Kleemann Stage 7 dyno numbers
11-10-2005, 12:28 AM
#27
Super Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'93 RX-7, SLK55
OK, here is the dyno for Hp. Like I said, its lacking the 2 KEY metrics we all identify with a proper dyno graph...namely RPM & of course, Torque. OK, enough whining, I'll post a new/more powerful pull in the next 2 wks.
Medeci, yes, got the Kleemann LSD. Trust me, it needs every bit of traction it can get.
Cheers,
-Matt
Medeci, yes, got the Kleemann LSD. Trust me, it needs every bit of traction it can get.
Cheers,
-Matt
11-10-2005, 09:09 AM
#28
Out Of Control!
Originally Posted by Yellow R1
I've got 100 octane race gas right by my house. Kleemann says power will increase if higher octane is added as the ECU adapts. I have no idea "how much" more power would be produced? (maybe 20 horse - who knows - likely pretty insignificant). You have any idea? I just dont know. 
See ya,
-Matt
See ya,
-Matt
[OK, here is the dyno for Hp. Like I said, its lacking the 2 KEY metrics we all identify with a proper dyno graph...namely RPM & of course, Torque. OK, enough whining, I'll post a new/more powerful pull in the next 2 wks.
Medeci, yes, got the Kleemann LSD. Trust me, it needs every bit of traction it can get.
Cheers,
-Matt
Medeci, yes, got the Kleemann LSD. Trust me, it needs every bit of traction it can get.
Cheers,
-Matt
11-10-2005, 11:54 AM
#29
Super Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'93 RX-7, SLK55
Originally Posted by JamE55
I used to run 91 but have switched to 101 (running strictly on 101 now) and have noticed a significant difference. Not really sure how much hp increase was made since i haven't dynoed my car but i can tell the difference from 91 going to 101. It's taking full advantage of the ECU's timing Cory made me. Plus when i hit the mid range rpm the car pulls very strong because of the bumpsticks. I love it! Your guess on the 100oct is about as good as mine on the HP increase. May be around 20+hp. Are you using 91oct on this dyno? Also let me know what your experience is on your LSD. For some reason mine feels like i don't have any. lol
. Yes, 91 octane as listed in my original post was used for the dyno run. I guess I'll use 100 next time...we can gauge the power benefit from higher octane & my ECU learning...should pull 520 - 540 or so (I'm thinking 520, we'll see I guess
).Your LSD question....if TC was engaging at 80 mph, it ain't going to be like have 345 DRs on the rear at lower speed. Seriously James, next "mod" are rims/tires. See ya.
-Matt
11-10-2005, 01:33 PM
#30
Out Of Control!
Originally Posted by Yellow R1
I need to get the bumpsticks for more power .
Yes, 91 octane as listed in my original post was used for the dyno run. I guess I'll use 100 next time...we can gauge the power benefit from higher octane & my ECU learning...should pull 520 - 540 or so (I'm thinking 520, we'll see I guess ).
Your LSD question....if TC was engaging at 80 mph, it ain't going to be like have 345 DRs on the rear at lower speed. Seriously James, next "mod" are rims/tires. See ya.
-Matt
. Yes, 91 octane as listed in my original post was used for the dyno run. I guess I'll use 100 next time...we can gauge the power benefit from higher octane & my ECU learning...should pull 520 - 540 or so (I'm thinking 520, we'll see I guess
).Your LSD question....if TC was engaging at 80 mph, it ain't going to be like have 345 DRs on the rear at lower speed. Seriously James, next "mod" are rims/tires. See ya.
-Matt
! Yes pls keep us posted once the ECU learns. I'd be very interested to see what the gains are. What kind of rims and tires are you looking to get? Definitely 19"s. Let me know.
11-10-2005, 06:51 PM
#35
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the look of that dyno it seems too lean for an FI motor.
My CR is 9.0:1 and i vary from 10.9:1 to 11.5:1, and still get some detonation on 100F days under full throttle on 93 Octane gas.
Hopefully its just the strange way the graph is reporting mph not a/f.
If you get wheel spin @ 80 mph are you getting larger rear rims/tires?
Pirelli Rosso tires have a wear rating of 140 and are about the best reliable street tires i have found.
Please keep us updated as to your driving impressions
My CR is 9.0:1 and i vary from 10.9:1 to 11.5:1, and still get some detonation on 100F days under full throttle on 93 Octane gas.
Hopefully its just the strange way the graph is reporting mph not a/f.
If you get wheel spin @ 80 mph are you getting larger rear rims/tires?
Pirelli Rosso tires have a wear rating of 140 and are about the best reliable street tires i have found.
Please keep us updated as to your driving impressions
11-10-2005, 09:00 PM
#36
Super Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'93 RX-7, SLK55
Originally Posted by ian55amg
From the look of that dyno it seems too lean for an FI motor.
My CR is 9.0:1 and i vary from 10.9:1 to 11.5:1, and still get some detonation on 100F days under full throttle on 93 Octane gas.
Hopefully its just the strange way the graph is reporting mph not a/f.
If you get wheel spin @ 80 mph are you getting larger rear rims/tires?
Pirelli Rosso tires have a wear rating of 140 and are about the best reliable street tires i have found.
Please keep us updated as to your driving impressions
My CR is 9.0:1 and i vary from 10.9:1 to 11.5:1, and still get some detonation on 100F days under full throttle on 93 Octane gas.
Hopefully its just the strange way the graph is reporting mph not a/f.
If you get wheel spin @ 80 mph are you getting larger rear rims/tires?
Pirelli Rosso tires have a wear rating of 140 and are about the best reliable street tires i have found.
Please keep us updated as to your driving impressions
.PS - putting it back on the dyno next week as well. I'll post the sheet late next week so we can see A/F ratio change & hopefully more power
-Matt
11-11-2005, 06:58 AM
#38
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Yellow R1
Yup, your dead on. I'm dropping the car off on Monday. My RX-7 runs a 10 A/F & 95 octane (its a little rich but you absolutely can't detonate a rotary or its $2k apex seals & rotor replacement time). 12+ A/F even for a piston motor has got to be tooooooo lean. I PM'd Cory & Kleemann & CT Motorsports is going to adjust the fuel delivery to richen it back up. I think its outta spec too. Thanks Ian - we think alike .
PS - putting it back on the dyno next week as well. I'll post the sheet late next week so we can see A/F ratio change & hopefully more power
-Matt
.PS - putting it back on the dyno next week as well. I'll post the sheet late next week so we can see A/F ratio change & hopefully more power
-Matt
If it would help you i can email my hp/ torque graphs with a/f ratios for reference purposes. It has my stage 1 TT numbers which were powerful but the car ran too lean and refused to run without detonation, unless i added a lot of 100 octane gas. It was a real PITA and taught me to be very wary of
all tuning shops.
Good Luck and protect that expensive engine of yours
11-11-2005, 01:47 PM
#39
Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: SF CA
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'06 SLK55 AMG, del Sol VTEC
Originally Posted by AMG_55
next step: rear fender widening and 345 tires on 19 hre's
11-11-2005, 01:53 PM
#40
Super Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'93 RX-7, SLK55
Originally Posted by ian55amg
Matt.
If it would help you i can email my hp/ torque graphs with a/f ratios for reference purposes. It has my stage 1 TT numbers which were powerful but the car ran too lean and refused to run without detonation, unless i added a lot of 100 octane gas. It was a real PITA and taught me to be very wary of
all tuning shops.
Good Luck and protect that expensive engine of yours
If it would help you i can email my hp/ torque graphs with a/f ratios for reference purposes. It has my stage 1 TT numbers which were powerful but the car ran too lean and refused to run without detonation, unless i added a lot of 100 octane gas. It was a real PITA and taught me to be very wary of
all tuning shops.
Good Luck and protect that expensive engine of yours
Just wanted to say thanks for your concern on the tuning/engine.
Never fear, CT Motorsports is a Kleemann authorized installer. I know the owner, John, & he's very knowledgeable (he supports 2 drivers & 4 race cars) & has done a few Kleemann installs (just finished an SL500). John is also in regular communication w/Kleemann Colorado as well.I'll tell ya this, the car seems to be gaining Hp as I drive it. The slightest touch on the throttle & its just GONE
. The exhaust tone on this thing sounds like a NASCAR (at 2,000 RPM its loud, anything higher & it thunders like a race car ).Y'all have a good weekend.
-Matt
11-11-2005, 02:32 PM
#42
Super Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'93 RX-7, SLK55
Originally Posted by dinko
I once said I would never do the supercharger...........
Dinko
Dinko
OK, its Friday, & I'm working too much
. Just playin' Dinko.
11-11-2005, 03:32 PM
#43
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orlando
Posts: 1,458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55
Originally Posted by Yellow R1
Luke, come to the DARK side! You don't know the true POWER of the Dark Side! :v
OK, its Friday, & I'm working too much . Just playin' Dinko.
OK, its Friday, & I'm working too much
. Just playin' Dinko.Dinko
11-11-2005, 11:57 PM
#45
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 8,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
g
Can you comment on Kleemann’s claimed 12.3 0-125 time? It just seems unconceivable to me to have a 0-60 time of 3.7-3.8 and then it almost takes another full 9 seconds to double the speed of that. I know about wind resistance and all, but it doesn't seem right to me Is it underrated?
I'm not trying to start a flame war, I'm just curious. I would expect it to be in the 11's or even high 10's.
Is it underrated?I'm not trying to start a flame war, I'm just curious. I would expect it to be in the 11's or even high 10's.
Last edited by NOTKTS; 11-12-2005 at 12:07 AM.
11-12-2005, 01:32 AM
#46
Originally Posted by NOTKTS
Can you comment on Kleemann’s claimed 12.3 0-125 time? It just seems unconceivable to me to have a 0-60 time of 3.7-3.8 and then it almost takes another full 9 seconds to double the speed of that. I know about wind resistance and all, but it doesn't seem right to me Is it underrated?
I'm not trying to start a flame war, I'm just curious. I would expect it to be in the 11's or even high 10's.
Is it underrated?I'm not trying to start a flame war, I'm just curious. I would expect it to be in the 11's or even high 10's.
11-12-2005, 01:12 PM
#47
Super Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'93 RX-7, SLK55
Originally Posted by NOTKTS
Can you comment on Kleemann’s claimed 12.3 0-125 time? It just seems unconceivable to me to have a 0-60 time of 3.7-3.8 and then it almost takes another full 9 seconds to double the speed of that. I know about wind resistance and all, but it doesn't seem right to me Is it underrated?
I'm not trying to start a flame war, I'm just curious. I would expect it to be in the 11's or even high 10's.
Is it underrated?I'm not trying to start a flame war, I'm just curious. I would expect it to be in the 11's or even high 10's.
). I'm figuring.......a stock C6 w/400 Hp (manual 6 Spd Coupe) has 45 more Hp & weighs less than the SLK55, yet runs the same quarter mile. A C6 Z06 is putting down 40 rwhp (not flywheel) LESS than my initial SLK dyno (450 to 489rwhp). Unless physics are wrong, the S7 SLK is quicker (it should be...the C6 Z06 is stock). In any case, I think a new Z06 will need significantly more power than a modded SLK due to the inhernet advantage of the MB 7 Spd tranny & the fact the SLK engine produces more comparable torque to pull its extra 230lb heft (I had 460 Tq on the 1st pull that netted only 383 rwhp, my 2nd pull yielded the 489 rwhp but Tq was not measured due to an electrical short in the dyno conection cable...I'm guessing its putting down signifcantly more than the 1st 460 Tq number). We'll see, going back on the dyno next week now that the ECU has learned. I could be wrong - its just my opinion.
See ya,
-Matt
11-12-2005, 03:08 PM
#48
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: sac, calif.
Posts: 1,164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'06 slk55
Want to see it...
So when can us Silicon Valley peeps see your car Yellow?
Tell me when and where. I'd love to check that thing out. I just broke 1k miles and have started to get on it. I think the stock 55 gets a bit scary. I'm sure I'd sh_t my pants in your car.
Tell me when and where. I'd love to check that thing out. I just broke 1k miles and have started to get on it. I think the stock 55 gets a bit scary. I'm sure I'd sh_t my pants in your car.
11-12-2005, 05:03 PM
#49
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 19 Likes
on
18 Posts
V12-Biturbo
Originally Posted by Yellow R1
Ya, I tend to agree with you? A stock SLK55 runs a 12.7 quarter at 110. Makes no sense that the SLK is going to pick up only .5 sec (which as you correctly noted was picked up from 0-60mph alone) in the quarter? This thing will pull a stock SLK55 from 60 mph like it was in reverse (I'm getting traction issues at 80 mph...I havn't nailed it above that yet - fuggin' scary when the back end gets loose @ 80mph....need more rubber to help ).
I'm figuring.......a stock C6 w/400 Hp (manual 6 Spd Coupe) has 45 more Hp & weighs less than the SLK55, yet runs the same quarter mile. A C6 Z06 is putting down 40 rwhp (not flywheel) LESS than my initial SLK dyno (450 to 489rwhp). Unless physics are wrong, the S7 SLK is quicker (it should be...the C6 Z06 is stock). In any case, I think a new Z06 will need significantly more power than a modded SLK due to the inhernet advantage of the MB 7 Spd tranny & the fact the SLK engine produces more comparable torque to pull its extra 230lb heft (I had 460 Tq on the 1st pull that netted only 383 rwhp, my 2nd pull yielded the 489 rwhp but Tq was not measured due to an electrical short in the dyno conection cable...I'm guessing its putting down signifcantly more than the 1st 460 Tq number). We'll see, going back on the dyno next week now that the ECU has learned. I could be wrong - its just my opinion.
See ya,
-Matt
). I'm figuring.......a stock C6 w/400 Hp (manual 6 Spd Coupe) has 45 more Hp & weighs less than the SLK55, yet runs the same quarter mile. A C6 Z06 is putting down 40 rwhp (not flywheel) LESS than my initial SLK dyno (450 to 489rwhp). Unless physics are wrong, the S7 SLK is quicker (it should be...the C6 Z06 is stock). In any case, I think a new Z06 will need significantly more power than a modded SLK due to the inhernet advantage of the MB 7 Spd tranny & the fact the SLK engine produces more comparable torque to pull its extra 230lb heft (I had 460 Tq on the 1st pull that netted only 383 rwhp, my 2nd pull yielded the 489 rwhp but Tq was not measured due to an electrical short in the dyno conection cable...I'm guessing its putting down signifcantly more than the 1st 460 Tq number). We'll see, going back on the dyno next week now that the ECU has learned. I could be wrong - its just my opinion.
See ya,
-Matt
Yours is exceeding that by a good 100 ponies, (As Scotty from Star Trek might say) Cap'tn she's got to much powuur!! she might blow!
11-12-2005, 05:08 PM
#50
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Matt,
Remember the C6 Z06 has 315 wide rear tires so the power will be more accessable. I also believe the c6z06 is around 3150 lbs v's the slk55amg stock weight is 3400, and dont forget the added weight of your new supercharger(probably 50lbs). So the difference is more like 300 lbs.
I think it would be a very close race but would rather be in the AMG...i just love the 7 speed tranny
Remember the C6 Z06 has 315 wide rear tires so the power will be more accessable. I also believe the c6z06 is around 3150 lbs v's the slk55amg stock weight is 3400, and dont forget the added weight of your new supercharger(probably 50lbs). So the difference is more like 300 lbs.
I think it would be a very close race but would rather be in the AMG...i just love the 7 speed tranny
