^^ Thnaks for the update. Can't wait to see the dynosheet.

 

Wow LETs dyno really is a heartbreaker, both cars using 18% drivetrain loss got stock numbers much lower than the 451hp claim. The first car is rated at 411hp stock, 454hp tuned. 2nd C63 is at 416hp 443ft-lbs, tuned 452hp, 470ft-lbs. Talk about a dyno that reads low.

 

I'm ignorant with the use and readings from different dynos. I think what most of us want to know is how does this compare to tunes from Kleemann, PC, and Renntech?

Is this close to what an E63 would read on this dyno?

 

Certainly NOT close to the dyno numbers originally quoted for a LET ecu flash tuned C63. WHP is way less than RENNtech and Kleemann. With my RENNtech ecu flash, I saw an increase of +45WHP / + 14.46 RWTQ. Back on page 1-2 of this thread, they were saying the LET ecu flash would yield ~ + 40-50WHP / + 30-40 RWTQ...what happened?

 

Hard to get excited about these results when Kleemann is proven by many members for the C63

 

We apoligize that a third party claimed 40-50whp we have not claim that you will see 40-50whp


With our flash our custome's will and have seen anywhere from 30-40whp and 20-30wtq Which is 40-50 crank hp



Our shop 135i puts down 347whp on the same dyno dynamics funny thing is that our same 135i puts down 397whp on a dyno jet up the street.. We will see if we can get one of the C63 to a dyno jet hopefully soon

By the way which dyno were you running on when you put down +45whp and 14WTQ????

And if you could please provide us your dyno graph so that we may compare them

I will have our up soon as we are at a track event today and do not have the graphs handy

 

They are talking about the post Jerry made about a C63 that got a tune in South Africa (spoken about page 1-2 of this thread) that had the tune and went from 305kw and 537nm stock to LET Tuned 337kw and 594nm. I must say the baseline for those cars are quite low, is your dyno reading that low? Like you said, it will be good to get a dynojet reading.



Also with the information given in KW to the rear wheel I converted it to HP to the rear wheel for the car, then I did the conversion to crank with a 18% drivetrain loss:

Stock: 409rwhp 396rwtq = 498hp and 483ft-lbs should call it the Freak63 not C63; maybe it's a higher reading dyno then what we have. Please chime in

LET Tune: 452rwhp 438rwtq = 551hp 534ft-lbs (K2 like crank figures) (Gain of 43rwhp and 42rwtq)

Cat Delete: 462.65rwhp = 564hp

 

It'd probably be best to get those 2 63s on Dynojets asap, because that's what most people are comparing it too. Kleemann is +40-50whp on a DJ in 4th gear, about 35whp in 5th gear in my own experience. Also what gear were those done in?

For sales I would always use DJs because the numbers are nice and high regardless of other variables and customers like that. You also have less explaining to do. That was just a side comment.

 

I knew you weren't going to be fair on your claims. Yes you made 45whp and 14lb-tq but you made that on a dynojet. These guys made 35whp and 21lb-tq on a Dyno Dynamic Dyno.

These are your numbers:
https://mbworld.org/forums/c63-amg-w...capable-3.html

Let me do the conversion for you:

your 45whp/14lb-tq would be like 37-38whp and 9-10lb-tq gain on a Dyno Dynamic Dyno and LET 30whp and 21lb-tq would equal to about 37-38whp/26lb-tq.

Why Do I think this way, because I have dyno about 8 of my cars in about 7 different dynos about 90 dyno runs. I know exactly what each dyno read and that is base on nothing but taking your own cars to the dyno and comparing and also reading.

Let me summarize it for you and for everyone: Your much bigger" gains" are not really much when converted to Dyno Dynamic Dyno numbers.

Dynos in which I have taken my cars to:

Vivid racing(Mustang Dyno) Phoenix Car 05 Evo 8 MR
AZdynochip (Dynojet) Phoenix Car 05 Evo8 MR
Dyno-Comp(Dyno Dymanics Dyno) Car 02 WRX
GoodspeedperformanceLab (Maha Dyno) Phoenix 07 GTI
IA performance ( Mustang Dyno) Tucson, AZ 95 GSX, 07 VW GLI, 05 Evo 8 and 06' Evo 9
Addictive Racing (Dynojet) Tucson, AZ C6 Z06, 98 GTI VR6
Quality Motorsports(Dynojet) Lewisville,TX car C6 Z06
Xtrememotorsports(Dynojet) Phoenix Car C6 Z06

I know what I am talking about. I totally understand your point of view since you are the one that is "justifying" your $2500 tune but I am not trying to argue with you, I am just pointing out that the dyno results are totally missleading specially for the forum members that have absolutely no experience on going to dynos. To me, the numbers are right on the spot, by the way, I am not trying to discredit you, in fact, I am happy about your gains..

 

^^^+1. No need to apologize. You guys are absolutely right. Your numbers make sense to me(read post number #84). You guys accomplished good results.

 

Once you get those cars on a dynojet you'll be able to compare the numbers that others have posted.

As for gears, don't you want to run in the gear that is closest to 1:1 ratio on the dyno ? Therefore we should always be running in 5th? 4th would just make our numbers look bigger? Or am I totally wrong here?

 

What do the car manufacturers like MB use to get their HP anf TQ readings for a particular car? There must be a standard that is either more accurate or universally accepted.

I am always suspicious of dyno-ing cars especially when you are paying a tuner in hopes of gains. It seems like it would be easy to play with the results as needed.

There always seem to be large variations from one dyno run you read about on a forum to another making the whole thing more and more questionable to me. The process just doesn't seem very objective when people are paying money for positive results (like a self fulfilling prophecy of sorts).

 

https://mbworld.org/forums/3721215-post51.html

And, to answer other posters questions, admittedly I do not know the diff between how a DynoJet dyno reads and how your dyno reads. However, I was under the impression that delta is delta...no?

 

Nothing to discredit me on anyway; admittedly, I do not know the diffs between how a Dynojet reads and their dyno reads. I do know that Mustang dynos read lower than Dynojet, but I thought delta was delta? Also, although they've just now apologized for "other" poster's claims for the LET C63 ecu flash tune, LET certainly didn't correct or argue their claims earlier in this thread. I never said their numbers weren't good; just a lot lower than previously reported.

 

Dyno's are great tools, for baseline vs mod comparision. Dynojet's read higher than mustang dyno's most people know that. As for car manufacturer's they take and engine and dyno it, with no driveline, thus "flywheel" horsepower which won't vary from dyno to dyno since they all attach direct to engine.

Taken directly from both websites below, the quick version is mustang dyno's correct for weight and other factors to give you a "real world corrected" number. The operator can also fudge numbers if they input incorrect factors to show a higher or lower output. The Dynojets show higher numbers usually 10 percent and are uncorrected "ideal perfect world conditions".

Mustang Dyno:

"It's true that any chassis dyno can spin your wheels and do some calculations, but only a Mustang dyno can give you a real world simulation every time. Our patented control system uses eddy current power absorbers to load a vehicle exactly the way it would be loaded on the street -- including wind resistance, which is a significant factor in high-speed testing. Mustang dynos also feature a load cell to measure the power being applied to the rolls. Without going into a lot of theory, a Mustang dyno gives you a real world tune, every time."

Dynojet :

"The Model 248x Dynamometer features 48" diameter, knurled, precision balanced drums, while the Model 224x Dynamometer features 24" drums. The unit is a durable, factory calibrated dynamometer that requires little maintenance and no calibration."

Dynojets show these same numbers more consistantly due to their factory calibration and uncorrected numbers.

Mustang dyno's can show wide variations due to user input and incorrect operation, but given the right operator give you a real world comparision.


Bottom line both dyno's are tools used to see before and after results. Delta is was you are concerned about.

BTW the cars would seem about right with the 10 % variation putting:

Car 1:
Baseline around 371 rwhp
Tune around 409 rwhp
Delta gain 38 RWHP

Car2:
Baseline around 375 rwhp
Tune around 409 rwhp
Delta gain 34 RWHP

 

I really do need to get my C to a dynojet, because these dyno dynamics numbers don't do Eurocharged or the car any justice. I already feel a significant increase in power, although it comes in a bit choppy when the engine's cold. (haven't even put 100miles on the car since the flash so that's to be expected) The speedometer definitely doesn't lie though, and above 5k revs there's a very noticable difference in how the car continues to pull. Overall I'm happy with the results, but I would definitely have come earlier if I'd do it all over again so Jerry and the guys wouldn't have had to wait until like 9:30pm to begin work on some of the cars that were out on the track today. I'm really curious what kind of gains I would see if Jerry wrote an individualized tune for my car. (the tune for Car #1 was used for both cars)

 

My scanner is currently broken, but I'll post up a photo of the output as soon as I can get it off my camera.

My car was first on the dyno and frankly it was very disappointing to see how low it baselined, but remember - it's not about the baseline. It's about the delta between that and the final number. On that front, Jerry and gang did not disappoint. The work is top notch, the guys fantastic and my 37 or so HP boost over stock with just number tuning is phenomenal. I'll see if I can get the raw numbers so I can graph in Excel and we can all review in detail. What I like is that the tune went up across the board. The best areas of course were up top - but I picked up bumps across the board.

Anyhow - a full writeup is coming shortly, I didn't want to leave this thread hanging and thinking this was smoke and mirrors.

back by Monday with more writeup for you all!

(and thanks to Jerry, Jake and Tony for a great session!)

 

Good feedback from both C63 owners. Eurocharged's DD dyno does seem to read very low, but appears consistently low with other vehicles as well... as many have mentioned, it's the delta that's important.

Did either (or both?) of the C63's attend the Eurocharged track day? It'd be good to know what kind of numbers they'd achieve at the track post-tuning. EDIT: nevermind, just saw that it got rained out. Hopefully one of them might be able to make the rescheduled date.

 

Is there a baseline dyno on an E63 from LET's dyno?

 

LETs/Eurocharged Dyno is a true heartbreaker, I came back across a thread where a stock S600 only did 370rwhp, compared to that to a stock crank hp of 493 and that means there is a 25% loss on their DD dyno from engine hp to wheel hp. The S600 tuned car ended up making 430rwhp .

This is a bit of just theory/I'm bored and trying to find some reasoning

If that is taken account with the numbers on page 3(dividing numbers by .75 Dyno dynamics vs .82 for dynojet; would make sense that the DD can read 7% lower than dynojet), then the 337rwhp stock becomes 449hp and 372rwhp tuned becomes 496hp. The 2nd car with 341rwhp would have a stock crank hp of 455hp and tuned 371rwhp would be 495hp. Alternatively, take the delta gains and divide them by .75, 35rwhp for the first car is roughly a 47hp gain and 30rwhp for the 2nd car is a 40hp gain.

This is all just speculation reasoning as it will just be best to dyno the cars on a dynojet or better yet get it's trap speed.

 

The problem now is that you really need to use the same dyno from baseline through several mods to get an accurate analysis. If a dyno reads historically low, then you can expect the delta to read low as well.

I think from a marketing/sales standpoint you need to be able to validate numbers vs. the competition on a similar dyno. It's going to be hard to convince most folks that you're HP gain is equivalent to a K1 tune...even though you may be mathematically correct.

 

Why do people even bother with static hp numbers (baseline, post tune, or gain) when we all know different dyno's will read different values on different cars on different days (i.e. no single number is very valuable). Why not measure percentage gains? In other words, a 45 hp gain on one dyno is equivalent to a 35 hp gain on another dyno if the ratio of baseline:baseline and tune:tune are equivalent.

Chicago Car #1
Base 337
Tune 372
Net 35 hp
Gain 1-(372/337)=10.4% gain

Chicago Car #2
Base 341
Tune 371
Net 30 hp
Gain 1-(371/341)=8.8% gain

South Africa
Base 409
Tune 452
Net 43 hp
Gain 1-(452/409)=10.5% gain

Throw any vendor/owner results in here and the math works out the same. Mathematically, a gain of 35 hp on a car showing a baseline of 337 hp is a better tune than a gain of 40 hp on a car showing a baseline of 390 hp, for example. If you want to measure which tune is better, measure the percentage gains and leave all the dyno variations out of it.

 

The gain of nearly 40whp on a dyno dynamic is very impressive

My car only managed to put down 340whp on a dyno dynamic stock

I am looking forward to purchase this tune soon.

 

Good point.

 

Food for thought.

My CLK55 bone stock dyno on at Eurocharged. 263whp, a E55K stock put down 360whp. SRT6 put down 252.

https://mbworld.org/forums/clk55-amg...ock-clk55.html

Honestly dyno figures do not matter. It is 1/4mi runs that tell the story. Just try and make the d/a as close as possible.

I will be going with eurocharged with my next car as well.