Kleeman K1 Dyno Results
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 122
Likes: 6
From: Livermore, CA
2012 Mercedes C63 AMG
Kleeman K1 Dyno Results
I'm new to this forum, and I need some advice. Just bought a 2008 C63 AMG about 3 weeks ago. I decided to do the Kleeman K1 ecu upgrade and removed my second set of cats and resonators. I immediately felt the difference when i drove it. I was curious to see exactly how much of a HP difference it made, so I got it Dyno'ed today at DSR in San Jose (DYNOJET). My car put down 412.58whp and 346.79wtq. I was just wondering if numbers are right. I looked around in this forum for people who got the ecu upgrade also and it seems that their numbers are alot higher than mine. Is there something wrong with my car or is there something wrong with the way Kleeman mapped my ecu? I'd appreciate it if someone that has more knowledge and experience shed some light. THANKS!
Super Member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 948
Likes: 0
From: Seattle, WA
C63 AMG
Did you do a baseline dyno? Before tuning or modding anything, if you can, it would be best to do a dyno so that you can see exactly how much hp/tq you've gained. Without a baseline dyno, it's sort of a moot point worrying about whether your post-install numbers meet a certain "expected" figure.
Keep in mind that every car is and can be different from the next, and dyno numbers only mean something if it's done on the same car, same dyno, same condition, same operator, and in a relatively short distance in between (i.e., not dyno numbers from years ago).
It's all about the delta...so if you're seeing 413rwhp after your flash and your baseline was 360rwhp (if you did a baseline), then the gains would be on par with someone whose baseline was 370rwhp and post-flash 420rwhp.
I wouldn't worry too much about it, your numbers seem on par.
Keep in mind that every car is and can be different from the next, and dyno numbers only mean something if it's done on the same car, same dyno, same condition, same operator, and in a relatively short distance in between (i.e., not dyno numbers from years ago).
It's all about the delta...so if you're seeing 413rwhp after your flash and your baseline was 360rwhp (if you did a baseline), then the gains would be on par with someone whose baseline was 370rwhp and post-flash 420rwhp.
I wouldn't worry too much about it, your numbers seem on par.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,375
Likes: 8
From: Seattle, WA
C55
Even Money - 2009 C63 (Kleemann K1 Tune, No Charcoals)
404.52 RWHP / 361.19 RWTQ (A/F of 12.55 @ 6000 RPM)
That would seem about right considering even money made less hp to the ground with his secondaries still in place (however he did make a lot more torque...which is a little odd)
404.52 RWHP / 361.19 RWTQ (A/F of 12.55 @ 6000 RPM)
That would seem about right considering even money made less hp to the ground with his secondaries still in place (however he did make a lot more torque...which is a little odd)
Super Moderator Alumni
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,189
Likes: 6
From: USA
2011 GLK 350, 2013 GT-R, & 2013 RAM 1500
Without a baseline dyno, it's sort of a moot point worrying about whether your post-install numbers meet a certain "expected" figure.
Keep in mind that every car is and can be different from the next, and dyno numbers only mean something if it's done on the same car, same dyno, same condition, same operator, and in a relatively short distance in between (i.e., not dyno numbers from years ago).
It's all about the delta...so if you're seeing 413rwhp after your flash and your baseline was 360rwhp (if you did a baseline), then the gains would be on par with someone whose baseline was 370rwhp and post-flash 420rwhp.
Keep in mind that every car is and can be different from the next, and dyno numbers only mean something if it's done on the same car, same dyno, same condition, same operator, and in a relatively short distance in between (i.e., not dyno numbers from years ago).
It's all about the delta...so if you're seeing 413rwhp after your flash and your baseline was 360rwhp (if you did a baseline), then the gains would be on par with someone whose baseline was 370rwhp and post-flash 420rwhp.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,272
Likes: 2
2009 c63, 2010 E63
Did you do a baseline dyno? Before tuning or modding anything, if you can, it would be best to do a dyno so that you can see exactly how much hp/tq you've gained. Without a baseline dyno, it's sort of a moot point worrying about whether your post-install numbers meet a certain "expected" figure.
Keep in mind that every car is and can be different from the next, and dyno numbers only mean something if it's done on the same car, same dyno, same condition, same operator, and in a relatively short distance in between (i.e., not dyno numbers from years ago).
It's all about the delta...so if you're seeing 413rwhp after your flash and your baseline was 360rwhp (if you did a baseline), then the gains would be on par with someone whose baseline was 370rwhp and post-flash 420rwhp.
I wouldn't worry too much about it, your numbers seem on par.
Keep in mind that every car is and can be different from the next, and dyno numbers only mean something if it's done on the same car, same dyno, same condition, same operator, and in a relatively short distance in between (i.e., not dyno numbers from years ago).
It's all about the delta...so if you're seeing 413rwhp after your flash and your baseline was 360rwhp (if you did a baseline), then the gains would be on par with someone whose baseline was 370rwhp and post-flash 420rwhp.
I wouldn't worry too much about it, your numbers seem on par.
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 272
Likes: 1
From: South Africa
2008 C63 AMG
Even Money - 2009 C63 (Kleemann K1 Tune, No Charcoals)
404.52 RWHP / 361.19 RWTQ (A/F of 12.55 @ 6000 RPM)
That would seem about right considering even money made less hp to the ground with his secondaries still in place (however he did make a lot more torque...which is a little odd)
404.52 RWHP / 361.19 RWTQ (A/F of 12.55 @ 6000 RPM)
That would seem about right considering even money made less hp to the ground with his secondaries still in place (however he did make a lot more torque...which is a little odd)
Trending Topics
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,699
Likes: 4
From: Tucson, AZ
C63 AMG
His torque numbers are low no matter how you look at it. He got tune and the numbers are low, imagine what the numbers were before the tune..what, like 320lb-tq? either this car is very weak, or the tune didn't get the torque or the dyno is not working right or all of the above combined.
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
10 Most Reliable Mercedes-Benz Models You Can Buy Used
Verdad Gallardo
Super Moderator Alumni
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,189
Likes: 6
From: USA
2011 GLK 350, 2013 GT-R, & 2013 RAM 1500
Without a baseline run or knowing the conditions at the dyno there is really nothing to discuss. It's all guessing without more data.
So many different variables can impact the results. E.g. I've seen cars drop 20HP/20TQ when the operator forgot to turn on the fans in front of the car.
So many different variables can impact the results. E.g. I've seen cars drop 20HP/20TQ when the operator forgot to turn on the fans in front of the car.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,699
Likes: 4
From: Tucson, AZ
C63 AMG
Well, I certainly don't have a degree on nothing(seriously) but I have many many years taking many many cars to many many dynos, I have been in all of them and when I throw my calculations it comes out to about a 27% drivetrain loss stock(torque wise) and about 22% drivetrain loss tuned.
If 443lb-tq to the crank is 100%
346lb-tq is x so,
346lb-tq tuned x100= 34,600, divide that by 443= 78% which equals 22% drivetrain loss
Assuming the Klemman gives you a 20lb-tq increase to the wheeels that would put this car into the 326lb-tq ish(when it was stock) to the wheel so
443lb-tq equals 100%
326lb-tq is x
326 times 100= 32600, divided by 443 = 73 which equals to 27% drivetrain loss
Like I said before, choose one:
The car is extremely weak
the dyno is not working right
the drivetrain loss is somewhere between 22% to 27%
If 443lb-tq to the crank is 100%
346lb-tq is x so,
346lb-tq tuned x100= 34,600, divide that by 443= 78% which equals 22% drivetrain loss
Assuming the Klemman gives you a 20lb-tq increase to the wheeels that would put this car into the 326lb-tq ish(when it was stock) to the wheel so
443lb-tq equals 100%
326lb-tq is x
326 times 100= 32600, divided by 443 = 73 which equals to 27% drivetrain loss
Like I said before, choose one:
The car is extremely weak
the dyno is not working right
the drivetrain loss is somewhere between 22% to 27%
Super Moderator Alumni
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,189
Likes: 6
From: USA
2011 GLK 350, 2013 GT-R, & 2013 RAM 1500
newdude, we only know two points of data; the max HP and TQ from the OP. There simply isn't enough data to come up with a valid conclusion. I agree the numbers look low and we can certainly hypothesize all we want but there are so many unknowns that it's not worth it.
Was it 105-degrees out with 100% humidity?
Were there any kinds of fans in front of the car?
Did the driver keep ESP on?
Did the operator take it up to 5000 RPM instead of redline?
What correction factor was used?
What is the altitude?
Did the car have 87 octane?
Was the car low on oil?
See where I'm going? All of these things could impact the results.
A bit of my C63 dyno history in my signature . . .
Was it 105-degrees out with 100% humidity?
Were there any kinds of fans in front of the car?
Did the driver keep ESP on?
Did the operator take it up to 5000 RPM instead of redline?
What correction factor was used?
What is the altitude?
Did the car have 87 octane?
Was the car low on oil?
See where I'm going? All of these things could impact the results.
A bit of my C63 dyno history in my signature . . .
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 122
Likes: 6
From: Livermore, CA
2012 Mercedes C63 AMG
I appreciate everyones input. Here are the Dyno Sheets. Maybe these will help. The guy put down 5 runs and this was the best one. I know it's hard to see on the bottom, but the Temperature was 68*f, Humidity was 45%, and the SAE: 0.97. The funny thing is that I am currently on 100 octane and a service was done about 3 weeks ago just before I got the car. I believe it was the Inspection B, the car has 20,350 miles. I put it in dyno mode myself. Holding the the answer button and the OK button on the steering wheel and toggling to turn it off, right?
Last edited by MeAn63; Mar 3, 2010 at 11:40 PM.
Super Moderator Alumni
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,189
Likes: 6
From: USA
2011 GLK 350, 2013 GT-R, & 2013 RAM 1500
BTW, your dyno operator could not get a good tach reading. I would go back and tell him to do this (from one of my previous posts):
*HELPFUL DYNOJET TIP: If your Dynojet Operator can not get a RPM/Torque reading there is a solution. Make sure they use the single/primary wire tach pickup and the red wire going to the coil pack. You get a perfect tach measurement everytime. My dyno operator was using a different pickup sensor previously that pulled the signal from the entire wire budle. We often got interference and bad data. Using the single/primary wire pickup will give you RPM/Torque.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
From: FL
'09 C63 AMG
FWIW, when I did my base stock dyno before my RENNtech ecu flash, I took my stock WHP / RWTQ numbers and divided by 0.8 (20% drivetrain loss) and came up extremely close to the MB advertised 451HP / 443 lb-ft TQ. I'd be willing to bet the C63's RWD platform drivetrain loss is closer to 20%; it's not AWD you know. 
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,699
Likes: 4
From: Tucson, AZ
C63 AMG
Where do you get that? FWIW, when I did my base stock dyno before my RENNtech ecu flash, I took my stock WHP / RWTQ numbers and divided by 0.8 (20% drivetrain loss) and came up extremely close to the MB advertised 451HP / 443 lb-ft TQ. I'd be willing to bet the C63's RWD platform drivetrain loss is closer to 20%; it's not AWD you know.
FWIW, when I did my base stock dyno before my RENNtech ecu flash, I took my stock WHP / RWTQ numbers and divided by 0.8 (20% drivetrain loss) and came up extremely close to the MB advertised 451HP / 443 lb-ft TQ. I'd be willing to bet the C63's RWD platform drivetrain loss is closer to 20%; it's not AWD you know. As far is your number, I totally believe your numbers, your numbers make sense(just like most dyno numbers I have seen). His numbers are extremely low but regardless you can always calculate the drivetrain loss by doing that simple equation.
my .2c
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 393
Likes: 3
From: Hawaii
'09 C63 AMG, '10 ML350 4Matic
My K1 Tune gave the following (with STD smoothing 4):
4th gear:
370whp/367tq before
411whp/373tq after
5th gear:
369whp/372tq before
418whp/387tq after
As people said, baseline is important, but your tq numbers seem low compared to you whp numbers (ie. if one was low I'd expect the other to be low too...).
With all of that, dynos are obviously not full proof...any number of things can be going on that cause your "low" tq values.
4th gear:
370whp/367tq before
411whp/373tq after
5th gear:
369whp/372tq before
418whp/387tq after
As people said, baseline is important, but your tq numbers seem low compared to you whp numbers (ie. if one was low I'd expect the other to be low too...).
With all of that, dynos are obviously not full proof...any number of things can be going on that cause your "low" tq values.
Super Member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 948
Likes: 0
From: Seattle, WA
C63 AMG
Anyway, newdude, using the factory torque output in a drivetrain loss calculation is only valid if there was a stock rwtq baseline. You can't really compare the 346rwtq tuned with the stock 443ft-lbs crank for calculating drivetrain loss because they're under different conditions. In other words, the tuned crank tq is more than 443ft-lbs. Also, different dynos will yield different "drive train loss", i.e. some dynos read higher and some read lower. Say, if I were to go on a dyno that showed baseline of 370rwhp stock, and someone goes on a different dyno that showed 350rwhp stock. Once again, it's all about the delta, and without more information and a baseline, everything is just pure speculation.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,699
Likes: 4
From: Tucson, AZ
C63 AMG
My K1 Tune gave the following (with STD smoothing 4):
4th gear:
370whp/367tq before
411whp/373tq after
5th gear:
369whp/372tq before
418whp/387tq after
As people said, baseline is important, but your tq numbers seem low compared to you whp numbers (ie. if one was low I'd expect the other to be low too...).
With all of that, dynos are obviously not full proof...any number of things can be going on that cause your "low" tq values.
4th gear:
370whp/367tq before
411whp/373tq after
5th gear:
369whp/372tq before
418whp/387tq after
As people said, baseline is important, but your tq numbers seem low compared to you whp numbers (ie. if one was low I'd expect the other to be low too...).
With all of that, dynos are obviously not full proof...any number of things can be going on that cause your "low" tq values.
Your 5th gear dyno pulls equal to 509.63hp (crank).
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,949
Likes: 0
From: Philadelphia, PA
2008 A8L, 2002 996TT X50, 2009 X5
A baseline would've given the post-tune runs something to compare to - otherwise, as others have stated, it's merely conjecture. IMHO.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,699
Likes: 4
From: Tucson, AZ
C63 AMG
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 122
Likes: 6
From: Livermore, CA
2012 Mercedes C63 AMG
I guess my real question is, why is my WTQ output so low? I know I never got a baseline dyno, but based on the "supposed" factory torque (443), it shows that my factory torque output is 415 (346wtq), when you add the 20% drivetrain loss.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 393
Likes: 3
From: Hawaii
'09 C63 AMG, '10 ML350 4Matic
Right, I used 18% which seems reasonable...although, that was STD smoothing 4...using SAE smoothing 5, my numbers drop by about 15whp, so it would be closer to 23% drivetrain loss...interesting all this dyno stuff...like Avenger said, Delta is the only true measure...everything else is completely subjective.
