Last night at the Newengland Drag Way..
13.326 @ 110.21mph.

R/T =.779
60' =2.518
330 =6.097
1/8 =9.007 @ 84.70mph
1000 =11.494
1/4 13.326 @110.21mph

Last one was 13.512@ 106.5mph.

Used M and traction on.
There was a short wheel slip in the beginning.
weighed 4000lbs with me and a half tank of fuel.
With HRE 19s(8.5 9.5) 235 265 P-Zero Nero.
Sus: PSS9
Pulley: Evosport N/A V8 kit

Accroding to the calculation, I was producing 434HP at the crank and about 330hp at the wheel.

 

Very nice!

 

incedible numbers...nothing beats crisp night weather for drag racing...

Jason

 

Is your car supercharged?

60' time is very bad
13.3 is good for a n/a, pretty bad for a s/c.

Need to practice more on your launching technique, then you'll see much better results, your 60' time should be on 2.1-2.2 for n/a and may be 2.0 for s/c, but that would require no spinning.

What kind of pressure did you have on the rear tires?

 

No it's not supercharged. I wish.. but I am going to tune in NA setting.
Like ECU, Pulley, exhausts, LSD, intake. (maybe header and downpipe)
Just because it's more fun to drive N/A in my opinion and relatively safer to tune.

The best 60' I had was 1.82 with my stock wheels in may 2004.

After installing PSS9, the car is tilted towards front a little bit so that might put not enought weight in the back to get the force on the ground.
I am running on a low profile tirek,so psi should not matter since my side wall is like 30.

Will put back my stock wheels and drop psi when the track reopens in April 2005.

 

With that said, then your numbers look pretty good (except the 60' times)

Even if you have 19" wheels and low profile tires you should lower the pressure on rear tires to about 25-27 lbs, and make the fronts 40 or so (less resistance from front tires).
Also power brake just to ~800 rpm (more will make your spin and less is not enough for a good launch), I am assuming you are letting the car ****, good!

I also found that running with less than 1/2 a tank of gas was not a good idea because the car would spin, which yield to faster trap speeds but lower times.

I hope this helps and keep us posted on improvements.

Also, this is what I did to my car to achieve those times from a 13.30 (from stock), I insulated the bottom of my airbox, put K&N air filters and used Bosch Platimun 4 spark plugs, almost 2 full tenths from only that is not bad IMO.

 

ok I will try that.. I was revving up to 1000rpm or 1400rpm it holds but I just haven't learned how to launch inthe 1st. How's K&N?

 

K&N and very simple, just a direct replacement from the OEMs, I got them from Performance Products. there's a few people on this board that will tell you the K&N filter will not work, or damage your air flow sensor, and other bad stuff, i've used them for years and never had a problem, the E55 had them for about 30k miles and no problem....my 2 cents.

At some point I removed the resonator, but I lost low end torque and gained high end torque, overall at the track I ran about 1-2 tenths slower, so I put it back on.

 

Hey JLEE,

I'm going to the track tonight and wouldn't mind lining up next to you. I have a couple of secrets under my hood and would like to see how it goes. I'm not calling you out, just rather calling it fun.

Hitting RT.1 about 5.30 - 6 pm.

Regards.

 

prof.griff.. last friday run.. for us..
Well.. it's ok though... HOw did you do?
we have some time to tune it up.
maybe we can gather for a MB meet in MA.

 

JLEE,

Got to track late. I'm very interested in a MB meet. Maybe in the spring, winters here now. I definitely plan on tuning my Benz. Trying different setups to see what works best. Maybe we can hookup at one of the Dyno shops.

BTW: Which Dyno shop do you prefer? Boston Dyno or ACS Racing.

C.

 

Tony at Boston Dyno is very friendly to his customers. If he thinks that #s are low, he will run it until 3 consecutive runs are similar to one another.
ACS is kinda far from here. You have to go toward Capecod and it's in the middle of nowhere. ACS racing seemed to know a lot about tuning as well.
ACS can do A/F ratio. They will run 3 runs. and that's it. You are outta the shop. I personally like the atmosphere of Boston Racing.
I will be installing BMCs soon. So I will let you know when I am going to Boston Racing.

 

WTF? how were u putting out 434 to the crank on a N/A engine.

 

well.. my car does it! ^^;;
It was a cool night and the engine was really pulling hard on that run.
Why not pump out 434 bhp?
My car was already producing about 386bhp(305 at the wheel) and 405lb/ft torque(321 at the wheel) stock. with 93 fuel. M 4th gear. ESP off.
I used 21% for the loss to be on the conservative side.

The W208 CLK55 with renntech's low boost supercharger produced 360WHP and 360 WTQ. And they quoted with 460hp and 465tq for the engine power.
360/460 is about 22% loss. So as the torque 360/465 = 22% loss.

with 22% figure, I would be looking at 391bhp and 411lb/ft tq. Just with the pulley. There would be variations from cars to cars even with in the same model. MB has 5% margin gap for the engine performance so you have to be lucky in order to pick the good engine to begine with. I think I was very fortunate and I settled in this car very well.

With my evo pullies, my car gained extra 10 whp and 10 wtq.
So now I am at 315 whp 331wtq. But i did dyno run right after install with water instead of antifreeze. The mixture was like 3:1 not 1:1.(reason explained in the dyno graphs: CLK55 dyno result #1 and 2)

Then now it's at 404BHP with 424tq at the crank. And this is definitely a way before my ECU adjusted to the new pulley system. (The installer and the dyno shop was only 5 miles away.)

given those figures, 434bhp was calculated through www.smokemup.com's calculator. It says at least my car is pumping 362.4 whp
(using 4010lbs with me and fuel and 110.21MPH). with 18% loss the crank bhp was 442. I just wanted to be more conservative with 434bhp. ( the weather was like 50F) and the whp.. I just could not believe it myself either.. kkkkkk

Hopefully, this will explain.
And according to my service manager at the dealer, W209 CLK55 AMG engine was built different from other N/A 55 platform engines. like E55 and SL55 engines are not the same.

 

You have a powerful engine, and the dyno and the trap speed shows it through and through, I am impressed (we share the same motor and I drag race ALOT)...but please dont think you have 362 RWHP because some mathmatical calulation off of a website says so. But nontheless you have a fast 55.

Jason

 

That's why I still quoted at 330 whp in the first post. I just don't or can't believe it. but it might need to have over 420bhp to make 4010lb car to sprint 400m(1/4mile) at 110.21mph. Well. I don't care as long as I feel that it's fast.

 

There is so much math going on in your post that i dont even undertand if you were dynoed with that or you are just assuming you have it from calculations.

To make it clear, what mods do u have? only the pullies? because just pullies alone do not give 72hp gain.

 

ok. I will try to explain clearly this time.

Do a search for CLK55 Dyno result. bot results are in the CLK55 threads.

There are 2 versions.
1) 305 wheel hp with 321 wheel tq.(Stock Engine)
2) 315 wheel hp with 331 wheel tq.(Stock Engine with Evo pulley kit, ECU is not fully adapted to the new condition).

The powertrain loss is assumed at 22% for CLK according to Renntech.

ex)Their low boost supercharger is listed as 460hp 465tq at the crank(engine)
On their dynojet, it produces about 360 wheel horse power and 360 wheel
torque, Which means that there is about 22% loss while the engine power and torque is put on the ground. (460 engine hp x 0.78(22% loss) = 360 wheel horse power) => To reverse this you simply divide the dynoed hp by 0.78 => 360 wheel hp / 0.78 = 460 engine hp. It works same for the tq.


So I used the same method to estimate my engine hp.

Stock:
=> 305 wheel hp / 0.78 = 391 hp at the engine
=> 321 wheel tq / 0.78 = 411.5 tq at the engine

with Evosport pulley kit(with the leak of anti freeze - lose the pressure so used water instead)
=> 315 wheel hp / 0.78 = 404 hp at the engine.
=> 330 wheel tq / 0.78 = 424.3 tq at the engine.


The best I did with stock setting was 13.5@ 104 mph

and let's take a look at www.smokemup.com's calculation:

CLK55:
Vehicle Weight - 4000 (lbs) - stock at 3781 lbs
Trap Speed - 104 (mph)
Drivetrain Loss - 22 (%)

Results:
Rear Wheel HP - 305.5
Crankshaft(engine) HP - 391.7
Power to Weight (rwhp) - 13.1 (lower is better)
Power to Weight (crank hp) - 10.2 (lower is better)

This is very very close to dyno result and it's conversion that came out.
It really surprised me when this numbers were so close to dyno result.

To test its accuracy, I wanted to use it again for the new E55.
The trap speed of E55 averages about 115 mph.

E55:
Vehicle Weight - 4050 (lbs) - stock at 3871 lbs
Trap Speed - 115 (mph)
Drivetrain Loss - 18 (%)

Results:
Rear Wheel HP - 418.2
Crankshaft HP - 510
Power to Weight (rwhp) - 9.7 (lower is better)
Power to Weight (crank hp) - 7.9 (lower is better)


As most of E55 members claimed and showed that their hp figure is same as that of SL55 and CL55(500hp) and that E55's 467hp is a marketing scheme. The calculation was very accurate again.

So, i decided to use the same calculation for the new result. And this is after i installed the pulley and I flushed antifreeze system and made it right. With my book bag and some other stuff in the trunk, it weighted about 4010lb with a half tank of fuel and me.

CLK55 with pulley:
Vehicle Weight - 4010 (lbs)
Trap Speed - 110.21 (mph)
Drivetrain Loss - 18 (%)

Results:
Rear Wheel HP - 362.4
Crankshaft HP - 442
Power to Weight (rwhp) - 11.1 (lower is better)
Power to Weight (crank hp) - 9.1 (lower is better)

So I haven't dynoed it again but it seemed to me that this calculation is very precise compared to the others. I ordered a pair of BMC filters for my car. So I will post the new dyno chart soon.

You have to keep in mind that the air was cold in NH on last Wednesday.

I agree with E55JAY that I should not rely on this type of numbers but because of its consistency, I kinda believe it. We will see about it next Thurs.

 

Here is my slip.

 

Thats an incredibly fast time for such a horrible 60ft

 

must have been spinning a lot with a 2.5 60ft time and a 110mph trap

 

Thanks for clearing it up. I am just having a hard time understanding that the NA 55 motor not supercharged can produce the power you are saying with out a supercharger. If you say you have 442HP and just say a E55 has 500HP, then why are E55s capable of a 12 flat in the 1/4? only 58HP less what you say u have, should not be making a car over a seconed slower? am i right?

 

I really don't think you can get the power ratings from your car by working backwards from other cars that have actually been on a dyno, then adding in your expected power increase from a pulley kit.

You need to put your car on a dyno if your going to list dyno #'s

 

i personally dont use a dynojet to try to figure flywheel hp... dynojets are made, not to find out how much power you are making but to find out how much more you are making from your mods.

 

Pulley itself didn't add more than 10 whp 10 wtq according to dyno when ECU didn't fully adapted itself with the situation(using water as a coolant) only 10 mile run after installation of the pulley kit.
And Yes I can work backward to estimate the Engine power.
If you say this is impossible, that means that the tuners' figures are not correct either.(Renntech, Kleemann, HPS at least,etc). And percentage wise I was just following their calculation.

And I have been putting dyno results on this site and it will follow soon after installing my BMC filters.