The MeanMachine SLK is on the dyno
Jan 1, 2010 | 05:51 PM
#21
Thread Starter
| AMGFanatic
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,965
From: MonteCarlo
DFW your correct I was underestimating the hp.
393 x.10= 430hp
So my car is around 430bhp and 436.7 TQ
Basically on the wheels I've got more hp than the stock car on the crank and the same applies to the torque figure.
393 x.10= 430hp
So my car is around 430bhp and 436.7 TQ
Basically on the wheels I've got more hp than the stock car on the crank and the same applies to the torque figure.
Last edited by MeanMachine; Jan 1, 2010 at 06:04 PM.
Jan 1, 2010 | 07:43 PM
#22
Thread Starter
| AMGFanatic
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,965
From: MonteCarlo
I am only 30rwhp less than the slowest "supercharged" Kleemann SLK55 without cams
Since I am without cams and N/A that is not a bad trade off.
The Renntech SLK55 / supercharged is 410rwhp also same as the Kleemann S/C without cams
NOT BAD! didnt realise my car was that powerful
Since I am without cams and N/A that is not a bad trade off.
The Renntech SLK55 / supercharged is 410rwhp also same as the Kleemann S/C without cams
NOT BAD! didnt realise my car was that powerful
Last edited by MeanMachine; Jan 1, 2010 at 07:48 PM.
Jan 15, 2010 | 11:21 PM
#30
Teamspeed Pro
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,647
From: Munich,Germany
wow...a lot of cool stuff happened while I was on vacation!
Congrats on achieving those numbers!
I`m sure there is at least 15% drivetrain loss
460hp minus 15% drivetrain loss would be 391 to the wheels..
badass car,Moe !
Congrats on achieving those numbers!
I`m sure there is at least 15% drivetrain loss
460hp minus 15% drivetrain loss would be 391 to the wheels..
badass car,Moe !