305+ rwhp just like any of the other N/***'s.

austinholloman

225? I have seen dyno sheets claiming 240hp stock... I sure hope that is right.... If an na 5.5 can do 285-295rwhp than our cars should be in the 230-240 range...

Chappy

That's what I was thinking too, but different types of dynos can be one explanation for the difference. You'll notice the torque difference with the 5.5 swap to be significant.

503C43 ////AMG

I have seen dyno sheets as well showing 240 RWHP for the C43. You can expect to lose about 20% HP from the crank to the rear wheel. 302 HP - 20% = about 240 RWHP. I saw one dyno sheet that had 240 RWHP but had 219 tq at the rear wheel, which is lower than expected. I am not sure if that C43 had something wrong with it but if it was putting down 240 RWHP then I dont see what could be causing the lower torque.

austinholloman

Very interesting. I am tempted to take mine to a Dyno and check it out. I just wish runs didn't cost so damn much in Dallas.

MarcusF

Stephens CLK430 dyno. 245HP/ 251TQ. It's a 2002 and stock. He's since upgraded to a CLK55.

austinholloman

Wait. Was this CLK430 stock? Only the C43 is 302hp at the crank and the CLK430 275hp? So this should put the C43 closer to 255/265hp at the wheel right?

Does anyone know of a dyno in the Dallas, Texas area? I am going to have my car tested, its fully stock (Engine) and has no issues at all. Runs very strong. I want to know before I start moding this thing what its putting down.

Klinh

When compared dyno charts, make sure to find out if it from a dynamic or dynojet. My Clk500 dyno at 231 rwhp on a dynamic.

MarcusF

Stephens car was stock. All CLK430s were rated at 275 HP. The 1999/2000 with ME 2.0 and the 2001/2002 with ME 2.8. ME 2.8 included a number of upgrades that one would ordinarily associate with increased power, but MB never changed the spec sheets.

Of course, dynos are only good for baselines and checking whether upgrades actually work. So your baseline will be a very good first move.

Also Klinh is right. Trying to compare different dynos under different conditions won't work. A 500 puts out A LOT more power than a 430.

VeeDubbVR6

Don't forget about weather (temp, moisture, etc..) and elevation as well.

I need to get mine on a dyno sometime soon before I start getting into the exhaust part of things.

austinholloman

There is a really old thread I found on here where a guy ran 256rwhp stock w/res and second cat delete. I wonder if he managed that just based on modifying the exhaust? Most others I have found are showing 244/246rwhp stock.

LawRens

Please be aware that dynos are VERY subjective. When i had my car dynod with the hearbreak dyno my 43 only put out 225whp, but on the dynojet i was pushing about 280~? It doesnt work too well to compare numbers, unless you both bring your cars to the same dyno at the same time.

DRBC43AMG

And taking into consideration the technician running the dyno and doing the calculations.....

Saaboteur

I've noticed a curious anomaly - at least in my mind. In the UK (from reading UK based forums and British car mags), when they dyno ("rolling road") their cars, the dynos also spit out a crank number. I've been on a few dynos with my other cars (if I remember right, a Dynapack and a Mustang) and those machines have never provided a calculated crank number, just power and torque figures at the wheels.

jayrasheed

i just want 2 friends to race a c36 and c43 to see how far away they r, cause i think on the road they r close to abt 125mph the the 43 should pull slightly. I have driven a 43 many times, always the same car thou, it has no cats just like my 36 and both me and that cars owner swear that mine feels faster. I cant ask the guy to race me for he is not into such things he is 50 yrs old so i understand him on that. He happens to be my mechanic too so i know his car is in good tune state.

503C43 ////AMG

Not trying to start a flame war here but I have heard this before and I don't get it.... How can a C36 with 40 less HP and 20 ft/lbs less torque that weighs 100 lbs more than a C43 be that close???

austinholloman

I though my E36 M3 felt faster also, then I drove it once I got back from my road trip home in my C43 and it just isn't so. A feeling is no way to measure performance, a 6cyl engine can often feel faster because its more peaky and workers harder to move the same vehicle, where as a V8 doesn't need to try as hard to move the car, its can seem almost effortless/not as fast. Sit them side by side and run them in a str8 line. The law of physics will not be out done here. C43 is lighter with more power in every way and an extra gear. If you do it, pleas video it!!!


To end this: This is my personal opinion based on owning a C43 and a E36 inline 6 and just what I have noticed.

popey24

Here is the result of my measuring with a 55 swap plus some light tuning (Air filter, catalyst, ECU).

I am not sure, if my translation is correct. Hope you understand...

Nominal Power.... 295,5 kW (401,8 HP) according to DIN 70020
Engine Power...... 291,5 kW (396,4 HP)
Wheel Power ...... 193,0 kW (262,4 HP)
Drag Power .......... 98,5 kW (133,9 HP)

The engine was quite new, so it might change a little in future (probably less drag power and more wheel power).

DRBC43AMG

Very interesting.... Any others?

LawRens

c36 is no joke whatsoever. it was one of the finest engines made during it's time, and was engineered more than thoroughly by AMG.

I don't want to say that the m113 43 was slapped together, but the engineers at AMG didn't go all out the same way they did with the 36, not until they released the 5.4 in the w208/w210 e55.

And while performance numbers are very similar, i do believe that the bigger difference begins to show at 100+mph, which the majority of us never reach that often. But who knows

Ima just wait for my friends with GT5 to buy the c36 and c43, see how virtual runs go in the standing mile.

jayrasheed

Well i for one have seen dyno sheets for C36s making 225+WHP and i will dyno my car soon, prolly on 2 diff dynos just to see where it stands. As for the Bmw M3 E36 EUro spec a c43 stands no chance. against the US one well yeah a 43 is faster.

But i bet u a c36 will be on par with a 43 till the end of its third gear which on mine is abt 125mph ( my car has slightly larger rear tires at 255/40/17, and 7k shift point)

Hell i have raced 2 W209 CLK 500 one coupe and one convert, against the coupe i was just behind the door at 130mph from a roll, vs the conv well i was ahead by 3 cars atleast all the way to 140mph and it didnt seem like it can catch me. i have taken my car to just over 160mph and it was still pulling, i chickened out as i was on a very dark 2 lane streach of road. A c36 is a quicker car than ppl think it is especially from around 95mph onwards. On a gteck i have recorded several 5.7sec 0-62mph, which aint bad i guess.

503C43 ////AMG

again not trying to start a flame war but neither of you answered my question. No doubt the C36 engine is more tuned than the C43's (4 valves per cylinder vs 3 valves per cylinder) but we are talking physics here.... Less power + more weight = slower car, I think we could all agreee on that.