Well I lied, it'll only truly be Stage I when we're done with it - we still have our power package pulleys to install along with further tuning:

DSC04647.jpg
Stage 1/2 (SI Intake Splitter Package + Tuning)

DSC04650.jpg

DSC04649.jpg

Needless to say, have to give some love to the SRT-6 motors right? For the non-believers, there will be a fully documented SI-Stage I write-up coming soon.

DSC04651.jpg
Notice the safe AFR levels.

Stay tuned,
JP@SI

Oh and congratulations to the forum member that this motor belongs to.

 

Damn... One lucky S.O.B... :-)

 

are you reading the AF level through the cars' original o2 sensor or is that your own bosch 5 wire installed in the exhaust?

 

The dyno technicians detect A/F using their own wideband 02 sensors (which have been damn accurate to the T - hence how we tune live).

 

the blue line represents your peak run and the green your average run? than what would the #s be stock? something like 295 peak HP? Because those are some very impressive #s.

 

Holy torque! Batman...Now i see what your talking about JP.

 

Okay this is going to be one of the biggest shockers in history...but:

The green line represents a CONSISTENT run of a STOCK dyno to the WHEEL (corrected 1:1). Underrated, I think so. Please, if you guys must, verify this with Church... it's certainly one of the strongest C32 dynos I've ever seen.

 

So what you are saying is that the Dyno you show is from a stock SRT6?

If so, looks like we found the "lost" power between the SLK32 AMG and the SRT6.

 

Green is an initial consistent dyno of the stock SRT-6/C32 (with software-lifted 5,000 rpm fix ONLY - standard on ALL crossfires 3.2L/SRT-6 auto/manual).

Blue is a consistent dyno of the now-tuned/"Stage 1/2" intake kit only - intake + tuning. 350 whp. Who knows what tomorrow will bring (complete Stage I awaits).

 

those numbers are amazing.

 

wow! I was reading on the forum somewhere in a thread, i forget where but that there was a difference in cams on the srt6 and mercedes AMG powered slk32. apparently it seems your making equal hp, so I guess we can put that rumor to rest.

So what's it gonna take to hit the 400 hp barrier? besides a lot of money...

 

Yeah we know who it is, lol. have you made a 0-60 recording of the improved times yet? Curious as to what you've gained.

Now your really gonna smoke HDDP on the track.

 

I noticed that on the first picture written in blue (at the top) are the terms fly wheel torque and power. So the owner of the car had the engine out and installed on an engine dyno for these tests?

 

That's exactly the point I was going to make. It states flywheel hp with SAE correction.

 

What exactly does the SAE correction account for?

 

The correction accounts for power loss through the drivetrain. The dyno measures torque and HP at the rear wheel. The correction then applies a percent drivetrain loss to derive the flywheel torque and HP. The original poster stated that they were using a correction of 1:1, so what is reported as flywheel on the charts is actually what is measured at the rear wheels.

 

So what are you saying... something that is more understandable to people whose tech knowledge is not as advanced...?

 

I know a chassis dyno measures horsepower and torque at the wheels as apposed to an engine dyno that measures at the flywheel. This is the first time I have seen anyone use a form of "correction" to those figures to obtain flywheel measurements.

 

If those are flywheel measurements they are not all that impressive are they?

 

My understanding is that this dyno was a chassis dyno, so the numbers reported are simply torque and HP at the rear wheel. The software for the dyno allows you to put in a correction factor to "correct" the measured numbers to flywheel numbers. For example, assume a car loses 20% of its power through the drivetrain. If the dyno measures 240 HP at the rear wheels, it would report a flywheel HP of 300 with the 20% correction factor. If you didn't enter anything for the correction factor, it would report 240 HP, but would still say flywheel on the chart. I would think that the software should be smart enough to account for that and not report it as flywheel. I'm sure it just depends on how it is setup. The original poster stated that they were not using the correction (1:1 ratio), so you are supposed to ignore that the chart says flywheel and take them as rear wheel numbers.