houstonT

Thought I would share what she made stock...in Houston 95 degree heat...Dyno done in 5th gear. Uncorrected was 455 rwhp, STD corrected 468 rwhp.

deutschlandFan

Hell yeah Good numbers. Do you have performance exhaust? How many miles on car?

betrezra

Strong. And da is terrible now.

RDOCA

Using a common correction to HP at the flywheel of 15% loss it would show 551 HP at the flywheel.
Strong if that is right but still not as large of a jump as the M3 which most think puts out about 480-485

FastLaneJB

What fuel did you have in when this was run by the way?

RDOCA

I have seen 3 diff dyno test so far and they were 468-467-472 RWHP so they are very consistent. I also see some talk as what the correct drive train loss % on this car is.

PeterUbers

I've read that drivetrain loss is a about 10%

RDOCA

Do you know how they ended with 10%, as thru the years I've seen estimates from 12% to 15% on most car drivetrains?

Iceman II

Good numbers but I agree, seems we'll see 10 dynos with 10 different results.

houstonT

Gas was 93 octane premium unleaded. If in fact the car makes 503 HP and she makes around 470 rwhp then the loss would need to be about 7%. No chance.....I would bet that the motor is under rated and she makes closer to 540-550 hp.

betrezra

houstonT - did you by chance get any graphs or data on AFR's Stock?
Is she pretty rich stock? Safe Tune?

Would also like to see the TQ graph as well.

Thx for sharing.

AV1

That's impressive comparatively speaking against the 204 C63's M156 and definitely confirms the fact that it's underrated from factory.


The same applies to BMW's M's which are also underrated from factory quoted figures.

houstonT

No sorry no tach pickup and no afr either. My buddy owns a shop in Houston and I swung by his shop to quickly dyno it. I'll redyno at the same place post tune
Peter

FastLaneJB

That's pretty impressive then. 93 is what the car is designed to run on to produce maximum power, just wanted to check it wasn't being run on 91.

I suspect the under rating of engines could be to do with consumer law. Seeing as no one engine is exactly the same if they advertise it as 503bhp and you pick one up which produces 490bhp because your engine wasn't a top sample then how would you feel? They'd probably end up with complaints and all sorts. Easier to just under sell the engine a bit and have happier customers when their car produces more power than advertised.

msd3075

I'm sure Mercedes doesn't want the C63S to encroach on the power levels of their more expensive, "higher class" models.

Iceman II

On paper...yes. But I'm sure they might also dyno an extra 30 hp so its a wash.

PeterUbers

The higher models are historically under rated as well, the E63S is estimated to be anywhere from 620 to 660 hp at the crank despite a 577 hp on paper rating

FastLaneJB

Exactly. It's not a problem if all your cars like that. You've got the gaps on the paper specs and the gaps in the real world still on performance.

It's just easier I think. Covers them for different fuels, weather, etc, etc.

betrezra

That's got me thinking about the tunes sold for same engine but diff class cars:

C63S
E63S
CLS63S

Does AMG just detune the lower end models via TB open %? Then a tuner simply changes the TB % open function, and does not have to remap AFR/Timing ETC?

If that is the case...... an aftermarket tune sounds pretty simple (on paper).

Delurker

Not sure I follow you here - the C63S uses a 4.0L TT motor, and the E63S & CLS63S use the same 5.5L TT motor with the same 577hp rating.

BenzoBoi

Solid numbers.

betrezra

Delurker... my bad... was thinking about the old 6.2 liter variants.... same motor..... just hindered the lesser models with lower % open TB.

Pardon the above......

FastLaneJB

Is the next gen E63 not going to use the same 4L engine though but with more power output?

I suspect that's why the engine seems to have been built to such standards. It allows them to up power as needed for some cars and also over a period of say an 8 year lifetime of the engine before its replaced with an all new model.

AV1

Yes it is and it will most probably end up in every other MB model using a V8 eventually as well.


And yes it's been designed and built to cater for future power expansion for its intended lifespan.


This is the case for most manufacturers, a lot of these newer petrol FI engines have been built to very high power handling limits similar to diesels, I've read literature on the VW/Audi TFSI 2.5ltr IL5 engine stating it has been built to run up to 435kw reliably (over 580bhp) very impressive from just a small 2.5ltr displacement, I'll bet the M133 2.0ltr can handle well over 300kw and the M177/178 will also be capable of handling well over 150kw/ltr.

sack5000

Wrong buddy, the M3 does NOT put out 480-485 and most people do NOT think that. Please don't believe everything that you think. lol