W204 C63 AMG Dyno Graph

[NiC63]

Hey guys, not the best in reading and understanding graphs. This is the dyno Graph of a w204 C63 with a secondary cat delete only. Is the torque low or is that wheel power torque figures?

 

[ToeKnee]

Torque and power lines should cross at around 5250rpm, the fact this looks like it doesn't makes me think the torque curve is missing the correct scale.

 

[Teego]

The lines cross OK but there should be a scale for torque down the right side. Also no scale for rpm. Doesn't say whether RWBHP or corrected for crank BHP.

 

[NiC63]

Can that be whp for torque

 

[Teego]

Nope. The dotted line is torque.

 

[AMGeed]

Doesn't say whether RWBHP or corrected for crank BHP.

With just a secondary cat removal and no known remap, 521bhp has to be the corrected crank figure.
It's a strong figure for no remap, which would make me suspect the car has already been remapped.

 

[NiC63]

What Is the torque figure on the car? Is it approx 388ft/lt or am I reading the graph wrong? First remap on the car no previous tunes. If that is the torque figure that lower than a standard car

 

[benlucas]

What Is the torque figure on the car? Is it approx 388ft/lt or am I reading the graph wrong? First remap on the car no previous tunes. If that is the torque figure that lower than a standard car

It's the horizontal graph (so ~388 lb/ft). Assuming for argument's sake the graph is at the wheels and using a (very) rough multiplication of 1.18 gives 457 lb/ft which is almost spot on for a W204 C63 (443 lb/ft), however, assuming the graph bhp figure is also at the wheels would give 614 which isn't possible without a s/c or similar.

Whichever way you look at it (@Wheels or @flywheel) the figures don't add up. Considering the book states 450hp, a 70 hp increase with just a secondary cat delete and remap is unrealistic. Unless perhaps it's the (480hp) PPP variant?

 

[NiC63]

HP figure seems right as these get to 510-520 with a tune and secondary decat. What seems super low is the torque. torque figures should be around 470-475ft.lb. Correct me if I'm wrong

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

Whichever way you look at it (@Wheels or @flywheel) the figures don't add up. Considering the book states 450hp, a 70 hp increase with just a secondary cat delete and remap is unrealistic. Unless perhaps it's the (480hp) PPP variant?

My understanding is that 510 PS is realistic for the regular W204 C63, bringing the power output m in line with the other models with the M156 engine.

 

[Teego]

HP figure seems right as these get to 510-520 with a tune and secondary decat. What seems super low is the torque. torque figures should be around 470-475ft.lb. Correct me if I'm wrong

You can't tell what the torque is because there is no ft/lb scale on the right of the chart. The numbers on the right are the same as the BHP figures on the left. If you really want to know all your numbers you need to to get it on a decent dyno. But dynos give different numbers depending on many factors.

 

[Teego]

Your graph should look something like this
Google Image Result for https://thumbsnap.com/sc/ot0IZyM4.jpg

 

[Theador]

Does a secondary cat delete give any noticeable performance gains (responsiveness, power) or is it just about sound?

 

[AMGeed]

Does a secondary cat delete give any noticeable performance gains (responsiveness, power) or is it just about sound?

Nothing noticeable. A couple of ponies, but its more about the sound.

 

[350cls]

If anything you lose a tiny bit of responsiveness, on a N/A engine. Nothing to hit your head against a wall about the sound will give you a grin you won't regret

 

[sirius9]

Where was the dyno done? Thats the key question.

A better pic of the graph showing rev range will be more helpful.

 

[f17ant]

With just a secondary cat removal and no known remap, 521bhp has to be the corrected crank figure.
It's a strong figure for no remap, which would make me suspect the car has already been remapped.

+1

 

[Spider10]

My ppp was 503bhp totally standard

 

[Doodle]

The devil is in the detail, and it's missing on this picture.

As the y-axes are the same range, the traces should cross at 5252rpm but you need the x-axis to confirm. There should also be a series of correction values at the bottom which will give an indication of whether things are fudged or not (I've seen printouts claiming 35% transmission losses on a FWD vehicle to give a fantastic headline power figure, for example)

 

[Rich764089]

It's truncated, but as @Doodle says no way of knowing by how much as you can't see x axis details. Obviously no ICE car has >300lbft from 0rpm.