SL55/63/65/R230 AMG: SL600 vs SL65
Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 231
Likes: 2
From: Chicago
GL550
At the end of the day it doesn't matter whether you use a whp figure or a flywheel figure, the whp figure is still going to vary from dyno to dyno. And there is always the question of heat, every time you do a run the heat goes up and the power goes down. Working on just dividing figures must be less
accurate than a dyno computer working out on the run down the resistance and giving a flywheel figure, it's at least measuring each individual car instead of just using a dividing figure. If you just want to see how much power you have gained then the whp figure is fine. However if you are just testing new cars to see how accurate the manufacturer's claims are, then the dyno on the run down must be used.
accurate than a dyno computer working out on the run down the resistance and giving a flywheel figure, it's at least measuring each individual car instead of just using a dividing figure. If you just want to see how much power you have gained then the whp figure is fine. However if you are just testing new cars to see how accurate the manufacturer's claims are, then the dyno on the run down must be used.
You can test 3 identical cars, with 3 different WHP outputs and then use a different loss coefficient and still come up with the same flywheel hp and I guarantee you that it will all be magic. What I am saying is that I can make ANY car spit out ANY flywheel hp by simply adjusting the loss factor.
I am done trying to explain this to you. Please read the articles and do some research on the topic.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 8,137
Likes: 26
From: Maryland
Eurocharged 2004 E500, Eurocharged ECU/TCU 2005 SL600, 2010 Caddy SwaggerWagon
I don't mean to criticize Benz-O-Rama, but using the 18% drivetrain loss is still shooting in the dark. There are so many factors that are involved. 18% may very well be the right number on an SL600. But the SL600 has a a torque converter and much more robust driveshaft and rear end (i.e. heavier) than the 63's due to the enormous torque load. So would it make sense that an SL63 with a more efficient MCT tranny and lighter weight driveshaft/rear end have the same parasitic loss? 
Tom
Tom
As stated, it so hard to calculate gains if you only have the 'after mods' horsepower. But, 1/4 mile trap speed is probably a better calculating factor. We can dig up umpteen stock SL63 trap speeds and see if yours is any different. Even that's not going to be 100% due to different D.A. at different tracks.
To put this to bed, you really needed to do a baseline on the same dyno that you're going to use for 'after mod' testing.
Since your friend is a tuner, he should be able to flash you back to stock in 10 minutes. You can dyno, then put your tune back on in another 10 minutes.
That will give you the data you seek.
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 19
From: U.K.
SL 63 W/B AMG , S600,C220
What you are failing to realize time and again is that this dividing number is a guess at best. It does not mean the manufacturer was right.
You can test 3 identical cars, with 3 different WHP outputs and then use a different loss coefficient and still come up with the same flywheel hp and I guarantee you that it will all be magic. What I am saying is that I can make ANY car spit out ANY flywheel hp by simply adjusting the loss factor.
I am done trying to explain this to you. Please read the articles and do some research on the topic.
You can test 3 identical cars, with 3 different WHP outputs and then use a different loss coefficient and still come up with the same flywheel hp and I guarantee you that it will all be magic. What I am saying is that I can make ANY car spit out ANY flywheel hp by simply adjusting the loss factor.
I am done trying to explain this to you. Please read the articles and do some research on the topic.
The problem I have now is whether to put my SL63 on a rolling road, will anybody believe the figures!
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,895
Likes: 53
From: Maryland
'14 E63S & '14 Audi SQ5
Ok...read this article on the accuracy of coast down flywheel measurement... and it is from a UK based race engine builder!!!!
http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/coastdwn.htm
Tom
http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/coastdwn.htm
Tom
Any comment on this article?
Tom
Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 231
Likes: 2
From: Chicago
GL550
Let's get one thing straight, I am not interested in learning about dyno's, this discussion is all about how a figure is arrived at when using a rolling road dyno. I have explained how it is done in the UK and other members have said how it's done in the States. I have been told by Benz-O-Rama that you simply divide by a number, and as much as other members disagree with the method of running down to achieve a flywheel figure I would rather believe that a computer measuring the run down instead of using a one fit's all number to divide by to be the best. I have said on numerous occasions that the flywheel figures I have obtained so far on various cars have been pretty accurate compared with tuners and manufacturers figures.
The problem I have now is whether to put my SL63 on a rolling road, will anybody believe the figures!
The problem I have now is whether to put my SL63 on a rolling road, will anybody believe the figures!
I will second the question, did you read this article: http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/coastdwn.htm ?
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,318
Likes: 0
From: OC, SoCal
08 S65, 06 M3 CS(stick), 02 BMW X5 4.6iS, 07 R1 Raven, 08 F-450 4x4, 08 CooperS JCW
You should very much be interested in learning how dynos work - otherwise how can you expect to have an intelligent conversation on the subject?
I will second the question, did you read this article: http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/coastdwn.htm ?
I will second the question, did you read this article: http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/coastdwn.htm ?
-Rob
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,895
Likes: 53
From: Maryland
'14 E63S & '14 Audi SQ5
Ok...read this article on the accuracy of coast down flywheel measurement... and it is from a UK based race engine builder!!!!
http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/coastdwn.htm
Tom
http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/coastdwn.htm
Tom
You should very much be interested in learning how dynos work - otherwise how can you expect to have an intelligent conversation on the subject?
I will second the question, did you read this article: http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/coastdwn.htm ?
I will second the question, did you read this article: http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/coastdwn.htm ?
His silence is deafening...
Tom
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 19
From: U.K.
SL 63 W/B AMG , S600,C220
Hi, glad you missed me
It would appear that I made a mistake on post 32, at the time I was answering a question regarding my re mapped SL63 and how to measure 560+ and should have been on thread SL63 vs SL65 which dragged us into an argument about dyno's, so I am sorry, I started it.
Next, yes I have read it, but one thing I disagree with.
Quote: To run the test , the car was warmed up and given a couple of runs on the rollers to stabilize the temp etc..
I would never do a run unless my car had reached optimum temperature which in my car takes around 20 minutes this time of year. Giving a car full power on a cold or warm engine could seriously damage it. You should drive a car first until it reaches full temp before putting it on a rolling road, plus it sounds amateurish. Also every time you do a run, heat build up, especially in inter coolers will increase and lower your horse power, fans are inadequate.
However I have made the decision that a flywheel figure cannot be achieved on a rolling road. Sure measure a stock car's whp and again after tuning to see the gains, however it still wont give you a flywheel figure!
I started this thread and it was going great guns until my gaff on post 32, so
perhaps we can return to the op. Thanks Paul.
It would appear that I made a mistake on post 32, at the time I was answering a question regarding my re mapped SL63 and how to measure 560+ and should have been on thread SL63 vs SL65 which dragged us into an argument about dyno's, so I am sorry, I started it.
Next, yes I have read it, but one thing I disagree with.
Quote: To run the test , the car was warmed up and given a couple of runs on the rollers to stabilize the temp etc..
I would never do a run unless my car had reached optimum temperature which in my car takes around 20 minutes this time of year. Giving a car full power on a cold or warm engine could seriously damage it. You should drive a car first until it reaches full temp before putting it on a rolling road, plus it sounds amateurish. Also every time you do a run, heat build up, especially in inter coolers will increase and lower your horse power, fans are inadequate.
However I have made the decision that a flywheel figure cannot be achieved on a rolling road. Sure measure a stock car's whp and again after tuning to see the gains, however it still wont give you a flywheel figure!
I started this thread and it was going great guns until my gaff on post 32, so
perhaps we can return to the op. Thanks Paul.
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
10 Most Reliable Mercedes-Benz Models You Can Buy Used
Verdad Gallardo
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,895
Likes: 53
From: Maryland
'14 E63S & '14 Audi SQ5
Hi, glad you missed me
It would appear that I made a mistake on post 32, at the time I was answering a question regarding my re mapped SL63 and how to measure 560+ and should have been on thread SL63 vs SL65 which dragged us into an argument about dyno's, so I am sorry, I started it.
Next, yes I have read it, but one thing I disagree with.
Quote: To run the test , the car was warmed up and given a couple of runs on the rollers to stabilize the temp etc..
I would never do a run unless my car had reached optimum temperature which in my car takes around 20 minutes this time of year. Giving a car full power on a cold or warm engine could seriously damage it. You should drive a car first until it reaches full temp before putting it on a rolling road, plus it sounds amateurish. Also every time you do a run, heat build up, especially in inter coolers will increase and lower your horse power, fans are inadequate.
However I have made the decision that a flywheel figure cannot be achieved on a rolling road. Sure measure a stock car's whp and again after tuning to see the gains, however it still wont give you a flywheel figure!
I started this thread and it was going great guns until my gaff on post 32, so
perhaps we can return to the op. Thanks Paul.
It would appear that I made a mistake on post 32, at the time I was answering a question regarding my re mapped SL63 and how to measure 560+ and should have been on thread SL63 vs SL65 which dragged us into an argument about dyno's, so I am sorry, I started it.
Next, yes I have read it, but one thing I disagree with.
Quote: To run the test , the car was warmed up and given a couple of runs on the rollers to stabilize the temp etc..
I would never do a run unless my car had reached optimum temperature which in my car takes around 20 minutes this time of year. Giving a car full power on a cold or warm engine could seriously damage it. You should drive a car first until it reaches full temp before putting it on a rolling road, plus it sounds amateurish. Also every time you do a run, heat build up, especially in inter coolers will increase and lower your horse power, fans are inadequate.
However I have made the decision that a flywheel figure cannot be achieved on a rolling road. Sure measure a stock car's whp and again after tuning to see the gains, however it still wont give you a flywheel figure!
I started this thread and it was going great guns until my gaff on post 32, so
perhaps we can return to the op. Thanks Paul.
I commend you on your admission. It isn't always the easiest thing to do.
I agree with your point on warming the car up before running. However, I think most people don't have a problem getting a car back to normal operating temps at the dyno. In reality people need to drive a certain distance to get to the dyno place. Letting the car sit for 1/2 hour while waiting to do a few runs isn't going to require a lot of time to get the operating temp back up.
What was great was on my E39 M5 would have the tach LED lights have an extended "yellow" line until oil temps reached normal. The car would need to be shut down a few hours for the yellow lights to come back.
Tom
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 19
From: U.K.
SL 63 W/B AMG , S600,C220
sound 8:
I commend you on your admission. It isn't always the easiest thing to do.
I agree with your point on warming the car up before running. However, I think most people don't have a problem getting a car back to normal operating temps at the dyno. In reality people need to drive a certain distance to get to the dyno place. Letting the car sit for 1/2 hour while waiting to do a few runs isn't going to require a lot of time to get the operating temp back up.
What was great was on my E39 M5 would have the tach LED lights have an extended "yellow" line until oil temps reached normal. The car would need to be shut down a few hours for the yellow lights to come back.
Tom
I commend you on your admission. It isn't always the easiest thing to do.
I agree with your point on warming the car up before running. However, I think most people don't have a problem getting a car back to normal operating temps at the dyno. In reality people need to drive a certain distance to get to the dyno place. Letting the car sit for 1/2 hour while waiting to do a few runs isn't going to require a lot of time to get the operating temp back up.
What was great was on my E39 M5 would have the tach LED lights have an extended "yellow" line until oil temps reached normal. The car would need to be shut down a few hours for the yellow lights to come back.
Tom
DynoJet you mention is only a rolling road!
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,895
Likes: 53
From: Maryland
'14 E63S & '14 Audi SQ5
I asked previously a question about your tune but never received an answer. Did the tune change your shift points? I am asking just out of curiosity.
Tom
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 19
From: U.K.
SL 63 W/B AMG , S600,C220
A DynoJet is indeed a rolling road. Most DynoJet's are configured the same so it is pretty accurate depiction of hp to the wheels (within the context of comparing to other Dynojets). As I mentioned before, I have dynoed on two DynoJets and the results were within 3 hp...which on my car represents a deviation of about .5%.
I asked previously a question about your tune but never received an answer. Did the tune change your shift points? I am asking just out of curiosity.
Tom
I asked previously a question about your tune but never received an answer. Did the tune change your shift points? I am asking just out of curiosity.
Tom
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,895
Likes: 53
From: Maryland
'14 E63S & '14 Audi SQ5
To be quite honest, I left him to it. These guys don't like people leaning over their shoulders, but next time I talk to him I will ask. I can't feel any difference gearbox wise, the car just feels more torquee, if there is such a word. When a manufacturer prints the spec I presume the power figures are taken from an engine dyno not a rolling road. Do you know what whp my 63 has stock,how much extra whp would roughly translate to 560 hp.I realize these figures are ball park!
http://www.dragtimes.com/2009-Merced...phs-16625.html
The S63 and the SL63 have the same engine hp rating from the factory. However, the SL63 has the MCT transmission and a shorter (lighter) drive shaft. I would imagine that even though the engine is rated the same, the SL63 has a greater efficiency (less parasitic loss). So in theory the SL63 should produce more rwhp on a Dynojet. So if you look at it mathematically, the S63 (using SAE rated hp) is rated at 518hp at the flywheel and 415rwhp on a DynoJet...parasitic loss of around 20%. An SL63 may have only 18% parasitic loss which would translate to 425rwhp (518hp X (100%-18%)).
Also, the S63 was dynoed at DC Performance which is in CA. Here on the East Coast we have 93 octane readily available. I am not sure if the ECU would pull timing if it sensed knocking with weak CA 91 octane gas (99% of CA gas stations have a maximum 91 octane available). Just an FYI, 91 octane (AKI) is equivalent to 95 RON. 93 octane (AKI) is equivalent to about 98 RON.
So an SL63 may also pick up hp with better octane gas. So I would throw a range of 420rwhp to 430rwhp for an SL63 on a DynoJet.
I would say that an SL63 would have to make about 450-460rwhp to hit the theoretical 553hp SAE or 560PS mark.
Tom
Last edited by TMC M5; Jan 22, 2010 at 03:52 PM.
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 19
From: U.K.
SL 63 W/B AMG , S600,C220
A stock S63 did 415rwhp:
http://www.dragtimes.com/2009-Merced...phs-16625.html
The S63 and the SL63 have the same engine hp rating from the factory. However, the SL63 has the MCT transmission and a shorter (lighter) drive shaft. I would imagine that even though the engine is rated the same, the SL63 has a greater efficiency (less parasitic loss). So in theory the SL63 should produce more rwhp on a Dynojet. So if you look at it mathematically, the S63 (using SAE rated hp) is rated at 518hp at the flywheel and 415rwhp on a DynoJet...parasitic loss of around 20%. An SL63 may have only 18% parasitic loss which would translate to 425rwhp (518hp X (100%-18%)).
Also, the S63 was dynoed at DC Performance which is in CA. Here on the East Coast we have 93 octane readily available. I am not sure if the ECU would pull timing if it sensed knocking with weak CA 91 octane gas (99% of CA gas stations have a maximum 91 octane available). Just an FYI, 91 octane (AKI) is equivalent to 95 RON. 93 octane (AKI) is equivalent to about 98 RON.
So an SL63 may also pick up hp with better octane gas. So I would throw a range of 420rwhp to 430rwhp for an SL63 on a DynoJet.
I would say that an SL63 would have to make about 450-460rwhp to hit the theoretical 553hp SAE or 560PS mark.
Tom
http://www.dragtimes.com/2009-Merced...phs-16625.html
The S63 and the SL63 have the same engine hp rating from the factory. However, the SL63 has the MCT transmission and a shorter (lighter) drive shaft. I would imagine that even though the engine is rated the same, the SL63 has a greater efficiency (less parasitic loss). So in theory the SL63 should produce more rwhp on a Dynojet. So if you look at it mathematically, the S63 (using SAE rated hp) is rated at 518hp at the flywheel and 415rwhp on a DynoJet...parasitic loss of around 20%. An SL63 may have only 18% parasitic loss which would translate to 425rwhp (518hp X (100%-18%)).
Also, the S63 was dynoed at DC Performance which is in CA. Here on the East Coast we have 93 octane readily available. I am not sure if the ECU would pull timing if it sensed knocking with weak CA 91 octane gas (99% of CA gas stations have a maximum 91 octane available). Just an FYI, 91 octane (AKI) is equivalent to 95 RON. 93 octane (AKI) is equivalent to about 98 RON.
So an SL63 may also pick up hp with better octane gas. So I would throw a range of 420rwhp to 430rwhp for an SL63 on a DynoJet.
I would say that an SL63 would have to make about 450-460rwhp to hit the theoretical 553hp SAE or 560PS mark.
Tom
We have 99 octane at the pumps here, so if I take my 63 to a rolling road to measure whp then 460 would be quite good, but I seem not to trust them anymore so how do I know if it's over or under inflated
Believe me, and I have always said it as it is, if it was under I would still publish it, and no doubt upset all the 63 owners, as I did many moons ago with my 65. It turned out to be an oddball with no exclusive nappa leather and a S600 instrument cluster, I also found out it was a year at a dealers
before I purchased it.
I will certainly still take it.
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
From: Salt Lake City, UT
2002 BMW M5, 1992 AWD DSM, 1988 Yamaha FZR1000
Interesting. I'm glad this thread was on the first page... a friend took a ride in my E55 and became obsessed with it, and now he wants to buy it for his wife. I've been eyeing the SL600 for quite some time now, and I told him if I could find an SL600 w/ extended warranty (or buy an EW), that I'd sell him my E55.
Stock for stock (since it may be a while before I get a tune), how would you compare the SL600 to the E55?
Stock for stock (since it may be a while before I get a tune), how would you compare the SL600 to the E55?
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 19
From: U.K.
SL 63 W/B AMG , S600,C220
A stock S63 did 415rwhp:
http://www.dragtimes.com/2009-Merced...phs-16625.html
The S63 and the SL63 have the same engine hp rating from the factory. However, the SL63 has the MCT transmission and a shorter (lighter) drive shaft. I would imagine that even though the engine is rated the same, the SL63 has a greater efficiency (less parasitic loss). So in theory the SL63 should produce more rwhp on a Dynojet. So if you look at it mathematically, the S63 (using SAE rated hp) is rated at 518hp at the flywheel and 415rwhp on a DynoJet...parasitic loss of around 20%. An SL63 may have only 18% parasitic loss which would translate to 425rwhp (518hp X (100%-18%)).
Also, the S63 was dynoed at DC Performance which is in CA. Here on the East Coast we have 93 octane readily available. I am not sure if the ECU would pull timing if it sensed knocking with weak CA 91 octane gas (99% of CA gas stations have a maximum 91 octane available). Just an FYI, 91 octane (AKI) is equivalent to 95 RON. 93 octane (AKI) is equivalent to about 98 RON.
So an SL63 may also pick up hp with better octane gas. So I would throw a range of 420rwhp to 430rwhp for an SL63 on a DynoJet.
I would say that an SL63 would have to make about 450-460rwhp to hit the theoretical 553hp SAE or 560PS mark.
Tom
http://www.dragtimes.com/2009-Merced...phs-16625.html
The S63 and the SL63 have the same engine hp rating from the factory. However, the SL63 has the MCT transmission and a shorter (lighter) drive shaft. I would imagine that even though the engine is rated the same, the SL63 has a greater efficiency (less parasitic loss). So in theory the SL63 should produce more rwhp on a Dynojet. So if you look at it mathematically, the S63 (using SAE rated hp) is rated at 518hp at the flywheel and 415rwhp on a DynoJet...parasitic loss of around 20%. An SL63 may have only 18% parasitic loss which would translate to 425rwhp (518hp X (100%-18%)).
Also, the S63 was dynoed at DC Performance which is in CA. Here on the East Coast we have 93 octane readily available. I am not sure if the ECU would pull timing if it sensed knocking with weak CA 91 octane gas (99% of CA gas stations have a maximum 91 octane available). Just an FYI, 91 octane (AKI) is equivalent to 95 RON. 93 octane (AKI) is equivalent to about 98 RON.
So an SL63 may also pick up hp with better octane gas. So I would throw a range of 420rwhp to 430rwhp for an SL63 on a DynoJet.
I would say that an SL63 would have to make about 450-460rwhp to hit the theoretical 553hp SAE or 560PS mark.
Tom
