619 HP E55 Dyno Results
01-11-2005, 12:37 PM
#26
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2005 Kleemann Stage 3 E55
Guys, You see that I THINK (key word think) that the drive train loss was 12%. I am not a technical type so apologies in advance. I'm looking to confirm this. As I've learned from other posts--please read the entire post as many questions are usually addressed earlier in the thread. More confirmation info to come.
01-11-2005, 01:09 PM
#27
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2005 Kleemann Stage 3 E55
Drive Train Loss explained
To all, the calculated drive train loss for this series of Dyno runs at Kleemann was 13% after modifications or aprox 76-78 hp. Again, this is AFTER the mods. Prior to the mods we are looking at DT loss of 16-17% of the pre-modified motor. Hope this helps.
Bottom line--the car is more fun than a barrell of drunk monkies.
Bottom line--the car is more fun than a barrell of drunk monkies.
01-11-2005, 01:48 PM
#28
Super Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: South Florida
Posts: 527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
'10 Panamera S, '06 AMG CLS55, '07 Miata MX5, '02 MB SPRINTER, '99 Spec Miata Race Car (2X)
GID
Awesome output numbers
Does that include the LSD? - pardon my ignorance
Siswati
Awesome output numbers
SVT---12 grand for the whole 9 yards. The car pulls like a big SOB from 80 mph to 160 and then only pulls like a regular SOB.
Siswati
01-11-2005, 03:28 PM
#33
Former Vendor of MBWorld
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 930
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Marcus Frost
Very impressive #s. I wonder why Kleeman uses 12%. We typically figure 12%-15% for manual transmission cars with lightweight flywheels. I'd be very skeptical about this 12% figure... I'm better the loss is quite a bit greater. That would actually mean you are pumping out even more power. It also depends on the type of dyno.
You'll also notice the drop off of torque from 650ft/lbs to 490ft/lbs at redline still illustrates that:
1.) this power will be very inconsistent and
2.) these upgrades offer little to no help in the cooling department
3.) that a cooling system upgrade is still greatly needed to maximize the benefits from these upgrades
If you were able to keep the torque loss to only 100ft/lbs - basically trailing off to 550 ft/lbs at redline - you'd be making over 700hp. I actually am starting to think that with just a cooling system upgrade... done properly and thoroughly... our cars can make almost 600hp. The SLR does... and it runs just as much boost as we do. Biggest difference? Cooling system...
-m
You'll also notice the drop off of torque from 650ft/lbs to 490ft/lbs at redline still illustrates that:
1.) this power will be very inconsistent and
2.) these upgrades offer little to no help in the cooling department
3.) that a cooling system upgrade is still greatly needed to maximize the benefits from these upgrades
If you were able to keep the torque loss to only 100ft/lbs - basically trailing off to 550 ft/lbs at redline - you'd be making over 700hp. I actually am starting to think that with just a cooling system upgrade... done properly and thoroughly... our cars can make almost 600hp. The SLR does... and it runs just as much boost as we do. Biggest difference? Cooling system...
-m
We have an intercooler upgrade of a new pump and radiator(s) (depending on model). It was unavailable when Eric was here, but he will have it shortly.
There is not 100 hp to be had with a conventional cooling system upgrade on an OE car with out introducing energy into the equation (super cooling, refrigeration etc). If we can use the age old idea of -10 F = 1% increase in theoretical power you would have to drop discharge temps over 250F to realize this gain. On a 65F day you would need inlet temps LOWER than ambient to do this.
01-11-2005, 05:39 PM
#34
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Real Cars
Gid_E_Up,
Easy my friend. I only said I was wary of that number - not to put specific blame on your or anyone... I said I was wary and why. I know you were uncertain. Thanks for clarifying it.
BrandonG,
Let me tell you I'm very happy to engage in a technical discussion with someone who has significant time wrenching on this engine (much more than myself). A lot of my posts are relying on speculation since I don't have the time to really to the amount of testing required to validate or dispute my claims. That's your job. I am here to merely learn and maybe stir up some debate.
I would like to know why the SLR makes over 600hp running the same amount of boost, through the same motor, with the same supercharger? I've seen some dyno graphs of the M113K motor and the air/fuel ratios I've seen in the upper rpm as well as the terrible inconsistency is really what I've based my theories on. Your stats on EGT temperature reduction are quite impressive, and I also never doubted that a nice set of headers would be a much welcomed improvement over the stock cast ones.
Your usage of the -10F = 1% does hold true in certain applications, but I'm not so sure it does in this one. What I am looking for is a significant reduction in horsepower loss, not a significant increase in horsepower. I think this debate could very quickly and easily get very complex, but to keep it on a fairly reasonable level for everyone to participate in, I would question whether that equation applies. Every dyno I've looked at for these cars shows significant fall offs in torque in the upper rpm. I've only seen 1 dyno chart with the A/F on it, and I saw 10.5:1 for a significant part of the upper rpm, and I've read this was done in order to combat the very high cylinder temperatures. If you are able to bring the cylinder temperatures down by cooling the intake charge significantly, you can also increase the Air/Fuel ratio to something much better for horsepower. It's really a trickle down effect.
-m
Easy my friend. I only said I was wary of that number - not to put specific blame on your or anyone... I said I was wary and why. I know you were uncertain. Thanks for clarifying it.
BrandonG,
Let me tell you I'm very happy to engage in a technical discussion with someone who has significant time wrenching on this engine (much more than myself). A lot of my posts are relying on speculation since I don't have the time to really to the amount of testing required to validate or dispute my claims. That's your job. I am here to merely learn and maybe stir up some debate.
I would like to know why the SLR makes over 600hp running the same amount of boost, through the same motor, with the same supercharger? I've seen some dyno graphs of the M113K motor and the air/fuel ratios I've seen in the upper rpm as well as the terrible inconsistency is really what I've based my theories on. Your stats on EGT temperature reduction are quite impressive, and I also never doubted that a nice set of headers would be a much welcomed improvement over the stock cast ones.
Your usage of the -10F = 1% does hold true in certain applications, but I'm not so sure it does in this one. What I am looking for is a significant reduction in horsepower loss, not a significant increase in horsepower. I think this debate could very quickly and easily get very complex, but to keep it on a fairly reasonable level for everyone to participate in, I would question whether that equation applies. Every dyno I've looked at for these cars shows significant fall offs in torque in the upper rpm. I've only seen 1 dyno chart with the A/F on it, and I saw 10.5:1 for a significant part of the upper rpm, and I've read this was done in order to combat the very high cylinder temperatures. If you are able to bring the cylinder temperatures down by cooling the intake charge significantly, you can also increase the Air/Fuel ratio to something much better for horsepower. It's really a trickle down effect.
-m
01-11-2005, 07:05 PM
#35
Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Marcus Frost
Gid_E_Up,
Easy my friend. I only said I was wary of that number - not to put specific blame on your or anyone... I said I was wary and why. I know you were uncertain. Thanks for clarifying it.
BrandonG,
Let me tell you I'm very happy to engage in a technical discussion with someone who has significant time wrenching on this engine (much more than myself). A lot of my posts are relying on speculation since I don't have the time to really to the amount of testing required to validate or dispute my claims. That's your job. I am here to merely learn and maybe stir up some debate.
I would like to know why the SLR makes over 600hp running the same amount of boost, through the same motor, with the same supercharger? I've seen some dyno graphs of the M113K motor and the air/fuel ratios I've seen in the upper rpm as well as the terrible inconsistency is really what I've based my theories on. Your stats on EGT temperature reduction are quite impressive, and I also never doubted that a nice set of headers would be a much welcomed improvement over the stock cast ones.
Your usage of the -10F = 1% does hold true in certain applications, but I'm not so sure it does in this one. What I am looking for is a significant reduction in horsepower loss, not a significant increase in horsepower. I think this debate could very quickly and easily get very complex, but to keep it on a fairly reasonable level for everyone to participate in, I would question whether that equation applies. Every dyno I've looked at for these cars shows significant fall offs in torque in the upper rpm. I've only seen 1 dyno chart with the A/F on it, and I saw 10.5:1 for a significant part of the upper rpm, and I've read this was done in order to combat the very high cylinder temperatures. If you are able to bring the cylinder temperatures down by cooling the intake charge significantly, you can also increase the Air/Fuel ratio to something much better for horsepower. It's really a trickle down effect.
-m
Easy my friend. I only said I was wary of that number - not to put specific blame on your or anyone... I said I was wary and why. I know you were uncertain. Thanks for clarifying it.
BrandonG,
Let me tell you I'm very happy to engage in a technical discussion with someone who has significant time wrenching on this engine (much more than myself). A lot of my posts are relying on speculation since I don't have the time to really to the amount of testing required to validate or dispute my claims. That's your job. I am here to merely learn and maybe stir up some debate.
I would like to know why the SLR makes over 600hp running the same amount of boost, through the same motor, with the same supercharger? I've seen some dyno graphs of the M113K motor and the air/fuel ratios I've seen in the upper rpm as well as the terrible inconsistency is really what I've based my theories on. Your stats on EGT temperature reduction are quite impressive, and I also never doubted that a nice set of headers would be a much welcomed improvement over the stock cast ones.
Your usage of the -10F = 1% does hold true in certain applications, but I'm not so sure it does in this one. What I am looking for is a significant reduction in horsepower loss, not a significant increase in horsepower. I think this debate could very quickly and easily get very complex, but to keep it on a fairly reasonable level for everyone to participate in, I would question whether that equation applies. Every dyno I've looked at for these cars shows significant fall offs in torque in the upper rpm. I've only seen 1 dyno chart with the A/F on it, and I saw 10.5:1 for a significant part of the upper rpm, and I've read this was done in order to combat the very high cylinder temperatures. If you are able to bring the cylinder temperatures down by cooling the intake charge significantly, you can also increase the Air/Fuel ratio to something much better for horsepower. It's really a trickle down effect.
-m
01-11-2005, 08:47 PM
#37
Former Vendor of MBWorld
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 930
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BoBcanada
Guys would headers alone help alot or not?
I have to watch myself as I have been repremanded by admin until I sponsor.
01-11-2005, 08:58 PM
#38
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Mason Neck, VA
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
check out aquamist.co.uk they have some pretty outrageous assertions on their site like 200hp upgrade for less than 500 bucks!!! anyone want to be the guinea pig???
01-12-2005, 08:01 PM
#41
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 1,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BrandonG
We have the same dyno as KLEEMANN DK, this aids in cross development and problem solving when we are all an the same page, using the same equipment. Granted, most in the US use RW numbers. When Gid_E_Up brought his W211 we used our dyno from start to finnish, so the numbers all have basis and relevant comparison.
Manufacturers use crank numbers so as a tuner it is more beneficial for us internally to think in terms of crank HP, esp when we have a dyno that very accurately measures PT losses. Additionally this method of measurement negates wheel variables like 54 lbs MonoBlok rims etc.
Manufacturers use crank numbers so as a tuner it is more beneficial for us internally to think in terms of crank HP, esp when we have a dyno that very accurately measures PT losses. Additionally this method of measurement negates wheel variables like 54 lbs MonoBlok rims etc.
That sounds reaonable and certainly makes sense for your product development. That being said, from a customer's perspective, if your dyno can measure at the rear wheel, why wouldn't you just give those numbers given that only power at the wheel can be used? That way you wouldn't have to factor in PT losses, especially, in this case where a different PT loss% is being used pre and post mod.
I don't doubt your intentions and am not intending to imply that there is anything wrong with the dyno you provide. I just think a rear wheel dyno would be more informative to a customer in determining usable gains on their particular car and comparing gains versus other tuner's programs. Furthermore, your dyno seems to measure at the rear wheel so it would seem to me that a rear wheel dyno could be easily provided.
I apologize if I'm assuming something about your dyno that is incorrect. One quick question...how does a dyno measure PT losses? Does it dyno at the engine and at the rear wheel?
Nevertheless, impressive gains as always.
01-13-2005, 09:57 AM
#42
Former Vendor of MBWorld
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 930
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sleestack
That sounds reaonable and certainly makes sense for your product development. That being said, from a customer's perspective, if your dyno can measure at the rear wheel, why wouldn't you just give those numbers given that only power at the wheel can be used? That way you wouldn't have to factor in PT losses, especially, in this case where a different PT loss% is being used pre and post mod.
I don't doubt your intentions and am not intending to imply that there is anything wrong with the dyno you provide. I just think a rear wheel dyno would be more informative to a customer in determining usable gains on their particular car and comparing gains versus other tuner's programs. Furthermore, your dyno seems to measure at the rear wheel so it would seem to me that a rear wheel dyno could be easily provided.
I apologize if I'm assuming something about your dyno that is incorrect. One quick question...how does a dyno measure PT losses? Does it dyno at the engine and at the rear wheel?
Nevertheless, impressive gains as always.
I don't doubt your intentions and am not intending to imply that there is anything wrong with the dyno you provide. I just think a rear wheel dyno would be more informative to a customer in determining usable gains on their particular car and comparing gains versus other tuner's programs. Furthermore, your dyno seems to measure at the rear wheel so it would seem to me that a rear wheel dyno could be easily provided.
I apologize if I'm assuming something about your dyno that is incorrect. One quick question...how does a dyno measure PT losses? Does it dyno at the engine and at the rear wheel?
Nevertheless, impressive gains as always.
The program has a provision for showing RWHP although I seldom untilize it, I can show these types of graphs in future posts.
In any case the delta will be the same at the rear wheel or crank. Drivetrain losses to do not magically go up the higher and higher HP you make (certainly there will be a small frictional loss increase the higher the pressure exerted on a rotating device).
01-23-2005, 10:48 AM
#43
MBWorld Fanatic!
BrandonG
In an earlier post of the thread it was mentioned that driveline loss was calculated differently before and after mods. Why is this?
I also agree with others that RWHP seems much more relevant in the real world.
Thanks,
Schiz
In an earlier post of the thread it was mentioned that driveline loss was calculated differently before and after mods. Why is this?
I also agree with others that RWHP seems much more relevant in the real world.
Thanks,
Schiz
02-01-2005, 07:12 PM
#45
Banned
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Richmond Hill, Ontario
Posts: 3,797
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
2003 E55 AMG
Originally Posted by Gid_E_Up
FYI---Car perfroms poortly w/traction control off, no snow tires while driving on ice
Drive safe!! That is a beauty you have there.
