When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
From what I’ve read & what I’ve managed with my C63S that has drop in low profile air filters & secondary cat delete, you can check my posts in the 1/4 mile thread, there’s definitely a gain in the 1/2 mile of at least 5 mph compared to my 144-145 mph runs.
Good to see improvements crazy, but I'd really like to see some dyno numbers.
Terry:
I have a '19 C63S and am only in Pasadena so very close if you want to try some (very) safe pulls.
Good to see improvements crazy, but I'd really like to see some dyno numbers.
Terry:
I have a '19 C63S and am only in Pasadena so very close if you want to try some (very) safe pulls.
Sorry, as I added above, I do not have a jb4 yet, I know people are wanting to see dyno numbers & I was just adding my 2 cents regarding track numbers.
Just finished installing the JB4 in my C63s. Ran it on map 2 for an hour or so with no issues. Definite improvement! Will try to get a dyno in the next few weeks. Had a small issue with forgetting to reconnect a wire that was removed for slack during installation but all fixed and Jon at Burger Motorsports was a huge help. I'm very pleased.
On the mobile app.. Why not just make it car play and android auto compatible.
That way there wouldn't be any need for that funky suction magnet mount.
i know probably way too many hoops to jump through with Apple and Google but it would be nice.
Just finished installing the JB4 in my C63s. Ran it on map 2 for an hour or so with no issues. Definite improvement! Will try to get a dyno in the next few weeks. Had a small issue with forgetting to reconnect a wire that was removed for slack during installation but all fixed and Jon at Burger Motorsports was a huge help. I'm very pleased.
Is your car stock? Seems like map 2 was being mentioned as best used with other mods and also requires messing with plug gaps.
Hoping for an update from BMS soon with stock S figures, map recommendation on 93, and install video.
One other thing that I don’t get is why the boost reduction by gear is called some whacky parameter name...would really simplify and clarify if it were renamed “boost reduction” and had an input for each gear, and also the values should be entered as negative...confusing that they are positive when they have the opposite effect. Also, would be nice to come pre-set to the ideal boost reduction settings for a stock vehicle. Worst case, make it like “Map 1 BR”, “Map 2 BR” etc. One less thing to have to mess with.
Stock C63s. 93 octane fuel. Didn’t mess with any settings (boost reduction by gear etc, or plug gaps).
Install wasn’t too difficult - definitely doable if you follow the instructions by any home mechanic. I used the guide on their website which worked great. Getting the map 1 and map 3 sensor connectors off was a pain since Mercedes buried them in the front under a plastic guard that you have to loosen a lot of stuff to get to it. Took me about 5 hours all in because this was the first time I had removed the air boxes, etc, so it took a little while to be familiar with everything. If I did the install again I could do it in about three hours.
Trying to piece this together since there is no C63S dyno available... If the non-S car made 465 whp stock (rated at 469 crank), and then made 537 whp with the JB4, we see a 72 hp gain. The S is rated at 503 crank, and following similar logic, it should be about 500 whp stock. I believe we have been told that the peak power will be the same on JB4 between S and Non S cars, so it would end up with the same 537 whp. So, really all we are going to gain is ~37 whp on an S model?
Would be nice to have a stock S dyno as a baseline, then add just your JB4 on pump gas (not mixing in any E85 that 99% of us won't ever mess with) and then a third with JB4 on pump gas plus your intake.
No idea on actual numbers for my S, but it definitely felt to be somewhere in between 540-580whp. Ended up trading in the car, so I have my 1 month old JB4 with Bluetooth for sale.
Trying to piece this together since there is no C63S dyno available... If the non-S car made 465 whp stock (rated at 469 crank), and then made 537 whp with the JB4, we see a 72 hp gain. The S is rated at 503 crank, and following similar logic, it should be about 500 whp stock. I believe we have been told that the peak power will be the same on JB4 between S and Non S cars, so it would end up with the same 537 whp. So, really all we are going to gain is ~37 whp on an S model?
Would be nice to have a stock S dyno as a baseline, then add just your JB4 on pump gas (not mixing in any E85 that 99% of us won't ever mess with) and then a third with JB4 on pump gas plus your intake.
Your math doesn't add up there. If a non S made 469 crank then there is no way it's making 465 whp. There is roughly 10-15 percent loss in the drivetrain.
I think the HP numbers from Merc would be usable - say 12% for an avg whp but the problem is I've read a few Dyno numbers that suggest AMG under rated the m177 by quite a bit so unless we use a before and after on the same Dyno and same day there really is no data. Just random shot in the dark. I think BMS posted one early on but this thread has evolved so much I don't think any of that info is valid anymore.
Might be time to get some updated numbers?
I probably won't be getting one for my S just because there are some differences between S and non S and the tuner has never even tested in house on an S.
Don't get me wrong, I used the JB3 then JB4 on my 335i for years back around 2009 to 2014 then a JB4 on my M3 . I just think there isn't enough going into my current car for a complete understanding.
Your math doesn't add up there. If a non S made 469 crank then there is no way it's making 465 whp. There is roughly 10-15 percent loss in the drivetrain.
I think the HP numbers from Merc would be usable - say 12% for an avg whp but the problem is I've read a few Dyno numbers that suggest AMG under rated the m177 by quite a bit so unless we use a before and after on the same Dyno and same day there really is no data. Just random shot in the dark. I think BMS posted one early on but this thread has evolved so much I don't think any of that info is valid anymore.
Might be time to get some updated numbers?
I probably won't be getting one for my S just because there are some differences between S and non S and the tuner has never even tested in house on an S.
Don't get me wrong, I used the JB3 then JB4 on my 335i for years back around 2009 to 2014 then a JB4 on my M3 . I just think there isn't enough going into my current car for a complete understanding.
All I’m doing is using BMS’s own graphs. It shows whp is 5 shy of claimed crank. All I did was use the same logic for the S.
That aside, I agree, somewhat disappointing that there isn’t testing being published with an S at this stage of the game.
I too used the JB3 on my 2007 335i and was very happy with it.
Last edited by ezatnova; May 18, 2019 at 05:36 PM.
All I’m doing is using BMS’s own graphs. It shows whp is 5 shy of claimed crank. All I did was use the same logic for the S.
That aside, I agree, somewhat disappointing that there isn’t testing being published with an S at this stage of the game.
I too used the JB3 on my 2007 335i and was very happy with it.
A stock C63S will have approx 470 WHP and and it is under rated by about 30 HP per Dinan. They say 533 HP stock and that would look correct using 470 WHP and a drive line loss of 12 % would give 534 HP.
Most stage 1 tunes will give some where around 70 HP increase. After watching these threads over the last 4 years I think this is quite close.
A stock C63S will have approx 470 WHP and and it is under rated by about 30 HP per Dinan. They say 533 HP stock and that would look correct using 470 HP at the crank and a drive line loss of 12 % would give 534 HP.
Most stage 1 tunes will give some where around 70 HP increase. After watching these threads over the last 4 years I think this is quite close.
Yeah I think he missed the point I was making. AMG under rated the HP so BMS stock pull whp just shows that.
Installed my JB4 last weekend. As others have said, it’s not super easy the first time, but also not terrible. Sensor 1 and 3 took a while and four hands is definitely a help. Took about 3 hours. I also took extra time to RTV around the existing gasket of the JB4 enclosure, as well as in the wire sections entering the top and bottom of the enclosure to help ensure it is water tight.
Anyway, initial impression is overall positive. Personally I notice more of an improvement from stock to map 1 than map 1 to map 2, which makes sense given the delta is ~+3 psi on map 1 and ~+4 on map 2.
Have sent some logs to BMS and Terry seems fine with both maps’ results. I am otherwise stock, on 93 octane.
I need to explore boost by gear. But haven’t had time yet.
Also particularly on map 2, I’ve noticed some part throttle (20-50%) non-linear rpm increase (i.e. surge/lag). I need to explore more and compare back to back with map 1 and map 0.
In the meantime, can anyone give me a general sense of healthy results for some of the parameters in the logs? i.e. AFR, Trim, IGN, load, etc. I’m just not sure what to really watch for in the logs.
Perhaps some of you JB4 guys can get some 1/4 track times to compare vs the ECU tune people. Stock vs JB4 vs Ecu Tune would be nice to see for people on the fence about their options.
Perhaps some of you JB4 guys can get some 1/4 track times to compare vs the ECU tune people. Stock vs JB4 vs Ecu Tune would be nice to see for people on the fence about their options.
That’s what I’d like to see as well.
I ran 11.5 @ 127 mph in Texas heat with just a Dinan piggyback and 305 PS4S’s in the rear. Tank of straight
93 octane with no booster/ethanol. I haven’t seen JB4 best that time or mph even with their full intake and E30 blend.
I wish more people were active so we could get more JB4 results...
Installed my JB4 last weekend. As others have said, it’s not super easy the first time, but also not terrible. Sensor 1 and 3 took a while and four hands is definitely a help. Took about 3 hours. I also took extra time to RTV around the existing gasket of the JB4 enclosure, as well as in the wire sections entering the top and bottom of the enclosure to help ensure it is water tight.
Anyway, initial impression is overall positive. Personally I notice more of an improvement from stock to map 1 than map 1 to map 2, which makes sense given the delta is ~+3 psi on map 1 and ~+4 on map 2.
Have sent some logs to BMS and Terry seems fine with both maps’ results. I am otherwise stock, on 93 octane.
I need to explore boost by gear. But haven’t had time yet.
Also particularly on map 2, I’ve noticed some part throttle (20-50%) non-linear rpm increase (i.e. surge/lag). I need to explore more and compare back to back with map 1 and map 0.
In the meantime, can anyone give me a general sense of healthy results for some of the parameters in the logs? i.e. AFR, Trim, IGN, load, etc. I’m just not sure what to really watch for in the logs.
Map 2 log below:
AFR looks a little rich (upper 10s low 11s) getting toward redline, but hard to know exactly what the numbers are just looking at the graph. Can you post the .csv file? Otherwise, looks fine. Even if it is running rich, it won't hurt performance appreciably, but is kinda wasting fuel.
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Slideshow: A one-of-one U.S.-spec Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren Roadster became even rarer after a factory-backed transformation at McLaren's headquarters.
