edvpt

I am installing a Kleemann Alloy Pulley this weekend so I set up time tomorrow with my dealer to get my fuel settings changed. I will change the Fuel Quantity to Stage II as recommended to help it run richer and counter the fuel leaning attributed to the Pulley. I am debating the change to the Ignition adaptive from base to 93 octane as that retards timing. I have no problem getting 93 or better fuel around my area, its never terribly hot here in Ohio, and so I am thinking of keeping it at the base (default) value. Any thoughts?

Also what other MB DAS changes can or should I have done at the same time? I know the “No Phone” message can be removed so I will have that done. I don’t want the Norway Alarm beep. Any others?

young

i seem to get better fuel efficiency w/ the 93 setting (or the stage 2 setting) so i like that i got it changed.

i don't know if you want the speed sensitive volume changed or not.

that's all i can think of.

Richard

Remember the octane setting is European Octane. And 93 is not very good fuel. 95 is what we get as "normal" unleaded here in the UK, 97/98 octane is good stuff and you pay more for it

Lynn

It seems that the octane settings in US cars are adjusted to the US style octane ratings, just like they are in the operator's manual.

young

you know, this is one of those discussed topics where i keep being convinced it is one way or another. right now, i believe kleemann and renncpe that the 93 octane is indeed the US ratings... and i'm sticking to that story

Buellwinkle

For some reason the fuel settings were locked out on my ECU when they tried to change it. They will try again next week. I'll probably have them get rid of the No Phone message and probably disable TeleAid so I don't get that message either when it expires in a week or so.

rrf

Deleted "No Phone", worked AOK
-3 dB (vs -6dB), for radio attenuation is good

Performance, my tech said my C32 was set to "base"
(Calif 91 octane).

I disgree that the Performance settings are US units, why do you think that?

Challenge, has anyone actually made a performance improvement by changing the performance settings?

young

here's the thread re-discussing the same topic of the 93 RON versus 93 Octane...

https://mbworld.org/forums/showthrea...threadid=10474

let me know what you think.

rrf

Agree there is a lot of good stuff in there, and agree Kleemann's is the best argument made.

But gotta say it: challenge still holds:

Has anyone proven an actual performance increase (not mileage etc) by playing with the performance settings?

Or put another way: If one always uses Calif 91, what is the best setting for Performance? Do you have some real proof, (dyno, advance curve etc)?

young

yup, here's some more info. this was a long time ago...

irvinec32 said, "i did the "performance" setting on my c32, not too happy with it.
at first i thought i was imagining some loss in power, but after having it on the dyno again, my suspicion was confirmed.
i actually lost up to 10 horses in some bands.
but it is important to note that i am in california, where i hear gas is the worst (in terms of performance). the max we can regularly find is 91 octane. you have to hunt for anything better.
so if you can't get 93 octane, i don't recommend this setting.
i am having it switched back!
i could scan it and post the plot if anyone is interested."

note that there are 2 settings here. one is the ron/octane setting and the other is the fuel quantity setting - stage 1,2,3 - which is what irvine set.

MB-BOB

Buellie, you will NOT get a "Tele-Aid disabled" message when you let it expire. Mine expired in May and I have no messages.

rrf

Thanks Young,
You really know where all of the Forum skeletons are kept!

I remember irvinec32, also some others have tried and reset too.

Seems the Performance/Fuel Settings are much easier to mess up than to actually improve Performance with. Its too bad, huh?

Maybe in a few more months we will find the key....

Also there is no guarantee that say a C32 would have a US menu and use US standards. Though I agree with KLEEMANN that it would be crazy for MB to not use US menus and standards on their US cars, but the C32 (because it is limited qty) for example could easily be an exception. If something like that were the case, (and I'm just speculating here) it would cause a bunch of confusion.

One thing we all agree on is the confusion,... or maybe not

Richard

The menu will be provided by the Star Diagnosis system and not by the ECU- the ECU will be returning "numbers", the Star system translating them to the appropriate text ...

So its perfectly possible that they have made a US Star diagnosis that will display US type values ... but I would expect it to do it for all (or no) engines ...

renncpe

I’m not sure why anybody is confused. There is no room for any interpretation in the settings. The settings are based in the US octane standards if you have a US spec car. The setting for 93 octane is not equal to 93 ron it’s like 98 ron. The fuel quantity settings provide more fuel (richer) at WOT, start up, idle.

young

actually, i didn't mean to endorse irvines' position. i posted irvines' impressions only b/c he actually did a dyno... but there are dynos and then there are damned dynos.

i weighed his results against the advice of renncpe and kleemann, 2 pros, and i still feel that their expertise is the best bet to go with.

yeah, i'd say stick w/ the regular settings unless you get a pulley upgrade or something - and then, you should go w/ the manufacturers' recommendations which is 93 octane and stage 2 or 3.

edvpt

After reading all the posts here and elsewhere that I could find on the ECU Ignition Adaptive and Fuel Quantity Adaptive values, as well as the brief conversations I have had with Tuners and MB Mechanics, I have come to this conclusion:

The Fuel Quantity Adaptive is used to supply more fuel and enriches the mixture from the base (default) values. A change to Stage II or higher (Stage III) is important given the pulley upgrade appears to run the engine lean, and this change will supply more fuel which will drop the A/F ratio closer to their pre-pulley levels. So I will go with Stage II.

The Ignition Adaptive is there to limit the engines ability to advance timing from the normal base value. This is used to protect the engine from pre-detonation, especially when Bad Fuel, High Heat, and consistent High Revs are prevalent. The Tuners are recommending a change to 93, as the added boost from their pulley kits puts our engines closer to the pre-detonation egde and this helps pull us back from the edge a little bit. Moving to 93 Octane from base is a Protective decision that has many factors to be considered: Can you get High Octane Fuel (93+) regularly, Are you running your engine HOT, Do you regularly run in the upper 5K+ RPM range, and this will limit the engines ability to advance timing and will impact performance somewhat. For me 93+ is readily available in my area, I do not race this car for long periods ( Its my daily driver ) so high cylinder temp issues or long periods of high revving are not a concern so I will likely leave the value at base and give myself the maximum range of ignition range and thus power.

Any Thoughts? Agree? Disagree?

renncpe

I agree with every thing you have said with one exception The setting for 93 and 91 allow more advance not less.

Randy

edvpt

Randy, How sure of that are you? Not that I doubt you, but that was the one point that there was a lot of conflicting data from what I believe are knowledgeable people. The DAS screen even suggests it’s for retarding timing, quote ”This correction is used to retard timing to prevent the engine ____ fuel is poor” Sorry I won't have the missing words until tomorrow, but I believe its something like "pinging when"



Kleemann, any opinion from the folks in Denmark or Colorado?

renncpe

You are right that is what it said but 93 is the highest quality fuel, retards for 91,and retards for 89 and so on. the base setting does not assume that you will be useing the best fuel. When you set it to 93 you are locked in to use it a lower octain fuel at that point could result in ping or knock (detination).

Randy

Buellwinkle

So if the best fuel you can get is 91 octane (other than racing fuel) should they set it to 91?

renncpe

That is correct.

Randy

rrf

Looks like this is progressing now.....

Couple of questions remain:

Renncpe, in the screenshot originally posted by you? shows "RON" numbers very clearly, is that a non-US car, or are they using "RON" to refer to US spec gas? (post below hopefully)

My MB tech said my C32 was set at Base, "changing to any other setting will make performance worse, even though I am always running 91" he said. Was the Tech wrong then?

BTW as edvpt said, The menu does clearly say "This menu is used to retard the timing to prevent the engine...when fuel is poor"

Not trying to be a pain, just trying to get to the bottom of this, thx everyone.

renncpe

Right it says vaule on RON at least 93 octane it doen not say 93 RON. See the diffrence.

Brandon @ Kleemann

OK- Here it is: The IGN Adaptive Correction. Clearly stated as a correction performed for "poor" fuel. The lesser quality the fuel the less amount of IGN advance. My recommednation: Pulley users set to 93, higher boost from the EATON SC comes at a high price of increased discharge temp. Less initial advance reduces the likely hood of incipent knock. Knock you cant hear but the ECU can and will remove timing to compensate. Not what you want to happen because its removed in large handfuls- resulting in a "falling forward" sensation.

Brandon @ Kleemann

Again- speaks for its self.

What is considered "acceleration"? As I search the WIS and other resources for the ABSOLUTE answer I am sure its not just WOT, but rather an "in excess" of XX% throttle opening. In any event "acceleration" is when you want fat AF ratios- any other time its not so critical. Advice: Stage 2 or 3 for pulley users.