propain

Lets talk about posting VIN numbers. If his warranty is voided he did it to himself in his first post.

Quote:

BTW...here is the tune as it reads out with my VIN and EvoTech signature.

I also agree with you on the contradiction of his OP. He says he doesnt want to call out the vendor but he was more than happy to give us a map with a big X marks the spot on it. Give me a big F&*$% break! If you want to talk about ******** size and manhood and least have the intestinal fortitude to admit what you came here and set out to do.


Now lets get back to technicals and dispense with the bull****. How is it that a 105 octane tune was able to dyno the number it did on 91 octane fuel? Im not an expert on this but I dont see how its even remotely possible. There are way to many inconsistencies in this. A 105 octane tune running 91 octane would have been abundantly noticeable on the dyno. Am I wrong?

jrcart

I didn't catch his post with the screen shot and his VIN# in it...I guess he can't be pissed at Jeremy for posting his VIN# afterall, thaks for pointing that out to me. As for the 105 vs 91 octane issue, that's another good point you raise. You are not going to see huge numbers between a 91 and a 105 octane tune but you should see some small gains which are not evident in the screen shots posted, like you said that's another red flag, good eye

4ramin

When you have a 105 oct tune on a 91 oct gas,
the ECU pulls timing back to try to keep the motor from detonation or pinging. Keep in mind detonation is like hitting the piston with a hammer. The problem is when you have a 105 oct tune, the ecu is limited on the amount that it can pull timing back . This is sooooo bad that I called sgt. And told him to go and get a Compression Test on all cylinders ASAP. You guys really think OE will stand behind this mistake?? I personally would be taking him to court if my motor was damaged by this careless mistake. I will also say that I know for a fact sgt. has only had two tunes on his car. Tune 1 was the OE or what ever he is using and the most recent MHP 91 oct. tune. I’m not saying OE has a bad tune nor do I know or care who’s tune he’s using that an issue that he will have to deal with if its not his own. What I do know from what I’ve heard and seen is that they installed the wrong tune in his car. This is a fact that can't be denied. Simple and end of story.

xtyper

Seems pretty clear to me from Jeremy's last post that he is accepting responsiblity for the original tune and loading the Evotech 105 octane tune on Sgt's car. I still don't understand how such a gross error could be made and the customer ends up being resold another tuner's file.

Sgt, since Jeremy typically dynos the results before and after any tuning he does, what did your curves look like at that point in time? Did the post-tune curves show any evidence of timing being pulled or your car not being happy with the tune? Any graphs you have showing this would be a strong statement as to what actually happened.

bhamg

And you know this how? The maximum difference in timing between the OE and a race tune can only be, what, 7-8 degrees max? Maybe one or two degrees more? Perhaps one of the tuners can weigh in here. Since you seem to know, what is the maximum timing that can be pulled by the ECU? Is the OE knock sensor artificially limited? From a warranty standpoint, given the variability of gas sold worldwide, why would M-B do that?

propain

He did? It does? Nothing is clear to me at all.

This thread is getting comical.

xtyper

How was this verified? I have a very hard time believing that the OE Tune for 91 octane makes 20+whp & 20+wtq more than the MHP version on the same dyno, same conditions. And didn't that run at the independent shop show AFRs of close to 14:1 at redline, whereas the stock and MHP runs were closer to 12:1? Does that mean the OE Tuning Stage 2 tune conciously tunes for much higher than usual AFRs?

4ramin

this is why kleeman and rentech dont get the numbers you see with other tunners as they try to stay safe with the fuel sold worldwide. You can sure confirm this with other tunners. I dont know what limits OE is setting to be honest but when you change the timing curve for the 105 oct fuel and running 91 oct its very bad. For the same very reasoon i always run 5 gal of 100 oct fuel at every fill up in my car just to be on the safe side.

xtyper

In that section of the post you bolded, he's only referring to the tune in question at time of independent dyno, not the initial tuning session with Sgt. If OE Tuning didn't put an Evotech race file on Sgt's ECU during the initial tuning session (or at any point for that matter), then I would expect a direct and clear statement to that effect from them. I know if I were Jeremy I would make that point abundantly clear to everyone. So far I haven't seen that which leads me to believe there is culpability here with respect to the OP's claims.

But you're right Jim, so far there's been way too much ambiguity in this thread regarding what I think should be a very black/white issue. In the end I'm just looking for the facts here, not hoping for any tuner to go down in flames or be carried in triumph on the forum's shoulders. If there is a tuner out there careless enough to jeopardize customers $70K+ investments, I want to know about it so I can make an informed decision when it comes time to mod my 2011.

propain

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.

bhamg

Agree 100%. Chasing that last 10-20 peak HP for bragging rights by running lean and at max advance IMO is dumb for the end user (not the tuner).

Powerchip

There is an important map that can be changed which is commonly refered to as "minimum timing"

It's a way of forcing timing into a car, but it is a map that needs to be used with caution.

California 91 octane is really not what this engine is designed to run at the factory, it really needs 93 octane to perform at it's best.

Forcing large amounts of minimum timing (particularly if the knock sensivity map is also changed) and running 91 octane is potentially dangerous.

Adding large amounts of REQUESTED ignition timing isn't really much of a problem but only if the minimum timing map isn't changed. If the car knocks with ONLY the requested ignition changed, the system will simply pull the ignition timing back to a safe level.

If on the other hand minimum timing and requested timing have BOTH been raised, the ignition will only be lowered down to the level of the minimum timing that has been determined as safe by the tuner, and not Mercedes.

If the minimum timing map has been raised by a safe and conservative amount specifically to suit the customers requested fuel octane, then there is no cause for concern.

Running 91 octane on a car that has had incorrect amounts of minimum timing added can cause detonation that is not stopped by the knock sensors.

Minimum timing is a VERY powerful map, and needs to be modified with caution.

We don't know if minimum timing was changed on this car, so my comments are general insomuch as they refer specifically to ME9.7 used on the car here, and I do not wish to infer that the map was modified because we have no way of knowing if it was or wasn't modified with the initial tune purchased.

This information was provided as a result of a direct question to a "tuner" and hope it helps shed some more light on what to many is a black art.

GHAZAN

Thanks powerchip, it's the most informative post in this thread.

bhamg

Thanks for posting, PC, much appreciated!

propain

Credit to Sun Tzu for this quote. I really didnt think it was needed since it is such a common quote but some girl with a little crush on me from the dark side took offence.

SALES@OETUNING

Here are the facts:
1. No Evotech tune was ever written into any car/ecu by OE Tuning (including SGT's car).
2. There was never this byte sequence in the file read/written to SGT's car/ecu by OE Tuning.
3. The software version read/written to/from SGT's car, 1037506908, is a more recent version read from many 2011 vehicles.
4. The software version (of the said ET screenshot), 1037394899, does not come on a 2011 model C63 AMG (SGT's car is a 2011 model C63 AMG). It is an old version found on 2008 model C63 AMGs.
5. 1037394899 software version cannot be written to an ECU with a newer version.
6. This screenshot is false.

This matter is extremely serious if a competing vendor has supplied falsified information.

splinter

If that’s indeed the case, I’d suggest removing your previous “Steve Aguliar VIN.JPG” attachment forthwith.

Powerchip

Powerchip did not read the ECU

Powerchip did not provide screenshots to anyone about this issue

Powerchip has had no contact in any way whatsoever with the original poster

We have not had any email, phone call or private message conversations from a single person posting in the entire thread!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When there were a couple of posts suggesting it was not our place to be involved directly, we took a step backwards.

When there were a couple of technical questions you didnt answer that were addressed to a 'tuner', we answered them in a non confrontational manner and deliberately did not ask direct questions that would help to resolve the OP's issues.

Whilst it was not our intention to address the issue directly because it is not really our place to do so, I suggest we discuss the elephant in the room.

Does the file you say you flashed into the ECU raise minimum timing?

Does it lessen knock sensitivity?

Were any changes made to the requested ignition advance map?

Was any change made to the commanded air fuel ratio, and if so was it made leaner or richer than stock?

I accept the amounts you change maps by are confidential and I do not seek to know the amounts of change, just simply yes or no to the four questions above.

Lets try and help the OP find the causes of the detonation and lean running, if you didnt change any of the four maps then I suggest the cause of the issue is probably mechanical.

j bro

holy smokes, this is more entertaining then the acg weistec thread when jsp threatened to crush his own car

xtyper

Seriously. Somebody is a big fat liar here, and I really hope we get some proof showing who it is.

ecampbell

At this point enough information is out for people to be making both accurate AND inaccurate assumptions. As the OP started this, he should clear up the facts as he knows rather than letting this speculation run wild...right now it is doing everyone a disservice.

SALES@OETUNING

Still no explanation by the OP and the supplier of the falsified screenshot?
What has happen to the accusers and their agenda? Please speak up.
Names have also been called by the OP that are unfounded and I am demanding an online explaination and appology.

There does not seem to be any reason to remove any information related to the facts in this accusation, as the OP already posted a screenshot with his VIN as the file name first.

Moderators, there is a serious issue here of slander here against a sponsor. Falsified information has been supplied to a customer and member of this forum by a banned tuner from this forum, with motives to destroy the reputation of OE Tuning, the direct competition that made more power on the dyno when comparing tunes. It is obvious that the "105 octane tune", and the information surrounding another tuner were made up to gain a competitive advantage in this online forum and marketplace and to explain why the power levels of the competing tune were so.

palerider

whats the short version of why mhp got banned in the first place?

Mikegpr03

Why did they get banned? All I can say is that OE "Jeremy" has been nothing but A-1 with me. Just my .2cts

AMGSC

I'm always wary of small/new tuners that want to make a name for themselves by pushing the limits of timing to make the biggest power gains over the established tuners.

My tune from a large tuner has plenty of safeguards and will retard timing at the slightest hint of knock, heat or lean conditions. My AFR never exceeds 12 and never dips below 10.5. I definitely don't want an aggressive tune in my car if the minimum timing has been raised. I also didn't have to pay the $10K Jeremy wanted but instead paid only $1650 for both a 91 octane map or a 100 octane map with the flip of a switch. Both are programmed with maximum safeguards against detonation.