Beware of Kleemann
#51
haha apparently both yourself and your installer are complete idiots...
You did a stock pull on your 507 C63 which puts out 507 crank HP, the stock C63 does 451HP...Thats a 56 crank HP difference
The kleeman kit advertises 150 crank HP gains for a STOCK 451 HP C63, so since you gained a 100HP crank OVER your already tuned 507 C63 you in reality gained 156 crank HP which is not only meets but exceeded kleemans specs.
If both of you knew anything about tuning you'd know that when you "tuned" your 507 C63 you essentially returned it to STOCK 451 HP and ADDED kleemans 150 HP gains on TOP... the main difference between your 507 C63 and stock is the ECU remapping(and forged internals to support the increased HP from the remapping), which is completely erased and REPLACED with kleemans tune.
Im surprised the kleeman rep nor anyone else in here caught this...
You did a stock pull on your 507 C63 which puts out 507 crank HP, the stock C63 does 451HP...Thats a 56 crank HP difference
The kleeman kit advertises 150 crank HP gains for a STOCK 451 HP C63, so since you gained a 100HP crank OVER your already tuned 507 C63 you in reality gained 156 crank HP which is not only meets but exceeded kleemans specs.
If both of you knew anything about tuning you'd know that when you "tuned" your 507 C63 you essentially returned it to STOCK 451 HP and ADDED kleemans 150 HP gains on TOP... the main difference between your 507 C63 and stock is the ECU remapping(and forged internals to support the increased HP from the remapping), which is completely erased and REPLACED with kleemans tune.
Im surprised the kleeman rep nor anyone else in here caught this...
Though I am a bit surprised that the advertised gains don't mention headers, that's a must if you're going sc
#52
Banned
haha apparently both yourself and your installer are complete idiots...
You did a stock pull on your 507 C63 which puts out 507 crank HP, the stock C63 does 451HP...Thats a 56 crank HP difference
The kleeman kit advertises 150 crank HP gains for a STOCK 451 HP C63, so since you gained a 100HP crank OVER your already tuned 507 C63 you in reality gained 156 crank HP which is not only meets but exceeded kleemans specs.
If both of you knew anything about tuning you'd know that when you "tuned" your 507 C63 you essentially returned it to STOCK 451 HP and ADDED kleemans 150 HP gains on TOP... the main difference between your 507 C63 and stock is the ECU remapping(and forged internals to support the increased HP from the remapping), which is completely erased and REPLACED with kleemans tune.
Im surprised the kleeman rep nor anyone else in here caught this...
You did a stock pull on your 507 C63 which puts out 507 crank HP, the stock C63 does 451HP...Thats a 56 crank HP difference
The kleeman kit advertises 150 crank HP gains for a STOCK 451 HP C63, so since you gained a 100HP crank OVER your already tuned 507 C63 you in reality gained 156 crank HP which is not only meets but exceeded kleemans specs.
If both of you knew anything about tuning you'd know that when you "tuned" your 507 C63 you essentially returned it to STOCK 451 HP and ADDED kleemans 150 HP gains on TOP... the main difference between your 507 C63 and stock is the ECU remapping(and forged internals to support the increased HP from the remapping), which is completely erased and REPLACED with kleemans tune.
Im surprised the kleeman rep nor anyone else in here caught this...
#53
Member
iTrader: (1)
I don't ever recall the "installer", myself or ACG saying anything negative about Kleemann, power gains, or us being disappointed in them. We installed a blower, it produces the advertised amount of boost and has a clean afr. I chimed in on our behalf only because Steve mentioned us.
I think Steve and myself will both agree the car is very fast and a joy to drive around town. I just know personally he feels that the advertised minimum gains are not being met, and that is a very tough pill to swallow when decide to spend the amount of money he has to upgrade his car, as any of us would be.
The next logical step of course is to remove the restrictive exhaust flow and we may very well do that in the near future if and when he is ready.
The next logical step of course is to remove the restrictive exhaust flow and we may very well do that in the near future if and when he is ready.
You have agreed that the power gains were not meet, and I'm sure yourself and steve were scratching your heads for weeks on why, when the answer is very obvious and any basic tuner would have known this and explained it to their customer.
This on top of your "install" error (which btw you blame on poor instructions? thats laughable i don't know any tuners that need to "follow" instructions), just point to your incompetence as a car mechanic and someone who thoroughly understands car engineering and tuning.
#54
Banned
Right so whats this?
You have agreed that the power gains were not meet, and I'm sure yourself and steve were scratching your heads for weeks on why, when the answer is very obvious and any basic tuner would have known this and explained it to their customer.
This on top of your "install" error (which btw you blame on poor instructions? thats laughable i don't know any tuners that need to "follow" instructions), just point to your incompetence as a car mechanic and someone who thoroughly understands car engineering and tuning.
You have agreed that the power gains were not meet, and I'm sure yourself and steve were scratching your heads for weeks on why, when the answer is very obvious and any basic tuner would have known this and explained it to their customer.
This on top of your "install" error (which btw you blame on poor instructions? thats laughable i don't know any tuners that need to "follow" instructions), just point to your incompetence as a car mechanic and someone who thoroughly understands car engineering and tuning.
Again I only chimed in as Steve mentioned we installed it. I haven't been scratching my head for any reason, the blower is in the car, it works exactly as Kleemann spec'd it to... nothing for me to be confused on. Steve is disappointed in the torque number, not the horsepower number.
And finally, to touch on your last point, who wouldn't follow installation instructions provided by the manufacturer to install a product developed by them?
#56
MBWorld Fanatic!
This thread is remarkably disturbing.
What is up with people posting words like "idiot" and calling others out like they are stupid?
Yes I think the OP overreacted by posting this in the way he did. But clearly he went with first rate hardware and installer. In my opinion two of the best in our market!
The issue seems one of interpretation of dyno numbers among different variances of the 6.2 motor.
Anyone that states that the op, Kleemann or ACG are at fault is just flat out wrong.
/end rant
What is up with people posting words like "idiot" and calling others out like they are stupid?
Yes I think the OP overreacted by posting this in the way he did. But clearly he went with first rate hardware and installer. In my opinion two of the best in our market!
The issue seems one of interpretation of dyno numbers among different variances of the 6.2 motor.
Anyone that states that the op, Kleemann or ACG are at fault is just flat out wrong.
/end rant
#57
MBWorld Fanatic!
ACG and Kleemann are not at fault here. Clean install done, power output met, and a customer who doesn't understand that a C63 with the 507 option comes with more HP than a base model and how that translates into advertising HP gains.
#59
MBWorld Fanatic!
Wait wait wait, are these numbers advertised with headers or just the stock exhaust??
Get that ****ty stock exhaust off and put some true long tube headers with 3" mids so this thing can breathe and you will see a big power difference! Make sure you get a new pulley and tune for the exhaust.
Get that ****ty stock exhaust off and put some true long tube headers with 3" mids so this thing can breathe and you will see a big power difference! Make sure you get a new pulley and tune for the exhaust.
Hopefully BBB and FTC can use Google and find this thread.
You take a 507 (And a strong one according to ACG), obviously more HP stock than a baseline C63, and then don't even add headers which is almost the most crucial part of a S/C application?
Add headers and a new tune.
So much for this not being your first rodeo...
And damn, do I HATE thread titles like these.
You take a 507 (And a strong one according to ACG), obviously more HP stock than a baseline C63, and then don't even add headers which is almost the most crucial part of a S/C application?
Add headers and a new tune.
So much for this not being your first rodeo...
And damn, do I HATE thread titles like these.
It is hard to believe OP is not in his first "rodeo" modding cars. Long tube headers are a must have in any supercharger install to take advantage of the increased air flow.
I just think this thread could have been avoided. I mean you can be disappointed with the output numbers (if they are legit) but before bashing publicly on a vendor you want to make sure you have exhausted all the possible options.
I hope OP gets what he is looking for. GL
#60
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
3 Posts
507 SEDAN
Agreed!! OP is an idiot.
First off, even if being angry, to get your panties in a bunch, cry like a little baby b/c he thinks he didn't get what he paid for is ridiculous.
BUT, taking it to this well versed, extremely respected, knowledgeable, and useful site...only to headline post with "BEWARE OF KLEEMANN" is somewhat akin to the boy who cried wolf. Those are harsh words and really unnecessary to all of us on this forum. And the dirty tampon that he has inserted didn't help either. Like a little kid, "I'm calling the BBB and the FTC, and anyone else that can help me because I'm so frustrated at this point." Call you mom while you're at it too. To me, this has no place in scare tactics on the forum.
Here is a HUGE mistake and something that this "so-called veteran" is not taking into account. First rodeo, right. YOU NEED LONG-TUBE HEADERS!!!!!! It's a must with SC. Are you a numbskull? Really? Come on!!
However, I can see waiting until all the tests are completed and giving Kleemann a chance to help troubleshoot and possibly rectify the situation along with the help from ACG, THEN I might be upset and voice a frustration on this forum with them. But, you haven't even let time take it's course.
You are acting like a baby that didn't get it his way on first onset and now wants to contact every any any consumer legality agency to cry to them. Give it time little one. ACG is highly respectable. Kleemann is highly respectable. Let those guys trouble shoot and get to the end of what they can do. If both companies can't do any more after some tinkering, well, maybe you're pissed and can list a frustration.
But an initial "BEWARE of KLEEMANN" post here, combined with the BBB and FTC is just childish and ludicrous. Let them help you before you start crying to authorities and bashing a great vendor here.
I doubt your post is going to deter anyone from staying away from Kleemann.
Last edited by jordanaf; 01-19-2015 at 09:25 AM.
#61
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
3 Posts
507 SEDAN
PS> Go check out this thread. Here is a REAL man that was interested in insight and working with other to help resolve his issue. He didn't start crying little a little boy. he is exhibiting patience and not running to the authorities. Take note
New headers and tune - odd turbulent/hollow feeling at high RPM in 1st and 2nd gear
ld63
New headers and tune - odd turbulent/hollow feeling at high RPM in 1st and 2nd gear
ld63
#62
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Clifton, NJ
Posts: 4,949
Likes: 0
Received 37 Likes
on
32 Posts
96 and 08 911 turbos
Right so whats this?
You have agreed that the power gains were not meet, and I'm sure yourself and steve were scratching your heads for weeks on why, when the answer is very obvious and any basic tuner would have known this and explained it to their customer.
This on top of your "install" error (which btw you blame on poor instructions? thats laughable i don't know any tuners that need to "follow" instructions), just point to your incompetence as a car mechanic and someone who thoroughly understands car engineering and tuning.
You have agreed that the power gains were not meet, and I'm sure yourself and steve were scratching your heads for weeks on why, when the answer is very obvious and any basic tuner would have known this and explained it to their customer.
This on top of your "install" error (which btw you blame on poor instructions? thats laughable i don't know any tuners that need to "follow" instructions), just point to your incompetence as a car mechanic and someone who thoroughly understands car engineering and tuning.
#63
MBWorld Fanatic!
The tuning and install was by ACG in San Diego, an extremely professional concern. They have had lots of experience with both firms and I wanted Kleemann because of the advertised performance, my mistake. ACG is a great tuner and I would recommend them highly, it was not their fault Kleemann's supercharger is not what is advertised.
Always do research before pulling the trigger....just a little friendly advise
#64
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,694
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
07 RS4 sold, R53 Cooper S, 2008 Cayman S, 2012 GTR
There is a lot to digest here so i'll try to be as through as possible.
These are my personal interpretations of quoted words, if I have interpreted incorrect, the owner of each quote please let me know.
The main issue here is that package did not live up to the advertised numbers. If you take what kleemann advertises literally, it states that power gains are to be 155-255hp, and 162-228 lb ft on an otherwise completely stock vehicle.
We all know that the 507 makes more power then a standard C63, that however is not noted in these horsepower gains. One would think that with the range so wide, that the most power motors would be the ones making the lower marks of 155hp/162lb-ft, while a detuned motor would reach the higher marks.
That is correct, i would assume the same.
I couldn't agree more.
Pre and post dynos were completed on the same dynojet, and the same mustang dyno.
No belt slip what so ever, boost pressure logs show a solid 5-6psi smooth throughout the complete run.
These are my personal interpretations of quoted words, if I have interpreted incorrect, the owner of each quote please let me know.
The staff at Kleemann are super nice, especially Cory. That is the good news, The bad news is that you can not believe what is on the web site. I purchased a Kleemann supercharger for my 2014 C 63 at a cost of over $11,000. Instead of the advertised gain of a minimum 162 lb of torque, my car gained 75 lbs. Instead of the advertised minimum gain of 155 hp, my car gained 100hp. I have complained to the Better Business Bureau and soon to the FTC for false advertising.----Nice people, even a nice looking product--it just does not produce the desired performance that you are buying.----STAY AWAY--FAR AWAY
We all know that the 507 makes more power then a standard C63, that however is not noted in these horsepower gains. One would think that with the range so wide, that the most power motors would be the ones making the lower marks of 155hp/162lb-ft, while a detuned motor would reach the higher marks.
That is correct, i would assume the same.
I've been dealing with Kleemann for 10 yrs , they are a top notch operation , never had a problem ,in fact they have bent over backwards for me ,and Cory is a straight shooter NO BS with him,I had a supercharger kit for my SL500 and ,I have all of their bolt ons for my SL55 with the exception of a 90mm TB ,and they are helping me with a race only tune on second ECU I have ,I have the quickest and fastest SL55 on dragtimes and it's got their BOX TUNE on it.they answer all of my e mails the same day or next ,if I call the only time I can't get Cory on the phone is if he is off or on lunch ,and he calls me right back,best vendor I have dealt with modding my R230 s
You're using two different kinds of dynos, trying to say it's apples to apples, and are complaining to the BBB?
Your panties. They are bunching...
I'd also like to see these supposed claims. I've only ever seen "up to" claims by manufacturers, to avoid situations like this.
Your panties. They are bunching...
I'd also like to see these supposed claims. I've only ever seen "up to" claims by manufacturers, to avoid situations like this.
Thanks for clearly explaining the situation. I'm sure the OP is flustered, but he left half the story to the imagination, and the other half vaguely explained.
So, even knowing that Mustang dyno's can be serious heart breakers, 507 at the crank and 390 at the wheels sounds awfully low, 23% loss in fact for those that hate math.
None the less, that does give a baseline. Add 80whp and we're at 470whp. 470/.77 is 610 at the crank. Indeed a 100hp gain. 100hp for that motor should be all of 3psi honestly.
I know you have no control over it, it just sounds like he's jumping the gun here a bit... of course maybe he did talk to Kleeman and just didn't explain that. Did the dyno runs come out perfect? Not that their should be, but any possible belt slip?
So, even knowing that Mustang dyno's can be serious heart breakers, 507 at the crank and 390 at the wheels sounds awfully low, 23% loss in fact for those that hate math.
None the less, that does give a baseline. Add 80whp and we're at 470whp. 470/.77 is 610 at the crank. Indeed a 100hp gain. 100hp for that motor should be all of 3psi honestly.
I know you have no control over it, it just sounds like he's jumping the gun here a bit... of course maybe he did talk to Kleeman and just didn't explain that. Did the dyno runs come out perfect? Not that their should be, but any possible belt slip?
Last edited by James@ACG; 01-19-2015 at 05:46 PM.
#65
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,694
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
07 RS4 sold, R53 Cooper S, 2008 Cayman S, 2012 GTR
Brandon from KLEEMANN here, I have to post under this pseudonym because when I tried to log into my normal MBWorld account, I was told I have been banned for life, with "no reason was specified". Thats an interesting turn of events, and even internet brands cant tell me WHY.
Steve is not happy with his dynos. What no one mentioned here is that the DynoJet dyno he is referring to was done with faults present. Early on in this adventure, Steve got this low dyno. The immediate call for action was that we write another ECU file. I refused to do so because I am that confident the file is correct. A few emails/tele calls back and forth,and low and behold an installation error was found, and it was corrected. The car now "...seems to be running smoothly..." and has no MILs and by ACGs own account runs incredibly well. NO further dynos have been done, if they have, no one has given them to me.
We stand behind what we produce and will go over and above to find the source of any results that are not typical of what the product has historically produced in the past. I think our own 14 yr history on and off this board will back that claim up.
My suggestion is to get the car back to ACG, do another test on a dyno the car has been on before, determine where the power is now, and we can move forward with a correction path.
Steve is not happy with his dynos. What no one mentioned here is that the DynoJet dyno he is referring to was done with faults present. Early on in this adventure, Steve got this low dyno. The immediate call for action was that we write another ECU file. I refused to do so because I am that confident the file is correct. A few emails/tele calls back and forth,and low and behold an installation error was found, and it was corrected. The car now "...seems to be running smoothly..." and has no MILs and by ACGs own account runs incredibly well. NO further dynos have been done, if they have, no one has given them to me.
We stand behind what we produce and will go over and above to find the source of any results that are not typical of what the product has historically produced in the past. I think our own 14 yr history on and off this board will back that claim up.
My suggestion is to get the car back to ACG, do another test on a dyno the car has been on before, determine where the power is now, and we can move forward with a correction path.
I am wondering if the power difference between denmark and the US could be attributed to the airboxes and charcoal filters remaining on the original post dynos.
Have few friends who have done business with KLEEMANN, and they have nothing but great things to say about them. It looks like they're willing to work with you, I'd say go back to ACG and have them run the dyno again.
I'm very interested to know about the installation error.
I'm very interested to know about the installation error.
As you can see on step 38, the factory tank ventilation line which is connected to the "y" section of the intake manfold is cut, but then what?
http://catalog.kleemann.dk/wp-conten...nual-Rev-H.pdf
Based on the photo of step 34, it "appears" that this tank ventilation line does back into the factory location back on the "y" port. This however is incorrect as it is not a vacuum source. We had to dig deeper when Steve notified us of a gas cap warning he was receiving. Looking at the factory intake manifold, even tho the location of the tank ventilation line is in the same location, there is a hard line that runs from this port post TB into a vacuum source. Once we provided a vacuum source to the tank vent the warning and gas cap fault resolved itself.
This post should be moved to the appropriate forum; this is for the new W205 C63. There will probably be more activity in the W204 section & possibly more insight as a few other guys have Kleemann superchargers.
While I don't doubt you've modded cars before, in your first post you talk about advertised "minimum gains". I can't find any minimum gains on their website, only "63 AMG (M156) KSS
63-K1S: Kleemann Kompressor System. Up to 680 HP and 850 Nm (630 lb-ft) of torque."
http://catalog.kleemann.dk/catalog/c...e/63-amg-m156/
Also, since it probably got overlooked on the first page, you mentioned spending "over 11k"; how much "over" and did you get it through ACG or direct from Kleemann? At 11k, it still seems like a bargain (as far as modding AMG's goes). I might be convinced to pass on another watch & supercharge my CL.
While I don't doubt you've modded cars before, in your first post you talk about advertised "minimum gains". I can't find any minimum gains on their website, only "63 AMG (M156) KSS
63-K1S: Kleemann Kompressor System. Up to 680 HP and 850 Nm (630 lb-ft) of torque."
http://catalog.kleemann.dk/catalog/c...e/63-amg-m156/
Also, since it probably got overlooked on the first page, you mentioned spending "over 11k"; how much "over" and did you get it through ACG or direct from Kleemann? At 11k, it still seems like a bargain (as far as modding AMG's goes). I might be convinced to pass on another watch & supercharge my CL.
haha apparently both yourself and your installer are complete idiots...
You did a stock pull on your 507 C63 which puts out 507 crank HP, the stock C63 does 451HP...Thats a 56 crank HP difference
The kleeman kit advertises 150 crank HP gains for a STOCK 451 HP C63, so since you gained a 100HP crank OVER your already tuned 507 C63 you in reality gained 156 crank HP which is not only meets but exceeded kleemans specs.
If both of you knew anything about tuning you'd know that when you "tuned" your 507 C63 you essentially returned it to STOCK 451 HP and ADDED kleemans 150 HP gains on TOP... the main difference between your 507 C63 and stock is the ECU remapping(and forged internals to support the increased HP from the remapping), which is completely erased and REPLACED with kleemans tune.
Im surprised the kleeman rep nor anyone else in here caught this...
You did a stock pull on your 507 C63 which puts out 507 crank HP, the stock C63 does 451HP...Thats a 56 crank HP difference
The kleeman kit advertises 150 crank HP gains for a STOCK 451 HP C63, so since you gained a 100HP crank OVER your already tuned 507 C63 you in reality gained 156 crank HP which is not only meets but exceeded kleemans specs.
If both of you knew anything about tuning you'd know that when you "tuned" your 507 C63 you essentially returned it to STOCK 451 HP and ADDED kleemans 150 HP gains on TOP... the main difference between your 507 C63 and stock is the ECU remapping(and forged internals to support the increased HP from the remapping), which is completely erased and REPLACED with kleemans tune.
Im surprised the kleeman rep nor anyone else in here caught this...
Wait wait wait, are these numbers advertised with headers or just the stock exhaust??
Get that ****ty stock exhaust off and put some true long tube headers with 3" mids so this thing can breathe and you will see a big power difference! Make sure you get a new pulley and tune for the exhaust.
Get that ****ty stock exhaust off and put some true long tube headers with 3" mids so this thing can breathe and you will see a big power difference! Make sure you get a new pulley and tune for the exhaust.
Right so whats this?
You have agreed that the power gains were not meet, and I'm sure yourself and steve were scratching your heads for weeks on why, when the answer is very obvious and any basic tuner would have known this and explained it to their customer.
This on top of your "install" error (which btw you blame on poor instructions? thats laughable i don't know any tuners that need to "follow" instructions), just point to your incompetence as a car mechanic and someone who thoroughly understands car engineering and tuning.
You have agreed that the power gains were not meet, and I'm sure yourself and steve were scratching your heads for weeks on why, when the answer is very obvious and any basic tuner would have known this and explained it to their customer.
This on top of your "install" error (which btw you blame on poor instructions? thats laughable i don't know any tuners that need to "follow" instructions), just point to your incompetence as a car mechanic and someone who thoroughly understands car engineering and tuning.
Would the difference in power be as simply as a MAF beginning to fail, possibly the charcoal filters? Could the difference in power between the C63 507 and an E63 simply be because the E/CLS63 have 3" exhaust piping? There are many different answers and possibilities, there issue that Steve is having, and correct me if I'm wrong but if his C63 507 is not going to gain the advertised claims because its a 507 then that should honestly be noted.
In my opinion, an ROW airbox and filters should have been provided with the blower, but if the minimal gains are to be met by the minimal parts, they should do so.
As for your nonsense remark that you do not know any tuners that need to "follow" instructions, that is just
Last edited by James@ACG; 01-19-2015 at 06:24 PM.
#68
Senior Member
#69
MBWorld Fanatic!
You have been around here nearly as long as I have so you should know ACG is one of a small handfull of highly reputable shops/tuners on this forum. You never hear or read anything negative about them. Not to say people can not make mistakes once in a while but I would bet that the installer is NOT the culprit here.
#70
Super Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
3-pointed star
Right so whats this?
You have agreed that the power gains were not meet, and I'm sure yourself and steve were scratching your heads for weeks on why, when the answer is very obvious and any basic tuner would have known this and explained it to their customer.
This on top of your "install" error (which btw you blame on poor instructions? thats laughable i don't know any tuners that need to "follow" instructions), just point to your incompetence as a car mechanic and someone who thoroughly understands car engineering and tuning.
You have agreed that the power gains were not meet, and I'm sure yourself and steve were scratching your heads for weeks on why, when the answer is very obvious and any basic tuner would have known this and explained it to their customer.
This on top of your "install" error (which btw you blame on poor instructions? thats laughable i don't know any tuners that need to "follow" instructions), just point to your incompetence as a car mechanic and someone who thoroughly understands car engineering and tuning.
That's a little harsh @jstefanop
#71
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
2015.5 Volvo V60 Polestar
I personally would not fret so much on the dyno numbers. Especially when you factor in, 507 vs Base, and the issue on install. Dynos are a tuning tool. While the results are fun and interesting, I find 1/4 MPH to be a good indicator of power gained. (Given same track and similar D/A)
My friend had a Viper GTS, installed long tube headers, TB's, and exhaust. Same dyno, he gained a whopping 8whp. Not a typo. That 8whp must be the most efficient hp in the world because he gained 6-7mph in the 1/4mi. At that point does the minimal horsepower gains on the dyno even mean anything?
I worked with with Cory from Kleemann, his service and products are nothing short of top notch from my experience.
My friend had a Viper GTS, installed long tube headers, TB's, and exhaust. Same dyno, he gained a whopping 8whp. Not a typo. That 8whp must be the most efficient hp in the world because he gained 6-7mph in the 1/4mi. At that point does the minimal horsepower gains on the dyno even mean anything?
I worked with with Cory from Kleemann, his service and products are nothing short of top notch from my experience.
#72
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Woodlands, TX
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2014 CLA 250 / 2010 C63 AMG
With all the rambling and bashing going on.... all I hear is that ACG & Kleemann are working to get the car back in and keep investigating.
Good Job ACG!!
Who is gonna be "Last Word Larry" in the complaint department????
Good Job ACG!!
Who is gonna be "Last Word Larry" in the complaint department????
#73
MBWorld Fanatic!
The tuning and install was by ACG in San Diego, an extremely professional concern. They have had lots of experience with both firms and I wanted Kleemann because of the advertised performance, my mistake. ACG is a great tuner and I would recommend them highly, it was not their fault Kleemann's supercharger is not what is advertised.
https://mbworld.org/forums/c63-amg-w...rning-you.html
Last edited by Pertplus; 01-20-2015 at 02:39 PM.
#74
MBWorld Fanatic!
You have been around here nearly as long as I have so you should know ACG is one of a small handfull of highly reputable shops/tuners on this forum. You never hear or read anything negative about them. Not to say people can not make mistakes once in a while but I would bet that the installer is NOT the culprit here.