Well, got the 6.9 dynoed today.
Was put on the rollers and he revved it out to 5000 rpm in second gear...WOW!!! Sounded great!!!!
Checked the timing and the mixture.
Puts out 173 BHP at the rear wheels.
Does this sound about right??
He said the power seemed good, the only problem is the injectors do need replacing as they were a bit "daggy" at part throttle.
Still can't get over the great sound of the motor @ 5000RPM.
The exhaust note was fantastic!!
Bandolero, I'm having trouble downloading the sound file, I can't find the link. :D
The job of a V8 is to provide power foremost, then secondly, make the owner (and others) aware by feel and/or sound that a V8's packed under the bonnet. ;D. I reckon my 350 has a nice tone and yes, at over 4000rpm it sounds great but I must stop doing that.
Never get's deafening like some older Holdens and Fords with homemade exhausts that "crack" like a Harley. Converesly, a colleague with a genIII 5.8l Berlina (think that's right), with stock exhaust, you can hardly hear the motor let alone pick what's under the bonnet.
Does the Dyno do torque and power? ie newton metres and kilowatts.
"Does the Dyno do torque and power? ie newton metres and kilowatts."
I dunno... ???
The reason I had it dynoed was to get the timing and mixture right.
He asked me if I wanted Kilowatts or BHP and seeing I am over 50yo, I wanted BHP. Not interested in modern words like "Kilowatts." :)
All he said was that it put out 173 BHP at the rear wheels at about 4400 rpm.
He gave me a printed graph as well.
Hi fellows
173 RW hp ? Sorry for being so candid but isn't that rather low ?
I understood that RWhp is usually 25% less than flywheel DIN horspower.
Please explain...
Denis
Paris, France
The factory australian 6.9 brochure tells me that the 6.9 motor puts out 198kilowatts at 4200 rpm
but thats the motor not at the rear wheels, you loose some power through the drive train.
198 kilowatts converted into horsepower is 269.20,
does seem like a fair bit of loss
but then again you are looking at a 30 year old car, there would be a lot of compoents that wear and reduce performace.
Here is a link to convert kilowatts to horsepower and vise versa:
http://www34.brinkster.com/fjcsuper/hpkwcalc.htm
Des: I couldn't get that site to work in any of six browsers (IE not amongst them, as I refuse to have such a crock of Microslops fertiliser on my Mac); it comes up okay, but when I enter a number in either field and click on 'Convert' nothing happens except both fields go blank. It's not a lack of Javascript or anything like that, so I threw away the site.
Here's a much broader conversion site that I frequently use for conversions: http://www.onlineconversion.com/ (http://www.onlineconversion.com/).
The mechanic said to expect at least a 60 BHP loss through the drive train.
I am going to put new leads, plugs, injectors and clean the fuel system, including the fuel distributor, then try it again.....need money first.. :(
He also said that he would have liked it a bit richer at full throttle and to check the fuel flow specs with the correct equipment.
After all this is done I certainly hope to get even more performance.
Must admit though, the car sure "flys" now!!!
Have you considered a performance warm up regulator at all?
see here:
http://www.m-100.cc/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=789&SearchTerms=UTCIS
Quote from: Bandolero on 05 August 2006, 07:21 PM
The mechanic said to expect at least a 60 BHP loss through the drive train.
I've heard this figure before, but that seems a little ludacris...If that figure were true, my '71 220D would have
0 HP at the wheel...
Quote from: 116.025 on 05 August 2006, 09:05 PM
Quote from: Bandolero on 05 August 2006, 07:21 PM
The mechanic said to expect at least a 60 BHP loss through the drive train.
I've heard this figure before, but that seems a little ludacris...If that figure were true, my '71 220D would have 0 HP at the wheel...
"At least 60bhp", maybe rounded up by one. ie 59bhp drop and 1 horse to keep the 220 rolling. :D Good point though.
I wasn't so sure about the dyno figures only because my 350 is supposed to be 205hp. Assuming that's not at the wheels, but if you take mine down to 150bhp and 173 for yours bandolero, there doesn't seem to be too much difference for a motor that's twice the size. It will be interesting to see what improvement is made with new parts.
60HP seems a rather blanket statement to make for all cars.
every car would be different, different transmissions, diffs, all transfer the power differently to the road and have different affects of the final power output from the wheels.
Interesting link Des from your last post.
A summary on the HP: for a "fresh" 6.9 is for a US spec car; 250hp motor with approx 200hp on the dyno and for a Euro; 286hp dropping to 228hp on the dyno. Working on a 20% difference for rated hp of motor and on the dyno.
Quote from: oscar on 05 August 2006, 11:42 PM
Interesting link Des from your last post.
A summary on the HP: for a "fresh" 6.9 is for a US spec car; 250hp motor with approx 200hp on the dyno and for a Euro; 286hp dropping to 228hp on the dyno. Working on a 20% difference for rated hp of motor and on the dyno.
Yes it seems Australian and US spec motors were choaked down with polution gear, maybe even the compression ratio in the motor isn't as high as compared to the Euros?
One of the first things on any 6.9 owners mind who is looking for extra power would be to unchoak the motor, remove/disconnect pollution (power sapping) equipment and fit a air cleaner and exaust that allows the motor to breathe better.
Nathan, we should get together the 6.9 guys here and visit a DYNO in Perth; we could get all the cars done on a Saturday morning...what do you think?
Quote from: styria on 07 August 2006, 01:44 PM
H have followed this topic with a great deal of interest and found the dyno results of Bandolero's 6.9 somewhat disappointing, but I guess the dyno test doesn't lie.
Not having a 6.9, I could (and probably should) keep my big mouth shut. But...
First of all, I think the more exciting (albeit subjective) means of evaluating your car's power is relative to other cars. Now, I have your standard, boring (to you 6.9rs, anyway) 450SEL. But this car really seems to motor relative to a lot of traffic - and that without my having to stomp on the accelerator. And when I really do need to get into that other lane and DO a little stomping, I rarely don't get into that lane. And I can only imagine what that extra 2-plus liters gives you guys.
I wrote a post once that included horsepower figures from bygone musclecars to show that the 6.9 - even the Euro - wasn't lord and master in the power department. But let me say this: there is also gearing and rear ends to consider, and MBz seemed to have built these cars with the right balance of zoom-attributes to "get there." I've got some friends w/ new V-6 and 8 engines that supposedly WAY overpower my 4.5L in horses; but somehow they don't really seem to do it on the road. And if I'm doing 60 and decide to go 80 - uphill, no less - I feel like I've got some major "oompha" relative to most of the other cars on the road around me. And again, your 6.9s have all the more "oompha."
I think Bandolero's got it right; he's using the dyno to improve the individual performace of HIS car. Yeah, cars lose power as they age - and our cars are old - but that doesn't mean that he can't make his the best it can be.
If you have a 6.9 - particularly a Euro - you've got a great automobile that continues to have legendary status. I don't think there's anything to be disappointed about.
But what do I know? I just have a 4.5.
Mike
Hey Mike,
Don't put your 450 down, I would love to have a decent 450SEL (with the 4.5 lt motor) to use as everyday transport. I use a 280SE and I hate getting shutdown by Hyundai Excels off from the lights.
However, above 110kph it turns on and will then blow them off. In fact the acceleration above 110 kph is quite fast. Pity the speed limit is 110!!!!
Long live the 450SELs.
Quote from: Bandolero on 10 August 2006, 05:51 PMPity the speed limit is 110!!!!
I thought that was only for 2nd gear! ::)
this could be a goer Chris, although for me personally, its a little hectic at present...regardless, if the others were amenable to a time in the near future, im sure i could try and make some time...must wait for my mechanic to return to do a water pump switch from goldy to silver one and then get leaky pump repaired! oh the financial pain of it!
regards
nathan
Bandolero,
No, my friend, I'm not putting my 4.5 down; I'm trying to say that it's power is quite excellent, and the 6.9 would be even more powerful yet. Other than "bragging rights" - and the inner satisfaction of owning one of the world's most expensive cars for pennies (and just a couple at that) on the dollar - I'm quite content with my 450SEL relative to the 6.9. Someday, perhaps, I'll have a 6.9 yet, but until that day I'm very happy with my old girl.
I am actually quite surprised at the performace of my "little" 4.5; after all, that's only 276 cubic inches, which is fairly small by 70's U.S. auto standards. Yet it actually had both more horsepower AND more torque than my 1990 Cadillac Brougham, which had a 175 h.p 5.7 (350 c.i.) engine. That on top of the fact that it was running a relatively antiquated and horespower-robbing smog pump/cat converter. For a car that is as heavy as the 450SEL, with a powerplant that is as relatively small as the 4.5L, these 450SELs really motor.
Now the 6.9 (424 c.i.), that's a pretty big motor by any era's standards, isn't it?
Mike
P.S. One of the things I WAS trying to say in my previous post was that these cars seem to perform better than their dyno numbers would indicate that they ought to. My U.S. 450SEL - back in the day - had 190 h.p., but it sure seems to drive more powerfully than that. Hey, for those of you who know your childrens' stories, perhaps I have "The Little [4.5L] Engine That Could"! I shall endeavor to listen for "I think I can, I think I can, I think I can..." the next time I pass somebody by on the grade.