skratch77

What are u talking about.i never saw your uncorreted numbers and the op is using a correction factor to post what his car would do in better condition and I posted my slips with the same power to confirm it would trap higher.

PS there is no magic here bro every freaking healthy tuned c63 will put 440-445whp on pump gas.

Oh and while we are at it please tell us how you can mix up hp tuners tunes with dimsport hardware

I can easily go to my Dyno and make the place 65 degrees with the AC on and run my car std in 90 degree out side weather and have my numbers inflated also.

BTW my car made 442whp Uncorreted with no cf added and trapped a real 119mph

This is no way to put down op car it's for people saying it wouldn't run those traps with a corrected slip like he posted.

It will as I ran those traps with that same power.

Please tell us how his V70 tune is better than all the other cars that made that same power?

Where is the magical vvt mid range and top end? It looks exactly like my 3 year old 93 oct oetuning file or any freaking other healthy ec tune file from the past 5 years

Oh and that other car in that thread also had a 5k dollar renntech air box and a lightweight carbon fiber driveshaft.

Infiniti

You mad bro? Go check the last few pages of the 500whp thread.

Nvm don't lol, you'll find some other way to justify yourself

BLKROKT

You don't need a full drag slick or even drag radials with your mods. If you can't cut a 1.7x 60' on street tires on anything but a SC'd or nitroused C63, all that means is that you need to keep practicing. You don't have the power to get up on a drag slick to make any difference, in fact your 60' will probably get worse. Try heating up the tires (a lot) and powerbraking next time.

(reference: over 100 1/4 passes, best 60' ever were on MPSS, drag radials were worse)

AMGonFire

you had a great track or your an amazing driver props

AMGonFire

you seem like your upset that eurocharge is trying to improve their tunes. Seems like your justifying the fact you went with oe tuning vs eurocharged. Don't really care. You cannot compare his dyno to yours. He improved v6 to v7. That's all anyone cares about on here. No one cares you think oe is better.

xKryptonite

Those numbers seem normal and expected. Thanks OP for the dyno and track data. If OP adds headers, he will end up around 470ish whp which is typical. So no still no magic or unicorn stuff in this V7 tune.

Maybe I'm missing something but typically a tune + headers will get you anywhere between 90 to 100ish whp and from the looks of it this tune is doing just the same.

BLKROKT

His corrected trap of 119.1mph is 2mph faster than a typical trap with his mods (tune/ROW). His trap is more in line with a tune/ROW/headers car. If you look at the 1/4 mile times list you can see that he'd be just in the trap range of a very lightly modded headers car, or someone like my buddy Johnny who gutted his primary cats and straight-piped the rest.

Jasonoff

So we can pretty much assume the new "V7" EC tune without headers is pretty much equivalent to their competitors with headers.

Yeah, I'd be upsad about that as well if I didn't go with EC.

BLKROKT

Well, I mean that makes a lot of assumptions so take it with a grain of salt. Don't know the weight with driver. The correction isn't perfect.

My best mph at his level of tune (V5) and full weight was an corrected 117.39mph. I thought my car was pretty strong at that level with a best ET of 12.048.

I know my times aren't the end-all be-all, but I keep good records and analysis so can make an easier comparison. For instance, his corrected 1/8th mile would be 7.855 @ 93.012mph. My same run from above with his level mods was corrected 7.82 @ 92.50mph. So there's power from the start, and even with a bad launch he would have been dead even with me but made 0.5mph over the first half on me when I had a 1.87 short time. And then he gains 0.138 just on the back half, and another mph.

Yeah, it's a simulation and without more slips it's the smallest sample size you can have. But it does look like he's making some more power there with the new tune. Without correcting his previous slips we can't make a good comparison, but it works out to ~21whp difference to where I was (very approximately making a lot of consistent assumptions). Don't know how much of that is down to the V5-V6 change either (I skipped that version), but assuming not much.

C63fora2w1

Actually with headers I would expect closer to the 500 whp that we have seen with the v7 so far. Headers should be good for 50whp so that would put me at 493whp.

chrisridebike8

OP, excellent work. Thanks for the info. I do wonder why Kriston's car showed zero gains though since he did essentially the same thing and tested V6 vs V7.

C63fora2w1

I really dont know but the tests show that the v6 only gave me a 15hp increase so his car may have responded better the the v6. I know there are several other guys on this forum, who wish to remain nameless for the time being, who are now running v7 and have felt the difference. It is significant over v6.

Jasonoff

V6: 415 whp, 383 wtq
V7: 443 whp, 403 wtq

391 --> 415 is more than 15 btw...

But the V6 to V7 is significant. 415 --> 443 = 28WHP...

It was 40-50whp with headers V6 --> V7. Either way, it's an impressive differential.

AMG3.2

This is exactly what I'm wondering as well after reading that thread.

Celicasaur

This is what puzzles me too.

I reached out to him to send me a data log so I can compare load, timing and maf g/s, but didn't hear back from him, so...







What I'm thinking is that what we need would be a sample of data from cars that are; bone stock, P31, row + tune, row + tune + headers, row + V7 tune, row + V7 tune + headers. Accurate/corrected dyno figures too. This will enable us to be categorically sure of the difference by being able to compare the power outputs vs airflow and timing advance.

For what it's worth though, while I've not got enough data to make an accurate assumption for the increased airflow (yet), I can for now say that the logs I have seen of the V7 tune, do indicate ignition timing increases which would be good for little over 20whp alone. I am basing this assumption on the 'norm' being 24 degree's ign advance (with a tune) when using regular super unleaded and not race fuel/ethanol. If 24 degree's is low for a tune, then ignore what I just said

JimGnitecki

Yes we need a far larger sample size. And all SAE or all STD, not a mix, as the difference between SAE and STD runs between 2% and 5% depending upon the exact environmental conditions at the time. SAE would of course be the superior standard to use as it is more real world (That's why the OEMs use it versus STD).

And tests run at high elevation in new Mexico naturally are open to criticism since the correction factor on the charts posted was a whopping 26%. That high a correction factor is way too open to legitimate criticism. On the other hand if tests run under more normal conditions corroborate the high elevation results, that too would be very helpful as it would show that the M156 reacts "textbook perfectly" to BIG changes in environmental conditions.

I'd like to believe all these claims, but I remember that when Car & Driver Magazine tested the STOCK 2012 C63 P31, it somehow got 0 to 60 mph in 3.7 seconds and the quarter mile in 12.1 at 120 mph, and ever since I have been suspicious of C63 performance claims that omit key evidential data.

Jim G

roadtalontsi

I just have to ask when will this end? how many versions of a tune does there need to be? why are so many people caught up in the tune. There is no magic mystery tune to net you 600whp. There are limitations of physics. Without changing hard parts in the motor - cams, pistons/compression ratio, intake manfiold, valve size, etc... Instead of version 7/8 of this tune Id much rather see 1 version that is good and finished. It's laughable to think they are just now figuring out how to adjust cam timing? is that a joke? if you want that n/a on tune only 600whp... go buy a 150 shot and be done with it because a tune isnt going to get you there.

C63fora2w1

I dont think anyone is claiming 600 whp NA and I agree that there are physically limitations but with technology come advances and progess. If you are satisfied with first gen technology maybe we all should have a compaq persario with a 25 mhz processor a 2 meg of ram. Point being as technology advances so do power gains and if the VVT is the latest break through we should be happy that someone is still trying to push the envlope with this design. The way I see it is 50-60 whp and 50 wtq over stock is an impressive gain.

bhamg

Not really understanding the complaint. Should Ford have stopped at the Model T? The model T produced 7HP/ltr for a grand total of 20HP. Ten years ago I bought a car that delivered 106HP/ltr or 307HP from an engine if it were the same displacement as the Model T's. That was incremental progress too...

C63fora2w1

Maybe this is the root of the problem "Weistec stage 2. 538whp/534torques." not saying this is the case but if I spent close 20k on a supercharger and then someone comes along and is able to make 500whp NA with nothing more than a set of headers and a tune well that might ruffle some feathers.

604 C63

**** it. I cant be bothered.

jptaylor

you're and you're...just saying

MTV10

BLKROKT

I love this post. Yes, the V7 EC tune is just like getting a Stage 2 supercharger.

This place gets funnier every day.

BLKROKT

It's called "built in obsolescence". Why release one tune and be done, when you can instead release multiple incrementally better tunes gradually over time and therefore multiply your revenue. 10-20whp every time, releases 6-12 months apart. If you ask me, I bet there's 50whp still left on the bench, just waiting to be released.