Kleemann Dyno Results
09-15-2004, 04:31 PM
#1
Kleemann Dyno Results
I had my Kleemann G55 dyno'd today. We used a stock ML55 for a baseline pull. The ML55 put down 263.13 WHP and 287.88 wheel torque. The Kleemann G55 put down 384.79 WHP and 399.60 wheel torque. The drivetrain loss on the ML55 is quite a bit less than the G55 so a stock G55 would put down less power than a stock ML55. I believe that a G Class must have at least 35% drivetrain loss. Best guess is that the Kleemann G55 makes about 530 to 540 crank horsepower. The most amazing part about the dyno pull was the fact that the G started making huge power and torque at 4,000 rpms (300 AWHP and 390 ft/lbs of torque). At the 6,000 rpm redline it was still pulling hard and not out of breath (350whp and 370 ft/lbs of torque). Peak WHP was at 5,600 rpms and peak wheel torque was at 4,200 rpms. The power to the wheels was very similar to that of a CL55 kompressor that was dyno's a few weeks ago. Obviously, the CL doesn't have near the drivetrain loss. The dyno curve is as flat and smooth as any that I've ever seen. Kleemann power is as advertised! I'm going to the 1/4 mile track tonight for fun. I'll post results tomorrow. I'll try to post the dyno but I'm having problems due to the size of the file.
08-10-2005, 09:30 PM
#3
...........I understand that G55K estimates the G55 to have about 35% drive train loss. Is there any way to be more accurate about the percent of drive drain loss? If not, themn what do thers think are other reasonable figures for percent drive drain loss in a G55?
Ted
Ted
08-12-2005, 10:31 AM
#5
.......The 35% drive train loss used by G55K to generate the 530HP figure is likely to be incorrect because of the following results from my 2005 G55.
.........the car dynoed at 392HP and 444 torque at the wheels. The reason I'm asking is that, car and driver used a 35% drivetrain loss in the popular article comparing Kleemann G55 to a LPE Hummer H2. That Kleemann G55K dynoed at 384 Hp and 399lbft of torque and was converted to 530HP at the crank, using the 35% figure. https://mbworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=82362
This 35% figure seems quite high to me. if it were correct, it will mean that my 2005 G55 makes 603HP and 683lbft of torque without any modifications.
........to make matters more interesting, I then added a custom made pulley and Ecu. The HP figure went to 420 and torque went to 488. This will mean 646Hp and 750lbft of torque. I am not into exergerating Hp figures so I think the 35% drive train loss must be incorrect. This is why I am wondering what others might think is a correct figure for percent drive train loss.
Ted
.........the car dynoed at 392HP and 444 torque at the wheels. The reason I'm asking is that, car and driver used a 35% drivetrain loss in the popular article comparing Kleemann G55 to a LPE Hummer H2. That Kleemann G55K dynoed at 384 Hp and 399lbft of torque and was converted to 530HP at the crank, using the 35% figure. https://mbworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=82362
This 35% figure seems quite high to me. if it were correct, it will mean that my 2005 G55 makes 603HP and 683lbft of torque without any modifications.
........to make matters more interesting, I then added a custom made pulley and Ecu. The HP figure went to 420 and torque went to 488. This will mean 646Hp and 750lbft of torque. I am not into exergerating Hp figures so I think the 35% drive train loss must be incorrect. This is why I am wondering what others might think is a correct figure for percent drive train loss.
Ted
08-26-2005, 04:28 AM
#6
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Drive train losses are not a solid percentage but a fixed figure (eg: 50 hp) plus a small percentage and this is a declining exponential percentage.
EG: A Subaru WRX has a powertrain loss of around 50 hp plus a small percent of total power.
In reality the power train loss is close enough to a fixed amount to not bother calculating the percentage.
EG: A Subaru WRX has a powertrain loss of around 50 hp plus a small percent of total power.
In reality the power train loss is close enough to a fixed amount to not bother calculating the percentage.
08-26-2005, 08:26 AM
#7
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by sideways60
Drive train losses are not a solid percentage but a fixed figure (eg: 50 hp) plus a small percentage and this is a declining exponential percentage.
EG: A Subaru WRX has a powertrain loss of around 50 hp plus a small percent of total power.
In reality the power train loss is close enough to a fixed amount to not bother calculating the percentage.
EG: A Subaru WRX has a powertrain loss of around 50 hp plus a small percent of total power.
In reality the power train loss is close enough to a fixed amount to not bother calculating the percentage.
I think I flunked physics - but that makes sense to me - after all, if I had a 1,000 hp engine in my CLK, it doesn't make sense that that engine would be robbed of 150 hp (15% drivetrain loss) by the same drivetrain that would take only 75hp (same 15%) from a 500hp engine.
Trending Topics
08-28-2005, 11:01 PM
#8
I think I flunked physics - but that makes sense to me - after all, if I had a 1,000 hp engine in my CLK, it doesn't make sense that that engine would be robbed of 150 hp (15% drivetrain loss) by the same drivetrain that would take only 75hp (same 15%) from a 500hp engine.
.............I am not an expert in physics either. I think that percent drive train loss makes more sense because of the following. In my rudimentary physics class, energy loss is due to that portion of the total energy that is lost as heat. To the extent that a 1000HP engine will generate more heat when compared to a 500Hp engine, the former will be more likely to loose a numerically higher figure in energy lost as heat. I did sleep at the Holliday Inn last night, but I wellcome any real physics gurus to chime in.
Ted
.............I am not an expert in physics either. I think that percent drive train loss makes more sense because of the following. In my rudimentary physics class, energy loss is due to that portion of the total energy that is lost as heat. To the extent that a 1000HP engine will generate more heat when compared to a 500Hp engine, the former will be more likely to loose a numerically higher figure in energy lost as heat. I did sleep at the Holliday Inn last night, but I wellcome any real physics gurus to chime in.
Ted
08-29-2005, 02:42 PM
#9
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by Ted Baldwin
I did sleep at the Holliday Inn last night, but I wellcome any real physics gurus to chime in.Ted
I think that heat loss is one type of energy loss but there must be a "mechanical energy" type of loss that an engine experiences (or spends) as well with respect to transferring its energy to the pavement through a drivetrain.
So what I think is that the amount of energy that it takes to "turn" the same drivetrain remains unchanged irrespective of whether the engine that's hooked up to that drivetrain produces 500 or 1,000 HP....
But I really don't know what the he** I'm talking about.... but it's fun to pretend.....
BTW, most days I could literally smell alcohol on my high school Physics teacher's breath - no kidding.
08-30-2005, 01:12 AM
#10
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look at it logically, the major "power" loss from engine to wheels is the amount of energy used to turn the drivetrain. This is a fixed amount of energy at any given rotational speed. If you add more power then there will be no more energy required to spin the drivetrain, however, due to the extra energy moving via the drivetrain then there is an increase in temperatures caused by additional load/friction which would add slightly to that drivetrain loss but not to a significant degree.
08-31-2005, 01:06 AM
#11
Originally Posted by Ted Baldwin
.......The 35% drive train loss used by G55K to generate the 530HP figure is likely to be incorrect because of the following results from my 2005 G55.
.........the car dynoed at 392HP and 444 torque at the wheels. The reason I'm asking is that, car and driver used a 35% drivetrain loss in the popular article comparing Kleemann G55 to a LPE Hummer H2. That Kleemann G55K dynoed at 384 Hp and 399lbft of torque and was converted to 530HP at the crank, using the 35% figure. https://mbworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=82362
This 35% figure seems quite high to me. if it were correct, it will mean that my 2005 G55 makes 603HP and 683lbft of torque without any modifications.
........to make matters more interesting, I then added a custom made pulley and Ecu. The HP figure went to 420 and torque went to 488. This will mean 646Hp and 750lbft of torque. I am not into exergerating Hp figures so I think the 35% drive train loss must be incorrect. This is why I am wondering what others might think is a correct figure for percent drive train loss.
Ted
.........the car dynoed at 392HP and 444 torque at the wheels. The reason I'm asking is that, car and driver used a 35% drivetrain loss in the popular article comparing Kleemann G55 to a LPE Hummer H2. That Kleemann G55K dynoed at 384 Hp and 399lbft of torque and was converted to 530HP at the crank, using the 35% figure. https://mbworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=82362
This 35% figure seems quite high to me. if it were correct, it will mean that my 2005 G55 makes 603HP and 683lbft of torque without any modifications.
........to make matters more interesting, I then added a custom made pulley and Ecu. The HP figure went to 420 and torque went to 488. This will mean 646Hp and 750lbft of torque. I am not into exergerating Hp figures so I think the 35% drive train loss must be incorrect. This is why I am wondering what others might think is a correct figure for percent drive train loss.
Ted
My G55 is long gone so I don't have any of the dyno charts left. The car was put on a dynojet in Colorado were altitude plays a big factor. The drivetrain loss was figured based upon a stock ML55 that was put on this same dyno. The ML55 HP is a known and the WHP numbers were about 35% less than the 350 HP that Mercedes claims. We then used this same lose figure on the G55 to come up with crank HP.
Kleemann's dyno calculates actual crank HP and, on their dyno, the numbers exceeded 530HP. It's by no means an exact science so don't try to make it one. There are way too many variable to take into consideration. I'm Kleemann still has a copy of my dyno info and can E-Mail to you if you're interested. One of the most reliable ways to back HP claims is at the drap strip. This truck ran consistent 13.9 second 1/4 miles at 100MPH. There are some great websites that allow you to plug vehicle weight and trap speed and come up with HP estimates. Check it out for yourself.
I've also driven an 2005 G55 back to back with mine. I did not notice much of a difference in performance. In fact, mine felt a little bit faster. THe Kleemann kit was installed on this truck for 3 years and 40,000 miles. No one single problem. I highly recommend their products.
08-31-2005, 09:17 AM
#12
Kleemann's dyno calculates actual crank HP and, on their dyno, the numbers exceeded 530HP. It's by no means an exact science so don't try to make it one. There are way too many variable to take into consideration. I'm Kleemann still has a copy of my dyno info and can E-Mail to you if you're interested. One of the most reliable ways to back HP claims is at the drap strip. This truck ran consistent 13.9 second 1/4 miles at 100MPH. There are some great websites that allow you to plug vehicle weight and trap speed and come up with HP estimates. Check it out for yourself.
I've also driven an 2005 G55 back to back with mine. I did not notice much of a difference in performance. In fact, mine felt a little bit faster. THe Kleemann kit was installed on this truck for 3 years and 40,000 miles. No one single problem. I highly recommend their products.
..........the 2005 G55 is faster at 13.2 1/4 mile at 103MPH. Interestingly, I had a Kleemann G55K also. The car was incredibly fast for a truck and not being a professional driver, I was able to get 14.1 secs in the quatermile at 99MPH. I don't really think there is much dispute that the 2005 G55 is faster than the Kleemann G55K. The 2005 G55 has a significant torque aadvantage.
............As far as dyno results, I agree with you that there are different variables. However, the percent drive train loss cannot be really any different between the Kleemann G55K and the 2005 G55K. So whatever drive train loss is used for the Kleemann version should also be used for the AMG version. So if your car car dynoed at 380WHP and the 2005 G55 dynoed at 392whp, I am not clear as to how anyone can claim with a straight face that the Kleemann has 530 Hp and the 2005 G55 has 469HP.Don't you agree? You cannot use a higher percent drive train loss to calculate HP for the Kleemann car and then resort to a lower drive train loss to calculate Hp for the 2005 G55. I am not quationing the 380RWHP, I am truly confused as to how the calculated 530HP was arrived at. If you use the same 35% drive train loss, then the 2005 G55 that has 392WHP will have 603crank HP........correct? So I think like others have said, that the use of crank Hp numbers in automobile tunning should be abandoned. Your Kleemann G55K made a very respectable 380WHP and 13.9 sec 1/4 mile. The 2005 G55 made 392WHP and 13.2 quatermile. These are objective measurable figures. The quatermile figures are consistent with the WHP figures. Anything beyond this is begins to sound like vodoo.
Ted
I've also driven an 2005 G55 back to back with mine. I did not notice much of a difference in performance. In fact, mine felt a little bit faster. THe Kleemann kit was installed on this truck for 3 years and 40,000 miles. No one single problem. I highly recommend their products.
..........the 2005 G55 is faster at 13.2 1/4 mile at 103MPH. Interestingly, I had a Kleemann G55K also. The car was incredibly fast for a truck and not being a professional driver, I was able to get 14.1 secs in the quatermile at 99MPH. I don't really think there is much dispute that the 2005 G55 is faster than the Kleemann G55K. The 2005 G55 has a significant torque aadvantage.
............As far as dyno results, I agree with you that there are different variables. However, the percent drive train loss cannot be really any different between the Kleemann G55K and the 2005 G55K. So whatever drive train loss is used for the Kleemann version should also be used for the AMG version. So if your car car dynoed at 380WHP and the 2005 G55 dynoed at 392whp, I am not clear as to how anyone can claim with a straight face that the Kleemann has 530 Hp and the 2005 G55 has 469HP.Don't you agree? You cannot use a higher percent drive train loss to calculate HP for the Kleemann car and then resort to a lower drive train loss to calculate Hp for the 2005 G55. I am not quationing the 380RWHP, I am truly confused as to how the calculated 530HP was arrived at. If you use the same 35% drive train loss, then the 2005 G55 that has 392WHP will have 603crank HP........correct? So I think like others have said, that the use of crank Hp numbers in automobile tunning should be abandoned. Your Kleemann G55K made a very respectable 380WHP and 13.9 sec 1/4 mile. The 2005 G55 made 392WHP and 13.2 quatermile. These are objective measurable figures. The quatermile figures are consistent with the WHP figures. Anything beyond this is begins to sound like vodoo.
Ted
08-31-2005, 10:39 AM
#13
Originally Posted by Ted Baldwin
Kleemann's dyno calculates actual crank HP and, on their dyno, the numbers exceeded 530HP. It's by no means an exact science so don't try to make it one. There are way too many variable to take into consideration. I'm Kleemann still has a copy of my dyno info and can E-Mail to you if you're interested. One of the most reliable ways to back HP claims is at the drap strip. This truck ran consistent 13.9 second 1/4 miles at 100MPH. There are some great websites that allow you to plug vehicle weight and trap speed and come up with HP estimates. Check it out for yourself.
I've also driven an 2005 G55 back to back with mine. I did not notice much of a difference in performance. In fact, mine felt a little bit faster. THe Kleemann kit was installed on this truck for 3 years and 40,000 miles. No one single problem. I highly recommend their products.
..........the 2005 G55 is faster at 13.2 1/4 mile at 103MPH. Interestingly, I had a Kleemann G55K also. The car was incredibly fast for a truck and not being a professional driver, I was able to get 14.1 secs in the quatermile at 99MPH. I don't really think there is much dispute that the 2005 G55 is faster than the Kleemann G55K. The 2005 G55 has a significant torque aadvantage.
............As far as dyno results, I agree with you that there are different variables. However, the percent drive train loss cannot be really any different between the Kleemann G55K and the 2005 G55K. So whatever drive train loss is used for the Kleemann version should also be used for the AMG version. So if your car car dynoed at 380WHP and the 2005 G55 dynoed at 392whp, I am not clear as to how anyone can claim with a straight face that the Kleemann has 530 Hp and the 2005 G55 has 469HP.Don't you agree? You cannot use a higher percent drive train loss to calculate HP for the Kleemann car and then resort to a lower drive train loss to calculate Hp for the 2005 G55. I am not quationing the 380RWHP, I am truly confused as to how the calculated 530HP was arrived at. If you use the same 35% drive train loss, then the 2005 G55 that has 392WHP will have 603crank HP........correct? So I think like others have said, that the use of crank Hp numbers in automobile tunning should be abandoned. Your Kleemann G55K made a very respectable 380WHP and 13.9 sec 1/4 mile. The 2005 G55 made 392WHP and 13.2 quatermile. These are objective measurable figures. The quatermile figures are consistent with the WHP figures. Anything beyond this is begins to sound like vodoo.
Ted
I've also driven an 2005 G55 back to back with mine. I did not notice much of a difference in performance. In fact, mine felt a little bit faster. THe Kleemann kit was installed on this truck for 3 years and 40,000 miles. No one single problem. I highly recommend their products.
..........the 2005 G55 is faster at 13.2 1/4 mile at 103MPH. Interestingly, I had a Kleemann G55K also. The car was incredibly fast for a truck and not being a professional driver, I was able to get 14.1 secs in the quatermile at 99MPH. I don't really think there is much dispute that the 2005 G55 is faster than the Kleemann G55K. The 2005 G55 has a significant torque aadvantage.
............As far as dyno results, I agree with you that there are different variables. However, the percent drive train loss cannot be really any different between the Kleemann G55K and the 2005 G55K. So whatever drive train loss is used for the Kleemann version should also be used for the AMG version. So if your car car dynoed at 380WHP and the 2005 G55 dynoed at 392whp, I am not clear as to how anyone can claim with a straight face that the Kleemann has 530 Hp and the 2005 G55 has 469HP.Don't you agree? You cannot use a higher percent drive train loss to calculate HP for the Kleemann car and then resort to a lower drive train loss to calculate Hp for the 2005 G55. I am not quationing the 380RWHP, I am truly confused as to how the calculated 530HP was arrived at. If you use the same 35% drive train loss, then the 2005 G55 that has 392WHP will have 603crank HP........correct? So I think like others have said, that the use of crank Hp numbers in automobile tunning should be abandoned. Your Kleemann G55K made a very respectable 380WHP and 13.9 sec 1/4 mile. The 2005 G55 made 392WHP and 13.2 quatermile. These are objective measurable figures. The quatermile figures are consistent with the WHP figures. Anything beyond this is begins to sound like vodoo.
Ted
08-31-2005, 07:46 PM
#14
...........what matters most is that you enjoyed your car. Before and after dyno results are useful for the narrow purpose determining whether or not one's performance modifications resulted in any gains. To this end actual WHP as measured by a dynometer is more useful than estimates of crank HP. Klemmann's dyno as I understand it, calculates crank HP based on the operators input of percent drive train loss. So you never really know exactly how much HP your modifications have given you. The results from the 2005 G55, when compared to the Kleemann G55k seem to indicate that Kleemann's estimates are probably in error.........indicating that they should probably stick to WHP not estimates of crank HP.That is all. I am happy you enjoyed your car. No offense intended.
Ted
Ted
08-31-2005, 10:37 PM
#15
Originally Posted by Ted Baldwin
...........what matters most is that you enjoyed your car. Before and after dyno results are useful for the narrow purpose determining whether or not one's performance modifications resulted in any gains. To this end actual WHP as measured by a dynometer is more useful than estimates of crank HP. Klemmann's dyno as I understand it, calculates crank HP based on the operators input of percent drive train loss. So you never really know exactly how much HP your modifications have given you. The results from the 2005 G55, when compared to the Kleemann G55k seem to indicate that Kleemann's estimates are probably in error.........indicating that they should probably stick to WHP not estimates of crank HP.That is all. I am happy you enjoyed your car. No offense intended.
Ted
Ted
No offense taken. I appologize if I came across as defensive. The Kleemann dyno actually calculates crank much differently than you think. They do not input drive train loss. I'd try to explain how it works but I know that I'd get it wrong so I won't make a lame attempt. I'm sure that they'd be more than happy to explain it to anyone who might be interested.
The Kleemann HP claims may be generous but I do believe that they are close. I'm one of those guys who can't leave a car stock. I've owned cars modified by Lingenfelter, Hennessey, etc. In my experience and opinion, the Kleemann products and the Kleemann guys in Colorado are the best that I've dealt with by far. I'd recommend their products to anyone and will have them modify cars for me in the future.
09-02-2005, 10:16 PM
#16
Out Of Control!
Originally Posted by G55K
In my experience and opinion, the Kleemann products and the Kleemann guys in Colorado are the best that I've dealt with by far. I'd recommend their products to anyone and will have them modify cars for me in the future.
...
09-03-2005, 09:23 AM
#17
In my experience and opinion, the Kleemann products and the Kleemann guys in Colorado are the best that I've dealt with by far. I'd recommend their products to anyone and will have them modify cars for me in the future
...........I have never heard anything bad about the Kleemann guys as individuals. I don't know what this has to do with Dyno numbers. If a rather high drive train loss percentage is used, you still get a an incorrect number. This is regardless of whether or not the guy that fed the numbers to the dyno computer is a nice guy or not.
...........My point is (this not an original thought by the way, others have said the same) that the only objective way to know what a performance upgrade did for your car is to have a before and after dyno in WHP figures and preferably before and after quatermile times as well. This of course does not mean that the said upgrade did not produce any gains, it just means that if you do not get before and after WHP figures, you are just guessing. I don't think there is much debate about this point. And it does not mean that the Kleemann guys are not nice guys.
.........What this means is that the general assumption that Kleemann has the highest HP per dollar spent, may not be quite as clear as it once seemed. If you use WHP figures, the difference between Kleemann and other tuners seems to dissappear. I definitely wellcome objective figures and charts and dynographs to the contrary. Subjective feelings about a tuner are probably important in another setting, but not when discussing actual performance gains in hard numbers. Lets compare WHP to WHP, quatermile time to quatermile time, trap speed to trap speed, lap time to laptime and if you wish, we can also compare cost in US dollars. For example. The Kleemann C55 S8 is an incredible car with 0-60mph time of 3.7 secs, but manages to clear the quatermile in 12.2 secs. You will expect to break into the mid 11's in this car. So, something is wrong.........perharps heat soak. By bringing these issues up, potential customers can make informed choices and have intelligent conversations with their tuners. This again does not mean that the tuners are not nice guys.My 2 cents.
Ted
...........I have never heard anything bad about the Kleemann guys as individuals. I don't know what this has to do with Dyno numbers. If a rather high drive train loss percentage is used, you still get a an incorrect number. This is regardless of whether or not the guy that fed the numbers to the dyno computer is a nice guy or not.
...........My point is (this not an original thought by the way, others have said the same) that the only objective way to know what a performance upgrade did for your car is to have a before and after dyno in WHP figures and preferably before and after quatermile times as well. This of course does not mean that the said upgrade did not produce any gains, it just means that if you do not get before and after WHP figures, you are just guessing. I don't think there is much debate about this point. And it does not mean that the Kleemann guys are not nice guys.
.........What this means is that the general assumption that Kleemann has the highest HP per dollar spent, may not be quite as clear as it once seemed. If you use WHP figures, the difference between Kleemann and other tuners seems to dissappear. I definitely wellcome objective figures and charts and dynographs to the contrary. Subjective feelings about a tuner are probably important in another setting, but not when discussing actual performance gains in hard numbers. Lets compare WHP to WHP, quatermile time to quatermile time, trap speed to trap speed, lap time to laptime and if you wish, we can also compare cost in US dollars. For example. The Kleemann C55 S8 is an incredible car with 0-60mph time of 3.7 secs, but manages to clear the quatermile in 12.2 secs. You will expect to break into the mid 11's in this car. So, something is wrong.........perharps heat soak. By bringing these issues up, potential customers can make informed choices and have intelligent conversations with their tuners. This again does not mean that the tuners are not nice guys.My 2 cents.
Ted
09-03-2005, 12:54 PM
#18
Originally Posted by Ted Baldwin
In my experience and opinion, the Kleemann products and the Kleemann guys in Colorado are the best that I've dealt with by far. I'd recommend their products to anyone and will have them modify cars for me in the future
...........I have never heard anything bad about the Kleemann guys as individuals. I don't know what this has to do with Dyno numbers. If a rather high drive train loss percentage is used, you still get a an incorrect number. This is regardless of whether or not the guy that fed the numbers to the dyno computer is a nice guy or not.
...........My point is (this not an original thought by the way, others have said the same) that the only objective way to know what a performance upgrade did for your car is to have a before and after dyno in WHP figures and preferably before and after quatermile times as well. This of course does not mean that the said upgrade did not produce any gains, it just means that if you do not get before and after WHP figures, you are just guessing. I don't think there is much debate about this point. And it does not mean that the Kleemann guys are not nice guys.
.........What this means is that the general assumption that Kleemann has the highest HP per dollar spent, may not be quite as clear as it once seemed. If you use WHP figures, the difference between Kleemann and other tuners seems to dissappear. I definitely wellcome objective figures and charts and dynographs to the contrary. Subjective feelings about a tuner are probably important in another setting, but not when discussing actual performance gains in hard numbers. Lets compare WHP to WHP, quatermile time to quatermile time, trap speed to trap speed, lap time to laptime and if you wish, we can also compare cost in US dollars. For example. The Kleemann C55 S8 is an incredible car with 0-60mph time of 3.7 secs, but manages to clear the quatermile in 12.2 secs. You will expect to break into the mid 11's in this car. So, something is wrong.........perharps heat soak. By bringing these issues up, potential customers can make informed choices and have intelligent conversations with their tuners. This again does not mean that the tuners are not nice guys.My 2 cents.
Ted
...........I have never heard anything bad about the Kleemann guys as individuals. I don't know what this has to do with Dyno numbers. If a rather high drive train loss percentage is used, you still get a an incorrect number. This is regardless of whether or not the guy that fed the numbers to the dyno computer is a nice guy or not.
...........My point is (this not an original thought by the way, others have said the same) that the only objective way to know what a performance upgrade did for your car is to have a before and after dyno in WHP figures and preferably before and after quatermile times as well. This of course does not mean that the said upgrade did not produce any gains, it just means that if you do not get before and after WHP figures, you are just guessing. I don't think there is much debate about this point. And it does not mean that the Kleemann guys are not nice guys.
.........What this means is that the general assumption that Kleemann has the highest HP per dollar spent, may not be quite as clear as it once seemed. If you use WHP figures, the difference between Kleemann and other tuners seems to dissappear. I definitely wellcome objective figures and charts and dynographs to the contrary. Subjective feelings about a tuner are probably important in another setting, but not when discussing actual performance gains in hard numbers. Lets compare WHP to WHP, quatermile time to quatermile time, trap speed to trap speed, lap time to laptime and if you wish, we can also compare cost in US dollars. For example. The Kleemann C55 S8 is an incredible car with 0-60mph time of 3.7 secs, but manages to clear the quatermile in 12.2 secs. You will expect to break into the mid 11's in this car. So, something is wrong.........perharps heat soak. By bringing these issues up, potential customers can make informed choices and have intelligent conversations with their tuners. This again does not mean that the tuners are not nice guys.My 2 cents.
Ted
I'm not sure what you're not understanding but I'll say it one more time. The drive train loss is not calculated and/or programmed into the dyno by Kleemann. The dyno itself does the calculation based upon load, rpms, and other factors. Ask them if you're injerseted in the details but it's not done manually. I have a 1,000 HP drag car that they helped build. We used their dyno to get base numbers when it was stock. Guess what? The base numbers from their dyno matched the factory numbers almost perfectly. It calculated a very different loss for my G class as compared to an E Class.
The 35% is MY estimate based upon the dyno numbers of an ML55 done on a Dynojet (not by Kleemann). The stock ML55 showed about 35% drive train loss at the wheels when compared to the Mercedes crank HP figures. I used the ML loss to calculate an estimate of my G's crank HP. Do you get it now.
I would not expect the Kleemann C-Class to break into the 11's without slicks becasue of it weight and inability to hookup.
