W211 AMG Discuss the W211 AMG's such as the E55 and the E63
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

HP Ratings

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Rate Thread
 
Old 01-02-2007, 08:22 PM
  #26  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Thericker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes on 17 Posts
V12-Biturbo
Originally Posted by Kev04C320
So let's do some grade school algebra:

Let X be the crank horsepower:

X * (1-0.18) = 414.1 (RWHP)

X = 505
I guess I've been doing it wrong, I thought it was like this......

414 *multiplied* by .18 = 74.52 add that to the original 414 rwhp & you get 488.52....That's the way I was tuaght anyway, please explain better if I've been wrong thanks

Edit: I see what your are doing but I don't know which is correct they both make sense....
Your way 505 multiplied by .18 = 90.9 add that to 414 = 504.9

Last edited by Thericker; 01-02-2007 at 08:29 PM.
Old 01-02-2007, 08:26 PM
  #27  
Out Of Control!!
 
vraa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 28,933
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes on 9 Posts
Guys, in the end, we're still faster after they've had years of more R&D.
Old 01-02-2007, 08:34 PM
  #28  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Kev04C320's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
'09 911 C4S
Originally Posted by Thericker
I guess I've been doing it wrong, I thought it was like this......

414 *multiplied* by .18 = 74.52 add that to the original 414 rwhp & you get 488.52....That's the way I was tuaght anyway, please explain better if I've been wrong thanks

Edit: I see what your are doing but I don't know which is correct they both make sense....
Your way 505 multiplied by .18 = 90.9 add that to 414 = 504.9
What you're doing is:

414 * 1.18 = 488.52. That's not the same taking 18% from the crank HP number. You're adding 18% of the RWHP number to the RWHP. 18% of a smaller number is of course smaller than the 18% of a larger number.
Old 01-02-2007, 08:37 PM
  #29  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Thericker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes on 17 Posts
V12-Biturbo
I like your way better! my rwhp rwto = a beastly C6!! Dynoed 350rwhp 360rwto bone stock.....


400 * .18 = 72 + 350 rwhp = 422 Crank HP C6 w/ 432 crank torque though I'd like to believe this I don't think it's true....Hope so though!!

She is damned quick! they did report the new Z06 was underrated from GM so maybe ...mine to..
Old 01-02-2007, 08:42 PM
  #30  
Senior Member
 
E55 PWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
e55
there is not a production automatic on earth that can do 18% driveline loss. the best auto does 20, avg is 21%. front engine RWD sticks do 17%, and rear engine RWD do 15%. this 17-18% garbage everyone has been saying here for ever is WAY off. No auto short of a dragracing race auto tranny can pull that low of a drivetrain loss and even that im skeptic. 20-21% is correct. Benz engine HP numbers are conservative just as their 0-60 numbers so don't try and match it to the manfucaturers claims or you will always use too low of a conversion factor. use 20%
Old 01-02-2007, 08:44 PM
  #31  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
TREZ63's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: So Cal
Posts: 2,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
2010 RRS ; BMW K1200R; 14 E350 ; 14 RRS on order
LOL my Dyno results are already being used in other posts. It's only been a couple of hours and remember that this was a CLS63 not an E63. I don't think it makes much of a diff but it probably does.

What you really want to do is:

414/507=81.6%

100% - 81.6% = 18.3% loss from crank to wheel which is what is to be expected. I have heard of others getting 425 after about 3000 miles. This car only has 900 miles on it.

Last edited by TREZ63; 01-02-2007 at 08:48 PM.
Old 01-02-2007, 08:45 PM
  #32  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Thericker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes on 17 Posts
V12-Biturbo
Originally Posted by E55 PWR
there is not a production automatic on earth that can do 18% driveline loss. the best auto does 20, avg is 21%. front engine RWD sticks do 17%, and rear engine RWD do 15%. this 17-18% garbage everyone has been saying here for ever is WAY off. No auto short of a dragracing race auto tranny can pull that low of a drivetrain loss and even that im skeptic. 20-21% is correct. Benz engine HP numbers are conservative just as their 0-60 numbers so don't try and match it to the manfucaturers claims or you will always use too low of a conversion factor. use 20%
I don't think they would under estimate my ponies to that extreme, I've allways heard it was 15% for manual and usaly 18% Auto...
Old 01-02-2007, 08:47 PM
  #33  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Thericker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes on 17 Posts
V12-Biturbo
No difference...

Originally Posted by trezaei
LOL my Dyno results are already being used in other posts. It's only been a couple of hours and remember that this was a CLS63 not an E63. I don't think it makes much of a diff but it probably does.
It's a good dyno for ref, sorry for borrowing it for our discussion
Old 01-02-2007, 08:50 PM
  #34  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Fast55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Ventura County USA
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
'06 E55, '05 SLK55, a few others
I do not "know" that the E63 does not make 507 crank HP anymore than anyone else "knows" it does. We don't "know" what it makes, because it has not been run on an ENGINE dyno, as I stated. However, Mr. bench racers, we do "know", that for every WHEEL HP dyno we have seen, it makes several HP less than the 469 HP rating of the Kompressor (on average). Don't even start with me, or I'll sick Improviz on you. The discussion is about the accuracy of HP ratings, not 63 VS 55, and even if you consider them equal, either the 55 makes more than 469 HP, or the E63 makes less than 507.

Last edited by Fast55; 01-02-2007 at 09:26 PM.
Old 01-02-2007, 08:55 PM
  #35  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
TREZ63's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: So Cal
Posts: 2,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
2010 RRS ; BMW K1200R; 14 E350 ; 14 RRS on order
Originally Posted by Fast55
I do not "know" that the E63 does not make 507 crank HP anymore than anyone else "knows" it does. We don't "know" what it makes, because it has not been run an ENGINE dyno, as I stated. However, Mr. bench racers, we do "know", that for every WHEEL HP dyno we have seen, it makes several HP less than the 469 HP rating of the Kompressor (on average). Don't even start with me, or I'll sick Improviz on you. The discussion is about the accuracy of HP ratings, not 63 VS 55, and even if you consider them equal, either the 55 makes more than 469 HP, or the E63 makes less than 507.
Is there a dyno graph of a stock 55 available anywhere?
Old 01-02-2007, 09:35 PM
  #36  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Fast55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Ventura County USA
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
'06 E55, '05 SLK55, a few others
Many. Your CLS is right in line with many stock E55's. Again, the numbers don't seem to make sense if the 55 is at 469 and the CLS is at 507.
Old 01-02-2007, 11:03 PM
  #37  
Banned
 
Vadim @ FD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 2,855
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
S600TT, R350
MB has understated E55s HP numbers.

SL55 was rated at 493HP and E55 was rated at 469HP.

I have dynoed ten SLs and over 30 E55s - on the Dynojet, both cars are in mid420s RWHP.

I usually like to use 17% drivetrain loss. So to find out flywheel HP from wheel HP, I simply divide WHP by 0.83.

So if CLS63 is making 415 at the wheels, than we have 414/0.83 = 499HP. Considering that CLS63 still has 900 miles, IMHO AMGs 507HP rating is right on.
Old 01-03-2007, 01:33 AM
  #38  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Thericker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes on 17 Posts
V12-Biturbo
Originally Posted by Vadim @ MBLN
MB has understated E55s HP numbers.

SL55 was rated at 493HP and E55 was rated at 469HP.

I have dynoed ten SLs and over 30 E55s - on the Dynojet, both cars are in mid420s RWHP.

I usually like to use 17% drivetrain loss. So to find out flywheel HP from wheel HP, I simply divide WHP by 0.83.

So if CLS63 is making 415 at the wheels, than we have 414/0.83 = 499HP. Considering that CLS63 still has 900 miles, IMHO AMGs 507HP rating is right on.
Shi*t yeah......that means when my C6 was BONE STOCK it was making 421.6 crank & 433.73 torque

This deffinitely falls in line w/rumors of GM understating Z06 HP w/Stock C6 Z06 rwhp of 445-465 on dynos I've seen at the Vette forum, that = 536-560 crank HP stock ohh damn! no wonder there so kick-***

Edit there even higher I forgot to lower the drive line % loss due to the Z06 is manual...

Last edited by Thericker; 01-03-2007 at 01:36 AM.
Old 01-03-2007, 06:27 AM
  #39  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
stevebez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,066
Received 11 Likes on 8 Posts
No longer stock '06 E55, A3 3.2 Quattro, LRD4 HSE, R107 280SL
There are just too many variables to narrow this down to within 10hp I reckon ...

lets see...

Drivetrain eficiency
IAT
Ambient
AC on / off
Alternator Load
Fuel Octane
Fuel Mapping program
Dyno Type
Tyre grip on dyno
S/C Belt slippage (if present)
Gearing differences / tranny and diff.

And there are probably loads more ...
Old 01-03-2007, 07:43 AM
  #40  
Senior Member
 
buckeyewalt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: West Tennessee
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
E63,,,not any more,,,BMW X5 50i
Originally Posted by stevebez
There are just too many variables to narrow this down to within 10hp I reckon ...

lets see...

Drivetrain eficiency
IAT
Ambient
AC on / off
Alternator Load
Fuel Octane
Fuel Mapping program
Dyno Type
Tyre grip on dyno
S/C Belt slippage (if present)
Gearing differences / tranny and diff.

And there are probably loads more ...
I totally agree...there is more to the hp issue than a simple dyno test. Bottom line; E55, or E63, they're both great cars

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 


You have already rated this thread Rating: Thread Rating: 0 votes,  average.

Quick Reply: HP Ratings



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:28 AM.