CL600 v/s CL65
10-17-2008, 11:52 PM
#26
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my garage
Posts: 8,528
Received 1,057 Likes
on
849 Posts
E55, GLS450, GL63, GLE350
Concentrate on the torque curves. Don't forget that my position is that low-end torque is what makes the 65 experience.
In this stock 65 dyno, RWTQ is about 450 at 2,000 RPM and 550 at 2,500. In the Renntech 600 (the plot that shows torque) it's less than 300 at 2,000 RPM and about 425 at 2,500. The max torque in the 65 plot, 673, is at about 2,700 RPM. The max torque of the Renntech 600 is at about 3,300. Don't get me wrong -- the Renntech numbers are very nice. But they are just what I'd expect from the smaller displacement / smaller turbo engine being tuned with higher boost and mapped for higher revs: a peakier torque curve that comes on later compared with the AMG engine with physical mods. (These are all RWTQ numbers.)
I still maintain the the Renntech claim for their modified 600 engine, 745 ft-lbs at 1,800 RPM, has never been substantiated. The tune raises peak HP considerably -- I don't dispute that. But I don't see how it could possibly duplicate the broader torque curve of the 65 engine, and I've never seen a dyno graph that backs it up.
In this stock 65 dyno, RWTQ is about 450 at 2,000 RPM and 550 at 2,500. In the Renntech 600 (the plot that shows torque) it's less than 300 at 2,000 RPM and about 425 at 2,500. The max torque in the 65 plot, 673, is at about 2,700 RPM. The max torque of the Renntech 600 is at about 3,300. Don't get me wrong -- the Renntech numbers are very nice. But they are just what I'd expect from the smaller displacement / smaller turbo engine being tuned with higher boost and mapped for higher revs: a peakier torque curve that comes on later compared with the AMG engine with physical mods. (These are all RWTQ numbers.)
I still maintain the the Renntech claim for their modified 600 engine, 745 ft-lbs at 1,800 RPM, has never been substantiated. The tune raises peak HP considerably -- I don't dispute that. But I don't see how it could possibly duplicate the broader torque curve of the 65 engine, and I've never seen a dyno graph that backs it up.
It has a higher torque reading over the entire curve from the second the turbos start to spool or around 1,800 rpm all the way to redline. Look at the hp reading. HP is a measurement of torque. If the hp is higer the torque will also be higher at the same rpm comparing the two vehicles. HP = torque X RPM / 5252.
The boost hits quicker in the Renntech 600 and will offset the slightly greater displacement of the 65's engine down low. Now, Renntech the 65 and it is another story. The peak torque of the 65 goes to 850 + lb/ft.
I'm not saying the 65 isn't a great car because it is. However, the Renntech CL600 will usually perform better than a stock CL65 in a 1/4 mile race. Line up a stock CL65 next to a Renntech 600 and see which ones pulls harder and quicker. The 600's are able to produce such quick 1/4 mile times because the tremendous low end torque gets them off the line very very quickly. It's all in the 60'.
Dragtimes comparing a stock CL65 to a CL600 with and without ECU mods:
http://www.dragtimes.com/compare2.ph...ame=Compare%21
Call Renntech and ask for Bob Brady, 561-845-7888. Let him know that you are questioning the validity of the Renntech 600's claimed torque. I'm sure they have some better graphs to make the point.
Last edited by BlownV8; 10-18-2008 at 12:03 AM.
10-18-2008, 12:17 AM
#27
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my garage
Posts: 8,528
Received 1,057 Likes
on
849 Posts
E55, GLS450, GL63, GLE350
OK, found a Renntech 600 engine where they were able to get a dyno of the engine below 3000 rpm. I think this should answer your questions regarding the validity of Renntech's claims:
Last edited by BlownV8; 10-18-2008 at 12:19 AM.
