My Dyno Results are in

[Nelson Lago]

MY school let me dyno my car and i got at max 146.62 HP and 157.62 TQ with 95k miles with a dirty air filter and my car weights 3108lb with 57%front and 43%rear weight distrbuted moving a 4000lb drum so my spec are off a little but still i think thats sad a 2.8v6 should have more.

[OCKlasse]

Originally posted by Nelson Lago
MY school let me dyno my car and i got at max 146.62 HP and 157.62 TQ with 95k miles with a dirty air filter and my car weights 3108lb with 57%front and 43%rear weight distrbuted moving a 4000lb drum so my spec are off a little but still i think thats sad a 2.8v6 should have more.

interesting....my N/A 230 Dynoed in at 143 hp and 165 lb ft. torque to the wheels after my ECU reprogramming...

[RemoLexi]

both of those Dyno's seem way off.

and OCKlasse you have intake, chip - what else ? hell no it cant be 143HP .

[OCKlasse]

Originally posted by RemoLexi
both of those Dyno's seem way off.

and OCKlasse you have intake, chip - what else ? hell no it cant be 143HP .

that's it...

Intake and ecu reprogramming (well...now I have a Supersprint exhaust but the dyno was before). If you don't believe me....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v373/trefiveincognito/Bugatti/DSC06424.jpg

[RemoLexi]

well, if a 2.8 V6 got 146HP, and a 2.3 I4 got 143 ... somebody screwed up if not both.

OCK, your saying if you take off the CAI and the chip your car will have like what 125HP ? WTF thats not right ...

[OCKlasse]

The before on the Dyno was before my ECU was reprogrammed...the after was my ECU reprogrammed. I doubt my intake could of made THAT much of a difference.

[Lensolo]

Originally posted by OCKlasse


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v373/trefiveincognito/Bugatti/DSC06424.jpg

This chart shows(from what I can read) a "SAE Corrected' HP/Torque reading to the Flywheel. This number is usually 16-18% less than was is actually at the wheels depending on the car.

What does the factory rate for HP/Tq?

[OCKlasse]

I know it says flywheel, but I have seen the same place I went to (Church automotive) Dyno other cars, and they all explicitly say flywheel hp.

eg: http://mbworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=178357&highlight=speed+innovation

and this: http://mbworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=177303&highlight=speed+innovation

also...I believe by the TCF being 1.0, that is indicated WHP.

[Nitrogenbalance]

Wheel HP right?? I thought both of those motors 2.3/2.8 were a hair under 200hp.

Well, a stock C43 dyno's around 240hp at the wheels at almost twice the discplacement if that makes you feel better. Not very impressive for a V8 huh....

....hence the need for forced induction:D

[broke driver]

Originally posted by Nitrogenbalance
....hence the need for forced induction:D [/B]

Amen!!! :D

[omeyhomey]

honestly those numbers seem right on target when you account for the 20-21% drivetrain loss due to the auto. I dunno what you were expecting but that sounds about right

[Sulaco]

BOOMINBENZ has a video posted on here somewhere of his 95 2.8 m104 getting 157 (with 18 or 19" rims). Wonder what it would be with stock 15's?

[Proven Guilty]

Originally posted by broke driver
Amen!!! :D

damn you both. lol :D

[RemoLexi]

Originally posted by omeyhomey
honestly those numbers seem right on target when you account for the 20-21% drivetrain loss due to the auto. I dunno what you were expecting but that sounds about right

I was expecting more from OCKlasses Benz since he does have some modding. and I didnt expect a V6 to be 3HP more then an inline 4 :mad:

[kyo216]

dont different dynos vary results? the only way you can really compare the 4 cyn and the v6 on the dyno is if they were both dynoed on the same one.

[OCKlasse]

Originally posted by kyo216
dont different dynos vary results? the only way you can really compare the 4 cyn and the v6 on the dyno is if they were both dynoed on the same one.

supposedly, the Dyno I used is the most accurate one - I had to remove my rear wheels and connect them to the Dynometer.

[RemoLexi]

if all dyno's vary in results, that means they arnt correct - then whats the point of dyno'in your car if your answer is going to be off anyway. so basically it tells your your in the 140HP zone. whooptie-doo.

[OCKlasse]

Originally posted by RemoLexi
if all dyno's vary in results, that means they arnt correct - then whats the point of dyno'in your car if your answer is going to be off anyway. so basically it tells your your in the 140HP zone. whooptie-doo.

I don't particularly care...I know my car is slow, and frankly, there is not much to do to really make me happy with it (performance wise). C43s feel fast until you drive Cl55s, and then the C43 starts to feel like a dog.

[RemoLexi]

yea but your car isnt as slow as the dyno say it is. I mean you have chip and CAI, exhuast now ? id expect it to be in the 170HP range but 140's is just redicules!!

so according to the dyno a C180 would be like what 90HP ?

[OCKlasse]

Originally posted by RemoLexi
yea but your car isnt as slow as the dyno say it is. I mean you have chip and CAI, exhuast now ? id expect it to be in the 170HP range but 140's is just redicules!!

so according to the dyno a C180 would be like what 90HP ?

You don't understand...that figure is WHEEL HORSEPOWER...according to the guy who owned the Dyno, there is an approx 25hp loss on ANY vehicle, whether it has 100hp or 900hp. Therefore, I can assume my car has around 168hp to the crank, and even if you take 143 * 1.2 you get 168, so I am happy. Look at the tcf of 1.00, that will tell you it's WHP.

[kyo216]

all dynos do vary and there is no point in dynoing except to test the increase or decrease of whp with a recent mod.

[omeyhomey]

Originally posted by OCKlasse
supposedly, the Dyno I used is the most accurate one - I had to remove my rear wheels and connect them to the Dynometer.

ya but that should have made the numbers higher not lower, its a hub style dynomometer so it elimiates power loss from rear wheels.

are you sure you have good compression in all cylinders? that may be a problem. Also is dynopack a loading dyno? if so that may explain it. More possibilities could be clogged up stock cats or just needs some TLC.

[RemoLexi]

remember your running 19"s too huh ? thats acceleration loss.

[OCKlasse]

Where is this thread heading??? My car is making 143whp and 165 wtq. I am very happy with that. That would mean I am making +20hp over stock (before Supersprint) and I feel that is a very healthy increase over stock. Now the V6 on the other hand, that's a different story. While the Dyno eliminates power loss from the wheels, there is still considerable loss through the transmission.

[c280nz]

i dynod my c280 I6 and i got 145-150hp at the hubs.
my car is basically bone stock.
most dynos give different results

[Nelson Lago]

well thats pretty much the same as me but i really think its off by 50hp because all of us with the 280 knows that 280 C class flys

[OCKlasse]

Originally posted by Nelson Lago
well thats pretty much the same as me but i really think its off by 50hp because all of us with the 280 knows that 280 C class flys

you Dynoed WHP, not crank HP

[kyo216]

i have a c280 and its not that fast. its a good car but flies...?

[rman]

seriously reading this thread makes me feel like an after school program supervisor.


the v6 was rated at the rear wheels, and the n/a 4 banger was rated at the crank.

WTF is everyone bickering about? those are pretty much dead-on.
We all know that the C280 v6 puts out 194hp at the crank
Now we know OCKlasse's puts out Mid 140s at the crank.

Yes, the v6 gets 50 more HP than the (modded) i-4. WHAT A SHOCK.

The school teacher grosses 40k/year and the engineer nets 45k/year. OMG the engineer only make 5k more than the school teacher.

[OCKlasse]

Originally posted by rman
seriously reading this thread makes me feel like an after school program supervisor.


the v6 was rated at the rear wheels, and the n/a 4 banger was rated at the crank.

WTF is everyone bickering about? those are pretty much dead-on.
We all know that the C280 v6 puts out 194hp at the crank
Now we know OCKlasse's puts out Mid 140s at the crank.

Yes, the v6 gets 50 more HP than the (modded) i-4. WHAT A SHOCK.

The school teacher grosses 40k/year and the engineer nets 45k/year. OMG the engineer only make 5k more than the school teacher.

True about the crap in this thread...but my car is making 170hp at the crank...for some reason, all my guy's dynos don't say whp. My car is rated at 150hp stock, which would mean ~125 whp.

[omeyhomey]

Ok there is A LOT of confusion in this thread....

ALL manufacture power claims are at the crankshaft, none give wheel HP numbers that up to the consumer to determine via dyno testing.

Loading dynos always read lower than dynojet style, but in turn are much more accurate of "real world" results.

For 170HP crank engine you should be dynoing 132-136HP (22%-20% drivetrain loss).

For 194HP crank power you should be dyoing 151-155HP (22-20% drivetrain loss).

19 inch wheels rob REDICULOUS amounts of power, if you want more power get a lighter set of wheels then stock (which may not be easy). The more rotational mass you put on the wheels and etc the more power you rob, people don't realize you can flucutate 5-10wheel HP on the dyno just based on different wheel & tire setups.

[OCKlasse]

Originally posted by omeyhomey
Ok there is A LOT of confusion in this thread....

ALL manufacture power claims are at the crankshaft, none give wheel HP numbers that up to the consumer to determine via dyno testing.

Loading dynos always read lower than dynojet style, but in turn are much more accurate of "real world" results.

For 170HP crank engine you should be dynoing 132-136HP (22%-20% drivetrain loss).

For 194HP crank power you should be dyoing 151-155HP (22-20% drivetrain loss).

19 inch wheels rob REDICULOUS amounts of power, if you want more power get a lighter set of wheels then stock (which may not be easy). The more rotational mass you put on the wheels and etc the more power you rob, people don't realize you can flucutate 5-10wheel HP on the dyno just based on different wheel & tire setups.

I think there is more confusion than you think as well....

a.) My car dynoed at 143 to the wheels which in turn equates to 170+ crank hp

b.) I used a Dynapack, which required me to remove my rear wheels and connect them to the dynometer. Therefore, 19 inch wheels had no effect on my dyno.

c.) my 19 inch wheels are SIGNIFICANTLY lighter than my 17 inch Monoblocks were, due to the fact that they are Aluminum 2-piece.

[omeyhomey]

Originally posted by OCKlasse
I think there is more confusion than you think as well....

a.) My car dynoed at 143 to the wheels which in turn equates to 170+ crank hp

b.) I used a Dynapack, which required me to remove my rear wheels and connect them to the dynometer. Therefore, 19 inch wheels had no effect on my dyno.

c.) my 19 inch wheels are SIGNIFICANTLY lighter than my 17 inch Monoblocks were, due to the fact that they are Aluminum 2-piece.

Again more confusion lol .

Yes i know you dynoed 143, which is why i mentioned compression check a few posts back. Alot of times on higher mileage engines compression falls and if even one cylinders compression has plummeted it will affect overall engine performance (and on NA engines compression is everything).

Yes i know your wheels didnt' but loading dynos dyno much lower so you cannot really compare to dynojet numbers. for loading dynos 22% is more accurate so for your car that equates to about 183 HP which for a car of higher mileage is completely normal (again sounds like you have compression issues).

Also, Remember weight is not the only factor....

Inertia = mass x Radius (squared). So radius plays a much more crutial role than most people realized, its exponentially more important than mass (literally). In addition, center of mass is also a big issue. On a 19" wheel the mass is at a larger radius and more of it is at the edge of that radius so then leverage becomes a factor. Just b/c a 19" weighs less does not mean the overall rotational interia and rotational mass of the wheel assembly is less. Plus most people never factor in tires, and 19" tires are much heaver than 17s b/c of the necessary steel belts and etc in 19s. So even if your entire wheel assembly is lighter than stock (doubtful), you can still rob power based on the radius & center of mass alone). You can still lose 5HP on dyno b/c of it. If your car dynos 143 w/o the wheels it probably dynos 135-138 with them (which is why i dont agree in using hub dynoes in the first place b/c they aren't the most accurate in determining real world stree HP gains (Dyno dynamics / mustang dyno still the best dynos out there). Not trying to be pesimistic, just pragmatic and realistic. There are a lot of factors people just don't take into account when they go to dyno there car which is why most people are dissapopointed b/c they have unrealistic gains going into the dyno.

Dont' worry, keep your head up high, I have new mods coming out to increase those numbers :) .

2 cents,

~Omey~

[mrfeelgood]

Originally posted by OCKlasse
You don't understand...that figure is WHEEL HORSEPOWER...according to the guy who owned the Dyno, there is an approx 25hp loss on ANY vehicle, whether it has 100hp or 900hp. Therefore, I can assume my car has around 168hp to the crank, and even if you take 143 * 1.2 you get 168, so I am happy. Look at the tcf of 1.00, that will tell you it's WHP.

what OCKlasse says is true...there will be a 25-30% loss when translated from engine power to wheel power...

this is my dyno results that i did on my alfa 164QV, it showed about 250hp on engine but my "on wheel" results showed only 178hp...the loss can be due to a number of reasons, like 4 e.g. auto tranny, rear-wheel drive, health of the engine, etc, etc....

http://www.italiaauto.net/files/dyno4_527.jpg

[omeyhomey]

Originally posted by mrfeelgood
what OCKlasse says is true...there will be a 25-30% loss when translated from engine power to wheel power...

this is my dyno results that i did on my alfa 164QV, it showed about 250hp on engine but my "on wheel" results showed only 178hp...the loss can be due to a number of reasons, like 4 e.g. auto tranny, rear-wheel drive, health of the engine, etc, etc....

http://www.italiaauto.net/files/dyno4_527.jpg


the exact % loss due to drive train for mid engine stick tranaxle is 15%. A front engine rear wheel drive stick is 17%, a front engine rear wheel drive automatic is 20-22%. Any more loss would be due to engine health and other factors.