....Speedriven's Whipple Supercharger Upgrade....
#276
MBWorld Fanatic!
I get it!! Is anybody reading everything I say or is everyone stuck on the simple fact that I said 10k is too much?
i understand this SC has the potential to add more than 100 HP.... I get it.
My point was $10k was too much for 100 hp over stock!!
Now 100 hp over a fully bolted and tuned car is a different story. So is 200 - 300 hp over stock.
Here just so we can stop the dead horse beating:
The E55 is the best car man has ever made. $10k, $20k, hell $100k is nothing when you're talking about spending it on such a high quality, lightening fast, sexy, reliable, beast of vehicle.
Damn can we leave it alone now?
If you have a fueling kit you can recoup that cost, same for a crank pulley (If you were smart and kept your stock one) and you can probably off your stock supercharger
#277
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Seattle
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2014 AMG E63S, 2006 XK8 victory edition convertible, 2006 supercharged trailblazer SS, 2001 E430
Maybe we could leave it alone when you understand that the kit is $8500 and that is COMPLETE, Injectors, Rails, Supercharger, intercoolers, manifolds, tuning EVERYTHING EXCEPT INSTALL
If you have a fueling kit you can recoup that cost, same for a crank pulley (If you were smart and kept your stock one) and you can probably off your stock supercharger
If you have a fueling kit you can recoup that cost, same for a crank pulley (If you were smart and kept your stock one) and you can probably off your stock supercharger
And I do get it!!! Especially if it does what people are ASSUMING The kit MIGHT do. which is more than just 100 extra hp over stock
I get it!
I get it!
I get it!
I get it!
I get it!
Last edited by nizzle; 11-12-2012 at 02:51 PM.
#278
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 2,596
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
05 White Pano E55, Cadillac CTS-V
I get it!! Is anybody reading everything I say or is everyone stuck on the simple fact that I said 10k is too much?
i understand this SC has the potential to add more than 100 HP.... I get it.
My point was $10k was too much for 100 hp over stock!!
Now 100 hp over a fully bolted and tuned car is a different story. So is 200 - 300 hp over stock.
Here just so we can stop the dead horse beating:
The E55 is the best car man has ever made. $10k, $20k, hell $100k is nothing when you're talking about spending it on such a high quality, lightening fast, sexy, reliable, beast of vehicle.
Damn can we leave it alone now?
Because like I said, it costs over $7k to get 100 over stock going the bolt on route like everyone does. The Weistec route is a little over $8500 instead, so not a huge difference.
And Bob the builder could install the thing. It is easy, we aren't talking about removing and building an engine here. Hell I bet it is easier to install this supercharger than it would be to take off your stock manifolds and install headers, especially if you live in a crappy climate where you have rusted bolts to cats and stuff like that.
Last edited by urbamworm; 11-12-2012 at 03:04 PM.
#279
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Seattle
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2014 AMG E63S, 2006 XK8 victory edition convertible, 2006 supercharged trailblazer SS, 2001 E430
LOL, bro it does not take anywhere near 7k to get 100 hp over stock on an E55. Stock E55 = 469 hp(crank). EC 172 + Tune = 550 hp (crank). 81 hp gain for under $2k.
#281
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Seattle
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2014 AMG E63S, 2006 XK8 victory edition convertible, 2006 supercharged trailblazer SS, 2001 E430
really bro?!?! LOL ok
172, headers, tune = 144+ hp = under $4k
And I still am not saying the new SC isn't worth it. Just proving that I get it.
172, headers, tune = 144+ hp = under $4k
And I still am not saying the new SC isn't worth it. Just proving that I get it.
#283
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Seattle
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2014 AMG E63S, 2006 XK8 victory edition convertible, 2006 supercharged trailblazer SS, 2001 E430
crank or wheel, a 100 hp gain is a 100 hp gain. What? Your drive train loss equals more just because you go up in HP? Now that's a theory i don't agree with. I say if a drive train sucks up (arbitrary number) 100 hp, it doesnt suck up more now just cause you added something. Oh What now it sucks up another 25 hp just because you added exhaust and a pulley.... i think not. Anyway, 100 hp (crank or wheel) over stock still not worth (scratch 10k) $8.5K
Last edited by nizzle; 11-12-2012 at 03:45 PM.
#284
MBWorld Fanatic!
You really should stop posting before you continue to embarrass yourself
#285
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Seattle
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2014 AMG E63S, 2006 XK8 victory edition convertible, 2006 supercharged trailblazer SS, 2001 E430
Cory from Kleeman and I had a talk about this and he had the theory. How he explained it to me makes sense. I used to believe like you but my thoughts have changed. I think it goes up slightly but not how people traditionally calculate. So lets do some math. 469 say minus 20% = 93.8 hp drive train loss. Add headers to the equation. 532 minus 20% = 106.4. So you're telling me adding headers(in theory) can create 12.6 hp of parasitic loss? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying I cant wrap my mind around that. If you can, please explain but you might not want to embarrass YOURSELF man
Last edited by nizzle; 11-12-2012 at 04:06 PM.
#286
MBWorld Fanatic!
Cory from Kleeman and I had a talk about this and he had the theory. How he explained it to me makes sense. I used to believe like you but my thoughts have changed. I think it goes up slightly but not how people traditionally calculate. So lets do some math. 469 say minus 20% = 93.8 hp drive train loss. Add headers to the equation. 532 minus 20% = 106.4. So you're telling me adding headers(in theory) can create 12.6 hp of parasitic loss? I cant wrap my mind around that. If you can, please explain but you might not want to embarrass YOURSELF man
#287
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 2,596
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
05 White Pano E55, Cadillac CTS-V
Cory from Kleeman and I had a talk about this and he had the theory. How he explained it to me makes sense. I used to believe like you but my thoughts have changed. I think it goes up slightly but not how people traditionally calculate. So lets do some math. 469 say minus 20% = 93.8 hp drive train loss. Add headers to the equation. 532 minus 20% = 106.4. So you're telling me adding headers(in theory) can create 12.6 hp of parasitic loss? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying I cant wrap my mind around that. If you can, please explain but you might not want to embarrass YOURSELF man
Drivetrain loss is a common topic of conversation in the tuner world because any time you strap your car to a chassis dyno, the output being measured is at the wheel, not at the crank like the published SAE net horsepower figures used by the auto industry. Strap your 298-bhp RevUp G35 Coupe to the dyno and you may be disappointed to see little more than 220-230 horses measured at the rear wheels. Where did that 60-plus horsepower go missing? It was used up in a variety of ways before it could reach the drive wheels, the primary source being what's broadly described as drivetrain loss.
What's interesting about this example is that when you do the math you'll see that the percent loss is much higher than the 15 percent "rule" you'll find in any number of online threads on the subject. For whatever reason, drivetrain loss seems to be one of the most poorly understood subjects discussed on online car forums, so despite my love of the Internet and the limitless pornography it makes available to me, when it comes to a fairly technical subject like this it's hard to find good information.
A few years ago, I needed to educate myself on drivetrain losses while heading a rulebook committee for a local racing series that wanted to use dyno tests to measure engine output and then convert the results to net horsepower. After fruitlessly Googling and sifting through endless car forum threads polluted with half-truths and misinformation, I turned to the same source that developed the current manufacturer horsepower standard, the Society of Automobile Engineers (SAE). On its website you can access brief summaries of technical papers published by some of the world's leading automotive engineers and download the complete documents for a relatively small fee (usually less than $10 per article). As luck would have it, in 2002 the SAE held a symposium on transmission and driveline systems, and the papers that came out of it covered drivetrain loss in great detail.
One of the first things I learned from reading these papers was to completely disregard the 15 percent drivetrain loss "rule" (or any other percent value) that so often comes up during online discussions of whp versus net horsepower. The fact of the matter is every vehicle experiences different levels of drivetrain loss as determined by the design of its transmission and driveline components. Simply put, the amount of horsepower lost to the forces of inertia, drag, windage, pumping and friction are different for every engine, transmission and driveline design.
So the total power lost between combustion and forward motion is specific to each vehicle and therefore no single rule, percentage or fixed number, could possibly apply to all vehicles. Even on the most superficial level, this is easy enough to understand because an all-wheel-drive Subaru obviously has a lot more driveline components to spin (front, middle and rear differentials along with front and rear driveshafts and two prop shafts) and a beefier transmission to hold all that turbocharged torque, so it's naturally going to suffer from greater drivetrain losses than a Honda Fit with its much smaller and less robust transmission, smaller and lighter driveshafts (and no prop shaft) and single differential.
Breaking down the different types of losses that occur within a vehicle's drivetrain, steady-state losses occur while the vehicle is cruising at a steady or constant speed, where average angular acceleration is zero because no additional torque is being called upon to accelerate the drivetrain's rotational mass. Within the drivetrain, steady-state power losses occur from the following components: the transmission torque converter (in the case of automatic transmissions), the transmission oil pump, clutch pack drag, one-way clutch drag, seal and bearing drag, gear windage and friction, and final drive losses.
Dynamic drivetrain losses, on the other hand, include the rotational inertial losses from angular acceleration occurring within the drivetrain while accelerating. In fact, during acceleration there are losses from the rotational inertia of spinning transmission and differential internals as well as driveline components like driveshafts and prop shafts, but also from the increased load and friction being generated between the gears within the transmission and differential(s). And as you already know, with increased friction comes increased heat (more on that later).
It's important to understand the difference between steady-state and dynamic losses because SAE net horsepower, as reported by the auto industry, is measured in a steady-state condition. What this means is that the horsepower rating for your vehicle doesn't take into account dynamic losses that occur during acceleration. However, when you strap your car to a chassis dyno to measure its engine's output, the test is conducted at wide-open throttle and power is measured by the speed at which the dyno's rollers are accelerated. This means that drivetrain losses from rotational inertia and increasing friction, drag and windage are at work and will reduce the peak horsepower reading at the wheels.
Within the drivetrain itself, the primary loss sources are the differential and final drive, with further losses stemming from within the transmission, and in the case of AWD vehicles, from the transfer case. Within the transmission, as much as 30 to 40 percent of power loss can be attributed to the pump, with the clutch contributing another 20 to 25 percent. The rest of the loss within the transmission comes from seal drag, gear meshing, bearings, bushings and windage (drag on the gears caused by the gear oil). However, when dyno testing in the direct drive (1:1) gear, power is delivered directly through the mainshaft of the transmission, so the only loss sources are windage, friction and drag, resulting in total at-the-wheel losses as low as 1.5 to 2 percent, according to the published data.
Differential losses tend to be considerably larger, especially in the case of RWD and AWD vehicles where the torque path is turned 90 degrees as it enters the rear diff and exits it toward the rear wheels. In the case of hypoid-type gearsets (where the gear tooth profile is both curved and oblique) that are commonly used in RWD differentials, losses in the 6 to 10 percent range are the norm, while loss from the driveshaft(s) and prop shaft(s) tend to account for about 0.5 to 1 percent of total loss, depending on how well they're balanced and how many the vehicle is equipped with. In the case of FWD vehicles, the torque path is more direct to the front wheels and the use of efficient helical final drive gears means that drivetrain losses can be as much as 50 percent lower than on RWD and AWD vehicles.
In any drivetrain component with meshing gearsets, heat generated by contact friction between the gears is a significant contributor to drivetrain loss. This is true during steady-state driving, but is far more of an issue when the throttle is mashed to the floor and the resulting thrust force and angular acceleration builds up in these drivetrain components. The heat generated by this dynamic friction is absorbed by the transmission and differential fluid as well as radiated to the atmosphere through the transmission and differential housing(s), and in some cases, via a heat exchanger or oil cooler. This absorbed and radiated heat is literally the conversion of engine torque into thermal energy because you can't technically "lose" power, but can only convert it into other things (some of our favorites being forward motion and tire smoke).
It's also worth noting that the more powerful you make your engine, the greater the thrust force and angular acceleration it's able to exert on the drivetrain, generating even more friction and heat in the process. But because both steady-state and dynamic friction vary depending on engine speed, engine load and the efficiency of the engine and drivetrain's design (how well they limit friction and the associated thermal conversion of torque to heat), there's no way to apply a universal percent loss to it. Nor is it possible to apply a fixed drivetrain loss figure to your car (say 60 whp from my RevUp G35 example), because as you modify the engine and increase its output its ability to generate thrust force and angular acceleration also increases (though not in a linear fashion).
In the end, there's no easy way to estimate the drivetrain loss your vehicle experiences on the road or even on the dyno. Coast-down tests are sometimes used on a dyno to attempt to measure frictional losses, but because this test is not dynamic (meaning they're not done while accelerating, but rather while coasting to a stop with the direct drive gear engaged but the clutch depressed so that the engine and transmission aren't linked) it really only captures steady-state drivetrain losses as well as rolling resistance. So rather than attempting to convert your vehicle's dyno-measured wheel horsepower to a SAE net horsepower figure using a percentage or a fixed horsepower value, you're far better off accepting the fact that these two types of horsepower measurements aren't easily correlated and forego any attempt at doing so.
What's interesting about this example is that when you do the math you'll see that the percent loss is much higher than the 15 percent "rule" you'll find in any number of online threads on the subject. For whatever reason, drivetrain loss seems to be one of the most poorly understood subjects discussed on online car forums, so despite my love of the Internet and the limitless pornography it makes available to me, when it comes to a fairly technical subject like this it's hard to find good information.
A few years ago, I needed to educate myself on drivetrain losses while heading a rulebook committee for a local racing series that wanted to use dyno tests to measure engine output and then convert the results to net horsepower. After fruitlessly Googling and sifting through endless car forum threads polluted with half-truths and misinformation, I turned to the same source that developed the current manufacturer horsepower standard, the Society of Automobile Engineers (SAE). On its website you can access brief summaries of technical papers published by some of the world's leading automotive engineers and download the complete documents for a relatively small fee (usually less than $10 per article). As luck would have it, in 2002 the SAE held a symposium on transmission and driveline systems, and the papers that came out of it covered drivetrain loss in great detail.
One of the first things I learned from reading these papers was to completely disregard the 15 percent drivetrain loss "rule" (or any other percent value) that so often comes up during online discussions of whp versus net horsepower. The fact of the matter is every vehicle experiences different levels of drivetrain loss as determined by the design of its transmission and driveline components. Simply put, the amount of horsepower lost to the forces of inertia, drag, windage, pumping and friction are different for every engine, transmission and driveline design.
So the total power lost between combustion and forward motion is specific to each vehicle and therefore no single rule, percentage or fixed number, could possibly apply to all vehicles. Even on the most superficial level, this is easy enough to understand because an all-wheel-drive Subaru obviously has a lot more driveline components to spin (front, middle and rear differentials along with front and rear driveshafts and two prop shafts) and a beefier transmission to hold all that turbocharged torque, so it's naturally going to suffer from greater drivetrain losses than a Honda Fit with its much smaller and less robust transmission, smaller and lighter driveshafts (and no prop shaft) and single differential.
Breaking down the different types of losses that occur within a vehicle's drivetrain, steady-state losses occur while the vehicle is cruising at a steady or constant speed, where average angular acceleration is zero because no additional torque is being called upon to accelerate the drivetrain's rotational mass. Within the drivetrain, steady-state power losses occur from the following components: the transmission torque converter (in the case of automatic transmissions), the transmission oil pump, clutch pack drag, one-way clutch drag, seal and bearing drag, gear windage and friction, and final drive losses.
Dynamic drivetrain losses, on the other hand, include the rotational inertial losses from angular acceleration occurring within the drivetrain while accelerating. In fact, during acceleration there are losses from the rotational inertia of spinning transmission and differential internals as well as driveline components like driveshafts and prop shafts, but also from the increased load and friction being generated between the gears within the transmission and differential(s). And as you already know, with increased friction comes increased heat (more on that later).
It's important to understand the difference between steady-state and dynamic losses because SAE net horsepower, as reported by the auto industry, is measured in a steady-state condition. What this means is that the horsepower rating for your vehicle doesn't take into account dynamic losses that occur during acceleration. However, when you strap your car to a chassis dyno to measure its engine's output, the test is conducted at wide-open throttle and power is measured by the speed at which the dyno's rollers are accelerated. This means that drivetrain losses from rotational inertia and increasing friction, drag and windage are at work and will reduce the peak horsepower reading at the wheels.
Within the drivetrain itself, the primary loss sources are the differential and final drive, with further losses stemming from within the transmission, and in the case of AWD vehicles, from the transfer case. Within the transmission, as much as 30 to 40 percent of power loss can be attributed to the pump, with the clutch contributing another 20 to 25 percent. The rest of the loss within the transmission comes from seal drag, gear meshing, bearings, bushings and windage (drag on the gears caused by the gear oil). However, when dyno testing in the direct drive (1:1) gear, power is delivered directly through the mainshaft of the transmission, so the only loss sources are windage, friction and drag, resulting in total at-the-wheel losses as low as 1.5 to 2 percent, according to the published data.
Differential losses tend to be considerably larger, especially in the case of RWD and AWD vehicles where the torque path is turned 90 degrees as it enters the rear diff and exits it toward the rear wheels. In the case of hypoid-type gearsets (where the gear tooth profile is both curved and oblique) that are commonly used in RWD differentials, losses in the 6 to 10 percent range are the norm, while loss from the driveshaft(s) and prop shaft(s) tend to account for about 0.5 to 1 percent of total loss, depending on how well they're balanced and how many the vehicle is equipped with. In the case of FWD vehicles, the torque path is more direct to the front wheels and the use of efficient helical final drive gears means that drivetrain losses can be as much as 50 percent lower than on RWD and AWD vehicles.
In any drivetrain component with meshing gearsets, heat generated by contact friction between the gears is a significant contributor to drivetrain loss. This is true during steady-state driving, but is far more of an issue when the throttle is mashed to the floor and the resulting thrust force and angular acceleration builds up in these drivetrain components. The heat generated by this dynamic friction is absorbed by the transmission and differential fluid as well as radiated to the atmosphere through the transmission and differential housing(s), and in some cases, via a heat exchanger or oil cooler. This absorbed and radiated heat is literally the conversion of engine torque into thermal energy because you can't technically "lose" power, but can only convert it into other things (some of our favorites being forward motion and tire smoke).
It's also worth noting that the more powerful you make your engine, the greater the thrust force and angular acceleration it's able to exert on the drivetrain, generating even more friction and heat in the process. But because both steady-state and dynamic friction vary depending on engine speed, engine load and the efficiency of the engine and drivetrain's design (how well they limit friction and the associated thermal conversion of torque to heat), there's no way to apply a universal percent loss to it. Nor is it possible to apply a fixed drivetrain loss figure to your car (say 60 whp from my RevUp G35 example), because as you modify the engine and increase its output its ability to generate thrust force and angular acceleration also increases (though not in a linear fashion).
In the end, there's no easy way to estimate the drivetrain loss your vehicle experiences on the road or even on the dyno. Coast-down tests are sometimes used on a dyno to attempt to measure frictional losses, but because this test is not dynamic (meaning they're not done while accelerating, but rather while coasting to a stop with the direct drive gear engaged but the clutch depressed so that the engine and transmission aren't linked) it really only captures steady-state drivetrain losses as well as rolling resistance. So rather than attempting to convert your vehicle's dyno-measured wheel horsepower to a SAE net horsepower figure using a percentage or a fixed horsepower value, you're far better off accepting the fact that these two types of horsepower measurements aren't easily correlated and forego any attempt at doing so.
Last edited by urbamworm; 11-12-2012 at 04:16 PM.
#288
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Seattle
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2014 AMG E63S, 2006 XK8 victory edition convertible, 2006 supercharged trailblazer SS, 2001 E430
#289
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Seattle
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2014 AMG E63S, 2006 XK8 victory edition convertible, 2006 supercharged trailblazer SS, 2001 E430
Here you go, educate yourself. Let's go back to the beginning. You DON'T GET IT And pay attention to the bold at the bottom
Click here
Click here
Last edited by nizzle; 11-12-2012 at 04:35 PM.
#290
MBWorld Fanatic!
Cory from Kleeman and I had a talk about this and he had the theory. How he explained it to me makes sense. I used to believe like you but my thoughts have changed. I think it goes up slightly but not how people traditionally calculate. So lets do some math. 469 say minus 20% = 93.8 hp drive train loss. Add headers to the equation. 532 minus 20% = 106.4. So you're telling me adding headers(in theory) can create 12.6 hp of parasitic loss? I cant wrap my mind around that. If you can, please explain but you might not want to embarrass YOURSELF man
#291
MBWorld Fanatic!
Its an interesting article. Just goes to show the run down test guys do on dyno's do not reliably estimate drivetrain loss then as its independent of the HP the engine produces. But Ill hazard a guess that the incremental drivetrain loss, as power increases, is a small fraction of the baseline drivetrain drag.
Do we get it ?
Do we get it ?
#292
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Seattle
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2014 AMG E63S, 2006 XK8 victory edition convertible, 2006 supercharged trailblazer SS, 2001 E430
Not sure how this conversation morphed but like i said from jump. STOCK E55, adding 100 hp, not worth $8K. I understand this new SC is not about creating ONLY 100 HP over stock It has the potential to make MUCH MORE..... I get it
#294
MBWorld Fanatic!
With the TQ being lower than the HP, I wanna believe that Weistec wasn't spinning it very hard....like 11 or 12 PSI. But the reality surely can't be as sweet.
P.S. That UPS chick could deliver me a twin screw anyday
P.S. That UPS chick could deliver me a twin screw anyday
#296
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Seattle
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2014 AMG E63S, 2006 XK8 victory edition convertible, 2006 supercharged trailblazer SS, 2001 E430
She's not really my type...... ahhhhhh who am i kidding? LOL, I'd bang the hell out of her
#297
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Seattle
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2014 AMG E63S, 2006 XK8 victory edition convertible, 2006 supercharged trailblazer SS, 2001 E430
I've come to the conclusion that parasitic drag loss is not really that fun.
I do it every weekend. It's overrated
Do I get it?
I do it every weekend. It's overrated
Do I get it?
#298
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 4,173
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
2005 E55 AMG
Good read. And I do get it. And I am not disagreeing with what you posted. In fact, it's almost in line with exactly what I think. I just wanted you to explain a little more, which you did. I agree with what you posted but it still doesn't disprove my thoughts on it. I'm not saying parasitic drag loss is non-existent, i just think there is no accurate way to calculate it with out dynoing the actual set up.
The ONLY way to accurately know how much parasitic loss there is is to dyno the engine on an engine dyno and then on a chassis dyno. But since that isn't going to happen then we can only guess based on what the factory says the engine has vs. what it delivers to the wheels. With that in mind, crank hp can only be estimated.
The losses are also not a fixed amount, they are a percentage. This means that if I have a 10% drivetrain loss then I'd lose 10hp for every 100hp my engine tries to push through the drivetrain.
#299
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Seattle
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2014 AMG E63S, 2006 XK8 victory edition convertible, 2006 supercharged trailblazer SS, 2001 E430
^exactly. Once again, I get it. The theory and reasoning behind it anyway. Anyway you look at it, it is not exact therefore it is not fact as someone professed earlier
Last edited by nizzle; 11-12-2012 at 06:49 PM.