The new 292hp 3.5L V6 from MB premieres at Geneva
03-07-06, 02:24 PM
#46
Pole Position
Originally Posted by TRDFantasy
I'm very interested in seeing dyno curves of N/A V6 and V8 engines from Mercedes, or VW, where torque is given as a range. Showing torque curves for AMG engines is not the best comparison, and as I recall, AMG usually give specific numbers for torque for their engines.
03-07-06, 03:38 PM
#47
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: A better place
Posts: 7,285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know the 6.3L is naturally aspirated, but that's a big displacement AMG engine, which is not fair to compare in the context of this discussion.
But if you insist ...
The 6.3L V8 has impressive torque output, but rather disconcerting that torque starts to rapidly drop off after 5000 RPM. So much for the "flat" torque curve some people claim
.
Also, I have FINALLY found proof, newr, that the range is not an accurate measure.
Look here, technical specs for the SL 65 AMG's engine:
http://www.mbusa.com/amg/specs.jsp?p...technical_data
It lists output. .
604 hp @ 4,800 - 5,100 rpm
torque. .
738 lb-ft @ 2,000 - 4,000 rpm
According to that dyno posted by Mr Johnson, the torque range does indeed correspond to the dyno, but there is a huge torque drop-off above 4000 RPM, which again is disconcerting. It shows the engine somewhat lacks in the top end.
But when you look at the HP, the range supposedly is between 4,800 - 5,100 RPM. Now if you look at the dyno, you can clearly see that there is a peak that HP reaches, and that 604HP is not sustained for that 300RPM range, which discredits the whole range approach.
If anyone can find dyno curves for V6 engines specifically for Mercedes, or VW engines, I would not be surprised to find more evidence that the range approach is not all that accurate.
There is no point in providing a range approach, as it simply adds confusion. Without a dyno chart, a range is meaningless. It makes more sense to have exact peak figures. If you wish to see how the power and torque is distributed, look at a dyno curve. There is no need to be listing ranges.
Also, with that 6.3L V8, there is a clear peak HP, and peak torque value. If AMG provides figures in a range for this engine, then it should be automatically discredited, as that would not be accurate.
But if you insist ...
The 6.3L V8 has impressive torque output, but rather disconcerting that torque starts to rapidly drop off after 5000 RPM. So much for the "flat" torque curve some people claim
.Also, I have FINALLY found proof, newr, that the range is not an accurate measure.
Look here, technical specs for the SL 65 AMG's engine:
http://www.mbusa.com/amg/specs.jsp?p...technical_data
It lists output. .
604 hp @ 4,800 - 5,100 rpm
torque. .
738 lb-ft @ 2,000 - 4,000 rpm
According to that dyno posted by Mr Johnson, the torque range does indeed correspond to the dyno, but there is a huge torque drop-off above 4000 RPM, which again is disconcerting. It shows the engine somewhat lacks in the top end.
But when you look at the HP, the range supposedly is between 4,800 - 5,100 RPM. Now if you look at the dyno, you can clearly see that there is a peak that HP reaches, and that 604HP is not sustained for that 300RPM range, which discredits the whole range approach.
If anyone can find dyno curves for V6 engines specifically for Mercedes, or VW engines, I would not be surprised to find more evidence that the range approach is not all that accurate.
There is no point in providing a range approach, as it simply adds confusion. Without a dyno chart, a range is meaningless. It makes more sense to have exact peak figures. If you wish to see how the power and torque is distributed, look at a dyno curve. There is no need to be listing ranges.
Also, with that 6.3L V8, there is a clear peak HP, and peak torque value. If AMG provides figures in a range for this engine, then it should be automatically discredited, as that would not be accurate.
03-07-06, 03:52 PM
#48
Pole Position
Originally Posted by TRDFantasy
I know the 6.3L is naturally aspirated, but that's a big displacement AMG engine, which is not fair to compare in the context of this discussion.
But if you insist ...
But if you insist ...
Originally Posted by TRDFantasy
I'm very interested in seeing dyno curves of N/A V6 and V8 engines from Mercedes ...
Originally Posted by TRDFantasy
It shows the engine somewhat lacks in the top end.
We aren't talking about a civic with 133 lb/ft ofTQ here. I'd be a happy customer to take the severe drop-off in TQ. Besides, at high RPM levels you don't care about TQ as much as HP (You know like a formula 1 engine) [Edit:] Care to show us a dyno of an engine you believe shows the TQ qualities you would like at the top end?
I'm all for full disclosure and it's fun for bench racing but a range of 3K RPM at TQ levels we are discussing proves a huge area under the curve without needing to be specific. (I won't comment about who will/won't notice the 300 RPM "range" in HP).
Last edited by Mr Johnson; 03-07-06 at 03:56 PM.
03-07-06, 04:49 PM
#49
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Mr Johnson
Not to get too into it but this is kind of like the HP discussions that Rolls would have. Rather than a number they would simply quote "adequate". Sort of like the MB TQ range. Once you get to a *minimum* of 500 Nm of TQ across a range that broad it can simply be termed "adequate"!
That said... Here is the v12 (sl65) graph and the new v8 graph. Note that the v8 isn't "flat" but it is above 500 Nm for most of the rev range which is good enough for me.
and
Here's a pretty flat TQ curve for a Lexus V8:
That said... Here is the v12 (sl65) graph and the new v8 graph. Note that the v8 isn't "flat" but it is above 500 Nm for most of the rev range which is good enough for me.
and
Here's a pretty flat TQ curve for a Lexus V8:
In contrast, the only cars that could beat it were HIGHLY MODDED Supras.
He took some of hte engine cover off and it was a sight to behold!
03-07-06, 07:11 PM
#50
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
TRDFantasy - as far as a 'flat torque curve', it's not realistic to expect any engine to have a flat line ALL ACROSS THE RPM RANGE, but I'm sure you know this.
The fact that power production drops off quickly on the AMG engines at high rpms is hardly an issue when the car's already going 160mph at that point.
Peak torque and torque curves are both useful data.
The fact that power production drops off quickly on the AMG engines at high rpms is hardly an issue when the car's already going 160mph at that point.
Peak torque and torque curves are both useful data.
03-07-06, 07:20 PM
#51
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
Originally Posted by newr
Don't think so.. different dyno machine gives different result depend on many factors like temp, elev, humidity.. etc...and etc..
03-07-06, 07:44 PM
#52
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: A better place
Posts: 7,285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mr Johnson
I do not insist you asked:
We aren't talking about a civic with 133 lb/ft ofTQ here. I'd be a happy customer to take the severe drop-off in TQ. Besides, at high RPM levels you don't care about TQ as much as HP (You know like a formula 1 engine) [Edit:] Care to show us a dyno of an engine you believe shows the TQ qualities you would like at the top end?
I'm all for full disclosure and it's fun for bench racing but a range of 3K RPM at TQ levels we are discussing proves a huge area under the curve without needing to be specific. (I won't comment about who will/won't notice the 300 RPM "range" in HP).
We aren't talking about a civic with 133 lb/ft ofTQ here. I'd be a happy customer to take the severe drop-off in TQ. Besides, at high RPM levels you don't care about TQ as much as HP (You know like a formula 1 engine) [Edit:] Care to show us a dyno of an engine you believe shows the TQ qualities you would like at the top end?
I'm all for full disclosure and it's fun for bench racing but a range of 3K RPM at TQ levels we are discussing proves a huge area under the curve without needing to be specific. (I won't comment about who will/won't notice the 300 RPM "range" in HP).
My comment was alluding to previous comments made by newr, and how German engines tend to have "flat" torque curves, which apparently justifies torque being provided in a range
.
03-07-06, 07:46 PM
#53
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: A better place
Posts: 7,285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bitkahuna
TRDFantasy - as far as a 'flat torque curve', it's not realistic to expect any engine to have a flat line ALL ACROSS THE RPM RANGE, but I'm sure you know this.
The fact that power production drops off quickly on the AMG engines at high rpms is hardly an issue when the car's already going 160mph at that point.
Peak torque and torque curves are both useful data.
The fact that power production drops off quickly on the AMG engines at high rpms is hardly an issue when the car's already going 160mph at that point.
Peak torque and torque curves are both useful data.
03-08-06, 12:27 AM
#54
Originally Posted by jrock65
Lexus 306 hp V6 v. MB 292 hp V6
It's hard to say at this point which is the superior engine at this point. The Lexus engine has 14 more hp, but only 7 more torque. Plus, the max torque for the MB engine is available at a lower RPM (3000 rpm v. 4800 rpm).
The 3530 lb. IS350 gets 24.5 mpg. The 3750 lb. CLS350 gets 25.8 mpg. So it would probably be about a 2 mpg difference if they put this engine in the lighter 3495 lb. C350.
I would take a 2 mpg advantage any day for 14 less hp and 7 less torque.
All of this is preliminary so we'll have to wait to see what happens in the real word.
It's hard to say at this point which is the superior engine at this point. The Lexus engine has 14 more hp, but only 7 more torque. Plus, the max torque for the MB engine is available at a lower RPM (3000 rpm v. 4800 rpm).
The 3530 lb. IS350 gets 24.5 mpg. The 3750 lb. CLS350 gets 25.8 mpg. So it would probably be about a 2 mpg difference if they put this engine in the lighter 3495 lb. C350.
I would take a 2 mpg advantage any day for 14 less hp and 7 less torque.
All of this is preliminary so we'll have to wait to see what happens in the real word.
246whp on a Mustang dyno doesnt equate to 306bhpIs this new engine ULEV2? Which engine would you trust to get you to 200k miles?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Blackraven
Car Chat
13
02-26-10 10:23 AM
GFerg
Car Chat
3
06-10-09 07:50 PM
Gojirra99
Car Chat
3
06-27-05 04:23 PM
