birth of another C55

[J Irwan]

Originally posted by coolcarlskic43
Donnie Drummond told me he's using the stck C43 Tranny in his 11.5 sec S/C C43/55.So it's more than capable to handle the power of a supercharged M113 motored car.The newer E55 compressor trannies are better though for the built extra Pwr from those F/I motors.

Yes speed shift can be adapted to the 98-99 C43 trannies.The 2k C43 already comes with the speedshift tranny and is the same in the E55.. Finally, most automatic trannies can get beefed up if you have the payola($$).

If I remember corectly.
Someone asked him before on another forums.
He has gone through couple transmission units before he went and used the V12 unit on his S'd C55.

C43 might be able to handle E55 power and torque, but Donies is a monsters, I don't think the tranmssion can handle those extra power.

After all, even with C36, C43, E430, E420, CLK430, C32 and 99 E55 I've seen some transmission failure, let alone when you uprate the power that much.


But if I'd swap to 5.4L engine from 2.8L I would get the matching transmission as well. But from C43 to 5.4L I would use the existing transmission first. If at the end it breaks so be it. Then times to get a new ones.


Regardz,

[Ashkan's C280]

so donnie has a v12 tranny in his c55k? I didn't know they would fit into our cars.... Would the newer e55f/i trannys fit into our cars oris it more troouble than worth

[c55m8o]

I'm pretty sure they're the same physical dimensions.

BTW, J, when you said "couple transmission units", did you mean that as in ECU/controller, or actual entire transmissions?

[knvs]

but I thought AMG took the tranny out of the SL and put them into the C43 and E55 to handle the power... Thats what I've always thought.

[Ashkan's C280]

I was wondering how some of you conversions are getting so much more power mbusa quotes a c43 at 304 and an e55 at 349 maybe its just me, but I don't get how there is a world of difference in 45hp? And at a 15 % loss it would only be a 38.25 hp gain? does 38 hp really make a huge difference OT I know but I was curious.

at 15% loss the

c43 would have 258.4 hp
e55 would have 296.65 hp

Difference of 38.25 hp

[c55m8o]

actually, 65 rwhp gains with the 5.4L swap ; more importantly, about 95ft-lb gains in torque in the mid-band where the engine spends all its time when driving around normally. Car's a real stoplight killer now, as you get to use the lowend torque in 1st on take-off.
There's no way you can use 15% loss with that drivetrain... I don't know anyone who measured more then 240/245-ish rw hp or trqu with their =stock= C43 ... mine measured on the low side.

[Ashkan's C280]

how can it be 65 rwhp there is only a 45hp difference between the two engines? unless the c43 takes a larger loss than the e55 from the crank to the wheels I don't get how it can be a 65hp gain, those numbers are from mbusa

[c55m8o]

interesting, isn't it? sure seems like that. I go by actual rear wheel HP and torque I measured of my car on a dyno ; my numbers are real-world, so it's the actual thrust applied @ the contact patch of the rear tires, which not for nuth'n, is all that matters.

[ledrocnoc]

Do you have the before and after numbers? (i.e. with the C43 engine and with the E55 engine). Or point me to where they are posted?

I am looking at doing the conversion on mine and I'd be very interested in looking at them.

BTW, how much does a dyno run costs these days?

Originally posted by c55m8o
interesting, isn't it? sure seems like that. I go by actual rear wheel HP and torque I measured of my car on a dyno ; my numbers are real-world, so it's the actual thrust applied @ the contact patch of the rear tires, which not for nuth'n, is all that matters.

[c55m8o]

after (and graph) is right in this thread. before, I have to find as it was from a good many years ago. was around 235 range for max torque and power @ the wheels I believe.

I paid too much; $150 (or was i $175?) for the tie-down and first 3 (I think) pulls + $25 per pull after.

[sig425]

crank figs vs rwhp figs are driving me nuts!!!

Maybe the HPS system is the way to go? Dont they say 415rwhp? $7-8k for SC vs approx $12k for the e55 swap? Maybe it was 415 at the crank? HPS SC would certainly be much easier to install....although Im not so sure I would want an HPS after reading all the smack on other forums. Plus finding out if HPS sells a kit for the c43 now and peoples exp with the new vs the old one is tough to dig up. I know there is lots of testimanials for them but what about long term results? Plus my car has 80k on the ticker--she might not like a SC installed. Bah! All I can say is it isnt fast enough for me now Is there a NOS kit for the c43..that would be the best bet for me lol. LOTS of power on the rare occasions some corvette is makin me mad Lots of power to blow it up

[J Irwan]

Originally posted by c55m8o
actually, 65 rwhp gains with the 5.4L swap ; more importantly, about 95ft-lb gains in torque in the mid-band where the engine spends all its time when driving around normally. Car's a real stoplight killer now, as you get to use the lowend torque in 1st on take-off.
There's no way you can use 15% loss with that drivetrain... I don't know anyone who measured more then 240/245-ish rw hp or trqu with their =stock= C43 ... mine measured on the low side.

Just a little information that might help explains
even you if drop the same engine 5.4L V-8 on the stock E55 (W210) chassis and C43 the dyno result would be different ..

why..???


Here is why
All W210 E55 runs on 2.82 rear end while C43 runs on 3.07 rear end.

Naturally the one with 3.07 will be able to put down more hp to the asphalt. Hence the rwhl hp would be higher.

So for C43 - 5.4L convertion to get the more accurate crank hp you will need to have different correction factor. What's the number ? I don't have the number.


But because of the higher wrhp on your car doesn't necessarily mean the Engine producing more hp than E55 spec.


Regardz,

[coolcarlskic43]

Originally posted by J Irwan
If I remember corectly.
Someone asked him before on another forums.
He has gone through couple transmission units before he went and used the V12 unit on his S'd C55.

C43 might be able to handle E55 power and torque, but Donies is a monsters, I don't think the tranmssion can handle those extra power.

After all, even with C36, C43, E430, E420, CLK430, C32 and 99 E55 I've seen some transmission failure, let alone when you uprate the power that much.


But if I'd swap to 5.4L engine from 2.8L I would get the matching transmission as well. But from C43 to 5.4L I would use the existing transmission first. If at the end it breaks so be it. Then times to get a new ones.


Regardz,

Donnie has personally told me that they use the stck transmissions in all their Kleeman applications.He said that the stck trannies in all of the cars mentioned have been tested and are well up to the rigors of the kleeman supercharged applications.

No matter what car it is as long as it's modified and using a stck manual tranny or auto ,it's reliability is always going to be compromised especially based on (x) hp.Mercedes has built the AMG trannies to be able to handle their present hp apps and beyond.They're not gonna build it just good enuff to handle only their present stck hp.
Some stck C43 trannies last the life of the car and some don't this is a fact. Yes S/C the car will compromise some reliability but it is a fact that there are plenty of stck tranny MB's with F/I experiencing no tranny failure at all.And then there are those that are blowing up while leaving the car stck. What can i tell you.I don't think these trannies have failed solely because of tremendous hp.

[coolcarlskic43]

Originally posted by knvs
but I thought AMG took the tranny out of the SL and put them into the C43 and E55 to handle the power... Thats what I've always thought.

One minute the mag media's will quote the the trannies are from the SL500 and then the next minute they'll quote that they are from the S600.Go figure!Bottom line is that up to date with some hard ass driving Steve and I find that the stck C43 trannies can handle the abuse and rigors of the 5.4lm113 engine especially with timely auto tranny fluid changes.You can also speak to Speedybenz about this fact since he has autocrossed his C43 at several events without any posted transmission failures.He does frequent auto tranny fluid changes as well.

[c55m8o]

Originally posted by sig425
Maybe the HPS system is the way to go?
[snip]

yes, I won't argue it's the "better deal" for hp/$. Me, I considered
- It's not the 5.4L motor which has a number of advantages all covered already [ only(?) disadvantage is weight ] ; I always wanted this motor.
- superchargers have whine ; HPS gen one was the loudest, HPS gen II is quieter, Kleemann is quieter still.
- that's it for the 4.3L motor. Me, I'm still able to do an HPS or a Kleemann or custom "something" (turbo or centifical) ; where the Kleemann S/C of a previous gen E55 or CLK55 is said to be over 500hp (estimated crank value) ...

[c55m8o]

Originally posted by J Irwan
Just a little information that might help explains
even you if drop the same engine 5.4L V-8 on the stock E55 (W210) chassis and C43 the dyno result would be different ..
why..???
Here is why
All W210 E55 runs on 2.82 rear end while C43 runs on 3.07 rear end.
Naturally the one with 3.07 will be able to put down more hp to the asphalt. Hence the rwhl hp would be higher.
So for C43 - 5.4L convertion to get the more accurate crank hp you will need to have different correction factor. What's the number ? I don't have the number.
But because of the higher wrhp on your car doesn't necessarily mean the Engine producing more hp than E55 spec.

I dunno if that math factors out tho ... before running the dyno, I asked if the guy running it needed the tranni ratios in each gear, and rear diff. He said no, it measures and relates wheel RPM to engine RPM throughout the whole mesaured range, through the gear changes, thereby taking into account the torque multiplication gained through tranni + rear diff gearing, and =normalizes= it. (well, he didn't say "normalization", but I know that's what it is ).

So what I am saying by that is if I were to put in 2.82:1 gears in my car, that should not affect the measured rear wheel power [and inturn interpreted torque] if I re-dyno it, because the reduced torque multiplication offered by the new combo of tranni + rear diff gears would be less, and taken into account when normalized.

[coolcarlskic43]

Originally posted by c55m8o
yes, I won't argue it's the "better deal" for hp/$. Me, I considered
- It's not the 5.4L motor which has a number of advantages all covered already [ only(?) disadvantage is weight ] ; I always wanted this motor.
- superchargers have whine ; HPS gen one was the loudest, HPS gen II is quieter, Kleemann is quieter still.
- that's it for the 4.3L motor. Me, I'm still able to do an HPS or a Kleemann or custom "something" (turbo or centifical) ; where the Kleemann S/C of a previous gen E55 or CLK55 is said to be over 500hp (estimated crank value) ...

Well the weight difference in my opinion is minimal Steve.We are talking about a 50lb weight trade off.Now really,do you feel a weight difference? Not only that but we have 360+ reliable HP as compared to a S/C high compression stck C43 motor.Which one do you think will require less maintenance and last longer.Best thing to do in either case would be to S/C either motor and build them with LC pistons or thicker head gaskets to reduce the risk of detonation. Why do you think the neww S/C E55's now use lower compression pistons in their F/I applications? Reliabiltity!

[c55m8o]

Originally posted by coolcarlskic43
Well the weight difference in my opinion is minimal Steve.We are talking about a 50lb weight trade off.

...ya, I didn't elaborate ... had I, I would have mentioned that a S/C weighs a good something too, with the weight up high only. At least in the 5.4L motor, the weight addition is down low primarily in the crank.

Hey, don't shoot down SC'ing the 4.3L too much tho ; after all, you have a high boost car (yes, I know made for it from the start) ; and I know you, like me, are still considering boosting your 5.4L motor...

[J Irwan]

Originally posted by c55m8o
I dunno if that math factors out tho ... before running the dyno, I asked if the guy running it needed the tranni ratios in each gear, and rear diff. He said no, it measures and relates wheel RPM to engine RPM throughout the whole mesaured range, through the gear changes, thereby taking into account the torque multiplication gained through tranni + rear diff gearing, and =normalizes= it. (well, he didn't say "normalization", but I know that's what it is ).

So what I am saying by that is if I were to put in 2.82:1 gears in my car, that should not affect the measured rear wheel power [and inturn interpreted torque] if I re-dyno it, because the reduced torque multiplication offered by the new combo of tranni + rear diff gears would be less, and taken into account when normalized.

what I am saying is that higher rear end will yiled higher rear wheel hp.


for example with the current power that your car makes.
IF you were to switch 3.07 to let's say 3.45
Naturally you will get faster acceleration and when you put it on dyno it will yield higher rear wheel hp number.

At this point your engine will still be producing the same HP at cranck/fly-wheel.

When comes to tuning the performance out of the car, the ability get the power to the ground is as important (it could even be more important at some cases depending on a lot of factor) as getting the engine to produce more hp.



Regardz,

[Ashkan's C280]

I think speedybenzwas looking at moving the rear diff to 3:67:1

[c55m8o]

Originally posted by J Irwan
what I am saying is that higher rear end will yiled higher rear wheel hp.
for example with the current power that your car makes.
IF you were to switch 3.07 to let's say 3.45
Naturally you will get faster acceleration and when you put it on dyno it will yield higher rear wheel hp number.
At this point your engine will still be producing the same HP at cranck/fly-wheel.
When comes to tuning the performance out of the car, the ability get the power to the ground is as important (it could even be more important at some cases depending on a lot of factor) as getting the engine to produce more hp.

I know you are saying that ; but it is not true. Dynos are "smarter" then that, and factor out torque/hp multiplication based on gearing from the final value ; any final value ; every final value. You are confusing the drum force @ a wheel rotational speed the dyno is measuring to the calculated HP it converts that too and produces as the final output.

Dynos are comparing engine RPM to the dyno drum's MPH continuously and applying a normalizatin factor. They are "gearing aware" you might say, and apply a different normalization factor to the values measured, unique to each gear shift. The higher the gear ratio, the higher the torque multiplication factor is that the measure HP is divided by.

Go from 3.07:1 gears to 3.45:1 gears, and re-dyno your car, and the dyno will detect the higher engine speed related to the drum's spinning speed, and apply a =larger= normalization factor to divide the measure HP values by. ...The end wheel HP & interpreted torque values will be the same. ...I should add, assuming it's a computerized dyno!

If dynos did not do this, when you look @ my dyno graph I posted in this thread (or any dyno grap), that shows a WOT run from 1st through 4th, the third gear torque would be graphed well above the 4th gear torque; the second gear torque would be graphed well above the 3rd gear values, etc. ...i.e. that would be the "raw" force @ the contact patch. However, again, dynos do more then measure raw force. They =interpret= that force with a =lot= of factors, to arrive @ a real wheel HP/Torque figure.

...dynos automatically normalize. Changing your gearing will not change the measured value of a dyno ; assuming it's a fully automated computerize dyno. If not, it's up the the operator to take the raw measured values @ the wheel in each gear, and divide that by a normalization factor that's something akin to :

[[ tranni gear ratio X rear diff ratio ] ÷ wheel radius ]

[c55m8o]

Originally posted by Ashkan's C280
I think speedybenzwas looking at moving the rear diff to 3:65:1

no, 3:45 or there abouts. He has it. It comes from W202s (not C43s) that were sold in Mexico.

[Ashkan's C280]

I would really like a 3.46 or 3.67:1 for my C43 with LSD.

What have you found out about the ECU adaptation to the new gear ratio.

Jeff.

3:67 my bad

[J Irwan]

Originally posted by c55m8o
I know you are saying that ; but it is not true. Dynos are "smarter" then that, and factor out torque/hp multiplication based on gearing from the final value ; any final value ; every final value. You are confusing the drum force @ a wheel rotational speed the dyno is measuring to the calculated HP it converts that too and produces as the final output.

Dynos are comparing engine RPM to the dyno drum's MPH continuously and applying a normalizatin factor. They are "gearing aware" you might say, and apply a different normalization factor to the values measured, unique to each gear shift. The higher the gear ratio, the higher the torque multiplication factor is that the measure HP is divided by.

Go from 3.07:1 gears to 3.45:1 gears, and re-dyno your car, and the dyno will detect the higher engine speed related to the drum's spinning speed, and apply a =larger= normalization factor to divide the measure HP values by. ...The end wheel HP & interpreted torque values will be the same. ...I should add, assuming it's a computerized dyno!

If dynos did not do this, when you look @ my dyno graph I posted in this thread (or any dyno grap), that shows a WOT run from 1st through 4th, the third gear torque would be graphed well above the 4th gear torque; the second gear torque would be graphed well above the 3rd gear values, etc. ...i.e. that would be the "raw" force @ the contact patch. However, again, dynos do more then measure raw force. They =interpret= that force with a =lot= of factors, to arrive @ a real wheel HP/Torque figure.

...dynos automatically normalize. Changing your gearing will not change the measured value of a dyno ; assuming it's a fully automated computerize dyno. If not, it's up the the operator to take the raw measured values @ the wheel in each gear, and divide that by a normalization factor that's something akin to :

[[ tranni gear ratio X rear diff ratio ] ÷ wheel radius ]

If you look at dyno tuning.
They could care less about the hp at cranck since eveyone will have theories of their own. (15% drivetrain loss vs 18% vs 20% some will say mercedes has 20%+ drivetrain loss).

When it comes down to measuring hp, the rwhl hp is the one that counts.


For example Let's take E55 stock with 349 hp. (with 20% drivetrain loss)
Most people see the runs about 280 rearwheel hp which with 20% drivetrain loss would be 290 x (100%/100%-20%) = 350 cranck hp.


Now you switch to 3.45 from 2.82 stock diff.
Now when you dyno it has 298 (just hypothecical #).
So now do calculate the hp at cranck you cannot use the same 20% drivetrain loss again. You will have to guesstimate the new number for the drivetrain loss.

so the next time you have other mods, such as ECU remap, Header you use the new correction factor to get the more accurate cranck hp number.

I am sure some of the new computer will have the correction factor calculation automatically calculate based on users input.


Bottom line what I am trying to say

while stock E55 running 280 rwhp and your C55 conversion running 298 rwhp that doesn;t mean your crank hp is higher.

Like I said before. Many people could care less about how much hp at cranck. When doing dyno tuning is rwhl is what counts.

The reason being is that not all engine created equal. Some will have lower hp and some stronger engine will have more power.
More power could lead to higher hp and lower torque from manufacture spec #, and vice versa.

And since dyno is only measuring approximate number, it is very hard to get the exact and consistent number since there are a lot of factor that affect the rwhl hp such as air temp, humidity, plus size rims and tires and so on (the list goes on).
That's why many people only look at the rwhl hp number.

Even with the same car , same dyno shop , and same dyno machine, different day it might produce different rwhl hp.


PS: Different dyno engine also produce different rwhl hp number for the same exact same car in the same condition. (off course these dyno engine has different correction factor number).



Regardz,

[c55m8o]

you don't need to say "When it comes down to measuring hp, the rwhl hp is the one that counts." ; you'll see in this thread and others I've posted to I say the same thing. I =hate= when someone (or some company) tries to tell me the engine HP based on chassis dyno readings. (I once voiced my disagreement with this to HPS about this in private)

But again, I'm going on one track, and you go off and imply I'm saying something else ...did I once say =crank= HP? ...or that what was being normalized was a crank HP? no.

...you're still confusing linear force @ the contact patch with the HP figure a dyno produces. And a normalization factor can and does get brought into the HP readings of a dyno, based on the difference between tne engine RPM vs. the rear wheel's RPM ... it does =NOT= have ta'do with having to estimate a crank HP to get to that value...nor am I implying that.