Marcus Frost

Hello gents,

After my wonderful "discussions" with juice63, I decided to do some investigating now that the 63 has been out a little while to find out if we could get some real comprable dynos. Before I even get into this post, I want to make it CLEAR that this is a DISCUSSION, and NOT a pissing match. We all know how often this subject comes up and you'll see towards the end of my post that I think these dyno's illustrate strong and weak points for both cars. Please, let's keep this constructive and mature...

Now the reality is, I don't trust DynoJET dynos. I don't, period. Quite frankly, I don't have real regard for the Mustang either. I'm not looking at debating dynos here, but the fact is that DynoJETs and Mustangs read high, and most of the time when people claim their car makes more HP than it's supposed to, it's because they've dyno'd on a DynoJET.

With that out of the way, I've grown to love the HEARTBREAKER dyno, AKA the Dyno Dynamics. This thing has sent people home crying, and that is because it tells you the REAL DEAL. You cannot escape the truth, and in my extensive experience no dyno has told the truth with as much accuracy and consistency as the Dyno Dynamics.

I therefore have been searching for an E63 dyno on a Dyno Dynamics and was just able to find one, courtesy of a Dragtimes.com member called "AMGrateful" - I dyno'd recently too on my tuner's dyno and I think this shows really solid data for discussion between the two engines:




AMGrateful's car made 428rwhp and 399rwtq, my car made 421rwhp and 460rwtq.

Now I will be very honest and admit that 55k cars have trouble making consistently high HP numbers because of heatsoak. My car will lose as much as 20rwhp on the dyno after it gets really hot. The 63s do not have this problem, although I'm sure heatsoak affects them too, not like it does for us. I think that the 63 engine makes GREAT, CONSISTENT power and is truly a fast car. I was not expecting to see it make that power, but it is an impressive figure. I will go into modding the 55 later, but honestly the 63 is a great engine that to be totally fair doesn't really need much modification - I mean stick a set of headers, etc and the car is just a serious contender. I think the E55 needs mods in order to run properly whereas the E63 demonstrates a more complete and consistent package from the factory. I give AMG credit with this engine, it was designed properly and does not have the thorns in it's side like the factory 55 engines do.

HOWEVER, , these dynos also show why my allegiance is to the E55. I was within 2% HP of the E63, with 60-70 more torque at the wheels. I have dyno'd my '03 and '05 here and even with HP differences, the torque is pretty consistent. This is because the heatsoak has a more adverse affect on the HP as the ECU pulls timing up top than it does on the real low end torque.

The second big thing is that we 55 guys have the wonderful ability to correct these issues and improve upon them with our tuners. I'm having Stage 1 done (VRP Pulley, cooling kit, ECU, etc) and I will be able to follow up this dyno with ones that show the improvement after the most basic of modifications. I will follow up in this discussion with new dynos after the car gets completed.

I think what I'm walking away with this discussion is really two things:

1.) New found respect for the 63 motor, it is a very powerful engine and making that kind of power on a Dyno Dynamics. It is consistent, it is fast, and doesn't need mods to make it run effectively. When you add things like optional P30, the 7speed, etc it's not that hard to understand the E63 is a great package and depending on one's wants/needs, can be seen as the better car for someone.

2.) Continued respect for the 55 motor... although what I'm talking about here is not new, and modding the 55 motor is not new, it's a reminder of just what potential this motor has with relatively simple mods. I am going to try and document my car as much as is reasonably possible and really feel quite happy with my car, even if this is the 2nd time around with one. Nothing to me offers quite the complete package for the mod/power freak like the 55, IMHO.

Above all, the REAL rival for us AMG guys, is the E60 M5, and I was also fortunately able to find a nice stock E60 dyno done on a Dyno Dynamics. Look at the torque numbers and you'll see there's a difference. I think it's pretty clear



Cheers,

Marcus

Jon2007E63P30

Excellent write up.

e1000

This is simply not true. You cannot say how much torque is being laid down at the wheels without knowing the gearing of each car. Unlike HP, torque is multiplied by gearing.

Timeless

Well, the E63 dyno does fall in line with MB reported numbers.

dixy2k

It also shows that the real horsepower for the E55 is close to 500 instead of 469 officially declared by MB.
It is the same engine as in M55 and S55, so it should make the same horsepower. It is just a marketing tool, not to steal sales from the S-class.

oldgixxer

IMO dynos are a waste of time unless you do back to back runs with exact weather conditions on exactly the same day at exactly the same time.Correction factors leave too much room for error&atmospheric conditions can change from one run to the next,or as the room gets hot,etc etc.The dyno is a useful tool but should not be the "tell-all" or the final word about a cars potential.
The only real dyno I'm 100% trustworthy of is the dragstrip.

On paper,the M5 should in no way DESTROY an E55 or E63 in a dragrace starting at 120mph.But it does.Pretty badly too I might add.

But you did post some very good information,and I 100% agree this should be a mature&intelligent discussion&not a pissing match so my hats off to you Marcus

ChicagoX

Nice writeup.

e1000

Ok, with the risk of pissing the ENTIRE W211 E55/E63 crowd off, here's my post.

Torque, unlike HP, is multiplied by your gears before it hits the pavement. Remember when you used to ride a 21-speed bike and the different gears made the bike react differently? Your transmission is doing the exact same thing with your engine. Taller (numerically smaller) gears are like those that made it difficult to pedal, but made you go faster. Shorter (numerically higher) gears are like those that made it easy to pedal, but your top speed is lower.

With that said, here are the peak torque numbers as they are turning the rear axel. These numbers will change again due to the size of the rear tires but since the E55 and E63 use identical size tires, we can leave those out for now.

E55:
1st - 4815
2nd - 2950
3rd - 1816
4th - 1219
5th - 1012

E63:
1st - 4928
2nd - 3218
3rd - 2160
4th - 1541
5th - 1125
6th - 923
7th - 821


So, what do the above numbers mean? Well the first thing we can see is that at torque peak for each engine, the E63 is actually capable of producing more torque than the E63 in first, second, third, fourth, and fifth. NOW, before you E55 people start screaming bloody murder, lets take a closer look.

The byproduct of torque multiplication is speed. So for every turn of the crank shaft straight out of the engine, gearing is responsible for translating that into a certain number of revolutions of the rear tires. How does this change the results above? This means that although the E63 makes more torque in first gear, since first gear is far shorter than on the E55, first gear ends earlier. The upshift to second gear occurs, and for a brief time we must compare the E55 in first gear, to the E63 in second gear.

The second thing to consider here is the torque curve. Especially in these two vehicles. The torque curve of the E55 peaks extremely early at 3,000rpm and then tapers off until redline. The E63 however, makes peak torque at around 4,300rpm, yet has a broad, plateu like shape until red line. You can imagine now how gearing will react to each curve.

Finally, tires come into play, even in this scenario. The reason is that the rear tires can only provide so much traction, and we all know that first gear in both cars can light up the rear tires without much issue. So although these peak torque numbers are correct, it does not mean that we can actualy utilize all of them

SO. Here's another thing to consider. The BMW M5 V10, although it produces only 383ft-lbs of torque, through the magic of gearing, can deliver 5531ft-lbs of torque to the rear axle. More than both the E55 or the E63.

chiromikey

while i also trust a dyno dynamics machine over the others we still can't compare dyno charts from different machines and different operators. if i was to compare my stock dyno dynamics run to yours i'd think my car was sick since i didn't even reach 400hp.

the track is still the only real measuring stick.

Yacht Master

You really can say how much torque is be "laid down" because it is being measured at the wheel. When we dyno the first choice in gearing is 1:1 directed, this nets the lowest parasitic losses, The E55s 4 gear is directed and in the E63 I believe it is 5th. The final ratio is the only torque multiplier. All the references are RWHP & RWTQ.

juicee63

Marcus ,

WOW man,

I gotta say I saw this thread and cringed! Now I know why you are such a highly respected member of this forum. Great write up, I really appreciate the tone and quite frankly owe you an apology.

For a long time I have felt the 55 guys were just never going to come around to liking this new engine. I felt alot of bias and grew defensive , many times envoking other 63 owners into arguments they wanted no part of :-).



I wish we had some 1/4 mile times for AMGrateful's 63. He is local Im suprised my track pressure has not infected him.

The E55 is definately making more than 469 hp that is for certain

DFW01E55

Dang gixxer, you're hard to please!
These dynos were done 3 hours apart, same Dynojet, the temp when mine was done, was .65 degrees cooler (82.33) and RH was the same.

I think this combined graph supports Marcus pretty well. The M5 has the green lines "under the curve".
Sorry, just a bit of MB humor at the expense of our high revving friends.

I had to use mph as the bottom data point because using rpm's would leave the CL only a little area in the middle of the graph, while the M5 would go way out from the left to the right.
Edit: Just to be fair, the M5 is stock.
[IMG][/IMG]

juicee63

I think we do 3rd and 4th gear pulls with 4th gear always doing slightly better pulls.

Mikey, wouldnt the dyno comparison be fairly accurate since the #'s are SAE corrected?

E1000 thanks for the gearing explanation, that was also very good.

The M5 however simply cannot get off the line, time and time again it just sits and slowly comes out. It is a real monster after it starts rolling however.

I have witnessed this gearing many times. The couple times I jumped the E55 I wondered how it was pulling me, well looks like that 38 mph shift out of first is to blame, anyway there are millions of variables but I do love looking at the charts and picking the brains of membership.

e1000

no it's not. HP is at the wheels, TQ numbers are at the crank.

DFW01E55

Sorry juicee, that's just not my experience against the M5. They launch just fine in the hands of a skilled driver.

rflow306

Incorrect, the dynojet measures torque at the wheels and it does so by reading the tach signal and comparing it to the roller speed to determine the gear ratio. No tach signal no torque reading.


Your other formula also does not take into account the fact that the Mercs are equipped with a torque converter which has more torque multiplication at lower speeds and then locks up to reduce losses.

Yacht Master

Thanks, Albert

e1000

if this were true, most hondas wouldn't be able to move at all.

juicee63

hmmmmmmmmmm, anybody else?

I have never seen an M5 get out of the hole hard.

I believe you but I wonder did you happen to see a 60ft? Best I have seen is 1.91 in an M5 and that car ran 12.37@116

e1000

Ok, How about this, you dyno your car at 4th gear, it will obviously show the torque numbers above. I'll dyno my car in 1st gear, and most likely, it will indicate the paltry 258 or so ft-lbs. THEN, we go out and we race, you in 4th and me in 1st from a standstill. If you're right, you'll be putting 500 or so in 4th to my 258 in first.

juicee63

the tq is measured by using the tach so from a standstill in 4th you should destroy him. So he would need to be moving say 120 mph then you start in first . The wheels are spinning on the rollers. Im not sure I follow are you suggestingthe TQ measurment at the wheel is not correct?

BlownV8

I'm not sure I'm following this guys argument either?????

rflow306

Perfect as long as the race is 0 to 120 mph.

DFW01E55

I think your 1.69 is a freak, my best on street tires is a 1.87.
The best I've seen from an M5 is 1.966. Is that bad?

Best I've seen from an M5 is 12.2 at 117.4 and 1.966. Should I mention thats a heavily modded car?

e1000

the TQ measurement IS correct. It's correct but it also is displayed AFTER the rpm's are considered and reduction factors put into place. That's why you get similar results when you dyno in different gears. If the dyno wasn't applying these formulas, dyno runs in different gears would produce vastly different results. Those numbers above look high because they're the amount of torque delivered to the rear axle. The tire itself will act as the last reduction gear before power is put to the pavement. This gear however, stays constant so it will be the same for each given gear.

If I wasn't right, even in 4th, the E55 would put down 500ft-lbs of TQ versus my 258ft-lbs (probably less on a chassis dyno) in 1st and he should out accelerate me. We all know that isn't true.