Tuning with CIS - Page 15 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

400Eric · #**211** 08-16-2011, 11:22 PM

Jay, what was the peak torque reading on your dyno sheet and at what RPM did it occur?
Regards, Eric

400Eric · #**212** 08-18-2011, 10:48 PM

Jay? Jay! Jay the Jayer where are you?

JayRash · #**213** 08-19-2011, 06:16 AM

Eric im back,

Ok the i gave u was with the fuel trick on as well as timing. so car was rich. and between 2000 rpm and 4000rpm the graph for torque is clearly not smooth.
numbers for that run were exactly:
pw at eng: 145.2 KW ( 197.5hp) @5950 rpm
pw at wheels: 112 kw ( 152.3hp) @5950 rpm

Tqat eng : 250nm @ 5200 RPM

400Eric · #**214** 08-19-2011, 06:22 AM

Thanks Jay!

What would that torque figure translate into in "foot pounds" of torque?
Regards, Eric

JayRash · #**215** 08-19-2011, 06:34 AM

185 lb

400Eric · #**216** 08-19-2011, 07:24 AM

Thanks Jay.

I have no doubt that this mod works when the engine is operating at elevated temperatures, I saw it first hand with Benzer3. That's why I'm leaving the resistor hooked up so that I'll see the benefit in daily driving.

I do however need to come up with a way of advancing the timing when the engine is at around 80C. Anybody have any ideas? The one that I have come up with is to move the vacuum line the feeds the vacuum signal to the EZL to a different source, one that still maintains a little vacuum even when under WOT conditions. We used to call such a vacuum source a ported vacuum source vs. a manifold vacuum source. (But I may have that backwards though.) This would fool the EZL into thinking that the engine is under a semi part throttle condition and thus is in need of more ignition lead. Obviously, I would need to proceed with this plan slowly, gingerly, and carefully and it would have to be just a little vacuum being supplied, not a lot cause we are only after a little more ignition advance, not a lot. I'll test and monitor the different vacuum ports on the engine with my vacuum gauge under varying conditions to see which port will serve this goal best. I'm thinking the one that sucks the fuel vapors out of the charcoal canister may be a front runner for this job.

Anybody have any thoughts on any of this? There's a mid-90s Nissan Maxima that runs consistent 15.9s (my 15.9s are NOT consistent) at the track that I want to be able to spank!
Regards, Eric

RBYCC · #**217** 08-19-2011, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayRash

Eric im back,

Ok the i gave u was with the fuel trick on as well as timing. so car was rich. and between 2000 rpm and 4000rpm the graph for torque is clearly not smooth.
numbers for that run were exactly:
pw at eng: 145.2 KW ( 197.5hp) @5950 rpm
pw at wheels: 112 kw ( 152.3hp) @5950 rpm

Tqat eng : 250nm @ 5200 RPM

Jay

Falls in line with my baseline dyno pulls for my M103-12V USA spec motor.
Stock engine tuned to factory spec with stock cat and exhaust
135.9 RWP @ 5500RPM published 177HP
145.3 Wtorque @ 4500RPM published 188 torque
My torque band seems lower then yours !.

Your Euro spec should be about 10HP/Torque at the wheels higher.

Ed A.

RBYCC · #**218** 08-19-2011, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 400Eric

Thanks Jay.

I have no doubt that this mod works when the engine is operating at elevated temperatures, I saw it first hand with Benzer3. That's why I'm leaving the resistor hooked up so that I'll see the benefit in daily driving.

I do however need to come up with a way of advancing the timing when the engine is at around 80C. Anybody have any ideas? The one that I have come up with is to move the vacuum line the feeds the vacuum signal to the EZL to a different source, one that still maintains a little vacuum even when under WOT conditions. We used to call such a vacuum source a ported vacuum source vs. a manifold vacuum source. (But I may have that backwards though.) This would fool the EZL into thinking that the engine is under a semi part throttle condition and thus is in need of more ignition lead. Obviously, I would need to proceed with this plan slowly, gingerly, and carefully and it would have to be just a little vacuum being supplied, not a lot cause we are only after a little more ignition advance, not a lot. I'll test and monitor the different vacuum ports on the engine with my vacuum gauge under varying conditions to see which port will serve this goal best. I'm thinking the one that sucks the fuel vapors out of the charcoal canister may be a front runner for this job.

Anybody have any thoughts on any of this? There's an older Nissan Maxima that runs consistent 15.9s (my 15.9s are NOT consistent) at the track that I want to be able to spank!
Regards, Eric

Eric

I would think the manifold vacuum would give a more linear smoother signal to the EZL.
The ported may cause low RPM problem as the signal is a bit more choppy.

Anybody fool around with a one inch spacer between the throttle body and the manifold.
I know it works on LS2 Chevy engines as I installed one on my C6 vette.
On other engines it is not so effective...
It's typical a machined aluminum plate with a helix bore...theory is a larger charge of air that is sped up by the helix bore...doesn't increase volume so will not lean out.

Ed A.

JayRash · #**219** 08-19-2011, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RBYCC

Jay

Falls in line with my baseline dyno pulls for my M103-12V USA spec motor.
Stock engine tuned to factory spec with stock cat and exhaust
135.9 RWP @ 5500RPM published 177HP
145.3 Wtorque @ 4500RPM published 188 torque
My torque band seems lower then yours !.

Your Euro spec should be about 10HP/Torque at the wheels higher.

Ed A.

i know ed that my M103 seems running a lower total tq number than stock which was rated at 260+nm at 4500. this leads me to think that the cam timing must have been set with retard at some point. which in it self brings up other questions. usually retading a single cam engine will lead to shifting of the power range up wards in the rpm range, thus maybe the trick has little effect on top end maybe a few hps 5 at best. the rest must have come from the retard. and any better low end i felt could be very much due to the increased timing by the trick when warm. its another reason y my M103 had no knock with the trick. Eric will report with time what he finds on his car.

400Eric · #**220** 08-20-2011, 02:31 AM

Yes Jay, I will report, and yes, it may take some time, just like it dd this time. After all, it was about 2 years ago that I first made plans to do a ECT mod to Benzer1!

Ed, did you ever baseline your CE at the track before you put the turbos on?
Regards, Eric

RBYCC · #**221** 08-20-2011, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 400Eric

Yes Jay, I will report, and yes, it may take some time, just like it dd this time. After all, it was about 2 years ago that I first made plans to do a ECT mod to Benzer1!

Ed, did you ever baseline your CE at the track before you put the turbos on?
Regards, Eric

Eric

The numbers I responded to Jay were the baseline:
135.9 RWP @ 5500RPM published 177HP
145.3 Wtorque @ 4500RPM published 188 torque

Many, many years ago, probably 1991? I ran a 16.3 @ 86.0 at ATCO on Dunlop D40-M2's

Road tests on the AMG 320CE were 15.4 / 91MPH Brit mag test on a widebody and 15.3 / 93MPH September 1988 C&D AMG 3.2 M103 231BHP/234Torque with 3.27 rear gear.

First pulls after TT install at 6.5psi boost:
195.6 RWP @ 5500RPM
220.4 Wtorque @ 4250RPM

Made two 1/4 mile runs in 39F temp and damp conditions on Falken FK-452's which don't like temps below 55-60F.
First run was 19.721 @ 89.83MPh smoking tires for an 1/8
Second run was 14.392 @ 98.68 .293 R/T, 2.37 60' walking it off the line.

Last pulls at 7.5psi boost along with more efficient intake and boost tubing and K&N air filter:
260.8 RWP @ 5819RPM
301.8 Wtorque @ 4156RPM

Tuning on the dyno to get the torque peak lower and the HP peak higher.

All the pulls were made on a Mustang load dyno with a calculated 30% drive train loss.

After I get the car back from paint I'll add water/meth, boost up to 9.5-10psi, hotter nology coil and throw in some old school Beru S1K solid silver core plugs.

These changes should result in 10%-15% more RWP.
I would think with the 12" tread width on the rear Kumho XS soft rubber , I should see low 13's around 108 and if really lucky a high 12 and 111.

Ed A.

gsxr · #**222** 08-20-2011, 07:50 PM

FYI... typical driveline loss is roughly 18% on a Mercedes with 722.3 transmission, give or take a percent or two, using stock wheels/tires on the chassis dyno. That means:

RWHP / 0.82 = crank HP (estimated)

Example: 261rwhp / 0.82 = 318hp at crank (estimated)

20% (or higher) loss estimates will result in artificially inflated crank HP numbers. If you want to be really conservative you can figure about 15% loss. Dunno what it might be with a manual trans, but maybe a percent or two less. (?)

RBYCC · #**223** 08-20-2011, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gsxr

FYI... typical driveline loss is roughly 18% on a Mercedes with 722.3 transmission, give or take a percent or two, using stock wheels/tires on the chassis dyno. That means:

RWHP / 0.82 = crank HP (estimated)

Example: 261rwhp / 0.82 = 318hp at crank (estimated)

20% (or higher) loss estimates will result in artificially inflated crank HP numbers. If you want to be really conservative you can figure about 15% loss. Dunno what it might be with a manual trans, but maybe a percent or two less. (?)

Not totally true.......

Depends on the type of dyno that you're doing your pulls on...
18% is typical on an inertia type whereas 30% is common on a eddy current load type dyno.

Inertia type like a DynoJet tests your vehicle's ability to accelerate the drum of inertia, which is about 2500 pounds, and does not add aerodynamic load to the equation. It uses a simple formula to calculate how much horsepower it takes to propel a given weight to a certain speed. To get get torque, the rpm is used to "calculate" it, from the HP calculation.

The load type like a Mustang add the difference between the weight of the drum, and your actual vehicle weight, add aerodynamic load, AND, also use a strain gage to DIRECTLY measure the torque, not calculate it.

The load type gives a more accurate RWP reading then the inertia type and you can better tune on a load type.

400Eric · #**224** 08-21-2011, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 400Eric

I have no doubt that this mod works when the engine is operating at elevated temperatures, I saw it first hand with Benzer3. That's why I'm leaving the resistor hooked up so that I'll see the benefit in daily driving.

I do however need to come up with a way of advancing the timing when the engine is at around 80C. Anybody have any ideas? The one that I have come up with is to move the vacuum line the feeds the vacuum signal to the EZL to a different source, one that still maintains a little vacuum even when under WOT conditions. We used to call such a vacuum source a ported vacuum source vs. a manifold vacuum source. (But I may have that backwards though.) This would fool the EZL into thinking that the engine is under a semi part throttle condition and thus is in need of more ignition lead. Obviously, I would need to proceed with this plan slowly, gingerly, and carefully and it would have to be just a little vacuum being supplied, not a lot cause we are only after a little more ignition advance, not a lot. I'll test and monitor the different vacuum ports on the engine with my vacuum gauge under varying conditions to see which port will serve this goal best. I'm thinking the one that sucks the fuel vapors out of the charcoal canister may be a front runner for this job.

Anybody have any thoughts on any of this? There's a mid-90s Nissan Maxima that runs consistent 15.9s (my 15.9s are NOT consistent) at the track that I want to be able to spank!
Regards, Eric

Dave, you never weighed in on the above post.
Also, the difference in the amount of power robbed by automatics vs. the amount of power robbed by manuals is greater than you think. It's a known fact that some automatics rob as much as 45 horsepower! The power loss range for automatics is 18-22% while the power loss range for manuals is 15-18%. I think our 722.3 autos are at least in the 20% range. Did you know these old dinosaur 722.3s have over a thousand moving parts? Supposedly the 5 spd auto that replaced it has only about half that many moving parts. These old trannys aren't the lightest things around either. Lots of reciprocating weight!

Ed, thanks for the informative post. As I understand it, another mark against the inertia type dynos is that turbo cars don't really build full boost on them because they don't fully properly load the engine like it is loaded in the real world. Do you agree with that?

Jay, you said your chassis dyno is a Bosch dyno. Is that an eddy current load type dyno or inertia type dyno?
Regards, Eric

gsxr · #**225** 08-21-2011, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RBYCC

Not totally true.......

Depends on the type of dyno that you're doing your pulls on...
18% is typical on an inertia type whereas 30% is common on a eddy current load type dyno. ... The load type gives a more accurate RWP reading then the inertia type and you can better tune on a load type.

Do you have any URL's to back up this claim?

Here's some interesting reading on dyno numbers in general, lazy types can skip to the summary at the bottom of the page:
http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/POWER3.htm