ECU Tune, the real discussion...
12-18-2009, 01:40 PM
#26
Former Vendor of MBWorld
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 1,181
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Whatever we're tuning!
Dyno numbers are just that.....numbers. They don't tell the whole story but do do give you some very interesting data.
Excellent, informative thread Brian!
12-18-2009, 01:54 PM
#27
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 2,949
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2008 A8L, 2002 996TT X50, 2009 X5
Brian,
Interesting study, thank you for putting in the effort and look forward to seeing the graph overlay.
I thought this as well. 
AFAIK, only a mere handful of C63s have run multiple vendors' tuning on the same vehicle. Those that have, and have tried MHP's C63 tuning, seem to have the best objective dyno and track results with MHP's product(s). Not sure how that puzzle piece fits into this particular picture, however. 
C63 Guy,
I frequently enjoy your posts, but have to disagree with this one.
In essence, I read Brian's original post as "We tested 4 different tunes, on 4 different cars - same dyno, operator, and 91 octane. Results for all 4 were basically neck-and-neck; our conclusion - tuning results on 91 for C63 is essentially identical, indepenent of tuner chosen." c63beastdriver's post in essence is saying "well, my experience with having 3 different tunes, same vehicle, same dyno, operator, etc. paints a different picture - all three were quite a bit different in measured output; my conclusion - tuning results will vary, based on tuner chosen."
Neither is unbiased in the strictest sense - Brian's company is a vendor for 2 of the 4 tunes tested; c63beastdriver is a vendor for 1 of the 3 he tested (although apparently not at the time of the testing - which is important to consider). That said, I feel both are presenting honest, objective findings without being "salesy" - but I realize reading something as "salesy" or not is certainly subjective.
OT - you're at approx. 600 bhp? That's, what, 500 rwhp on a DJ? That's insane.
I vote for you to create a "Silver Dragon Build Thread" and post/link everything there, chronicling the evolution of your beast... it's hard to keep up otherwise.
Interesting study, thank you for putting in the effort and look forward to seeing the graph overlay.
AFAIK, only a mere handful of C63s have run multiple vendors' tuning on the same vehicle. Those that have, and have tried MHP's C63 tuning, seem to have the best objective dyno and track results with MHP's product(s). Not sure how that puzzle piece fits into this particular picture, however. I frequently enjoy your posts, but have to disagree with this one.
In essence, I read Brian's original post as "We tested 4 different tunes, on 4 different cars - same dyno, operator, and 91 octane. Results for all 4 were basically neck-and-neck; our conclusion - tuning results on 91 for C63 is essentially identical, indepenent of tuner chosen." c63beastdriver's post in essence is saying "well, my experience with having 3 different tunes, same vehicle, same dyno, operator, etc. paints a different picture - all three were quite a bit different in measured output; my conclusion - tuning results will vary, based on tuner chosen."
Neither is unbiased in the strictest sense - Brian's company is a vendor for 2 of the 4 tunes tested; c63beastdriver is a vendor for 1 of the 3 he tested (although apparently not at the time of the testing - which is important to consider). That said, I feel both are presenting honest, objective findings without being "salesy" - but I realize reading something as "salesy" or not is certainly subjective.
OT - you're at approx. 600 bhp? That's, what, 500 rwhp on a DJ? That's insane.
I vote for you to create a "Silver Dragon Build Thread" and post/link everything there, chronicling the evolution of your beast... it's hard to keep up otherwise.
12-20-2009, 06:45 PM
#28
MBWorld Fanatic!
12-23-2009, 11:44 AM
#29
MBWorld Founder
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ones too fast according to CHP!
Brian,
This echo's what I have said all along. In tuning, the ones that push development make mor gains early. But as time passes, all the tuners get to the same place. There is no trick to tuning. If you can get control of the ECU correctly, you can only manipulate so much. A proper tune will yeild roughly the same results from anyone.
So early in development of a car, companies that are true developers will have the advatage. This is why we use Powerchip as they co-develop with us early in a car's life cycle. There are other tuners that do the same, but PC is who we have used for 8+ years now.
Late in a life cycle (which is where we are now with 63) everyone else will catch up. Especially with some tuners taking a "look" at other tuners files (which is a reality in this game). At this point it comes down to support and comfort with your vendor.
There are a lot of good vendors out there, so customers certainly can choose who they are most comfortable with.
We like working with PC as they always keep developing and owners can get updates for the life of their ownership for just a re-flash fee! Or if they upgrade to headers, they just have to pay the difference in the two files, not buy a new file to start with.
We have been dealers for other tuning brands, and quite frankly, PC has just been the most reliable and attentive.
Josh can certainly attest to this as they spent a lot of time on his car!
Again, good work Brian! Testing is always a welcome to this site and it is a shame that more don't do it!
thanks
Brad
This echo's what I have said all along. In tuning, the ones that push development make mor gains early. But as time passes, all the tuners get to the same place. There is no trick to tuning. If you can get control of the ECU correctly, you can only manipulate so much. A proper tune will yeild roughly the same results from anyone.
So early in development of a car, companies that are true developers will have the advatage. This is why we use Powerchip as they co-develop with us early in a car's life cycle. There are other tuners that do the same, but PC is who we have used for 8+ years now.
Late in a life cycle (which is where we are now with 63) everyone else will catch up. Especially with some tuners taking a "look" at other tuners files (which is a reality in this game). At this point it comes down to support and comfort with your vendor.
There are a lot of good vendors out there, so customers certainly can choose who they are most comfortable with.
We like working with PC as they always keep developing and owners can get updates for the life of their ownership for just a re-flash fee! Or if they upgrade to headers, they just have to pay the difference in the two files, not buy a new file to start with.
We have been dealers for other tuning brands, and quite frankly, PC has just been the most reliable and attentive.
Josh can certainly attest to this as they spent a lot of time on his car!
Again, good work Brian! Testing is always a welcome to this site and it is a shame that more don't do it!
thanks
Brad
12-23-2009, 12:56 PM
#30
Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Encino, Calif.
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55, C63, 997 Turbo
I think people always have hopes that a tuner will come along and magically create a tune that "demolishes" everyone else- and some "tuners" have taken advantage of this reality. Let's face it, it's not exciting to just say "ours is just like theirs". But, while this is an art, there's no magic. At the end of the day, a good tune will be about as good as the next good tune. But there are plenty of bad tunes. Speaking of bad tunes, why are we still even bringing up "MHP"? Would anyone with any sense or logic who is breathing actually give money to this company after all the lies, deceit and smoke?!
By the way Brian, if you're going to sell Kleemann, you may want to spell it correctly
By the way Brian, if you're going to sell Kleemann, you may want to spell it correctly
12-23-2009, 02:19 PM
#31
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thanks for the post Brian.
I also was certainty surprised with my results considering I went into this blindly and had no idea that I would even end up here posting the results. I was after all and still am very new to this forum and certainly new to “tunes” on an already fast car. I mean really how much faster can a tune be on a 451 hp car?
I started out doing my research using this forum and only after weeks of discovery; and calling/emailing different vendors did I finally pull the trigger. Note: I did not contact the final vendor until after trying the other 2 products first. I did this because the final vendor did not have as many users using their product as the other did. I went with the bigger guys instead because I was not familiar with Vendor M.
So I finally decided to go with Vendor K’s product. Once I got the flash I went to the dyno and I was not happy with the results. I do have a post dyno done to get a true delta. I did not get the results that were posted on their website or what I was told I should get. After a few days of complaining and talking to the vendor they finally agreed to return.
The second flash from Vendor R seemed more promising. Once I got the tune I did the normal break in and then off to the dyno. I did get better results from the dyno and the felt a bit faster and more responsive shifting etc. The dyno numbers showed gains over the previous vendor but not what I was told I should get. To this day I’m still trying to get my full refund.
Both vendors said there flashes were done correctly and they both reviewed their internal audit files to make sure and also checked with the programmers.
The last tune provided exactly what I was expecting. Call this Vendor M. The delta gains between STOCK and Vendor M was 66rwhp and 24rwtq.
These are real numbers and all done on the same dyno with the same operator.
Summation:
Stock Numbers: 357hp & 360tq
Vendor K 393hp & 367tq
Vendor R 411hp & 367tq
Vendor M 424hp & 384t
There are owners on this site that have had GREAT success with other vendors and I have nothing against anyone else’s products or results.
I did not test these products with any intentions of becoming a distributor of the products however I was impressed with the gains and advertised results so I figured I would spread the word.
Bottom Line: You can’t go wrong with any vendors ecu tune as long as YOU are happy with the results!
I also was certainty surprised with my results considering I went into this blindly and had no idea that I would even end up here posting the results. I was after all and still am very new to this forum and certainly new to “tunes” on an already fast car. I mean really how much faster can a tune be on a 451 hp car?
I started out doing my research using this forum and only after weeks of discovery; and calling/emailing different vendors did I finally pull the trigger. Note: I did not contact the final vendor until after trying the other 2 products first. I did this because the final vendor did not have as many users using their product as the other did. I went with the bigger guys instead because I was not familiar with Vendor M.
So I finally decided to go with Vendor K’s product. Once I got the flash I went to the dyno and I was not happy with the results. I do have a post dyno done to get a true delta. I did not get the results that were posted on their website or what I was told I should get. After a few days of complaining and talking to the vendor they finally agreed to return.
The second flash from Vendor R seemed more promising. Once I got the tune I did the normal break in and then off to the dyno. I did get better results from the dyno and the felt a bit faster and more responsive shifting etc. The dyno numbers showed gains over the previous vendor but not what I was told I should get. To this day I’m still trying to get my full refund.
Both vendors said there flashes were done correctly and they both reviewed their internal audit files to make sure and also checked with the programmers.
The last tune provided exactly what I was expecting. Call this Vendor M. The delta gains between STOCK and Vendor M was 66rwhp and 24rwtq.
These are real numbers and all done on the same dyno with the same operator.
Summation:
Stock Numbers: 357hp & 360tq
Vendor K 393hp & 367tq
Vendor R 411hp & 367tq
Vendor M 424hp & 384t
There are owners on this site that have had GREAT success with other vendors and I have nothing against anyone else’s products or results.
I did not test these products with any intentions of becoming a distributor of the products however I was impressed with the gains and advertised results so I figured I would spread the word.
Bottom Line: You can’t go wrong with any vendors ecu tune as long as YOU are happy with the results!
12-23-2009, 10:05 PM
#34
PREMIER SPONSOR
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-23-2009, 10:13 PM
#35
MBWorld Fanatic!
C63 - M156 V8 AMG
Increase in performance to 405 kW (551 HP) at 6800 rpm, 645 Nm at 5100 rpm
modification:
Modified engine management with readapt ignition map and injection map, incl.Vmax delimiter.
http://www.mkb-tuning.de/content/en/...prod_gruppe=11
12-23-2009, 10:25 PM
#36
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
2013 Chevy 427 Torch Red
I think people always have hopes that a tuner will come along and magically create a tune that "demolishes" everyone else- and some "tuners" have taken advantage of this reality. Let's face it, it's not exciting to just say "ours is just like theirs". But, while this is an art, there's no magic. At the end of the day, a good tune will be about as good as the next good tune. But there are plenty of bad tunes. Speaking of bad tunes, why are we still even bringing up "MHP"? Would anyone with any sense or logic who is breathing actually give money to this company after all the lies, deceit and smoke?!
By the way Brian, if you're going to sell Kleemann, you may want to spell it correctly
By the way Brian, if you're going to sell Kleemann, you may want to spell it correctly
http://www.dragtimes.com/Mercedes-Be...ag-Racing.html
12-24-2009, 01:16 PM
#38
PREMIER SPONSOR
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taken from their website
C63 - M156 V8 AMG
Increase in performance to 405 kW (551 HP) at 6800 rpm, 645 Nm at 5100 rpm
modification:
Modified engine management with readapt ignition map and injection map, incl.Vmax delimiter.
http://www.mkb-tuning.de/content/en/...prod_gruppe=11
C63 - M156 V8 AMG
Increase in performance to 405 kW (551 HP) at 6800 rpm, 645 Nm at 5100 rpm
modification:
Modified engine management with readapt ignition map and injection map, incl.Vmax delimiter.
http://www.mkb-tuning.de/content/en/...prod_gruppe=11
12-24-2009, 01:24 PM
#39
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
2013 Chevy 427 Torch Red
When you consider the difference in octane levels, it comes out to the same. We tune on CA91 and we're making roughly +70hp. At the mimimum MKB is using 98 RON or perhaps race fuel which can easily make up the additional power when you change ignition timing accordingly. Even I sometimes forget the world is not a level playing ground
12-24-2009, 02:34 PM
#40
Former Vendor of MBWorld
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: CA working like a slave
Posts: 600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C63 AMG Arctic w/ Stage 1 Tune, DoubleXX pipe, MCD-631X coming soon
Hmmm..a shootout is looking more and more inevitable, with known and test bench variables. I have to think about this a bit on how to make it fair to everyone.
12-24-2009, 03:35 PM
#41
Former Vendor of MBWorld
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: CA working like a slave
Posts: 600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C63 AMG Arctic w/ Stage 1 Tune, DoubleXX pipe, MCD-631X coming soon
on Mon. I should have the graphs put together for viewing
12-24-2009, 04:05 PM
#42
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 2,949
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2008 A8L, 2002 996TT X50, 2009 X5
When you consider the difference in octane levels, it comes out to the same. We tune on CA91 and we're making roughly +70hp. At the mimimum MKB is using 98 RON or perhaps race fuel which can easily make up the additional power when you change ignition timing accordingly. Even I sometimes forget the world is not a level playing ground
12-28-2009, 01:45 PM
#44
MBWorld Fanatic!
, lets just say that is nearly .250 off the pace of the current 63 N/A e/t record.
12-28-2009, 02:14 PM
#45
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
2013 Chevy 427 Torch Red
Significant accomplishment getting a 63 powered car down to 11.2.
Shame you have to announce your results with such a divisive tone????
I really don't understand why you feel the need to demean the results of others to elevate yours??
Shame you have to announce your results with such a divisive tone????
I really don't understand why you feel the need to demean the results of others to elevate yours??
Last edited by hhughes1; 12-28-2009 at 02:25 PM.
12-28-2009, 02:46 PM
#47
MBWorld Fanatic!
I'm not trying to demean anyone, but as per usual there is a lot of mis-information. I gave up on posting my times on here nearly a year ago, it seemed no matter what the situation and how many witnesses along with slips and vid proof people would question it and claim Bull $h**. I'm just trying to point a few people in the direction of the facts, 11.449 is not the quickest N/A 63 time out there...not even close. I'm just trying to provide a public service along with my personal insight (i was the first to heavily mod a 63). It used to be the 55 guys that were busting my *****..."a 63 will NEVER be as quick as the allmighty 55" LOL, proved them wrong, earned alot of respect from many of the 55 guys along the way, earned alot of respect for the 63 along the way. All I'm saying is that contrary to public opinion MHP or an MHP tune does not have bragging rights to ANY 63 record, all the 63 records are held by my 63 Black Series which is tuned and built by evosport...period!!!! They don't pay me, sponsor me nor do they do any free work on my car so I don't have to be making any posts like this, but I don't want other enthusiests to travel down the wrong road on their modding and tuning ventures. I have proven out several tunes and lots of parts and products, only the best of the best remains on my vehicle. I have purchased tested and thrown away more mods/parts for my 63 than most of you ever had on your cars in the first place,intakes, airboxes, airfilters, spare ECU's, mufflers, lightweight batteries, tires, brake pads, springs etc. I think that should speak for itself. Bottom line, if there is a part or mod available it is on my car, if there are multiple options, chances are I have tested them and am running the better preforming product.
Last edited by jrcart; 12-28-2009 at 02:55 PM.
12-28-2009, 03:31 PM
#48
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
2013 Chevy 427 Torch Red
Maybe if you had left off the it would have rubbed me differently, but I'll take you for your word about the intention of the message. There is no reason for all of us to be in different camps based upon who is supplying our parts. You can be happy with Evosport just like I am with my MHP/Kleemann hybrid and others probably are with Renntech etc. Honestly, I think the attitude of the vast majority of the members is very supportive these days even in the 55K vs 63 conversations. I would like to see more updates from your campaign and if you have anything else to throw away I will PM my address. 
it would have rubbed me differently, but I'll take you for your word about the intention of the message. There is no reason for all of us to be in different camps based upon who is supplying our parts. You can be happy with Evosport just like I am with my MHP/Kleemann hybrid and others probably are with Renntech etc. Honestly, I think the attitude of the vast majority of the members is very supportive these days even in the 55K vs 63 conversations. I would like to see more updates from your campaign and if you have anything else to throw away I will PM my address.
12-28-2009, 05:06 PM
#49
Former Vendor of MBWorld
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: CA working like a slave
Posts: 600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C63 AMG Arctic w/ Stage 1 Tune, DoubleXX pipe, MCD-631X coming soon
Whoa guys!!...There is no reason to start getting angry. I believe that JRCart has an awesome vehicle, and has made some very significant investment in his car, and deserves a bit of respect for that. I for one would LOVE to see the car, as well as see it run down the track, the avatar looks sinister with the Dymag wheels!!
12-29-2009, 09:42 AM
#50
Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2015 BMW M3 White/Black
Thanks for the post Brian.
I also was certainty surprised with my results considering I went into this blindly and had no idea that I would even end up here posting the results. I was after all and still am very new to this forum and certainly new to “tunes” on an already fast car. I mean really how much faster can a tune be on a 451 hp car?
I started out doing my research using this forum and only after weeks of discovery; and calling/emailing different vendors did I finally pull the trigger. Note: I did not contact the final vendor until after trying the other 2 products first. I did this because the final vendor did not have as many users using their product as the other did. I went with the bigger guys instead because I was not familiar with Vendor M.
So I finally decided to go with Vendor K’s product. Once I got the flash I went to the dyno and I was not happy with the results. I do have a post dyno done to get a true delta. I did not get the results that were posted on their website or what I was told I should get. After a few days of complaining and talking to the vendor they finally agreed to return.
The second flash from Vendor R seemed more promising. Once I got the tune I did the normal break in and then off to the dyno. I did get better results from the dyno and the felt a bit faster and more responsive shifting etc. The dyno numbers showed gains over the previous vendor but not what I was told I should get. To this day I’m still trying to get my full refund.
Both vendors said there flashes were done correctly and they both reviewed their internal audit files to make sure and also checked with the programmers.
The last tune provided exactly what I was expecting. Call this Vendor M. The delta gains between STOCK and Vendor M was 66rwhp and 24rwtq.
These are real numbers and all done on the same dyno with the same operator.
Summation:
Stock Numbers: 357hp & 360tq
Vendor K 393hp & 367tq
Vendor R 411hp & 367tq
Vendor M 424hp & 384t
There are owners on this site that have had GREAT success with other vendors and I have nothing against anyone else’s products or results.
I did not test these products with any intentions of becoming a distributor of the products however I was impressed with the gains and advertised results so I figured I would spread the word.
Bottom Line: You can’t go wrong with any vendors ecu tune as long as YOU are happy with the results!
I also was certainty surprised with my results considering I went into this blindly and had no idea that I would even end up here posting the results. I was after all and still am very new to this forum and certainly new to “tunes” on an already fast car. I mean really how much faster can a tune be on a 451 hp car?
I started out doing my research using this forum and only after weeks of discovery; and calling/emailing different vendors did I finally pull the trigger. Note: I did not contact the final vendor until after trying the other 2 products first. I did this because the final vendor did not have as many users using their product as the other did. I went with the bigger guys instead because I was not familiar with Vendor M.
So I finally decided to go with Vendor K’s product. Once I got the flash I went to the dyno and I was not happy with the results. I do have a post dyno done to get a true delta. I did not get the results that were posted on their website or what I was told I should get. After a few days of complaining and talking to the vendor they finally agreed to return.
The second flash from Vendor R seemed more promising. Once I got the tune I did the normal break in and then off to the dyno. I did get better results from the dyno and the felt a bit faster and more responsive shifting etc. The dyno numbers showed gains over the previous vendor but not what I was told I should get. To this day I’m still trying to get my full refund.
Both vendors said there flashes were done correctly and they both reviewed their internal audit files to make sure and also checked with the programmers.
The last tune provided exactly what I was expecting. Call this Vendor M. The delta gains between STOCK and Vendor M was 66rwhp and 24rwtq.
These are real numbers and all done on the same dyno with the same operator.
Summation:
Stock Numbers: 357hp & 360tq
Vendor K 393hp & 367tq
Vendor R 411hp & 367tq
Vendor M 424hp & 384t
There are owners on this site that have had GREAT success with other vendors and I have nothing against anyone else’s products or results.
I did not test these products with any intentions of becoming a distributor of the products however I was impressed with the gains and advertised results so I figured I would spread the word.
Bottom Line: You can’t go wrong with any vendors ecu tune as long as YOU are happy with the results!
