CL-65 Specs
#26
MBWorld Fanatic!
guys i own an S65 w221
as for my car i have tested the boost by using the star diagnoses to check what i was running before i tune my car the reading was 1.35bar
the tunner of my car (my friend) gave me an amazing upgrade to my ECU which put my car up to 1.75bar (again by the star diagnoses) and ofcourse he showed me a dynograph of the same program done in germany so i hope it helps getting things together
plus he also says that he can put my car on 2bar if i was willing to change the driveshaft (CF) , axles(CF) and an upgrade to my trany ECU he says the car will hit 800hp GARANTEED or money back so as for the tranny he will take the torque limiter up to 1375NM i dont know how much that is in FT. so i think that people are not getting their facts right this engin has capabilities and its only the tranny that can not support it. If any of you guys interested in such a project i will be happy to put you in contact with my friend.
hope this helps
as for my car i have tested the boost by using the star diagnoses to check what i was running before i tune my car the reading was 1.35bar
the tunner of my car (my friend) gave me an amazing upgrade to my ECU which put my car up to 1.75bar (again by the star diagnoses) and ofcourse he showed me a dynograph of the same program done in germany so i hope it helps getting things together
plus he also says that he can put my car on 2bar if i was willing to change the driveshaft (CF) , axles(CF) and an upgrade to my trany ECU he says the car will hit 800hp GARANTEED or money back so as for the tranny he will take the torque limiter up to 1375NM i dont know how much that is in FT. so i think that people are not getting their facts right this engin has capabilities and its only the tranny that can not support it. If any of you guys interested in such a project i will be happy to put you in contact with my friend.
hope this helps
#27
guys i own an S65 w221
plus he also says that he can put my car on 2bar if i was willing to change the driveshaft (CF) , axles(CF) and an upgrade to my trany ECU he says the car will hit 800hp GARANTEED or money back so as for the tranny he will take the torque limiter up to 1375NM i dont know how much that is in FT. so i think that people are not getting their facts right this engin has capabilities and its only the tranny that can not support it. If any of you guys interested in such a project i will be happy to put you in contact with my friend.
hope this helps
plus he also says that he can put my car on 2bar if i was willing to change the driveshaft (CF) , axles(CF) and an upgrade to my trany ECU he says the car will hit 800hp GARANTEED or money back so as for the tranny he will take the torque limiter up to 1375NM i dont know how much that is in FT. so i think that people are not getting their facts right this engin has capabilities and its only the tranny that can not support it. If any of you guys interested in such a project i will be happy to put you in contact with my friend.
hope this helps
MR
#28
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my garage
Posts: 8,642
Received 1,087 Likes
on
874 Posts
E55, GLS450, GL63, GLE350
Originally Posted by JLP
You didn't even know the stock boost settings yet you are an expert on how the engine breath's and how ineffcient it is?????
Originally Posted by JLP
Until you know all of these factors you really should try and refrain from making such "matter of fact" statements.
Originally Posted by JLP
You didn't even know the stock boost settings yet you are an expert on how the engine breath's and how ineffcient it is?????
Originally Posted by JLP
Second as to how much power they would make without FI, it is alot more than 200 rwhp, the old NA V-12's made 389 bhp and the new AMG NA 7.0 liter puts out 589 bhp so it really depends on the application more than whether or not Mercedes has the ability to to build efficient motors!!!
This is an excellent tool for determing hp that an engine will make on boost. It's for supercharged engines that sap hp more than turbocharged engines but I think it may help explain:
http://superchargersonline.com/hp_ca...r.asp?submit=1
Take 200 RWHP starting HP and add 20 PSI and a 3 core intercooler. Our air to water intercoolers are very effective so I'm giving Mercedes a reasonable doubt that theirs is as effective as a 3 core intercooler.
You know what that gives you? 510.57 RWHP. That's right at what these engines make. If you back into the RWHP the 65 engine makes, it's right at 200 RWHP without boost. That pretty much sucks for a 6.0L engine.
Originally Posted by JLP
Third ....When MB first built the 65 motors they were pumping between 750-850 BHP, MB cranked the power down on purpose as they were turning all their trannys into metal salad.
I'm not knocking the TT V12 because I own one and love it but it is hard to believe they intentionally made the engine so it doesn't breathe very well. Sure they can make 800 hp on 2 bar but it shouldn't take 2 bar for the engine to make that kind of power if it flowed very well. Many engines of similar size are over 1000 hp on 2 bar of pressure.
Besides, HP does not eat trannys. It's torque that wil twist a tranny apart. HP = tq * RPM/5252. You can have close to 900 HP with around the same torque that the Renntech 65 produces at 2000 RPM or around 800 lb-ft but the key is to have that torque available at a 5800 rpm and even much less torque if your engine spun faster. However, a stock 65 hp peaks around 4500rpm and stays flat until 5,500 and then starts to fall. When you push the turbos with a Renntech mod the 65 peaks around 4,200 rpm and starts to decrease all the way to redline.
800 * 5800/5252 = 883 hp
The fact that these engines don't rev very high hurts our peak hp but the lack of flow kills our highend torque as you can see from every dyno from a 600 or 65 engine. That lack of highend torque kills highend hp since they are directly related, see above formula. The tt 65 engine peaks very early and falls off like a rock off a steep hill. That torque curve either shows the engines inability to flow at higher rpms or the turbo's lack of efficiency. Either way, it's not good. Look at an efficient engine and the torque curve is very flat or it increases with RPMs.
If the problem is turbo inefficiency, why hasn't someone upgraded to a more efficient turbos. Is it that tight that it will not allow a slightly larger or more efficient turbo that didn't start loosing it's efficiecy after 3000 RPM?
Originally Posted by JLP
Car companies do things for certain reasons when building a motor, packaging limitations- emission issues- cost effectiveness- heat related issues- replacement cost's- and so on!
#29
Super Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06 E-55-95-F355S- 99 Porsche 911 C2 w mods
Funny Rob Allen has directly quoted 21.8 peak lbs of boost along with literature from AMG as well!
Here are a few quotes from different sources as to what PSI the 65 is running pal!
"TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHT: Mercedes let loose its performance department, AMG, on the 5.5-liter twin-turbo V-12, and the result is an utterly fantastic powerplant. With a bump in bore from 82.0 to 82.6mm and a stroke increase from 87.0 to 93.0mm, AMG increased displacement to 6.0 liters. It also significantly raised boost pressure from 14.5 psi to 21.8. Although the SOHC twin-spark-plug, three-valve-per-cylinder arrangement remains, horsepower jumps from an already ludicrous 493 to an astounding 604. The torque numbers are even crazier—738 pound-feet, up from 590"The net effect is acceleration that's out for blood.
" Despite channeling 22 psi of turbo boost, the SL65 doesn't snap you back into your seat like an American V8 — it rolls over you like roaring thunder. In the real"
I would tend to trust the ACTUAL people who built the car over some joe-blo tech using Star-di!
By the way the motor in your Cl600 is not the same as a 65. Different piston's, different rods, etc...
Blown V-8 you seem to be a know-it-all so rather than continue wasting my time going back and forth with you..........think what you want, because thats all that matters!
Here are a few quotes from different sources as to what PSI the 65 is running pal!
"TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHT: Mercedes let loose its performance department, AMG, on the 5.5-liter twin-turbo V-12, and the result is an utterly fantastic powerplant. With a bump in bore from 82.0 to 82.6mm and a stroke increase from 87.0 to 93.0mm, AMG increased displacement to 6.0 liters. It also significantly raised boost pressure from 14.5 psi to 21.8. Although the SOHC twin-spark-plug, three-valve-per-cylinder arrangement remains, horsepower jumps from an already ludicrous 493 to an astounding 604. The torque numbers are even crazier—738 pound-feet, up from 590"The net effect is acceleration that's out for blood.
" Despite channeling 22 psi of turbo boost, the SL65 doesn't snap you back into your seat like an American V8 — it rolls over you like roaring thunder. In the real"
I would tend to trust the ACTUAL people who built the car over some joe-blo tech using Star-di!
By the way the motor in your Cl600 is not the same as a 65. Different piston's, different rods, etc...
Blown V-8 you seem to be a know-it-all so rather than continue wasting my time going back and forth with you..........think what you want, because thats all that matters!
Last edited by JLP; 05-10-2007 at 08:54 PM.
#30
MBWorld Fanatic!
The tranny is certified for 1000 N-m, not 1000 ft-lb. Not coincidently, that's 738 ft-lb, the peak torque of the stock engine. The boost is reduced by the ECU in the midband revs to limit the torque to the transmission's limit. It's easy enough to restore boost to increase midband torque and peak HP (that's what all the tuners do), but it will frag your transmission if you use the max torque all the time.
#31
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my garage
Posts: 8,642
Received 1,087 Likes
on
874 Posts
E55, GLS450, GL63, GLE350
Originally Posted by JLP
Here are a few quotes from different sources as to what PSI the 65 is running pal!
I'm not sure why you are even mentioning the differences in engine components in the CL65 vs the CL600????
Originally Posted by whoover
The tranny is certified for 1000 N-m, not 1000 ft-lb. Not coincidently, that's 738 ft-lb, the peak torque of the stock engine. The boost is reduced by the ECU in the midband revs to limit the torque to the transmission's limit. It's easy enough to restore boost to increase midband torque and peak HP (that's what all the tuners do), but it will frag your transmission if you use the max torque all the time.
I'm just trying to understand the low peak hp with high boost levels. However, whoover, what you are saying would make sense as to the reason the car is making such low hp numbers with 21+ PSI and 6.0L of displacement. My Renntech does produce max HP fairly early early in the RPM range and just hangs there until redline so what you are saying does make more sense.
Does anyone have a boost map on their dyno runs? That would be the proof in the pudding!
#32
MBWorld Fanatic!
Yes, the stock ECU reduces boost at the natural torque peak to limit it to 738 ft-lbs. Boost comes on again at higher RPMs, resulting in a square torque curve from 2000-4000 RPM. The cam profile would have to be changed to move the torque peak any higher, but the "nosedive" to 500 ft-lb at redline is a fine compromise considering the engine also delivers 500 ft-lb just off idle! Restoring a normal torque peak (as the tuners do) is great, but it's at the expense of the engineering margin of safety for the transmission.
The stock engine, with the torque limiter, is a never-ending joy. I'm sure a Renntech-modified engine is even more fun, but I enjoy flooring the car with no worries aside from the Highway Patrol.
The stock engine, with the torque limiter, is a never-ending joy. I'm sure a Renntech-modified engine is even more fun, but I enjoy flooring the car with no worries aside from the Highway Patrol.
#33
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my garage
Posts: 8,642
Received 1,087 Likes
on
874 Posts
E55, GLS450, GL63, GLE350
Yes, the stock ECU reduces boost at the natural torque peak to limit it to 738 ft-lbs. Boost comes on again at higher RPMs, resulting in a square torque curve from 2000-4000 RPM. The cam profile would have to be changed to move the torque peak any higher, but the "nosedive" to 500 ft-lb at redline is a fine compromise considering the engine also delivers 500 ft-lb just off idle! Restoring a normal torque peak (as the tuners do) is great, but it's at the expense of the engineering margin of safety for the transmission.
The stock engine, with the torque limiter, is a never-ending joy. I'm sure a Renntech-modified engine is even more fun, but I enjoy flooring the car with no worries aside from the Highway Patrol.
The stock engine, with the torque limiter, is a never-ending joy. I'm sure a Renntech-modified engine is even more fun, but I enjoy flooring the car with no worries aside from the Highway Patrol.
#34
Member
The tranny is certified for 1000 N-m, not 1000 ft-lb. Not coincidently, that's 738 ft-lb, the peak torque of the stock engine. The boost is reduced by the ECU in the midband revs to limit the torque to the transmission's limit. It's easy enough to restore boost to increase midband torque and peak HP (that's what all the tuners do), but it will frag your transmission if you use the max torque all the time.
I think that is a reasonable explanation. For those who haven't seen it, here is the dyno graph of my stock '05 CL65. A whopping 559 rwhp.
https://mbworld.org/forums/cl55-amg-cl65-amg-cl63-amg-c215-c216/174524-bone-stock-cl65-dyno-results.html