EC Tuned C63 vs EC Tuned Gallardo
06-14-2012, 12:54 PM
#26
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07 Gallardo, '10 C63
First of all you have a terrific pair of vehicles, choosing which one to drive each day must be a fun decision 
To clear up the conversation regarding drive train loss better known as parasitic loss since more variables than just the drive train contribute to the “theft”. Take a stock base C63 to shop A with a Dynojet dyno and you will likely see 370 hp at the wheels. Immediately go to shop B next door with a Mustang dyno and you will likely see 340 hp at the wheels. Same car, same conditions, two different devices to measure power. The only constant is factory claimed flywheel power so the parasitic loss will be different depending on which device was used.
Regardless of all this, tune only cars are creating ~530 hp on a regular basis these days and probably a bit more in perfect DA situations. Several members have run mid 11’s at 120+ with just a tune in prime conditions as well as some mid 8 second 60- 130’s.
To clear up the conversation regarding drive train loss better known as parasitic loss since more variables than just the drive train contribute to the “theft”. Take a stock base C63 to shop A with a Dynojet dyno and you will likely see 370 hp at the wheels. Immediately go to shop B next door with a Mustang dyno and you will likely see 340 hp at the wheels. Same car, same conditions, two different devices to measure power. The only constant is factory claimed flywheel power so the parasitic loss will be different depending on which device was used.
Regardless of all this, tune only cars are creating ~530 hp on a regular basis these days and probably a bit more in perfect DA situations. Several members have run mid 11’s at 120+ with just a tune in prime conditions as well as some mid 8 second 60- 130’s.
And yes that's what I'm saying, you must assume the car is within a few hp of what MB claims. And then what ever whp u get on your baseline will be your percent loss for the drivetrain. And use that same dyno and same percent on any future runs with mods to get your new crank hp. It may not be 110% perfect but you will be close enough that it works.
06-14-2012, 02:13 PM
#27
Former Vendor of MBWorld
Thank you .
And yes that's what I'm saying, you must assume the car is within a few hp of what MB claims. And then what ever whp u get on your baseline will be your percent loss for the drivetrain. And use that same dyno and same percent on any future runs with mods to get your new crank hp. It may not be 110% perfect but you will be close enough that it works.
And yes that's what I'm saying, you must assume the car is within a few hp of what MB claims. And then what ever whp u get on your baseline will be your percent loss for the drivetrain. And use that same dyno and same percent on any future runs with mods to get your new crank hp. It may not be 110% perfect but you will be close enough that it works.
Last edited by VividRacing; 06-14-2012 at 02:15 PM.
06-14-2012, 02:39 PM
#28
Parasitic loss is the same from one C63 to the next until you start changing things in the drivetrain after the engine.
It's not parasitic loss that's changing from one dyno to the next, it's the dyno, or ambient conditions, or the power of the car, etc...
We know that MB/AMG SAE certified the M156 at 451 hp. But, not every stock C63's engine is making 451 hp when it goes on the dyno for a baseline run. Things like octane, heat soak, ambient temperature, air flow will affect the output...
Sure, you can make up your own drivetrain loss percentage for your C63 to fit your mood, but please don't apply that percentage to other similar C63's if it's higher than 18-20%. That would just be embarrassing to MB/AMG to have such an inefficient drivetrain.
It's not parasitic loss that's changing from one dyno to the next, it's the dyno, or ambient conditions, or the power of the car, etc...
We know that MB/AMG SAE certified the M156 at 451 hp. But, not every stock C63's engine is making 451 hp when it goes on the dyno for a baseline run. Things like octane, heat soak, ambient temperature, air flow will affect the output...
Sure, you can make up your own drivetrain loss percentage for your C63 to fit your mood, but please don't apply that percentage to other similar C63's if it's higher than 18-20%. That would just be embarrassing to MB/AMG to have such an inefficient drivetrain.
06-14-2012, 04:16 PM
#29
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
2013 Chevy 427 Torch Red
Dyno Jet typical result: 370whp / 451 crank = 17.96% calculated loss
Mustang typical result: 350whp / 451 crank = 22.39% calculated loss
If you are embarrassed by the 22% then don't ever use a Mustang but that doesn't mean the results from one type of machine are more valid than the other. As long as you use the same machine to measure your progress it really doesn't matter unless the higher number hurts your feelings.
Mustang typical result: 350whp / 451 crank = 22.39% calculated loss
If you are embarrassed by the 22% then don't ever use a Mustang but that doesn't mean the results from one type of machine are more valid than the other. As long as you use the same machine to measure your progress it really doesn't matter unless the higher number hurts your feelings.
06-14-2012, 04:27 PM
#30
Dyno Jet typical result: 370whp / 451 crank = 17.96% calculated loss
Mustang typical result: 350whp / 451 crank = 22.39% calculated loss
If you are embarrassed by the 22% then don't ever use a Mustang but that doesn't mean the results from one type of machine are more valid than the other. As long as you use the same machine to measure your progress it really doesn't matter unless the higher number hurts your feelings.
Mustang typical result: 350whp / 451 crank = 22.39% calculated loss
If you are embarrassed by the 22% then don't ever use a Mustang but that doesn't mean the results from one type of machine are more valid than the other. As long as you use the same machine to measure your progress it really doesn't matter unless the higher number hurts your feelings.
Edit: Another thing... What do you think is meant when people say "that's a low reading dyno?" I'm positive when people say that they are not talking about parisitic loss. And yes, some dynos do generate more valid numbers than others.
Last edited by SonnyakaPig; 06-14-2012 at 04:42 PM.
06-14-2012, 04:37 PM
#31
This argument, debate, conversation, whatever you want to call it, really opens up a whole other issue... Which rwhp figure is correct? If "rwhp" means "rwhp" then DJ's and Mustang dynos do not measure the same power figures.
You can't say (although we do say it) "my car makes 350 rwhp on a Mustang Dyno" while another person with the same car says "my car makes 370 rwhp on a DJ" and mean the same thing regarding the measurement of hp.
You can't say (although we do say it) "my car makes 350 rwhp on a Mustang Dyno" while another person with the same car says "my car makes 370 rwhp on a DJ" and mean the same thing regarding the measurement of hp.
