Hey guys, just came back with my friend's dyno session....

2003 6spd, 900miles, with UR pulleys, here is the graph...

Temp: 64.8degree, and the motor is kinda hot after all day driving plus racing..... according to the dyno done by VTEC.net video, the blue STOCK CLS 6spd dynoed at 206hps and 193lbs of torque...

 

Do not worry about the numbers saying 200hps or something, just because we happen to have the line there... thats why, it means NOTHING!

 

BTW, this is the link to the video dynoed by vtec.net on a 2003 CLS 6spd blue with 1900miles on it.....

now remember, the dyno that we have, only right after install... couple more days later, after the ECU learned, it will add just a bit more... plus, the car JUST barely broken in....]

http://www.acura-cl.com/forums/showt...highlight=dyno

 

Does it have all of the pulleys installed?

Seems a bit low to me. I would have expected higher numbers. Especially with a full set of UR pulleys.

And 206hp on stock 6sp would be a 20% drive train loss. That seems a little high to me too. Sure it wasn't a auto CLS? I'll have to go watch that video.

I'd expect 220hp on a stock 6ps CLS. With a 15% drivetrain loss.

LOL, mabye im to sleepy and I should go get some shut eye. Wouldn't be my 1st brain fart today.

EDIT:
After watching the video...

Coolant temp makes sense for difference in HP

Interesting the LSD kills some power too.

 

Well bro, watch the video before you start questions like IS IT AN AUTO CLS and bla bla bla, that is the reason WHY I PROVIDE THE LINK!!!!!!

well, go to dyno area, look at those charts.... CLS auto with intake and headers and stuff... only making, 225-235hps, and not even 200lbs of torque.... so i think thats pretty good for a ALMOST stock 6spd making that power!~ Well, BTW, pulleys do not make 30hps at the wheels yo! if it make 10 at the wheel, thats good already!

 

Aight BRO

for your info even the VTEC guy said he expected 220hp+ too. And I said "guess I'll have to go watch the video" As I was confused by the #'s

Sheesh, no reason to jump down my throat.

And I have no need to go to the dyno forums. I've seen many CLS dynos (both auto and manual trannys) been following the CLS for 2.5 years now. I've seen better stock 6pd dynos...

 

well, no, i am not jumping down ur throat.... you were the one to diss the results..... imagine if you get a new car, and poeple trashing it, and saying your car is shitty and stuff, how would you feel! BTW, i am not trying to be mean, dont take it personal....

Edit:

Siggy, dont take this personal, we are all in one group as a team.... never mean to bite on you at all! to me, all CL ppl, its about we all watch over each other and not letting others burn us....

 

It's all good, but show me where I said you car is shitty?!?!?!?!?

LOL I'd never say anything like that.

Do a search on the forums too. Not all of the dynos are in that dyno forum. In fact a lot of them are not.

I know for sure "Shawn S" and "I am RobG" dyno'd their 6spd's

They both have 18's if I remember correctly. And CT headers. i think RobG's CLS did close to 250 hp, with headers, and Intake. Which is impressive with 18" wheels (most 18's anyway)

CT headers are usually 15-23hp to the wheels (close anyway)

Your car all stock accept the pulleys?

 

is the 18s light or heavy that makes a realli big diffference

 

Ya, definetly. So does humidity/air temperature. I've had some bad days at the track in 90 degree weather with 85-95% humidity.

 

lol 90 egrees..

 

i am getting the set of 18X7.5 Enkei RPM2 u think it is good?

 

Zunfai, Siggy asking if your car is almost stock.... yes, his car is almost stock except pullies.....

 

Ya they look nice/good construction. You know how much they weigh?

Stock CLS wheels are about 24 lbs.

 

around high 17 or mid 17 ibs

 

this is odd y ain't my signiture on?

 

you have to set it up yo!

 

That is not to far from what I would expect if in fact the coolant was hot after significant driving. There could be about 5 HP more with proper preparations. With 800 miles on the OD I hit 241WHP on a hot day in Atlanta, I did have headers and a moddified intake. I'm going back soon to re-test the car.

I beleive we are now seeing a potential reason for the varying dyno runs. I do wish everyone would record their coolant temps during the runs for comparison sake, not easy to do for most unless a scan tool is handy.

 

I dunno about all of you guys but those UR pulleys are waaaaay to much $$$....I'll wait for the OBX ones.

 

moonmaster is on a roll

 

.

 

moonmaster

 

Not just the cooling temps, but the ambient air temp and cooling setup at a given dyno location (A brief description of the number of fans placed around the car).

The SAE may correct for the air going into the engine, but it isn't going to correct for the change timing change related to intake air temp.

If I had a magic wand I'd second your suggestion with:

IAT (Intake air temp)
ECT (Engine coolant temp)
MAP (the actual vacuum in the plenum)

There was a guy that did a dyno in a 2003 CLS Automatic in 40-degree weather that got a 212 HP run.

Temp specs from local weather:

The CLS is very sensitive to temp, barometric pressure, and humidity. IMO, the temp is the item that has the largest impact on dyno and 1/4 miles times in the CLS.

SPECULATION 1:
I still have some "thoughts" about that RES project and how it was tested at 90-100 degrees with air density reduced by a large amount. The volume of the cavity from a resonance perspective (speed of sound) and mass charging due to air density would be effected by the intake air AND engine coolant temperatures.

EXPERIMENT ???:
It might be worth hooking up a potentiometer to the IAT and seeing what happens to power output. I don't know if you can get at the ignition timing, but if you could it would be an interesting. At least you have the OBD II scan tool to reset an out-of-range code.

If you look at the dynos that were done in high temps, they just don't look that great.

I looked up the temps for Chicago on the Nov. 2nd, 2002 and got this:

(Link: http://www.wunderground.com/history...ilyHistory.html)

Mean Temperature 39.2 °F / 4.0 °C
Max Temperature 48.2 °F / 9.0 °C
Min Temperature 30.2 °F / -1.0 °C

Pressure 30.1 “ (that’s ideal)


link to dyno: http://www.acura-cl.com/forums/showt...threadid=85179

link to HP comment thread:
http://www.acura-cl.com/forums/showt...5&pagenumber=1

 

can i get this in english

now seriously why dont you go work for honda/acura i think you have posted enough information on this board to pass all there expertise exams....

sidemarker

 

Right there with ya, in fact I am planning on recording the data at an upcoming dyno session. And yes, ignition advance is one of the parameters available. The one it does not show, which I would like is Knock Retard. I've got an email into Alex Pepper on this matter and will report back.

As for hooking up a pot to the IAT, no can due, well to a point. The voltage output increases as the as temperature decreases. So by hooking up a pot would only allow you to fool the ECU into thinking it is warmer, which would work to test if timing is backed off and by how much if it was already cool out!!! The problem here is with our speed density system, can't get too crazy with that pot or A/F ratio will get thrown out of wack...

There is a 5 VDC VCC output which could be used with a pot to give whatever IAT value desired. I did this last year but never took ignition timing values. I may try to hook this up on the dyno just to test with it. Looks like I might as well go with the hourly rate on this upcoming session...

 

Holy Sh*t!! That is why I love this board sooo much!! Peeps like "scalbert" and "Ericl" really take others to school with the stuff they know.. same thing with the Wheel/wight/rotation info a couple threads back.

I just want to say thanks to everyone who has the knowledge and is welling to take the time to explain things to an average JOE such as myself. I am very greatful!! (I only understand about 50% on what they are talking about, but it sure is fun to do more research on it)

 

Yes! EricL and Scalbert's scientific threads really go along way to enlighten all of us here on the CL Forum! Keep up the hard work you guys. Thanks!

 

I left you that PM and got your reply. The more I thought about this, I wonder if we are on the same "page".

I have a quick and dirty diagram from checking out the helms. It does indeed look like the voltage goes to 4.8 when cold and .1 when very hot. I checked the schematic (again) and the sensor is shown as a resistor with an arrow through it (temperature sensitive resistor -- RTD).
Here is a quick and dirty diagram:

Why shouldn’t this work if what you say is true?



IF the voltage goes up with decreasing temps, the resistance of R_IAT_sensor must be going up.

IAT_volts = R_pullup / (R_IAT + R_trimpot).

If R_IAT and/or R_trimpot go up, the voltage goes up.


IF R_pullup was replaced with a current source, then

IAT_volts = I_from_current_source * (R_IAT + R_trimpot)

In any case, the series resistor or variable pot to control the increase in IAT value, would allow the IAT voltage to be increased (in theory, this should provide more timing advance).

Clamp could be added to limit the max voltage level as shown in curve.

 

Same page, different paragraph...

Our IAT does not use an RTD. An RTD is used as a resistance measurement only and not meant to be used for voltage control. Plus they are normally more costly (and more accurate) especially when getting into a four wire RTD.

Our IAT is a thermister, but it does decrease resistance as the temperature increases as mentioned. But as shown, it might work. So you are saying to tie the wiper and one leg of the potentiometer onto the ground of the IAT sensor?? Not use a pot as a voltage divider on the output??

10K ohm should work fine to test with...

However, you just made it more difficult. The sensor Ground is shared among other sensors. To not affect them all you would need to splice in after that split. So more than likely you would hook up at the sensor. Now I need to run a couple of wires through the firewall or leave a pot under the hood. But that should be fine for testing purposes.

It will also be interesting to see how much of an affect this will have on fueling. I might rig something up later today and test this...

 

I'm happy to use the generic term: "thermistor".
Thermistor with NTC (negative temperature coefficient)..


NO on the pot as a voltage divider.



If one side of the actual sensor is grounded to the engine, don't put it there. An ohmmeter/DVM would indicate that it a millisecond.

I'm just talking about putting a variable R in series with the sensor and trimming.

Put it on the high side of the sensor (non SG2 side) -- it doesn't matter, it's in series.

There is probably a current source pulling-up. I've got some "Type-C" tables that might be close (I don't know for sure).

The thermistor’s R-value is: 10K at -4F and 10-ohms at 300F on one I’m looking at right now.

 

how about elcetronically advancing the timings.... like say by 2 degrees... this could be done as easily as modifiying a signal...

 

As to a direct method -- just moving the timing signal 2-degrees up -- like moving the clamp on a distributor on an older model car – there are issues with doing that. At a minimum there are items OTHER than the spark advance that are looking at that timing signal. (I'm not worried about the "electronic process" of skewing a pulsed signal by a relative amount -- it can be accomplished though analog and/or digital means)

I'm not saying it is or it isn't possible -- I don't know for sure. I really have some doubts about changing a "sync signal" the controls more than just the "spark timing"...

Scalbert will probably chime-in and I'm sure he can add tons of information.

 

Ah crap, forget everything I mentioned earlier. I just re-checked the Helms manual. I had it in my head that the IAT sensor was a three wire device. Where putting a pot on the signal leg would only allow you to decrease the value from its current state.

OK then, I'll slap one on later today to see how effective it is in varying timing along with how much it alters fuel delivery. If the FT value start going down I'll drop a pot on the MAP signal to correct for this change.

This will probably be a better method, and easier, than I originally planned. But I still would prefer to alter it only at WOT. I have a few mux chips which can certainly take care of that; use the TPS signal at the TTL level trigger.

 

If could be done but might be difficult or mess with other controls as Eric mentioned.

The timing is based on knowing what position the engine is in. It determines this by primarily monitoring the Crank Position Sensor and the Cam Position Sensor. You could adjust timing by adjusting the position of these sensors a couple of degrees. But the ECU also uses these signals to fire the fuel injectors. We really do not want to alter the fueling timing; at low engine speeds this could be noticeable.

The next area would be the signals to the coils. In other vehicles with a single coil or a pack, you have a single signal to modify. But in our case we have six individual signals. So you could modify these signals to get more timing but it is cumbersome.

The best solution would be for a re-programmed ECU with optimized spark maps for performance....