Calling members trolls. Bold move, Cotton...

Ok, got it. So can you tell us what you guys have found out how to crack, or what parameters you're playing with, to get all this new power? That's a fair question, right?

I see it like the "Boostane" incident. "Trust us just put it in your car and it will make power" doesn't cut it with most people. I like to know what's going on, and know the full risk v reward picture, before making a modification. I don't know that it's unusual either.

Maybe you're not marketing to me. Maybe this post isn't about that. But as a current happy EC customer, with potential to be a repeat customer it should be if you're going to respond in it as a representative of your company. When fairly new people representing their new EC tune come in here, waving around wild previously unheard of numbers, I think people had a right to be skeptical. Then EC contributed to the confusion by making a bunch of misleading claims and referencing incomplete dyno charts. I just think there should be answers, not more evasiveness.

But what do I know, I'm just a customer.

He ain't wrong.

Second that..

I see "Boostane" referenced all the time, and although I don't know the background - I'm sure it was a hilarious episode. I'm sure i can guess what it was all about using context clues and my "ninja" skills.

Engines are pretty simple. There are not a ton of things that can be fiddled with, especially on NA. I'm sure some folks have a pretty good idea, and that may be very telling - It shows me who has a handle on how things work, and those who have no idea and just pretend to.

When it's released, the "WOW" will be gone, but the power will remain.

Thanks

Dave

Dave when you release the final details can you please dyno in SAE and have the conditions on the sheet along with air fuel ratio

Pretty much sums up my attitude. The interwebs are one thing... clients in real life are another.

Clients appreciate it, and if they don't? We aren't a good fit, simple as that. I don't need or want EVERY customer, just the good ones.

Thanks

Dave

Since the term beta is being used for this new tune which will probably be the EC v7 file, can I be a beta tester?

I'll gladly schedule a dyno session, flash back to stock on my 507 and do a few pulls. Then load up th EC v6 file, do a few pulls and finally some pulls with this new beta tune

FML haven't been on in a while and just caught up with this thread. What a read!



Also...Poor Jim

As of now we have it on all the cars we had planned for in the test group - things are looking good and we are pleased with the results. Give me a PM on the next one

Thanks

Dave

Correct, which is why he asked what EC stumbled upon. To "all of a sudden" find this much newly acquired WHP on a simple engine is difficult to comprehend without some sort of technical explanation.

This is true. Some members here do pretend they're mechanically inclined. They go to a shop, get something done while they go fetch a latte, then play hero while they reiterate what some mechanic told them.

Why don't you spill what EC may have cracked (HP tuners cam adjustment...)? If it's top secret just say so and we'll be patient. Sharing is caring.

Now you're just a damn tease...

here are my runs at real street with all the data you guys wanted. sorry it took so long but now what?

I can understand EC not telling their secret yet. They are still in Beta phase testing the tune. If they gave the secret away, others could copy it, and sell the tune before EC finishes the testing.

I know we tuned my car with HP Tuners, and we made some great gains, especially at the bottom to mid range playing with the cam timing.

This graph looks solid. It shows SAE correction (versus STD correction), and the ambient weather conditions, and the ambient conditions and calculated SAE correction factor are consistent with each other.

Furthermore, the correction factor being 1.03 is well within the acceptable bounds to make the runs credible.

Finally, the ambient temperature for the best-power runs is high enough that it is impressive that the engine, not known for its cooling ability, did as well as it did.

Infinity, if you posted this data a lot earlier we would all have saved a lot of time and ugly conversations.

This is the way it is SUPPOSED to be done when making a breakthrough claim.

Jim G

Looking more closely at Infinity's charts, I find it interesting that peak power occurred at about 6500 and then fell off slightly - well before the rev limit, just like a stock M156, so it is not breathing relatively any better at high rpm. It's more of a relatively steady gain that starts in the 3000s and continues for the rest of the rpm range. Curious.

Jim G

Pretty much matches my conditions Jim, yet mine was questionable???

I don't recall your data and conditions off the top of my head, but the test is simple:

- Find the SAE and STD correction factor formulas online
- Plug in your data
- See what the formulas produce
- Compare that to what a dyno chart is claiming, to assess consistency
- remember that if the formulas produce a correction factor greater than about 5%, the data is junk because the formulas break down when the ambient conditions are too unusual, and the testing needs to be redone under more normal conditions
- remember that engines do NOT respond "perfectly" to changes in ambient conditions, and that some engines respond better or worse than others. A run at particularly bad conditions may cause an engine to significantly underperform. A run under unusually favorable conditions may not be reproducible under more normal conditions.

If you want me to plug your data into the formulas for you, simply re-post now the following:

- Ambient temperature
- Ambient barometric pressure
- Ambient humidity
- The SAE correction factor that the dyno calculated

I'd be happy to plug the numbers in for you.

I have no dog in this fight. My C63 is bone stock and will stay that way until the extended aftermarket warranty expires.

Jim G

we took our cars to the same place (not affiliated with EC) put up the data and proved our point. but yet somehow some will still question it.

When data is submitted with key missing pieces, then yes, of course there will be people questioning it. That should not offend you when you are claiming a breakthrough on something that others have been pursuing without success for years.

Jim G

I hope you guys have more fun in your real lives than is exhibited on this thread..... jeez ive never seen so much jousting, pizzing contests, and attacks on what are 'supposed' to be your MB bretheren.

even though schumilator and i proved the unicorn tune is real after we posted the graphs with all factors i went back to real st today.

changes:
jerry sent a new flash
new spark plugs
broed the shafts on the throttle body's
thermal intake spacers

i sent the raw files to a friend so i will later post it up with all factors.

What did you do to the throttle body?

i did this because i did it on my e55 7 years ago and felt a diff so i thought what the hell. i felt a difference even before the new tune (which idk if that made a huge diff because we worked on my initial tune for 3/4 hours first time) thermal spacers? can't hurt. with the right air tool and experience taking off the intake manifold it isn't bad. i'm happy i did it. forget spending all that money on tbs. nitrous is up next before christmas

I am not sure what is different on the throttle bodies ? Im not knocking you I just dont know what im looking at ? What did you do/change ?

The round shaft is now flattened, presumably to flow more air.