AMR Performance: Scott Abrino's C43 RaceLogic V-Box 0-60 Results (video link inside)
10-09-2017, 10:10 AM
#1
Former Vendor of MBWorld
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Connecticut - New York
Posts: 283
Received 54 Likes
on
30 Posts
18 MB E63S AMG - 17 MB C43 AMG - Much more!
AMR Performance: Scott Abrino's C43 RaceLogic V-Box 0-60 Results (video link inside)
Video supplied by Scott Abrino
Tests done by Scott Abrino
Scott Abrino, using the RaceLogic V-Box to test our AMR Performance C43 ECU Software Upgrade 0-60 times. With the AMR Performance ECU Software Upgrade, this has been cut down to 3.8sec with a passenger in the vehicle..
We would like to publicly thank Scott Abrino for sharing his amazing results!
Video:
https://youtu.be/o9lZswLJ2bk
.
Tests done by Scott Abrino
Scott Abrino, using the RaceLogic V-Box to test our AMR Performance C43 ECU Software Upgrade 0-60 times. With the AMR Performance ECU Software Upgrade, this has been cut down to 3.8sec with a passenger in the vehicle..
We would like to publicly thank Scott Abrino for sharing his amazing results!
Video:
https://youtu.be/o9lZswLJ2bk
.
10-09-2017, 10:38 AM
#2
Newbie
Video supplied by Scott Abrino
Tests done by Scott Abrino
Scott Abrino, using the RaceLogic V-Box to test our AMR Performance C43 ECU Software Upgrade 0-60 times. With the AMR Performance ECU Software Upgrade, this has been cut down to 3.8sec with a passenger in the vehicle..
We would like to publicly thank Scott Abrino for sharing his amazing results!
Video:
https://youtu.be/o9lZswLJ2bk
.
Tests done by Scott Abrino
Scott Abrino, using the RaceLogic V-Box to test our AMR Performance C43 ECU Software Upgrade 0-60 times. With the AMR Performance ECU Software Upgrade, this has been cut down to 3.8sec with a passenger in the vehicle..
We would like to publicly thank Scott Abrino for sharing his amazing results!
Video:
https://youtu.be/o9lZswLJ2bk
.
The following users liked this post:
AMR Performance (10-09-2017)
10-09-2017, 10:54 AM
#3
Still a nice increase but half as dramatic as you're making it out to be.
here is one tested at 4.1: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...pe-test-review
10-09-2017, 10:58 AM
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: North East
Posts: 400
Received 44 Likes
on
39 Posts
2017 AMG C43, AWE Touring, BMC Air Filters- 2015 BMW X3 3.5i (JB1 Equipped)
many magazine publishings were getting 4.2 0-60.
Still a nice increase but half as dramatic as you're making it out to be.
here is one tested at 4.1: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...pe-test-review
Still a nice increase but half as dramatic as you're making it out to be.
here is one tested at 4.1: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...pe-test-review
Was this just with the tune or did he have other mods, I saw in the credits where he thanked AWE. Still pretty kick *** at 3.8 with a passenger.
Last edited by Lazz83; 10-09-2017 at 11:09 AM.
The following users liked this post:
AMR Performance (10-09-2017)
10-09-2017, 10:59 AM
#6
Former Vendor of MBWorld
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Connecticut - New York
Posts: 283
Received 54 Likes
on
30 Posts
18 MB E63S AMG - 17 MB C43 AMG - Much more!
many magazine publishings were getting 4.2 0-60.
Still a nice increase but half as dramatic as you're making it out to be.
here is one tested at 4.1: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...pe-test-review
Still a nice increase but half as dramatic as you're making it out to be.
here is one tested at 4.1: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...pe-test-review
This specific customer showed factory time(s) 4.7. So to move forward to a 3.8 is a drastic increase. Our in-house C43, showed a best of 4.6, an this was in cooler weather.
0-60 times will vary depending on elevation and octane as well as additional weight added to the vehicle.
- Robert
10-09-2017, 11:01 AM
#7
Newbie
many magazine publishings were getting 4.2 0-60.
Still a nice increase but half as dramatic as you're making it out to be.
here is one tested at 4.1: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...pe-test-review
Still a nice increase but half as dramatic as you're making it out to be.
here is one tested at 4.1: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...pe-test-review
The following users liked this post:
AMR Performance (10-09-2017)
Trending Topics
10-12-2017, 04:52 PM
#8
The first test was done with 2 passengers and myself driving so 3 people for a best of 4.2 seconds. The one passenger was my buddy from when i was in the Army. He happens to be 6 foot 5 and 260 lbs. The next day I went back out with my wife who has been an awesome supporter helping me get our youtube channel off the ground with filming and such and we did a 3.8 second zero to 60. Using a 0-60 MPH calculator from my time slips the calculator spits out 3.5 seconds 0-60 at the track with just me in it. Of course that is a prepped perfect surface where a random back road is not. Next time i get to the track I will take the VBOX with me.
All and All I wanted to purchase the VBOX and video document some runs as I have had a lot of people asking me a ton of questions about my AMR tune in my C43 AMG. Rather than just giving an opinion based on a few runs at the track, I wanted to be able provide accurate data. The VBOX provides that. VBOX's have been tested at drag strips and times compared and they were shown to be very very close in relation to the times that the time slips showed.
Keep in mind some magazines use the 1 foot roll out option on the VBOX when they conduct their testing. On my tests for that video I did not choose the 1 foot rollout option. In my opinion a 0 - 60 test is just that.. zero ( not moving) to 60 MPH. If these magazine companies tested these cars using the rollout option, for example Car and Drivers 12.8 second quarter mile or some of the other examples people gave above 4.2 sec 0-60 stock.. This explains the good numbers. Add up to .3 to that and you then get what everyone else on youtube with a stock C43 or C450 gets at the track a 13.0 - 13.1 ET
So if the magazine company chose a 1 foot rollout option the calculation for the 0-60 would start after the car was already moving, drastically decreasing the time it would take to reach 60mph. At least this is how i understand it to work. You should not use the 1 foot rollout option on 0-60 as 0 means not moving. If they had this option turned OFF for their quarter mile tests this could explain the much faster than everyone else's ET. One foot roll out is to simulate a quarter mile track lights when your not at a track.
What is rollout, and when do you need to use it?
‘Rollout’ is the distance travelled by a vehicle before the timing lights on a drag strip are triggered. When running performance tests, such as a quarter mile test, this distance is typically 1 foot (12 inches).
GPS performance meters such as the Performance Box start counting time from the first sample in which speed over 0.8 kph is detected. This means that this first foot of movement from the vehicle would be captured as part of the test, and more importantly, the time from this would be included in the final result.How much difference does this foot of movement make?
Actually, quite a lot. In fact, it can affect the final run time by up to 0.3 of a second. For this reason, it is important to discount this first foot of movement from the final run time, to ensure that the run time captured by the GPS data logger is as close as possible to the official drag strip time.
______________________________
Cars with only an AMR tune are averaging 12.3 ET around 112MPH on 93 Octane from what I have seen.
Cars with an AMR tune and catless downpipes on 93 Octane are seeing 12.2 @ 118 MPH (1.9 60')
No one has yet to run with a complete aftermarket exhaust system with an AMR Tune to the best of my knowledge.
Stay tuned. I have an AWE Catback currently and Downpipes are being ordered soon for a soon to be AMR Stage 2
All and All I wanted to purchase the VBOX and video document some runs as I have had a lot of people asking me a ton of questions about my AMR tune in my C43 AMG. Rather than just giving an opinion based on a few runs at the track, I wanted to be able provide accurate data. The VBOX provides that. VBOX's have been tested at drag strips and times compared and they were shown to be very very close in relation to the times that the time slips showed.
Keep in mind some magazines use the 1 foot roll out option on the VBOX when they conduct their testing. On my tests for that video I did not choose the 1 foot rollout option. In my opinion a 0 - 60 test is just that.. zero ( not moving) to 60 MPH. If these magazine companies tested these cars using the rollout option, for example Car and Drivers 12.8 second quarter mile or some of the other examples people gave above 4.2 sec 0-60 stock.. This explains the good numbers. Add up to .3 to that and you then get what everyone else on youtube with a stock C43 or C450 gets at the track a 13.0 - 13.1 ET
So if the magazine company chose a 1 foot rollout option the calculation for the 0-60 would start after the car was already moving, drastically decreasing the time it would take to reach 60mph. At least this is how i understand it to work. You should not use the 1 foot rollout option on 0-60 as 0 means not moving. If they had this option turned OFF for their quarter mile tests this could explain the much faster than everyone else's ET. One foot roll out is to simulate a quarter mile track lights when your not at a track.
What is rollout, and when do you need to use it?
‘Rollout’ is the distance travelled by a vehicle before the timing lights on a drag strip are triggered. When running performance tests, such as a quarter mile test, this distance is typically 1 foot (12 inches).
GPS performance meters such as the Performance Box start counting time from the first sample in which speed over 0.8 kph is detected. This means that this first foot of movement from the vehicle would be captured as part of the test, and more importantly, the time from this would be included in the final result.How much difference does this foot of movement make?
Actually, quite a lot. In fact, it can affect the final run time by up to 0.3 of a second. For this reason, it is important to discount this first foot of movement from the final run time, to ensure that the run time captured by the GPS data logger is as close as possible to the official drag strip time.
______________________________
Cars with only an AMR tune are averaging 12.3 ET around 112MPH on 93 Octane from what I have seen.
Cars with an AMR tune and catless downpipes on 93 Octane are seeing 12.2 @ 118 MPH (1.9 60')
No one has yet to run with a complete aftermarket exhaust system with an AMR Tune to the best of my knowledge.
Stay tuned. I have an AWE Catback currently and Downpipes are being ordered soon for a soon to be AMR Stage 2
Last edited by 2014c300; 10-12-2017 at 05:08 PM.
10-12-2017, 09:07 PM
#9
Super Member
The first test was done with 2 passengers and myself driving so 3 people for a best of 4.2 seconds. The one passenger was my buddy from when i was in the Army. He happens to be 6 foot 5 and 260 lbs. The next day I went back out with my wife who has been an awesome supporter helping me get our youtube channel off the ground with filming and such and we did a 3.8 second zero to 60. Using a 0-60 MPH calculator from my time slips the calculator spits out 3.5 seconds 0-60 at the track with just me in it. Of course that is a prepped perfect surface where a random back road is not. Next time i get to the track I will take the VBOX with me.
All and All I wanted to purchase the VBOX and video document some runs as I have had a lot of people asking me a ton of questions about my AMR tune in my C43 AMG. Rather than just giving an opinion based on a few runs at the track, I wanted to be able provide accurate data. The VBOX provides that. VBOX's have been tested at drag strips and times compared and they were shown to be very very close in relation to the times that the time slips showed.
Keep in mind some magazines use the 1 foot roll out option on the VBOX when they conduct their testing. On my tests for that video I did not choose the 1 foot rollout option. In my opinion a 0 - 60 test is just that.. zero ( not moving) to 60 MPH. If these magazine companies tested these cars using the rollout option, for example Car and Drivers 12.8 second quarter mile or some of the other examples people gave above 4.2 sec 0-60 stock.. This explains the good numbers. Add up to .3 to that and you then get what everyone else on youtube with a stock C43 or C450 gets at the track a 13.0 - 13.1 ET
So if the magazine company chose a 1 foot rollout option the calculation for the 0-60 would start after the car was already moving, drastically decreasing the time it would take to reach 60mph. At least this is how i understand it to work. You should not use the 1 foot rollout option on 0-60 as 0 means not moving. If they had this option turned OFF for their quarter mile tests this could explain the much faster than everyone else's ET. One foot roll out is to simulate a quarter mile track lights when your not at a track.
What is rollout, and when do you need to use it?
‘Rollout’ is the distance travelled by a vehicle before the timing lights on a drag strip are triggered. When running performance tests, such as a quarter mile test, this distance is typically 1 foot (12 inches).
GPS performance meters such as the Performance Box start counting time from the first sample in which speed over 0.8 kph is detected. This means that this first foot of movement from the vehicle would be captured as part of the test, and more importantly, the time from this would be included in the final result.How much difference does this foot of movement make?
Actually, quite a lot. In fact, it can affect the final run time by up to 0.3 of a second. For this reason, it is important to discount this first foot of movement from the final run time, to ensure that the run time captured by the GPS data logger is as close as possible to the official drag strip time.
______________________________
Cars with only an AMR tune are averaging 12.3 ET around 112MPH on 93 Octane from what I have seen.
Cars with an AMR tune and catless downpipes on 93 Octane are seeing 12.2 @ 118 MPH (1.9 60')
No one has yet to run with a complete aftermarket exhaust system with an AMR Tune to the best of my knowledge.
Stay tuned. I have an AWE Catback currently and Downpipes are being ordered soon for a soon to be AMR Stage 2
All and All I wanted to purchase the VBOX and video document some runs as I have had a lot of people asking me a ton of questions about my AMR tune in my C43 AMG. Rather than just giving an opinion based on a few runs at the track, I wanted to be able provide accurate data. The VBOX provides that. VBOX's have been tested at drag strips and times compared and they were shown to be very very close in relation to the times that the time slips showed.
Keep in mind some magazines use the 1 foot roll out option on the VBOX when they conduct their testing. On my tests for that video I did not choose the 1 foot rollout option. In my opinion a 0 - 60 test is just that.. zero ( not moving) to 60 MPH. If these magazine companies tested these cars using the rollout option, for example Car and Drivers 12.8 second quarter mile or some of the other examples people gave above 4.2 sec 0-60 stock.. This explains the good numbers. Add up to .3 to that and you then get what everyone else on youtube with a stock C43 or C450 gets at the track a 13.0 - 13.1 ET
So if the magazine company chose a 1 foot rollout option the calculation for the 0-60 would start after the car was already moving, drastically decreasing the time it would take to reach 60mph. At least this is how i understand it to work. You should not use the 1 foot rollout option on 0-60 as 0 means not moving. If they had this option turned OFF for their quarter mile tests this could explain the much faster than everyone else's ET. One foot roll out is to simulate a quarter mile track lights when your not at a track.
What is rollout, and when do you need to use it?
‘Rollout’ is the distance travelled by a vehicle before the timing lights on a drag strip are triggered. When running performance tests, such as a quarter mile test, this distance is typically 1 foot (12 inches).
GPS performance meters such as the Performance Box start counting time from the first sample in which speed over 0.8 kph is detected. This means that this first foot of movement from the vehicle would be captured as part of the test, and more importantly, the time from this would be included in the final result.How much difference does this foot of movement make?
Actually, quite a lot. In fact, it can affect the final run time by up to 0.3 of a second. For this reason, it is important to discount this first foot of movement from the final run time, to ensure that the run time captured by the GPS data logger is as close as possible to the official drag strip time.
______________________________
Cars with only an AMR tune are averaging 12.3 ET around 112MPH on 93 Octane from what I have seen.
Cars with an AMR tune and catless downpipes on 93 Octane are seeing 12.2 @ 118 MPH (1.9 60')
No one has yet to run with a complete aftermarket exhaust system with an AMR Tune to the best of my knowledge.
Stay tuned. I have an AWE Catback currently and Downpipes are being ordered soon for a soon to be AMR Stage 2
Quite a lot to respond to here, but @munis from this forum ran a 12.8 in his stock sedan twice, from a dig, no roll. And your car does not do 0-60mph in 3.5 seconds. If that was the case, unless the car completely tanked up top, you'd be running 125mph+ in the quarter.
Also, although I always butt heads with the AMR guys, jokes aside, they are trapping higher than 112MPH in the quarter with a sedan on stage 1. It's more in the 114-115MPH range - 112 is more from early versions of the tune, I believe similar to what an EC V1 is doing in a sedan. With EC V2 silently released.. that should even the playing field.
Cheers
Worth mentioning that I think AMR Stage 2 has the faster tune. For whatever reason, EC has not worked on this much as I haven't seen any gains with down pipes and AMR has a car trapping 118MPH like you mentioned.
10-12-2017, 09:11 PM
#10
Quite a lot to respond to here, but @munis from this forum ran a 12.8 in his stock sedan twice, from a dig, no roll. And your car does not do 0-60mph in 3.5 seconds. If that was the case, unless the car completely tanked up top, you'd be running 125mph+ in the quarter.
Also, although I always butt heads with the AMR guys, jokes aside, they are trapping higher than 112MPH in the quarter with a sedan on stage 1. It's more in the 114-115MPH range - 112 is more from early versions of the tune, I believe similar to what an EC V1 is doing in a sedan. With EC V2 silently released.. that should even the playing field.
Cheers
Worth mentioning that I think AMR Stage 2 has the faster tune. For whatever reason, EC has not worked on this much as I haven't seen any gains with down pipes and AMR has a car trapping 118MPH like you mentioned.
Also, although I always butt heads with the AMR guys, jokes aside, they are trapping higher than 112MPH in the quarter with a sedan on stage 1. It's more in the 114-115MPH range - 112 is more from early versions of the tune, I believe similar to what an EC V1 is doing in a sedan. With EC V2 silently released.. that should even the playing field.
Cheers
Worth mentioning that I think AMR Stage 2 has the faster tune. For whatever reason, EC has not worked on this much as I haven't seen any gains with down pipes and AMR has a car trapping 118MPH like you mentioned.
My car has AMR Stage 1 and traps 112 MPH. I do not have Down Pipes.
MUNIS car is certainly an ODD case. We all know that not every engine is equal. He could simply have a great running engine. There are zero stock C43/C450 videos on youtube that I have seen running better than 13's.
I ran a verified 3.8 Second 0-60 with a passenger in the car and a half tank of gas. I am confident that the car can pull off an even quicker 0-60 with a quarter tank of gas and only me driving.
We also have to consider the elevation, Humidity and Ambient temperature.
Munis showed me his time slips and they do not make sense to me. He ran less than 100mph trap speed but managed a 12.8 with only a 1.9 60'. The only thing he did different was shift manually. I still find it hard to believe that shifting manually gains .3 tenths in the quarter over letting the transmission shift for you. who knows.
I was only able to manage a 12.4 with a 1.9 60' and a 12.3 with a 1.88 60'. Trying to launch on full boost is difficult. Push the gas to far the boost falls off. Hold it for too long waiting on the light, boost falls off. Maybe it is just my car, not sure but that is how it is.
The biggest downfall that I have seen with these cars is the torque converters. Only being able to stall up to a max of 2500 RPM is killing the launches. A 3500 stall would do wonders for our launches and most likely grant us some 1.7 60' times since we could launch at around peak torque.
Last edited by 2014c300; 10-12-2017 at 09:33 PM.
10-12-2017, 09:58 PM
#11
Super Member
You are correct. The 118 MPH car on their site has down pipes so an AMR Stage 2 tune is required. Stage 2 from what I understand is simply removing the SES Light (disabling aft O2's?) that would accompany removing the converters due to the O2 sensors before and after both cats.
My car has AMR Stage 1 and traps 112 MPH. I do not have Down Pipes.
MUNIS car is certainly an ODD case. We all know that not every engine is equal. He could simply have a great running engine. There are zero stock C43/C450 videos on youtube that I have seen running better than 13's.
I ran a verified 3.8 Second 0-60 with a passenger in the car and a half tank of gas. I am confident that the car can pull off an even quicker 0-60 with a quarter tank of gas and only me driving.
We also have to consider the elevation, Humidity and Ambient temperature.
Munis showed me his time slips and they do not make sense to me. He ran less than 100mph trap speed but managed a 12.8 with only a 1.9 60'. The only thing he did different was shift manually. I still find it hard to believe that shifting manually gains .3 tenths in the quarter over letting the transmission shift for you. who knows.
I was only able to manage a 12.4 with a 1.9 60' and a 12.3 with a 1.88 60'. Trying to launch on full boost is difficult. Push the gas to far the boost falls off. Hold it for too long waiting on the light, boost falls off. Maybe it is just my car, not sure but that is how it is.
The biggest downfall that I have seen with these cars is the torque converters. Only being able to stall up to a max of 2500 RPM is killing the launches. A 3500 stall would do wonders for our launches and most likely grant us some 1.7 60' times since we could launch at around peak torque.
My car has AMR Stage 1 and traps 112 MPH. I do not have Down Pipes.
MUNIS car is certainly an ODD case. We all know that not every engine is equal. He could simply have a great running engine. There are zero stock C43/C450 videos on youtube that I have seen running better than 13's.
I ran a verified 3.8 Second 0-60 with a passenger in the car and a half tank of gas. I am confident that the car can pull off an even quicker 0-60 with a quarter tank of gas and only me driving.
We also have to consider the elevation, Humidity and Ambient temperature.
Munis showed me his time slips and they do not make sense to me. He ran less than 100mph trap speed but managed a 12.8 with only a 1.9 60'. The only thing he did different was shift manually. I still find it hard to believe that shifting manually gains .3 tenths in the quarter over letting the transmission shift for you. who knows.
I was only able to manage a 12.4 with a 1.9 60' and a 12.3 with a 1.88 60'. Trying to launch on full boost is difficult. Push the gas to far the boost falls off. Hold it for too long waiting on the light, boost falls off. Maybe it is just my car, not sure but that is how it is.
The biggest downfall that I have seen with these cars is the torque converters. Only being able to stall up to a max of 2500 RPM is killing the launches. A 3500 stall would do wonders for our launches and most likely grant us some 1.7 60' times since we could launch at around peak torque.
I believe he trapped 108MPH, not under 100. A stock sedan should trap 107-108MPH.
You're right, tons and tons of factors. Nice to see that you have access to a VBOX and other equipment to provide info to the rest of us.
10-12-2017, 10:02 PM
#12
Munis's track slips are real. I was there that night when I ran the 12.49 in my 4200lbs convertible on the V1 tune.
I believe he trapped 108MPH, not under 100. A stock sedan should trap 107-108MPH.
You're right, tons and tons of factors. Nice to see that you have access to a VBOX and other equipment to provide info to the rest of us.
I believe he trapped 108MPH, not under 100. A stock sedan should trap 107-108MPH.
You're right, tons and tons of factors. Nice to see that you have access to a VBOX and other equipment to provide info to the rest of us.
The night of my 12.3 it was around 80% humidity. Not sure how much that would affect MPH exactly, but I had to wipe the dew off my window and turn my defrost on so i could see.
I will do more testing by myself and see what we get with the VBOX. Hopefully on a low humidity day.
10-12-2017, 10:04 PM
#13
Super Member
I scrolled back through the time slips. You are correct. There was 1 slip under 100mph the rest were around 109.
The night of my 12.3 it was around 80% humidity. Not sure how much that would affect MPH exactly, but I had to wipe the dew off my window and turn my defrost on so i could see.
I will do more testing by myself and see what we get with the VBOX. Hopefully on a low humidity day.
The night of my 12.3 it was around 80% humidity. Not sure how much that would affect MPH exactly, but I had to wipe the dew off my window and turn my defrost on so i could see.
I will do more testing by myself and see what we get with the VBOX. Hopefully on a low humidity day.
10-12-2017, 10:07 PM
#14
NO i have not tried manual yet. I have taken the car to the track 2x so far. The second time we waited for hours for our first run then about 3 more hours for our second run. We got there at 6pm and left going on midnight to give you an idea, for just 2 runs. On top of that the track was an hour away. I would need to find a road around where I live to practice. I will have to do some more searching for roads. Pennsylvania has a ton of winding hilly roads.. not really that great for testing things out..
10-12-2017, 10:09 PM
#15
Super Member
NO i have not tried manual yet. I have taken the car to the track 2x so far. The second time we waited for hours for our first run then about 3 more hours for our second run. We got there at 6pm and left going on midnight to give you an idea, for just 2 runs. On top of that the track was an hour away. I would need to find a road around where I live to practice. I will have to do some more searching for roads. Pennsylvania has a ton of winding hilly roads.. not really that great for testing things out..
Better luck to you next time lol . Keep us updated
The following users liked this post:
2014c300 (10-12-2017)
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
