Close

Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 401
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,085
    Rep Points
    28.3
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
    E/CLS 63s are rated at 507 hp at the crank and I've seen more than enough of them dyno between 410 (actually seen dyno as high as 419 whp). The CLK63 BS is also rated at exactly the same hp as the E/CLS 63s and they also dyno around the 410 to 415 range (I think jrcart's was 419 whp). At 410 whp, the correction factor would be around 19% loss. If you use the 394 whp figure, then the correction factor would come out close to 22.5% drivetrain loss. And if you use the 385 whp figure, then the loss percentage would come out to about 24%. I think we all know that AMGs don't have that high of a drivetrain loss percentage. Almost every aftermarket Mercedes performance company (big and small) quotes the loss percentage from 17% to 19%. Only one company I know of quotes 20% and they are considered to be on the very high side.

    The point that I was trying to make is this..... since the factory quotes 507 hp at the crank, and the average percentage loss used by almost every company out there is 19%, then a properly running car should dyno around 410 whp. If some cars are dynoing lower than that, then they may not have been running optimally in the first place: maybe bad gas, too much heat, clogged filters, different firmware version, etc.... there are plenty of possibilities. I've been around E63s and CLS63 for too long. I know how a healthy one should dyno because I've seen it. I've also seen some unhealthy ones get diagnosed and brought up to speed as others.

    Please note that I'm not saying it is impossible, I'm just saying it's improbable - especially on a 91 octane tune. Now on a 100 octane tune, then it's a different story.
    I'm not exactly clear on what you are saying here Moe. Are you saying the baseline numbers are to low and that makes the gain as far as whp goes artificially high or is the peak whp number 441 whp to high? To me 441 whp from just a tune on a 63 platform seems a bit high, but mostly because of the 91 octane. My C63 whp with tune was 430-447 tune + Filters. So I dont see 441 to be out of the question.

    My OE Tune Dyno

    Click here to enlarge

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    612
    Rep Points
    420.1
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5


    Yes Reputation No
    Agree 100% with Exeenom. Weistec has built a great reputation, and I wouldn't (and don't) expect snake oil out of them... but something seems a bit off here.

    Tune-only gains on a C63 might be in this range, since it's intentionally "neutered" by AMG with the TB limitation.

    But for an M156 in an E/S/CLS/SL? I find it hard to believe that AMG left nearly 50 wheel horsepower N/A on the table for those models by simply a tune adjustment. Which, incidentally, is supported by basically every other tuners' results for the "E and up" M156s. Did Weistec figure something out that every other tuner, major or minor, has missed to date? Possible... but unlikely.

    Many with experience with these cars/motor N/A, have observed that it takes several dyno pulls for the adaptions to adjust on the stock tune to give repeatable, max-power figures. The comment I've most often seen is that 3-4 "warm-up" pulls the levels keep climbing, then level off at a relatively consistent figure that's representative of true max output. Maybe Weistec inadvertently grabbed a "too-soon" baseline as their benchmark here?

    As others have mentioned, this can all be validated with an independent dyno from a customer. Hope a w211 E63 owner gives Weistec a chance, and pre- and post-tune dynos their vehicle at a reputable facility wherever they live. Until then, folks "in the know" will, rightly or wrongly, probably maintain a healthy skepticism with regard to these results.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    118,826
    Rep Points
    31,808.4
    Mentioned
    2086 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    319



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
    E/CLS 63s are rated at 507 hp at the crank and I've seen more than enough of them dyno between 410 (actually seen dyno as high as 419 whp).
    They can rate the crank whatever they want. Remember what Mercedes rated the E55 at and what it put down? Drivetrain loss isn't really relevant here.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
    The CLK63 BS is also rated at exactly the same hp as the E/CLS 63s and they also dyno around the 410 to 415 range (I think jrcart's was 419 whp). At 410 whp, the correction factor would be around 19% loss. If you use the 394 whp figure, then the correction factor would come out close to 22.5% drivetrain loss. And if you use the 385 whp figure, then the loss percentage would come out to about 24%. I think we all know that AMGs don't have that high of a drivetrain loss percentage. Almost every aftermarket Mercedes performance company (big and small) quotes the loss percentage from 17% to 19%. Only one company I know of quotes 20% and they are considered to be on the very high side.
    The drivetrain loss argument is completely irrelevant as stated. BMW is underrating the hell out of some of their motors and also the 15% standard is really a staple of the dynojet dyno. There is loss of course, but going off crank ratings as support makes no sense especially considering how Mercedes plays with their own crank numbers to protect owners ego's.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
    The point that I was trying to make is this..... since the factory quotes 507 hp at the crank, and the average percentage loss used by almost every company out there is 19%, then a properly running car should dyno around 410 whp. If some cars are dynoing lower than that, then they may not have been running optimally in the first place: maybe bad gas, too much heat, clogged filters, different firmware version, etc.... there are plenty of possibilities. I've been around E63s and CLS63 for too long. I know how a healthy one should dyno because I've seen it. I've also seen some unhealthy ones get diagnosed and brought up to speed as others.
    It's a very weak point in my opinion. What a car should dyno based on an arbitrary standard is irrelevant. The vehicle puts down what it puts down. Speculating on what the stock RWHP should be based on cars on different fuel, on different dyno's, in different areas, in different weather conditions, does not make much sense to me. As I posted, there was a 385 whp dyno for a stock car in SAE on a dynojet. Now you say 410 whp is normal (what correction are the dyno's you are referring to using? Are they all the same?) although I think we can take the mean and see the 39X is perfectly reasonable for a stock car as it falls right in between the two extremes.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
    Please note that I'm not saying it is impossible, I'm just saying it's improbable - especially on a 91 octane tune. Now on a 100 octane tune, then it's a different story.
    Your conclusion of improbability is based on experience with others tuners and previous tunes. I think it is important to keep in mind the tuner in question is the one who delivered the first supercharged M156 AND got it CARB approved. They seem to have a grasp of the M156 that nobody else does. Basically, in a league of their own unless you consider Brabus which once you factor in pricing I don't.

    Tunes also evolve over time, they do not stay stagnant.

    On this particular vehicle the gain is as seen with SAE correction. The gain will not be uniform across all cars but the range presented with drop in airfilters is reasonably what one can expect. Anyone is welcome to verify independently.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    118,826
    Rep Points
    31,808.4
    Mentioned
    2086 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    319



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by c32AMG-DTM Click here to enlarge
    Did Weistec figure something out that every other tuner, major or minor, has missed to date? Possible... but unlikely.
    They managed to figure out the supercharger and get it CARB approved which every other tuner has missed to date. Based on this, what is unlikely exactly?

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by c32AMG-DTM Click here to enlarge
    Many with experience with these cars/motor N/A, have observed that it takes several dyno pulls for the adaptions to adjust on the stock tune to give repeatable, max-power figures. The comment I've most often seen is that 3-4 "warm-up" pulls the levels keep climbing, then level off at a relatively consistent figure that's representative of true max output. Maybe Weistec inadvertently grabbed a "too-soon" baseline as their benchmark here
    Speculation without support. It would be in their best interest to do multiple runs. This tune didn't evolve over a single pull. This took time and many, many pulls. They would not just pick an irrelevant graph and say here you go.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by c32AMG-DTM Click here to enlarge
    As others have mentioned, this can all be validated with an independent dyno from a customer. Hope a w211 E63 owner gives Weistec a chance, and pre- and post-tune dynos their vehicle at a reputable facility wherever they live. Until then, folks "in the know" will, rightly or wrongly, probably maintain a healthy skepticism with regard to these results.
    Unwarranted skepticism considering the body of work already displayed and verified which should lend SUBSTANTIAL credibility. The NA tune is child's play considering what has already been done. Just the nature of the internet forums where people who think they are well informed want to question thinking they are experts.

    It's very simple to verify this. Considering how much effort they put in to how they display their results and products (which I am quite familiar with) what reason would they have to portray this any other way than what it is? All it would take is someone getting the tune and a dyno to prove it all wrong essentially eroding their credibility which they take very seriously. I do not see your argument holding much water.

    You guys are missing that they are doing things differently from other tuners. Hold them to their own standard.

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    118,826
    Rep Points
    31,808.4
    Mentioned
    2086 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    319



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by propain Click here to enlarge
    I'm not exactly clear on what you are saying here Moe. Are you saying the baseline numbers are to low and that makes the gain as far as whp goes artificially high or is the peak whp number 441 whp to high? To me 441 whp from just a tune on a 63 platform seems a bit high, but mostly because of the 91 octane. My C63 whp with tune was 430-447 tune + Filters. So I dont see 441 to be out of the question.

    My OE Tune Dyno

    Click here to enlarge
    That is 447 SAE. So if you hit that I do not understand why with a tune and filters others can not do the same or even slightly better on the same fuel.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,085
    Rep Points
    28.3
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    That is 447 SAE. So if you hit that I do not understand why with a tune and filters others can not do the same or even slightly better on the same fuel.
    I stated 441 wasn't out of the question. Im not sure what he has an issue with. The overall gain due to low baseline or the max gain. I see the max gain as a bit high due to the 91 octane but still within reason.

    Dyno's numbers are worthless anyhow. Lets see how it does on the track.

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    118,826
    Rep Points
    31,808.4
    Mentioned
    2086 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    319



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by propain Click here to enlarge
    Dyno's numbers are worthless anyhow. Lets see how it does on the track.
    They aren't worthless and the track usually reflects dyno gains. There is no one thing that gives a complete picture but a combination of all performance measurements should provide a clear picture.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,230
    Rep Points
    502.1
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    I'll be getting the tune and will post up dyno numbers.
    Regarding the numbers posted already and the skepticism...I think Weistec has proved they are able to do things with the M156 what no one else has, yet many have tried and failed - wonder why ? Could it be that Wesitec simply knows more and can tune better than anyone else ? Look at how solid and reliable everything they have done has been and then ask yourself would they really post some inflated dyno numbers when the KNOW that customers will be making sure they get the advertised gains ?
    As always...lots of speculation but this one should be easy to prove.
    Last edited by LZH; 12-03-2011 at 09:43 PM.

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,085
    Rep Points
    28.3
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    They aren't worthless and the track usually reflects dyno gains. There is no one thing that gives a complete picture but a combination of all performance measurements should provide a clear picture.
    "Usually"

    Dyno numbers have some use but tuning for the track and not for a machine is the way to go. All dyno's perform different. The one used might put bigger numbers than another dyno would. In this case im sure of it. You rarely see consistency from dyno to dyno. Its good to get an idea but that's about it. You can have amazing numbers on the dyno but add real world elements like air flow and it could change everything. Anything in a controlled environment is always second best to real world results.

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Northport NY
    Posts
    1,551
    Rep Points
    736.0
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    8


    Yes Reputation No
    I think its great that there is another option for this platform, as for the numbers on a dyno who really cares I see Mo's point of the low base line but never the less... Let's get some results,,,,
    Click here to enlarge
    Drives: Basically a pretty bad ass f250 lifted with 24" wheels! Dpf delete 4" exhaust h&s tuner and intake..

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    638
    Rep Points
    567.0
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by propain Click here to enlarge
    I'm not exactly clear on what you are saying here Moe. Are you saying the baseline numbers are to low and that makes the gain as far as whp goes artificially high or is the peak whp number 441 whp to high? To me 441 whp from just a tune on a 63 platform seems a bit high, but mostly because of the 91 octane. My C63 whp with tune was 430-447 tune + Filters. So I dont see 441 to be out of the question.

    My OE Tune Dyno

    Click here to enlarge
    I don't mean the overall number of 441 whp is too high.... I was trying to say that the car in question dynoed lower than standard E63s so the dyno shows higher gains than usual especially considering it is 100% stock (charcoal filters still in tact and no aftermarket air filters in place). Now a tune + filters + charcoal filter delete, then a 45 whp maybe possible.
    2007 E63 P30
    Click here to enlarge

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    118,826
    Rep Points
    31,808.4
    Mentioned
    2086 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    319



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by propain Click here to enlarge
    "Usually"

    Dyno numbers have some use but tuning for the track and not for a machine is the way to go. All dyno's perform different. The one used might put bigger numbers than another dyno would. In this case im sure of it. You rarely see consistency from dyno to dyno. Its good to get an idea but that's about it. You can have amazing numbers on the dyno but add real world elements like air flow and it could change everything. Anything in a controlled environment is always second best to real world results.
    A track isn't the same type of controlled environment. There are variables in all tests but if you add 40+ whp it is going to show up in your trap. Same way you can extrapolate WHP from trap speed.

    A dyno is not just a rough estimate, it is precise as long as you use the same dyno and correction. Comparing different dyno's in different areas with different cars on different days is a separate issue.

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,085
    Rep Points
    28.3
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Dodger63 Click here to enlarge
    I think its great that there is another option for this platform, as for the numbers on a dyno who really cares I see Mo's point of the low base line but never the less... Let's get some results,,,,
    Exactly. Dyno numbers will always vary from dyno to dyno. The max numbers are on par nothing special than what we have seen from other tuners. Lets see how it performs on the track.

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    638
    Rep Points
    567.0
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    They can rate the crank whatever they want. Remember what Mercedes rated the E55 at and what it put down? Drivetrain loss isn't really relevant here.
    There is a big difference between underrating and overrating. If they overrate the engine, they can get sued for false advertising. So if they advertise 507 hp, then that engine better be make at least 507 hp or more or they'll have multiple law suits on their hand. Also, the E55 fiasco was way before they switched to the new hp measuring standard.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    The drivetrain loss argument is completely irrelevant as stated. BMW is underrating the hell out of some of their motors and also the 15% standard is really a staple of the dynojet dyno. There is loss of course, but going off crank ratings as support makes no sense especially considering how Mercedes plays with their own crank numbers to protect owners ego's.
    Again underrating is different than overrating. If you think the 507 figure is underrated, then the a healthy running stock E63 should put down at least 410 whp.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    It's a very weak point in my opinion. What a car should dyno based on an arbitrary standard is irrelevant. The vehicle puts down what it puts down. Speculating on what the stock RWHP should be based on cars on different fuel, on different dyno's, in different areas, in different weather conditions, does not make much sense to me. As I posted, there was a 385 whp dyno for a stock car in SAE on a dynojet.
    So you're saying that if a car is rated for 600 hp at the crank and it dynoed much lower than it should then that's normal? That doesn't make any sense at all. There is a crank hp rating that is verified independently of the manufacturer. Mercedes has to make sure their engine hits that power level or exceed it. They can't say this engine produces 507 hp and put out an engine that only produces 450 hp.

    By your logic, the tune should really say up to 47 whp because you're implying that weather the car was weaker before the tune or not, the tune will make it as strong as a healthy running car. If Weistec can take an E63 or CLS63 or CLK63 BS stock car that happen dyno at 419 whp and add 47 whp (which makes it a total of 466 whp) with just a tune, then that's a different story.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Your conclusion of improbability is based on experience with others tuners and previous tunes. I think it is important to keep in mind the tuner in question is the one who delivered the first supercharged M156 AND got it CARB approved. They seem to have a grasp of the M156 that nobody else does. Basically, in a league of their own unless you consider Brabus which once you factor in pricing I don't.
    I'm not undermining Weistec's achievement by any means, so please don't imply so. I respect Steve and the whole Weistec and admire all they've done. In fact, I may get a tune myself. My argument was mainly with the amount of gain a standard tune can make may depend on how healthy the car is doing before the tune. For example, I've seen a couple of E63s put down 378 whp on a dynojet SAE corrected. I'm sure many tuners can tune that car and claim 50+ whp from just a tune, but in reality, that car was not running up to par to begin with. AMG works very hard to produce these engine in an as identical form as possible. They'll be a slight variation here and there, but not in the level you are thinking of.
    Tunes also evolve over time, they do not stay stagnant.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    On this particular vehicle the gain is as seen with SAE correction. The gain will not be uniform across all cars but the range presented with drop in airfilters is reasonably what one can expect. Anyone is welcome to verify independently.
    Again, I am not claiming they weren't able to do so.... I would like to see a 420 whp stock E63 gain +47 whp from only a tune.
    2007 E63 P30
    Click here to enlarge

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    118,826
    Rep Points
    31,808.4
    Mentioned
    2086 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    319



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
    I don't mean the overall number of 441 whp is too high.... I was trying to say that the car in question dynoed lower than standard E63s so the dyno shows higher gains than usual especially considering it is 100% stock (charcoal filters still in tact and no aftermarket air filters in place). Now a tune + filters + charcoal filter delete, then a 45 whp maybe possible.
    May be? It was just done and on 91 octane, no maybe. The proof is right there. Your theory may have some validity but that has yet to be proven. Perhaps NA M156 tuning took a small step forward?

    Once again, all M156's are not equal and do not all perform in a uniform manner in all conditions.

    Also, there are E63's that have dyno'd less than this one so I do not know why we are saying they all do 410 when they all do not. Some vehicles will start lower than others but once tuned they usually get around the same place. This is where a custom dyno tune comes into play to level the playing field. A small variance with mechanically similar internal combustion motors is simply a reality.

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,085
    Rep Points
    28.3
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    A track isn't the same type of controlled environment. There are variables in all tests but if you add 40+ whp it is going to show up in your trap. Same way you can extrapolate WHP from trap speed.

    A dyno is not just a rough estimate, it is precise as long as you use the same dyno and correction. Comparing different dyno's in different areas with different cars on different days is a separate issue.
    If you want to compare dyno results the same dyno and the same correction will show gains or loss on the same car. But those gains or loss will not always translate to the track. That is why track results will always be better than dyno results. Basic stuff here.

    I have seen gains on a dyno and worse results on the track. A car simply does not perform the same on the dyno as it does on the track.

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,085
    Rep Points
    28.3
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
    I don't mean the overall number of 441 whp is too high.... I was trying to say that the car in question dynoed lower than standard E63s so the dyno shows higher gains than usual especially considering it is 100% stock (charcoal filters still in tact and no aftermarket air filters in place). Now a tune + filters + charcoal filter delete, then a 45 whp maybe possible.
    Thought so. In this case than I agree with your assessment. The crank HP of the E63 isn't reflected in the baseline dyno. This indeed seems to artificially increase the overall gain number.

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    118,826
    Rep Points
    31,808.4
    Mentioned
    2086 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    319



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
    There is a big difference between underrating and overrating. If they overrate the engine, they can get sued for false advertising. So if they advertise 507 hp, then that engine better be make at least 507 hp or more or they'll have multiple law suits on their hand. Also, the E55 fiasco was way before they switched to the new hp measuring standard.
    The motor is not overrated and there is no De facto drivetrain loss standard. Different dyno's will provide different wheel readings which shows the crank rating does not mean much as the loss is constant not changing from dyno to dyno. The % simply changes based on what dyno you are using. If you go dyno on a dyno dynamics or a Mustang and it reads lower than 17-19% are you going to go sue Mercedes? Really? The motor clearly makes 507 horsepower.

    The E55 fiasco was due to protecting the CL55, S55, and SL55. It clearly proves crank figures are meaningless when attempting to measure rear wheel power. The BMW 335 and 1M are heavily underrated. The losses do not suddenly evaporate. % loss can not be used as an argument here or as support due to dyno variance.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
    Again underrating is different than overrating. If you think the 507 figure is underrated, then the a healthy running stock E63 should put down at least 410 whp.
    Again this is irrelevant. What % you expect to see as a drivetrain loss can not be guaranteed. A healthy running stock E63 should put down 410 whp in your opinion on dyno's you have seen. I could take an E63 to 5 different dyno's and get you 5 different numbers. I could run one in shootout mode on a dyno dynamics and get you something in the mid to low 300's. Did the losses suddenly go up? Of course not. Different dynojets will even read differently.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
    So you're saying that if a car is rated for 600 hp at the crank and it dynoed much lower than it should then that's normal? That doesn't make any sense at all. There is a crank hp rating that is verified independently of the manufacturer. Mercedes has to make sure their engine hits that power level or exceed it. They can't say this engine produces 507 hp and put out an engine that only produces 450 hp.

    By your logic, the tune should really say up to 47 whp because you're implying that weather the car was weaker before the tune or not, the tune will make it as strong as a healthy running car. If Weistec can take an E63 or CLS63 or CLK63 BS stock car that happen dyno at 419 whp and add 47 whp (which makes it a total of 466 whp) with just a tune, then that's a different story.
    No, what I am saying is pay attention to the delta more than the peak numbers. You really expect every M156 to be identical in all conditions? It is an impossibility. You have paid enough attention to DA to know how this affects the motor. Will someone in Colorodo sue Mercedes because they don't have the 507 hp that was guaranteed at sea level?

    They are saying they gained 47 whp and proved they did with the graph. There may be a car that gets more, or gets less, but the point is the gain from baseline to peak. Look at the difference and curve more than just focusing on peak numbers and attempting to compare them to different cars. It isn't an exact science, there are variables.

    Someone is not going to get this tune and only see 5 whp or something absurd but there is no way to guarantee everyone gets 47 whp but that is a REALISTIC expectation if the car has a similar baseline.

    A car that baselines 419 whp won't just add 47 whp on top of that, it does not work like that. They will all get to a similar peak despite different baselines. If you dyno 419 what you can take away from this is you can definitely expect to be in the 440's. Same thing if you dyno 380 something.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
    I'm not undermining Weistec's achievement by any means, so please don't imply so. I respect Steve and the whole Weistec and admire all they've done. In fact, I may get a tune myself. My argument was mainly with the amount of gain a standard tune can make may depend on how healthy the car is doing before the tune. For example, I've seen a couple of E63s put down 378 whp on a dynojet SAE corrected. I'm sure many tuners can tune that car and claim 50+ whp from just a tune, but in reality, that car was not running up to par to begin with. AMG works very hard to produce these engine in an as identical form as possible. They'll be a slight variation here and there, but not in the level you are thinking of.
    Tunes also evolve over time, they do not stay stagnant.
    I'm not saying you are undermining what they did but you said it was improbable. My opinion is that it is extremely probable based on what they have already demonstrated.

    Yes, the engines are all mechanically similar. But density altitude alone will affect output. Mechanical similarity does not mean output in different conditions will always be similar. Cars broken in harder for example tend to dyno more or cars with more miles on them than motors that are brand new.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
    Again, I am not claiming they weren't able to do so.... I would like to see a 420 whp stock E63 gain +47 whp from only a tune.
    You can't just add 47 to any baseline. I would love to see a naturally aspirated M156 tune only put down 467 whp but that is not a realistic expectation.

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    118,826
    Rep Points
    31,808.4
    Mentioned
    2086 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    319



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by propain Click here to enlarge
    If you want to compare dyno results the same dyno and the same correction will show gains or loss on the same car. But those gains or loss will not always translate to the track. That is why track results will always be better than dyno results. Basic stuff here.

    I have seen gains on a dyno and worse results on the track. A car simply does not perform the same on the dyno as it does on the track.
    I would not say track results are "better" as much as they are different. These are all pieces of a larger picture.

    If you see substantial gains on the dyno and do not see results on the track something is wrong. There is no way 47 whp will not show up on the track.

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    118,826
    Rep Points
    31,808.4
    Mentioned
    2086 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    319



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by propain Click here to enlarge
    Thought so. In this case than I agree with your assessment. The crank HP of the E63 isn't reflected in the baseline dyno. This indeed seems to artificially increase the overall gain number.
    I'm just amazed people are talking about crank HP. We aren't beyond crank figures yet?

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,185
    Rep Points
    2,132.0
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    22


    Yes Reputation No
    ^Track results are MUCH better. I had 30-40whp gain on the dyno and that didnt show on the track Click here to enlarge
    Current:
    14 Viper TA
    Wsir - 1:28:9
    Buttonwillow C13 - 1:54:1

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,085
    Rep Points
    28.3
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by DD GT3 RD Click here to enlarge
    ^Track results are MUCH better. I had 30-40whp gain on the dyno and that didnt show on the track Click here to enlarge
    Thank you! This was when you went from P31 tune to OE tune, correct?

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,085
    Rep Points
    28.3
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    I would not say track results are "better" as much as they are different. These are all pieces of a larger picture.

    If you see substantial gains on the dyno and do not see results on the track something is wrong. There is no way 47 whp will not show up on the track.
    You would be surprised.

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,085
    Rep Points
    28.3
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    I'm just amazed people are talking about crank HP. We aren't beyond crank figures yet?
    Crank figured, Drive train loss, whp. The Baseline dyno was obviously not a good run. Were both runs on the same day?

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    118,826
    Rep Points
    31,808.4
    Mentioned
    2086 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    319



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by DD GT3 RD Click here to enlarge
    ^Track results are MUCH better. I had 30-40whp gain on the dyno and that didnt show on the track Click here to enlarge
    I'm a big fan of track results but you can't really do a dyno tune on a track. These are all pieces as stated, as is 60-130.

Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •