E63 Factory HP Claims Truthful?
09-18-2006, 10:55 PM
#26
Out Of Control!!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,394
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
2015 S212
With just 2 samples, it's tough to say that there is a widespread problem, but it certainly bears more investigation. What has MB said to you about the issue, getbitten?
Have you contacted an attorney? Looked into any contacts with the FTC (I assume they would be the one to hold MB to the fire for falsely advertising HP)?
I'll lay a GW down and say that if you push the issue, MB will just buyback the car. Any takers?
Have you contacted an attorney? Looked into any contacts with the FTC (I assume they would be the one to hold MB to the fire for falsely advertising HP)?
I'll lay a GW down and say that if you push the issue, MB will just buyback the car. Any takers?
For the HP figures, you guys are all forgetting that MB's figures are simple marketing as were the E55 numbers. You can no more sue MB for under-rating than you can for OVER-rating. It is either a lie or not, which way is not significant. Using the E55 as an example actually strengthens MB's position. it shows that they have always been in the ballpark and that it has never mattered.
I guarantee you one thing. Somewhere, somehow an AMG E63 put down 507HP at the crank AND it is well documented. Setting an HP rating has certain criteria. While the intent of the regulations is to provide "rue" facts, the practice that is accepted to establish these numbers are simply intended to control and normalize. IF (and i guarantee MB did) MB followed the proper regulatory path, thne the 507hp is valid. It makes no difference how many of you guys run Dynos and complain.
My advise? Be realistic. Do you really think MB will take your car back and go ahead and release the TT they have hidden in the closet? Do you think MB will give you an extra $10K to mod back the 50HP? Then stop going down those paths. So what if you could prove that the E63 doesn't make 507 on a real day? So what? Worst case, MB would have to change their number to the corrected one. Your car will still be the same!
If you wish you had not gotten it, dump it for a loss, or begin the lemon procedure early.
09-18-2006, 11:10 PM
#27
Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2009 SL63 AMG, sliver
It seems like the E55 HP dyno numbers suggest that it has the same engine as the S55, SL55 etc. MB reported a lower HP number for marketing reasons, but they probably were installing the same engine with similar tunning.
Maybe the same thing has happened with the 63 on in the other direction. Maybe the CLK63 (that gets like 480hp I think) is closer to reality (which would be around 390rwhp) and they increased the number for the E63 marketing but in reality it is just the same engine.
The numbers make sense.
I have to agree that going to the dealer with 2 dyno examples is not going to do much. We need a lot more data. Even then they might not do anything about it.
PT
Maybe the same thing has happened with the 63 on in the other direction. Maybe the CLK63 (that gets like 480hp I think) is closer to reality (which would be around 390rwhp) and they increased the number for the E63 marketing but in reality it is just the same engine.
The numbers make sense.
I have to agree that going to the dealer with 2 dyno examples is not going to do much. We need a lot more data. Even then they might not do anything about it.
PT
09-18-2006, 11:32 PM
#28
Member
Thread Starter
I'll take it. I say no buyback based on HP alone. No way. It is NOT a safety issue. Can the car be lemoned? Yes, if it is treated properly and documented well. NOT if the claim stems from advertised claims.
For the HP figures, you guys are all forgetting that MB's figures are simple marketing as were the E55 numbers. You can no more sue MB for under-rating than you can for OVER-rating. It is either a lie or not, which way is not significant. Using the E55 as an example actually strengthens MB's position. it shows that they have always been in the ballpark and that it has never mattered.
I guarantee you one thing. Somewhere, somehow an AMG E63 put down 507HP at the crank AND it is well documented. Setting an HP rating has certain criteria. While the intent of the regulations is to provide "rue" facts, the practice that is accepted to establish these numbers are simply intended to control and normalize. IF (and i guarantee MB did) MB followed the proper regulatory path, thne the 507hp is valid. It makes no difference how many of you guys run Dynos and complain.
My advise? Be realistic. Do you really think MB will take your car back and go ahead and release the TT they have hidden in the closet? Do you think MB will give you an extra $10K to mod back the 50HP? Then stop going down those paths. So what if you could prove that the E63 doesn't make 507 on a real day? So what? Worst case, MB would have to change their number to the corrected one. Your car will still be the same!
If you wish you had not gotten it, dump it for a loss, or begin the lemon procedure early.
For the HP figures, you guys are all forgetting that MB's figures are simple marketing as were the E55 numbers. You can no more sue MB for under-rating than you can for OVER-rating. It is either a lie or not, which way is not significant. Using the E55 as an example actually strengthens MB's position. it shows that they have always been in the ballpark and that it has never mattered.
I guarantee you one thing. Somewhere, somehow an AMG E63 put down 507HP at the crank AND it is well documented. Setting an HP rating has certain criteria. While the intent of the regulations is to provide "rue" facts, the practice that is accepted to establish these numbers are simply intended to control and normalize. IF (and i guarantee MB did) MB followed the proper regulatory path, thne the 507hp is valid. It makes no difference how many of you guys run Dynos and complain.
My advise? Be realistic. Do you really think MB will take your car back and go ahead and release the TT they have hidden in the closet? Do you think MB will give you an extra $10K to mod back the 50HP? Then stop going down those paths. So what if you could prove that the E63 doesn't make 507 on a real day? So what? Worst case, MB would have to change their number to the corrected one. Your car will still be the same!
If you wish you had not gotten it, dump it for a loss, or begin the lemon procedure early.
SAE HP ratings are not just marketing tools. There is a reason that they were recently under scrutiny and standarized. You cannot just pull numbers out of your *** and sell based on those numbers.
Do you really think Ford and Mazda recalled their overated cars for safety?
No manufacturer does this to be nice...and it all started with customer dyno testing.
If, end the end, it is only a handful of underpowered cars...then I believe a buy back could be offered or some other compensation. If it is a model wide problem, other steps could be taken.
In the end, the car is marketed to make 507 HP...it even posts on the sticker price. THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE BUYING.
It doesn't say..."if you are lucky, you will get 507 HP or maybe on a good day you will get 507 HP"...
HP is tangible and valuable in this instance. It is not a boast.
09-18-2006, 11:40 PM
#29
Member
Thread Starter
For instance...
Hyundai Motor Co. was busted after inflating the horsepower ratings of its U.S. vehicles by as much as 10 percent for more than a decade. The South Korea-based automaker agreed in 2004 to pay $30 million to settle a lawsuit filed on behalf of 858,000 owners.
In 2001, Nissan Motor Co. came under fire after overstating the acceleration of its Infiniti Q45 sedan.
Ford Motor Co. admitted overstating the horsepower rating of its 1999 Mustang Cobra R, and Mazda Motor Corp. did the same with the 2001 Miata roadster. Buyers of both cars were offered compensation.
Hyundai Motor Co. was busted after inflating the horsepower ratings of its U.S. vehicles by as much as 10 percent for more than a decade. The South Korea-based automaker agreed in 2004 to pay $30 million to settle a lawsuit filed on behalf of 858,000 owners.
In 2001, Nissan Motor Co. came under fire after overstating the acceleration of its Infiniti Q45 sedan.
Ford Motor Co. admitted overstating the horsepower rating of its 1999 Mustang Cobra R, and Mazda Motor Corp. did the same with the 2001 Miata roadster. Buyers of both cars were offered compensation.
09-18-2006, 11:45 PM
#30
Member
Thread Starter
I want answers and one way or another I will get them. Having other 63 owners step up and dyno helps to figure out if this is a fluke or fraud.
That is what this thread is about. If I wanted, the dealer would take the car back. No big deal. I want the car, and I want to know where the stated HP is.
09-18-2006, 11:55 PM
#31
Super Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07 SL550; C32 (sold)
I'll take it. I say no buyback based on HP alone. No way. It is NOT a safety issue. Can the car be lemoned? Yes, if it is treated properly and documented well. NOT if the claim stems from advertised claims.
For the HP figures, you guys are all forgetting that MB's figures are simple marketing as were the E55 numbers. You can no more sue MB for under-rating than you can for OVER-rating. It is either a lie or not, which way is not significant. Using the E55 as an example actually strengthens MB's position. it shows that they have always been in the ballpark and that it has never mattered.
I guarantee you one thing. Somewhere, somehow an AMG E63 put down 507HP at the crank AND it is well documented. Setting an HP rating has certain criteria. While the intent of the regulations is to provide "rue" facts, the practice that is accepted to establish these numbers are simply intended to control and normalize. IF (and i guarantee MB did) MB followed the proper regulatory path, thne the 507hp is valid. It makes no difference how many of you guys run Dynos and complain.
My advise? Be realistic. Do you really think MB will take your car back and go ahead and release the TT they have hidden in the closet? Do you think MB will give you an extra $10K to mod back the 50HP? Then stop going down those paths. So what if you could prove that the E63 doesn't make 507 on a real day? So what? Worst case, MB would have to change their number to the corrected one. Your car will still be the same!
If you wish you had not gotten it, dump it for a loss, or begin the lemon procedure early.
For the HP figures, you guys are all forgetting that MB's figures are simple marketing as were the E55 numbers. You can no more sue MB for under-rating than you can for OVER-rating. It is either a lie or not, which way is not significant. Using the E55 as an example actually strengthens MB's position. it shows that they have always been in the ballpark and that it has never mattered.
I guarantee you one thing. Somewhere, somehow an AMG E63 put down 507HP at the crank AND it is well documented. Setting an HP rating has certain criteria. While the intent of the regulations is to provide "rue" facts, the practice that is accepted to establish these numbers are simply intended to control and normalize. IF (and i guarantee MB did) MB followed the proper regulatory path, thne the 507hp is valid. It makes no difference how many of you guys run Dynos and complain.
My advise? Be realistic. Do you really think MB will take your car back and go ahead and release the TT they have hidden in the closet? Do you think MB will give you an extra $10K to mod back the 50HP? Then stop going down those paths. So what if you could prove that the E63 doesn't make 507 on a real day? So what? Worst case, MB would have to change their number to the corrected one. Your car will still be the same!
If you wish you had not gotten it, dump it for a loss, or begin the lemon procedure early.
this is called false advertisement and they need to make the correction either thru via their brochere or make up the hp difference in the car. either way, mb needs to take action. marketing the e63 to a lower hp will destroy any sales for the e63. i'm guessing mb will make changes to increase hp (if proven).
Last edited by amgme; 09-18-2006 at 11:58 PM.
09-19-2006, 12:29 AM
#32
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my garage
Posts: 8,631
Received 1,085 Likes
on
872 Posts
E55, GLS450, GL63, GLE350
Here is some interesting reading:
http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosins...A01-283759.htm
The low power may be covered by Warranty of Merchantability of the UCC where as the manufacturer is selling a car based on the fact that it has a certain hp rating. If the car does not meet these claims, the situation may indicate that the car does not meet the warranty of merchantability and does not perform as promised or advertised:
http://www.illinoislegalaid.org/inde...&contentID=294
Express Warranties
Express warranties by the seller are created, provided they are a part of the basis of the bargain, by:
any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer relating to the goods (goods must conform to affirmation or promise).
any description of the goods (goods must conform to description).
any sample or model (goods must conform to sample or model).
It is not necessary that seller use formal words such as "warrant" or "guarantee." Nor is it necessary that seller intend to make a warranty. However, expression of the seller’s opinion or commendation of the goods does not constitute a warranty, nor does mere "puffing."
"Part of the Basis of the Bargain" is broadly interpreted. The term "bargain" encompasses the entire transaction and surrounding circumstances and specific evidence of reliance on a statement is unnecessary. The customer must usually only show that he read or heard and believed the statement, but other circumstances or contractual disclaimers can make it unreasonable for the buyer to believe that statements or promises were part of the basis of the bargain.
The statement need not be made by the actual retail seller, but can be the manufacturer’s statement or promise, or that of a third party that gets introduced into the bargaining process.
In early 1975, Congress enacted the Magnuson-Moss Warranty – Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act, found at 15 U.S.C. §§2301-12. The Act applies to consumer product warranties – i.e., a consumer product being one "normally used for personal family or household purposes," and it has been implemented by FTC regulations found at 16 C.F.R. §701 et. seq.
Under the Act, effective July 5, 1975, every warranty in writing must fully and conspicuously disclose in simple and readily understood language the terms and conditions of such warranty, including whether the warranty is a full or limited warranty in accordance with the standards set forth in the Act. (SEE SECTION ON MAGNUSON-MOSS BELOW). To the extent of any conflict between the provisions of the Act and the Commercial Code, the Act controls under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. constitution.
http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosins...A01-283759.htm
The low power may be covered by Warranty of Merchantability of the UCC where as the manufacturer is selling a car based on the fact that it has a certain hp rating. If the car does not meet these claims, the situation may indicate that the car does not meet the warranty of merchantability and does not perform as promised or advertised:
http://www.illinoislegalaid.org/inde...&contentID=294
Express Warranties
Express warranties by the seller are created, provided they are a part of the basis of the bargain, by:
any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer relating to the goods (goods must conform to affirmation or promise).
any description of the goods (goods must conform to description).
any sample or model (goods must conform to sample or model).
It is not necessary that seller use formal words such as "warrant" or "guarantee." Nor is it necessary that seller intend to make a warranty. However, expression of the seller’s opinion or commendation of the goods does not constitute a warranty, nor does mere "puffing."
"Part of the Basis of the Bargain" is broadly interpreted. The term "bargain" encompasses the entire transaction and surrounding circumstances and specific evidence of reliance on a statement is unnecessary. The customer must usually only show that he read or heard and believed the statement, but other circumstances or contractual disclaimers can make it unreasonable for the buyer to believe that statements or promises were part of the basis of the bargain.
The statement need not be made by the actual retail seller, but can be the manufacturer’s statement or promise, or that of a third party that gets introduced into the bargaining process.
In early 1975, Congress enacted the Magnuson-Moss Warranty – Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act, found at 15 U.S.C. §§2301-12. The Act applies to consumer product warranties – i.e., a consumer product being one "normally used for personal family or household purposes," and it has been implemented by FTC regulations found at 16 C.F.R. §701 et. seq.
Under the Act, effective July 5, 1975, every warranty in writing must fully and conspicuously disclose in simple and readily understood language the terms and conditions of such warranty, including whether the warranty is a full or limited warranty in accordance with the standards set forth in the Act. (SEE SECTION ON MAGNUSON-MOSS BELOW). To the extent of any conflict between the provisions of the Act and the Commercial Code, the Act controls under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. constitution.
09-19-2006, 12:39 AM
#33
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: So.Ca.
Posts: 3,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E55
This entire post is wrong.
SAE HP ratings are not just marketing tools. There is a reason that they were recently under scrutiny and standarized. You cannot just pull numbers out of your *** and sell based on those numbers.
Do you really think Ford and Mazda recalled their overated cars for safety?
No manufacturer does this to be nice...and it all started with customer dyno testing.
If, end the end, it is only a handful of underpowered cars...then I believe a buy back could be offered or some other compensation. If it is a model wide problem, other steps could be taken.
In the end, the car is marketed to make 507 HP...it even posts on the sticker price. THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE BUYING.
It doesn't say..."if you are lucky, you will get 507 HP or maybe on a good day you will get 507 HP"...
HP is tangible and valuable in this instance. It is not a boast.
SAE HP ratings are not just marketing tools. There is a reason that they were recently under scrutiny and standarized. You cannot just pull numbers out of your *** and sell based on those numbers.
Do you really think Ford and Mazda recalled their overated cars for safety?
No manufacturer does this to be nice...and it all started with customer dyno testing.
If, end the end, it is only a handful of underpowered cars...then I believe a buy back could be offered or some other compensation. If it is a model wide problem, other steps could be taken.
In the end, the car is marketed to make 507 HP...it even posts on the sticker price. THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE BUYING.
It doesn't say..."if you are lucky, you will get 507 HP or maybe on a good day you will get 507 HP"...
HP is tangible and valuable in this instance. It is not a boast.
09-19-2006, 12:46 AM
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponte Vedra, FL
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'10 E63 AMG
09-19-2006, 01:02 AM
#35
Super Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07 SL550; C32 (sold)
this is off topic but someone in the clk63 forum posted some times for the clk63. dunno if it's from a publication or .... but the times doesn't look good. mb states 0-60 in 4.6s. the poster listed 5.3s for the 0-100
09-19-2006, 01:14 AM
#36
Super Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Irvine, California
Posts: 948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'10 MB E63, '08 ML550 ('05 E55, '05 SL55, '08 E63 GONE)
When it comes to manufacturer claims, to purposely overstate HP is extremely risky to say the least... and understating is even worse as you bring in the insurance company liability factor since HP is one of the actuary metrics they use to set rates. That said...
Has anyone for even a moment considered that the dyno-jet readings are wrong?
I mean... are we to believe that a particular dyno... in say Miami, Florida... is calibrated to the exact standards as one in Long Beach, California ? Or even just north in Orlando? I mean... who validates these machines? And when they test the cars for their customers, are all readings being measured at the same temperature, same altitude, with the same fuel? No, no, and no.
I'm not saying that MB isn't over stating HP, but someone please present something remotely resembling a scientific test.
~ Ian
Has anyone for even a moment considered that the dyno-jet readings are wrong?
I mean... are we to believe that a particular dyno... in say Miami, Florida... is calibrated to the exact standards as one in Long Beach, California ? Or even just north in Orlando? I mean... who validates these machines? And when they test the cars for their customers, are all readings being measured at the same temperature, same altitude, with the same fuel? No, no, and no.
I'm not saying that MB isn't over stating HP, but someone please present something remotely resembling a scientific test.
~ Ian
09-19-2006, 04:17 AM
#37
I do think that all of the forum are attacking MB for the 63 not giving out the power that everyone would expect from an AMG. Still no one have given the car a chance to break in properlly we are all forgetting that. we tested the car against an M5 and i didn't put up the video cuz the E63 got beaten big time!
we tested with the same car after putting on few K's and it held up neck to neck with the M5, and the M5's here are european Spec. Launch controlle starts at 4000rpm they are FAST. we took the car to the dealer and explained the lack of power that is not suppose to be with the E63 and they said that a new software is developed by AMG for the E63 and will be updating the cars!!
like what happened with the SL55 in 2003 when they upgraded them from 476hp or so to 500hp
so i can't understand why all are attacking and we all know that AMG has never let us down!
we tested with the same car after putting on few K's and it held up neck to neck with the M5, and the M5's here are european Spec. Launch controlle starts at 4000rpm they are FAST. we took the car to the dealer and explained the lack of power that is not suppose to be with the E63 and they said that a new software is developed by AMG for the E63 and will be updating the cars!!
like what happened with the SL55 in 2003 when they upgraded them from 476hp or so to 500hp
so i can't understand why all are attacking and we all know that AMG has never let us down!
09-19-2006, 05:16 AM
#38
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
06 CLS55, 07 997TT, 07 ML63, 10 X6M, 11 Alpina B7, 12 997TTS, 13 G63, 13 MP4-12C
Interesting debate, but may I suggest testing the car by going to a drag strip instead of a DynoJet? You'll get a more accurate guage of HP on the strip than the Dyno.
Trap speed in the 1/4mile is a more accurate guage of HP ratings than a rotating drum. Here is the link to my post to the other thread in the CLS forum:
https://mbworld.org/forums/showpost....89&postcount=4
An E63 weights about 4050lb as rated from the factory. Factoring in the driver and let's say the total weight is 4200lb. If you trap speed is above 105mph, the car is producing at least 380 rwhp. If you go over 110mph the car is making over 430 rwhp.
Here is a couple links to online calculators for you all to do your own calculations:
http://www.speedworldmotorplex.com/calc.htm
http://www.rpmoutlet.com/dyno.htm
For those who want the actual dragracers' formula, it's :
rwhp = weight x (velocity/234)3 <-- that's cubed
Trap speed in the 1/4mile is a more accurate guage of HP ratings than a rotating drum. Here is the link to my post to the other thread in the CLS forum:
https://mbworld.org/forums/showpost....89&postcount=4
An E63 weights about 4050lb as rated from the factory. Factoring in the driver and let's say the total weight is 4200lb. If you trap speed is above 105mph, the car is producing at least 380 rwhp. If you go over 110mph the car is making over 430 rwhp.
Here is a couple links to online calculators for you all to do your own calculations:
http://www.speedworldmotorplex.com/calc.htm
http://www.rpmoutlet.com/dyno.htm
For those who want the actual dragracers' formula, it's :
rwhp = weight x (velocity/234)3 <-- that's cubed
09-19-2006, 08:47 AM
#39
MBWorld Fanatic!
Interesting debate, but may I suggest testing the car by going to a drag strip instead of a DynoJet? You'll get a more accurate guage of HP on the strip than the Dyno.
Trap speed in the 1/4mile is a more accurate guage of HP ratings than a rotating drum. Here is the link to my post to the other thread in the CLS forum:
https://mbworld.org/forums/showpost....89&postcount=4
An E63 weights about 4050lb as rated from the factory. Factoring in the driver and let's say the total weight is 4200lb. If you trap speed is above 105mph, the car is producing at least 380 rwhp. If you go over 110mph the car is making over 430 rwhp.
Here is a couple links to online calculators for you all to do your own calculations:
http://www.speedworldmotorplex.com/calc.htm
http://www.rpmoutlet.com/dyno.htm
For those who want the actual dragracers' formula, it's :
rwhp = weight x (velocity/234)3 <-- that's cubed
Trap speed in the 1/4mile is a more accurate guage of HP ratings than a rotating drum. Here is the link to my post to the other thread in the CLS forum:
https://mbworld.org/forums/showpost....89&postcount=4
An E63 weights about 4050lb as rated from the factory. Factoring in the driver and let's say the total weight is 4200lb. If you trap speed is above 105mph, the car is producing at least 380 rwhp. If you go over 110mph the car is making over 430 rwhp.
Here is a couple links to online calculators for you all to do your own calculations:
http://www.speedworldmotorplex.com/calc.htm
http://www.rpmoutlet.com/dyno.htm
For those who want the actual dragracers' formula, it's :
rwhp = weight x (velocity/234)3 <-- that's cubed
One problem, some claim that formula is engine-hp while some sites claim it's rwhp. There have been several cool and calm threads on the matter.
I will admit though that if it equals crank hp, the numbers make more sense. If you interpret the formula as actual hp and weight to run set trap speed then you automatically assume rwhp.
09-19-2006, 04:09 PM
#40
Member
Thread Starter
425 HP...for God's sake
Horsepower @ wheels: 376.60
Torque @ wheels: 367.30
http://www.dragtimes.com/Dodge-Charg...slip-9469.html
Based on the E-class...less reported HP and similar weight.
Notice the RWHP numbers...look familiar?
The Charger SRT-8 actually shows a less than 15% drivetrain loss of power.
And it ran nearly identical times at the track at 1/4 Mile ET: 12.809
1/4 Mile MPH: 109.432...actually a bit better than Derek's run.
This is what I feel is more accurate as to what the E63 is making.
Numbers just don't lie...
Horsepower @ wheels: 376.60
Torque @ wheels: 367.30
http://www.dragtimes.com/Dodge-Charg...slip-9469.html
Based on the E-class...less reported HP and similar weight.
Notice the RWHP numbers...look familiar?
The Charger SRT-8 actually shows a less than 15% drivetrain loss of power.
And it ran nearly identical times at the track at 1/4 Mile ET: 12.809
1/4 Mile MPH: 109.432...actually a bit better than Derek's run.
This is what I feel is more accurate as to what the E63 is making.
Numbers just don't lie...
09-19-2006, 05:12 PM
#41
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
06 CLS55, 07 997TT, 07 ML63, 10 X6M, 11 Alpina B7, 12 997TTS, 13 G63, 13 MP4-12C
One problem, some claim that formula is engine-hp while some sites claim it's rwhp. There have been several cool and calm threads on the matter.
I will admit though that if it equals crank hp, the numbers make more sense. If you interpret the formula as actual hp and weight to run set trap speed then you automatically assume rwhp.
I will admit though that if it equals crank hp, the numbers make more sense. If you interpret the formula as actual hp and weight to run set trap speed then you automatically assume rwhp.
The hp from the formula is the actual hp needed to push the car to said speed at 1/4mile. It's the hp that actually hits the ground, hence rwhp.
If you take the hp rating as one produced at the crank, then it means driveline have zero loses or the numbers will not add up. I know that debate, it's always a wildly discussed subject at engineering school.
The 63 motor was developed for the future as the 55 Kompressor engine is not going to make it pass future regulations, it was never promised to be a home run over the 55. The Kompressor is worth about 150hp on the 55, the 63 makes up that much with only 0.8 liter extra displacement. Quite a feat if you ask me and it is a gem of an engine just like the 55.
It was reported that the 63 motor is electronically limited in it's torque output to protect the 7-speed gear box, as it still makes too much torque for the gear box to handle. If that is true it WILL affect the trapspeed and time for 1/4mile and the driveline lose will be greater than 15% that everyone assumes because of the electronic limit.
Just about the only way certain to find out if the 63 motor is making what MB claims it's making is to take it out and put it on a dyno and run the SAE test, I am sure lawyers will find a way to recover the cost of doing so from MB if it really does make less than MB claims.
09-19-2006, 05:53 PM
#42
The hp from the formula is the actual hp needed to push the car to said speed at 1/4mile. It's the hp that actually hits the ground, hence rwhp.
If you take the hp rating as one produced at the crank, then it means driveline have zero loses or the numbers will not add up. I know that debate, it's always a wildly discussed subject at engineering school.
The 63 motor was developed for the future as the 55 Kompressor engine is not going to make it pass future regulations, it was never promised to be a home run over the 55. The Kompressor is worth about 150hp on the 55, the 63 makes up that much with only 0.8 liter extra displacement. Quite a feat if you ask me and it is a gem of an engine just like the 55.
It was reported that the 63 motor is electronically limited in it's torque output to protect the 7-speed gear box, as it still makes too much torque for the gear box to handle. If that is true it WILL affect the trapspeed and time for 1/4mile and the driveline lose will be greater than 15% that everyone assumes because of the electronic limit.
Just about the only way certain to find out if the 63 motor is making what MB claims it's making is to take it out and put it on a dyno and run the SAE test, I am sure lawyers will find a way to recover the cost of doing so from MB if it really does make less than MB claims.
If you take the hp rating as one produced at the crank, then it means driveline have zero loses or the numbers will not add up. I know that debate, it's always a wildly discussed subject at engineering school.
The 63 motor was developed for the future as the 55 Kompressor engine is not going to make it pass future regulations, it was never promised to be a home run over the 55. The Kompressor is worth about 150hp on the 55, the 63 makes up that much with only 0.8 liter extra displacement. Quite a feat if you ask me and it is a gem of an engine just like the 55.
It was reported that the 63 motor is electronically limited in it's torque output to protect the 7-speed gear box, as it still makes too much torque for the gear box to handle. If that is true it WILL affect the trapspeed and time for 1/4mile and the driveline lose will be greater than 15% that everyone assumes because of the electronic limit.
Just about the only way certain to find out if the 63 motor is making what MB claims it's making is to take it out and put it on a dyno and run the SAE test, I am sure lawyers will find a way to recover the cost of doing so from MB if it really does make less than MB claims.
Ted
Last edited by Ted Baldwin; 09-19-2006 at 06:06 PM.
09-19-2006, 06:04 PM
#43
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: So.Ca.
Posts: 3,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E55
Your right,it would have no use at all.BUT if sombody really wanted to prove to themselves or MB for that matter,then an engine dyno will have to be done.Trying to prove a case to MB using rwhp figures wont be as effective as having true engine figures.
09-19-2006, 06:15 PM
#44
Super Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 718
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I drive a E55T, SLK55 and 65 Mustang Conv.
I am not sure if this will help but it cannot hurt. When my 2005 E55T had about 500 miles on it Rentech dyno'd it and I believe it got 372 RHP & 412 torq. I am going by memory on this but Wolf remembered the same numbers. I cannot tell you what type of machine was used as they never gave us a copy of the dyno.
09-19-2006, 06:27 PM
#45
Super Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Quinta, CALIF.
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2009 C63 Black on Black
I do not think this is attacking
I do think that all of the forum are attacking MB for the 63 not giving out the power that everyone would expect from an AMG. Still no one have given the car a chance to break in properlly we are all forgetting that. we tested the car against an M5 and i didn't put up the video cuz the E63 got beaten big time!
we tested with the same car after putting on few K's and it held up neck to neck with the M5, and the M5's here are european Spec. Launch controlle starts at 4000rpm they are FAST. we took the car to the dealer and explained the lack of power that is not suppose to be with the E63 and they said that a new software is developed by AMG for the E63 and will be updating the cars!!
like what happened with the SL55 in 2003 when they upgraded them from 476hp or so to 500hp
so i can't understand why all are attacking and we all know that AMG has never let us down!
we tested with the same car after putting on few K's and it held up neck to neck with the M5, and the M5's here are european Spec. Launch controlle starts at 4000rpm they are FAST. we took the car to the dealer and explained the lack of power that is not suppose to be with the E63 and they said that a new software is developed by AMG for the E63 and will be updating the cars!!
like what happened with the SL55 in 2003 when they upgraded them from 476hp or so to 500hp
so i can't understand why all are attacking and we all know that AMG has never let us down!
09-19-2006, 06:33 PM
#46
Super Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Quinta, CALIF.
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2009 C63 Black on Black
I think this is the "Missing HP Mystery" answer
The hp from the formula is the actual hp needed to push the car to said speed at 1/4mile. It's the hp that actually hits the ground, hence rwhp.
If you take the hp rating as one produced at the crank, then it means driveline have zero loses or the numbers will not add up. I know that debate, it's always a wildly discussed subject at engineering school.
The 63 motor was developed for the future as the 55 Kompressor engine is not going to make it pass future regulations, it was never promised to be a home run over the 55. The Kompressor is worth about 150hp on the 55, the 63 makes up that much with only 0.8 liter extra displacement. Quite a feat if you ask me and it is a gem of an engine just like the 55.
It was reported that the 63 motor is electronically limited in it's torque output to protect the 7-speed gear box, as it still makes too much torque for the gear box to handle. If that is true it WILL affect the trapspeed and time for 1/4mile and the driveline lose will be greater than 15% that everyone assumes because of the electronic limit.
Just about the only way certain to find out if the 63 motor is making what MB claims it's making is to take it out and put it on a dyno and run the SAE test, I am sure lawyers will find a way to recover the cost of doing so from MB if it really does make less than MB claims.
If you take the hp rating as one produced at the crank, then it means driveline have zero loses or the numbers will not add up. I know that debate, it's always a wildly discussed subject at engineering school.
The 63 motor was developed for the future as the 55 Kompressor engine is not going to make it pass future regulations, it was never promised to be a home run over the 55. The Kompressor is worth about 150hp on the 55, the 63 makes up that much with only 0.8 liter extra displacement. Quite a feat if you ask me and it is a gem of an engine just like the 55.
It was reported that the 63 motor is electronically limited in it's torque output to protect the 7-speed gear box, as it still makes too much torque for the gear box to handle. If that is true it WILL affect the trapspeed and time for 1/4mile and the driveline lose will be greater than 15% that everyone assumes because of the electronic limit.
Just about the only way certain to find out if the 63 motor is making what MB claims it's making is to take it out and put it on a dyno and run the SAE test, I am sure lawyers will find a way to recover the cost of doing so from MB if it really does make less than MB claims.
09-19-2006, 07:31 PM
#47
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'10 Porsche Turbo PDK, 500e, GL450
torque
so you think that if you break in the 7 speed gently ... then magically after a few thousand miles it will be able to handle the torque?
09-19-2006, 07:33 PM
#48
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: So.Ca.
Posts: 3,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E55
09-19-2006, 08:21 PM
#49
Member
When it comes to manufacturer claims, to purposely overstate HP is extremely risky to say the least... and understating is even worse as you bring in the insurance company liability factor since HP is one of the actuary metrics they use to set rates. That said...
Has anyone for even a moment considered that the dyno-jet readings are wrong?
I mean... are we to believe that a particular dyno... in say Miami, Florida... is calibrated to the exact standards as one in Long Beach, California ? Or even just north in Orlando? I mean... who validates these machines? And when they test the cars for their customers, are all readings being measured at the same temperature, same altitude, with the same fuel? No, no, and no.
I'm not saying that MB isn't over stating HP, but someone please present something remotely resembling a scientific test.
~ Ian
Has anyone for even a moment considered that the dyno-jet readings are wrong?
I mean... are we to believe that a particular dyno... in say Miami, Florida... is calibrated to the exact standards as one in Long Beach, California ? Or even just north in Orlando? I mean... who validates these machines? And when they test the cars for their customers, are all readings being measured at the same temperature, same altitude, with the same fuel? No, no, and no.
I'm not saying that MB isn't over stating HP, but someone please present something remotely resembling a scientific test.
~ Ian
09-19-2006, 08:25 PM
#50
Member
It was reported that the 63 motor is electronically limited in it's torque output to protect the 7-speed gear box, as it still makes too much torque for the gear box to handle. If that is true it WILL affect the trapspeed and time for 1/4mile and the driveline lose will be greater than 15% that everyone assumes because of the electronic limit.
