2009 C63 Kleeman K1 Dyno
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,749
Likes: 1
From: PNW
'15 VW GTI
2009 C63 Kleeman K1 Dyno
Background: Car has 10,400 miles, baseline dyno was done at about 2,800 miles. I've had the Kleeman K1 for about 2 months, 4,000 miles, before today's runs. All runs were done in 4th gear.
Mods: Kleeman K1, Charcoal Delete, Hankook V12 265/35/18
Dyno: Mustang Dyno w/ weather station
Baseline: 362 whp/361tq
Run 1: 421 whp/394tq
Run 2: 427 whp/393tq
Run 3: 421 whp/391tq
Avg gain: +61 whp/+32tq
I'm having trouble uploading the dyno graphs, can't seem to get the file size under the limit. Maybe someone can show me a shortcut, or some method to reduce the file size..
Mods: Kleeman K1, Charcoal Delete, Hankook V12 265/35/18
Dyno: Mustang Dyno w/ weather station
Baseline: 362 whp/361tq
Run 1: 421 whp/394tq
Run 2: 427 whp/393tq
Run 3: 421 whp/391tq
Avg gain: +61 whp/+32tq
I'm having trouble uploading the dyno graphs, can't seem to get the file size under the limit. Maybe someone can show me a shortcut, or some method to reduce the file size..
Super Moderator Alumni
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,189
Likes: 6
From: USA
2011 GLK 350, 2013 GT-R, & 2013 RAM 1500
EM, it looks like the operator used a different vehicle weight for the "after" pulls. If I recall correctly, the mustang dyno uses weight as one of the inputs to calculate the right load to apply during the pulls. I don't remember if HP@50 is an input or a calculation, but either way these two values should be the same for all of the pulls.
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,749
Likes: 1
From: PNW
'15 VW GTI
Yeah. Thought you would notice. Although I think 3900 lbs is the more accurate wt. I'll have to call back and ask how much diff it makes. So I think if the before runs had used 3900 then the delta would have been a little less.
Super Moderator Alumni
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,189
Likes: 6
From: USA
2011 GLK 350, 2013 GT-R, & 2013 RAM 1500
They owe you some more runs at the same 4200lbs weight & 11.50@50MPH inputs as your baseline.
BTW, Mustang Dyno operators have a chart/guide by vehicle they reference for these inputs so they stay consistent. I'm really surprised they did this, especially since you've been there before and should already be on file.
Trending Topics
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,749
Likes: 1
From: PNW
'15 VW GTI
I'm afraid it makes a very big difference.
They owe you some more runs at the same 4200lbs weight & 11.50@50MPH inputs as your baseline.
BTW, Mustang Dyno operators have a chart/guide by vehicle they reference for these inputs so they stay consistent. I'm really surprised they did this, especially since you've been there before and should already be on file.
They owe you some more runs at the same 4200lbs weight & 11.50@50MPH inputs as your baseline.
BTW, Mustang Dyno operators have a chart/guide by vehicle they reference for these inputs so they stay consistent. I'm really surprised they did this, especially since you've been there before and should already be on file.
From the research on the net, best I can tell is that the weight and hp at 50 values are only used for road, 1/4 mile simulations, not for actually calculating torque and hp. Provided they set up the dyno with the same calibration file, or whatever you would call that, the numbers should be good. Will know on Monday..
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
From the research on the net, best I can tell is that the weight and hp at 50 values are only used for road, 1/4 mile simulations, not for actually calculating torque and hp. Provided they set up the dyno with the same calibration file, or whatever you would call that, the numbers should be good. Will know on Monday..
I dug up this old post from Mike Hornback @ Straightline Performance on LS1Tech.com talking about those inputs. It is a really good explanation/dyno comparison -> http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/11468376-post12.html
The other "odd" thing about your results is how high the numbers are. Typically Mustang Dynos read very low compared to Dynojet Dynos, but your car put down significantly lower numbers on a very familiar Dynojet:
That doesn't make much sense. It's possible this place has also tweaked their "parasitics" file to read higher as well.
Nothing smells good about this. I hope you get everything straightened out on Monday.
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,749
Likes: 1
From: PNW
'15 VW GTI
EM, I know the vehicle weight and HP@50 are certainly factored into the HP/TQ calculation for a Mustang Dyno. Those data points are what add "load" and simulate real world conditions. It actually makes for a great "total chassis" tuning tool, however if the values are tampered with, you can inflate or deflate results.
I dug up this old post from Mike Hornback @ Straightline Performance on LS1Tech.com talking about those inputs. It is a really good explanation/dyno comparison -> http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/11468376-post12.html
The other "odd" thing about your results is how high the numbers are. Typically Mustang Dynos read very low compared to Dynojet Dynos, but your car put down significantly lower numbers on a very familiar Dynojet:
That doesn't make much sense. It's possible this place has also tweaked their "parasitics" file to read higher as well.
Nothing smells good about this. I hope you get everything straightened out on Monday.
I dug up this old post from Mike Hornback @ Straightline Performance on LS1Tech.com talking about those inputs. It is a really good explanation/dyno comparison -> http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/11468376-post12.html
The other "odd" thing about your results is how high the numbers are. Typically Mustang Dynos read very low compared to Dynojet Dynos, but your car put down significantly lower numbers on a very familiar Dynojet:
That doesn't make much sense. It's possible this place has also tweaked their "parasitics" file to read higher as well.
Nothing smells good about this. I hope you get everything straightened out on Monday.
Super Member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 948
Likes: 0
From: Seattle, WA
C63 AMG
Super Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 655
Likes: 4
From: Surf City, USA
What I like!
Well never mind the dyno then. 
How does it feel vs stock? What was your first impression after install? Where do you notice the power most?
Congrats. I'm still waiting to do this mod for some reason. I guess because I haven't encountered a situation where I needed more power..... 'cept when I read about all you guys on the board with more power.... Hmmm grrrrr
How does it feel vs stock? What was your first impression after install? Where do you notice the power most?Congrats. I'm still waiting to do this mod for some reason. I guess because I haven't encountered a situation where I needed more power..... 'cept when I read about all you guys on the board with more power.... Hmmm grrrrr
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,749
Likes: 1
From: PNW
'15 VW GTI
OK, so I called Dyno Authority, they're great and have offered to run the car again at the parameters I used before, since I still have the baseline graph. However, he said that it should only make a few horsepower difference, so we'll see. Also interesting is that they set up their mustang dyno to basically simulate a dynojet. They've had cars run on both dynos, and end up within a few hp of each other.
One more thing I learned, instead of pulling the rpm directly from the motor, they run a test at 5,000 rpm in 4th gear to calibrate the rpm readings from the roller. So in my case a slightly taller tire won't matter. Before on the dynojet, they pull the rpm off the motor and maybe the slightly taller tire, winter tire at that, affected the reading. So, at the end of the day, looks like I'm going back next week. I'll let folks know if they're intersted to come over and check it out. I'm gonna get some race gas and take with me too.
Bottom line, the car feels right, definitely pulls harder mid and top range, I'm just trying to make sure I'm getting the right readings before I go on to other mods.
The car feels great, pulls harder mid and top range than before.
One more thing I learned, instead of pulling the rpm directly from the motor, they run a test at 5,000 rpm in 4th gear to calibrate the rpm readings from the roller. So in my case a slightly taller tire won't matter. Before on the dynojet, they pull the rpm off the motor and maybe the slightly taller tire, winter tire at that, affected the reading. So, at the end of the day, looks like I'm going back next week. I'll let folks know if they're intersted to come over and check it out. I'm gonna get some race gas and take with me too.
Bottom line, the car feels right, definitely pulls harder mid and top range, I'm just trying to make sure I'm getting the right readings before I go on to other mods.
The car feels great, pulls harder mid and top range than before.
Super Moderator Alumni
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,189
Likes: 6
From: USA
2011 GLK 350, 2013 GT-R, & 2013 RAM 1500
OK, so I called Dyno Authority, they're great and have offered to run the car again at the parameters I used before, since I still have the baseline graph. However, he said that it should only make a few horsepower difference, so we'll see. Also interesting is that they set up their mustang dyno to basically simulate a dynojet. They've had cars run on both dynos, and end up within a few hp of each other.
One more thing I learned, instead of pulling the rpm directly from the motor, they run a test at 5,000 rpm in 4th gear to calibrate the rpm readings from the roller. So in my case a slightly taller tire won't matter. Before on the dynojet, they pull the rpm off the motor and maybe the slightly taller tire, winter tire at that, affected the reading. So, at the end of the day, looks like I'm going back next week. I'll let folks know if they're intersted to come over and check it out. I'm gonna get some race gas and take with me too.
Bottom line, the car feels right, definitely pulls harder mid and top range, I'm just trying to make sure I'm getting the right readings before I go on to other mods.
The car feels great, pulls harder mid and top range than before.
One more thing I learned, instead of pulling the rpm directly from the motor, they run a test at 5,000 rpm in 4th gear to calibrate the rpm readings from the roller. So in my case a slightly taller tire won't matter. Before on the dynojet, they pull the rpm off the motor and maybe the slightly taller tire, winter tire at that, affected the reading. So, at the end of the day, looks like I'm going back next week. I'll let folks know if they're intersted to come over and check it out. I'm gonna get some race gas and take with me too.
Bottom line, the car feels right, definitely pulls harder mid and top range, I'm just trying to make sure I'm getting the right readings before I go on to other mods.
The car feels great, pulls harder mid and top range than before.
Be explicit, tell them you aren't looking for magical ego-boosting numbers, you want accurate numbers high or low, good or bad.
Ask for all the data and multiple printouts of everything from the baseline and latest dyno sessions.
Good luck, EM.
Last edited by superlubricity; Apr 5, 2010 at 05:08 PM. Reason: forgot about the hidden roll weight input.
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,749
Likes: 1
From: PNW
'15 VW GTI
***UPDATE***
OK..So I've abandoned the mustang dyno, as it is still broken after many months...and since they messed up my last run anyhow. I'm over at a dynojet that most folks here on the forum use in this area. They know what they're doing, and it's a consistent dyno. You can see my dynojet graph above, I'm at about 405 whp, and mid 360s on the torque on both winter tires and drag radials, so the figures seem reliable. The issue is, is that the whp is about 15 to 20 whp less than what I should be getting. After talking to Klemann, they verified the file is 100% good to go and suggested cleaning the MAF.
1. Got some MAF cleaner from Autozone, going to give that a shot.
2. Will order some pipercross foam filters, and see how they work.
Will hopefully be on the dyno on Sat., will see what their schedule is, to verify these potential fixes.
At the end of the day, I'm not too concerned, as I'll be getting the MHP longtubes in about 4 weeks..But if the MAF is dirty, at least it'll be clean, and I've heard good things and recommendations about pipercross, so that can't hurt.
1. Got some MAF cleaner from Autozone, going to give that a shot.
2. Will order some pipercross foam filters, and see how they work.
Will hopefully be on the dyno on Sat., will see what their schedule is, to verify these potential fixes.
At the end of the day, I'm not too concerned, as I'll be getting the MHP longtubes in about 4 weeks..But if the MAF is dirty, at least it'll be clean, and I've heard good things and recommendations about pipercross, so that can't hurt.
Member
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 201
Likes: 1
C63
don't worry about the dyno numbers, if baseline and power runs are from a different dyno (even on a different day) could skew the results in either favor. It's the gains are that are important and in your cars they are quite obviously positive, so don't sweat over the actual numerical values as they do not mean much from a mustang to a dynojet. Enjoy the car.
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 258
Likes: 1
From: Bellevue, WA
'10 C63 AMG P31, '88 Porsche 911 Carrera Coupe, '78 Toyota FJ40, '10 Audi Q7 TDi
Questions the suggestion that the MAF is dirty raise for me:
Why/how did it get dirty?
Is is normal for them to get dirty?
If so, should we all be regularly cleaning ours!?!?
Super Member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 948
Likes: 0
From: Seattle, WA
C63 AMG
Aftermarket air filters can dirty MAFs because of the oil on those filters.
I spoke with a few sources that have said the MAFs on our cars are very sensitive. In other words, even removing the airboxes can screw up the MAFs. Take that as it may, I do agree with Charlie that you should see if anything else is a possible cause for the "low" numbers.
Other than that, congrats on the LTs and I'm 100% confident you will love it!
I spoke with a few sources that have said the MAFs on our cars are very sensitive. In other words, even removing the airboxes can screw up the MAFs. Take that as it may, I do agree with Charlie that you should see if anything else is a possible cause for the "low" numbers.
Other than that, congrats on the LTs and I'm 100% confident you will love it!
Super Moderator Alumni
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,189
Likes: 6
From: USA
2011 GLK 350, 2013 GT-R, & 2013 RAM 1500
Well said.
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 258
Likes: 1
From: Bellevue, WA
'10 C63 AMG P31, '88 Porsche 911 Carrera Coupe, '78 Toyota FJ40, '10 Audi Q7 TDi
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,749
Likes: 1
From: PNW
'15 VW GTI
Valid points all...From what Cory has said, looking at the file, it's identical to the one you guys(that have the K1) have had..so it's not the file. IDK, maybe some files every so often don't load 100% right...
Any case, he suggested cleaning the MAF. I have taken the box tops off 3 times, so maybe that dirtied them...Seems like an easy attempt at a solution, as well as the filters which are reasonable. At the end of the day, if it doesn't work out, at least I'll have eliminated some variables and will hopefully have some data points. IDK of any other reasons, other than there's nothing wrong and it is what it is.
The car is running great, no problems whatsoever from idle to WOT. Oil consumption is normal and has improved since break in. I can avg. 22-24 mpg on the highway, so that's good.
Absolutely looking forward to the longtubes, hopefully here within 4 weeks!! Although, I am a little concerned for the neighbors in a few months with the cold starts....
Any case, he suggested cleaning the MAF. I have taken the box tops off 3 times, so maybe that dirtied them...Seems like an easy attempt at a solution, as well as the filters which are reasonable. At the end of the day, if it doesn't work out, at least I'll have eliminated some variables and will hopefully have some data points. IDK of any other reasons, other than there's nothing wrong and it is what it is.
The car is running great, no problems whatsoever from idle to WOT. Oil consumption is normal and has improved since break in. I can avg. 22-24 mpg on the highway, so that's good.
Absolutely looking forward to the longtubes, hopefully here within 4 weeks!! Although, I am a little concerned for the neighbors in a few months with the cold starts....
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,749
Likes: 1
From: PNW
'15 VW GTI
OK..so I'm going over to CarbConn on Sat at 0930 with my new carbonio foam filters and clean MAF. We'll see what happens.
Speaking of changing the airboxes and messing up the MAFs, I recall when Cek's car was on the dyno..took out the charcoal filters, and lost about 5 to 10 whp if I recall correctly.
Speaking of changing the airboxes and messing up the MAFs, I recall when Cek's car was on the dyno..took out the charcoal filters, and lost about 5 to 10 whp if I recall correctly.
