SteveL

I seen several references to the black series having 520 hp. In the fifth gear video, they said it had 520 hp.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=utg50h8TurQ&feature=related

It is not a DIN vs SAE thing so anyone have an explanation. Was the number simply misquoted and spread around a bit?

Also, I bought a BS this past Wednesday night. I was hoping to pick it up tomorrow but the blue tooth module did not come in today so it won't be ready until Monday and they have already done the disassembly. Bummer!

Carl Lassiter

Congrats on the car. They look great in black, probably even better than the white ones.

The 520bhp is misinformation just as it was when he said it was a 6.3liter engine rather than a 6.2liter.

LZH

Dunno - - perhaps the Euro RoW cars have the same tuning as the CL's?? Its the same motor. Interesting what he had to say about the driveability below 4k rpms.

MACHC5

I was told last night that the CLK63 Black Series has closer to 550 hp. This from a source that should know.

LZH

I would say that is totally false considering the baseline dyno results done by Evosport on Jcart's car.

jrcart

Ya, I would agree with LZH, stock CLK BS's are making nowhere near 550 hp. Mine produced 419.8hp at the wheels bone stock, which converts (x17% driveline loss) to about 491hp at the crank, and that might even be an aggresive multiplier. With all of the mods I had done, my final 502hp at the wheels only converts to about 587hp at the crank. So ya, 550hp stock is nothing but a pipe dream, I don't care how reliable the source was that told you this, but it is bad information.

c32AMG-DTM

Sorry for the OT comment, but hasn't the "6.3L vs. 6.2L" thing been beaten to death? For whatever weird, quirky reason (marketing?), MB tends to round up when describing their engines' displacements.

The 5.5L S/C'd engine in the E55's was really a 5.4L - for some reason, I don't recall as many people making a point of "it's a five point FOUR liter, not a five point five liter" that time around...

SteveL

And if it had 550 hp, the 1/4 mile trap speeds would be more than 120 so there is just no way.

Carl Lassiter

That happened with the E46 M3 (333bhp US vs 339bhp Euro) but the literature says the CLK BS are the same both sides of the pond.

Is it true that there's nothing going on below 4k? I respect Plato's driving skills but think he's got to be exaggerating here.

C32AMG-dtm...your post adds nothing to this debate. My point was that motoring journos, many of whom cannot afford the cars they're reviewing, too often don't take the time to learn and relay the correct information.

HLG600

I'm curious as to why you are using a 17% driveline loss. I've thought the rule of thumb to be 15% for a standard gearbox and 20% for an automatic.

oldgixxer

Your car would have trapped alot higher at Atco if that was true

jrcart

Not sure the the Evosport guys still have the torque charts up from my dyno runs, but even stock It made a considerable amount of torque down low, maybe not as much as a kompressor, but still a significant number. I believe it makes it peak torque at 6000 and carires it all the way up to redline without dropping.

jrcart

Like you said, rule of thumb...everyones thumb is different. 17%-21% for automatics is what I have always heard and used, it will vary for every car depending on drivetrain, equipment, wheels, etc. The only way to get a true figure is to pull the motor and dyno it and then re-install it and dyno it, that will give you the real % loss factor. I was just being conservative, I could have used 20% and said my car makes 602+hp. Plus the fact that my car has ultra light weight Dymags Wheels on it the true number is probably closer to the 17% loss than the 20% loss.

MACHC5

Oldgixxer,

I think I may have that higher trap speed thingy fixed.
Most every time on the top end I would feel a slight few stumbles like it was pulling timing or fuel. I've also had it as of late with my EVO MR and ordered some bug juice to try to fix it.

Last night I tried the Amsoil Octane Boost into my EVO and it dead on stop the knock and the car pulls like stink again. I think I'll try it in the CLK63 BS and see what it does for it.

There maybe something funny (bad) with the 93 octane winter gas their selling with the ethanol in my area.

Jim

SteveL

Now that difference should be just DIN vs SAE. US uses SAE and Europe uses DIN (metric). 507 DIN = 500 SAE. Divide DIN by 1.0139 to get SAE.

MACHC5

Jrcart,

I was very surprised to find out at the NY Auto Show that your car and your project is know by some people who are very high up in Mercedes and their comment was "A real 600 flywheel hp with just exhaust, tuning and everything else done in that write-up... it ain't happening".

Yes, they have their own thoughts about how much added power you really got without the light wheels.

Remember... they always test things to destruction.

PM me for details if you like.

Jim

Carl Lassiter

I understand but the M3 is the only European performance car where I've noticed this difference. I know using the E60 M5 that it is rated at 507PS (same as DIN?) which equates to 500bhp. Same for the S65 at 612PS and 604bhp and so on and so forth.

Therefore, the US E46 M3 does make slightly less power Stateside vs ROW.

This has happened before. Remember, in Europe the E36 M3 put out 286bhp from the stock 3.0liter while in the US people had to make do with just 240bhp. This situation worsened when the E36 was facelifted with the 3.2liter and Europeans M3s got boosted up to 321bhp while the cars here remained at only 240bhp.

HLG600

Indeed, I overlooked the wheels. Those Dymags are one helluva impressive product.

573WHPCLS

I'm trying to be civil here, whatever the true HP number are they are significantly higher than a stock Black Series. Tell the guys at MB to drive a stock BS over to JRCARTS house and line up with his car. They will get beat by 12-15 car lenghts like I did in mine...6 times in a row. Forget dyno numbers, forget trash talking, we all know that is the real test, 12 car lengths is a lot, a different league considering we are talking about two cars that came off the same production line a month apart (and ironically, engines built by the same guy). So I can't say what the "real" hp figures may or may not be but it is one very fast car.

Jim Brady

I've talk to AMG and they say exhaust headers and ecu is conservatively 40 hp. EVOsports mod's were more extensive. I would bet that we didn't hear all the details of Jrcarts mods. I sure as hell wouldn't tell the world if I found out the secret recipe and post it on the internet if I were Evosport.

FWIW, there's more in these motors than most people realize. If Jrcart is beating a stocker by 12 car lengths I'm f...ing impressed. BTW, AMG monitors these boards and I know that for a fact.

Jimmy

MACHC5

Hi Jimmy,

Those light wheels could be 4 to 5 of those 12 car lengths.

If each wheel is equal to 10 to 12 hp saving X 4 = 40 to 50 hp advantage over a stock wheel car. Those wheels are no doubt a smart move.

Jim

SteveL

I think it is a combination of the new rear rotors and the wheels. Significant difference in rotational mass and unsprung weight. I agree, 40% of the gain probably came come from the wheels/brakes. However, while great for hp, the wheels are quite an impact to the pocket book. They cost more than 10K.

juicee63

You would also trap much higher if you ran with 1/4 tank vs full

MACHC5

Hi Juice,

I'd try the Amsoil Octane Boost in your car it may help with the crappy Cali gas.

Two weeks ago I found a great article on Octane Boosters and Amsoil's was second best at $10 a bottle vs. #1 at $30+ a bottle.

The stuff works....

Jim Brady

Jim,
I've run BBS magnesium wheels that where substantially less than previous set ups and haven't experienced anything near that kind of gain and I've had similar weight savings. My guess it is a lot of little things that have added up to make the difference. We don't know all the details of JRcarts car. I think there's more to this story then we've been told.

Jimmy