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.
Hey everyone,
I've been talking with Jon @ BMS, who has been nothing but informative, helpful, honest, and professional when responding to all 1M of my questions... and I thought I would share some information with everyone, as this is something that I absolutely did not know or expect -- so there are probably some of you in the same boat as me...
I came from an 2007 e92 335i that was FBO w/ JB4... had no issues... since that time, I've upgraded to the C63 with the same plans -- FBO w/ JB4. I found out today that the JB4 NO LONGER DELETES THE CEL caused by cattless DP's (for all US models)... therefore, you will no longer be able to be FBO w/ JB4 and pass US emissions testing!! Huge let-down for me, but I guess BMS is going the same route as Dinan and not supporting Stage II modifications. They have apparently spread this across all their platforms for the US.
Just thought I'd share. Thanks again to Jon @ BMS for clarifying this for all of us. Still sounds like the best solution for a Stage I c63(s).
Hey everyone,
I've been talking with Jon @ BMS, who has been nothing but informative, helpful, honest, and professional when responding to all 1M of my questions... and I thought I would share some information with everyone, as this is something that I absolutely did not know or expect -- so there are probably some of you in the same boat as me...
I came from an 2007 e92 335i that was FBO w/ JB4... had no issues... since that time, I've upgraded to the C63 with the same plans -- FBO w/ JB4. I found out today that the JB4 NO LONGER DELETES THE CEL caused by cattless DP's (for all US models)... therefore, you will no longer be able to be FBO w/ JB4 and pass US emissions testing!! Huge let-down for me, but I guess BMS is going the same route as Dinan and not supporting Stage II modifications. They have apparently spread this across all their platforms for the US.
Just thought I'd share. Thanks again to Jon @ BMS for clarifying this for all of us. Still sounds like the best solution for a Stage I c63(s).
Interesting. Wonder if it’s a liability thing with the EPA or what.
Unrelated, I wonder how many others went down the path of 335 -> c63. I ordered a 2007 E92 myself and had the JB on it, then went to a W204 then a W205
Burger got into some huge issues in cali over this. To the point, that if you write downpipes in N54tuning forum, it will come out as d******s. The units sold in Asia are confirmed to be deleting downpipe CELs.
Interesting. Wonder if it’s a liability thing with the EPA or what.
Unrelated, I wonder how many others went down the path of 335 -> c63. I ordered a 2007 E92 myself and had the JB on it, then went to a W204 then a W205
I think there are a lot of e9x converts over here...
Originally Posted by munis
Burger got into some huge issues in cali over this. To the point, that if you write downpipes in N54tuning forum, it will come out as d******s. The units sold in Asia are confirmed to be deleting downpipe CELs.
Whoa... I guess this all happened pretty recently. Yeah, Jon said it's just the US market that's not supporting DP's anymore... looks like I might be going down a different route now =(
Burger got into some huge issues in cali over this. To the point, that if you write downpipes in N54tuning forum, it will come out as d******s. The units sold in Asia are confirmed to be deleting downpipe CELs.
^^This
The wonderful Democratic Peoples Republic of California has gone full-on crazy about companies based on Cali selling things that help people circumvent their CARB rules and testing. The are several small and mid sized tuning shops that have relocated to Nevada and Arizona in the last few years, as the powers that be have clamped down. This is also why BMS won't sell & ship the JB4 to Cali addresses.
Cali is a beautiful state, but between the taxes, cost of living, and the ultra-authoritarian and just plain insane government leadership, I don't know how people can live there and be happy.
We were able to get our new C63 strapped down today for a little tuning. Our development car is all stock with around 800 miles on the clock, base model, $68,000 sticker price. Fuel during testing was 91 with a couple gallons of E85 mixed in. We think these results will be repeatable on good quality 93 octane fuel but will retest in the future. Temps in the 70s.
The cliff notes:
1) Stock performed better than expected at 465whp / 490wtq, stock boost was ~9.5psi under these testing conditions.
2) Using the JB4 we raised boost up to 15.5psi peak but kept a nice taper up top to keep things safe. Power jumped up to 537whp / 597wtq.
3) We previously determined that the factory intake is a major restriction so we installed a prototype BMS intake system with the car on the dyno and the reduced restriction allowed it to hit 561whp.
4) We ended up dialing back torque a bit in the end to smooth out the power delivery but there is plenty on tap. This platform can probably break 700wtq if you really want it to.
5) With all the torque on the road we've set the JB4 to limit boost in 1st and 2nd gear for improved traction. It's a nice JB4 user adjustable option there for you when you need it.
Also worth mentioning the JB4 is different animal than all of the other C63 tuning boxes currently available for the platform. Offering CANbus, fuel control, wireless logging to your smart phone, and a lot more to be discussed later. We're just getting started here.
465 wheel for a non S is very high most C63s don't Dyno that much stock more like 450ish wheel. So either that car is 1 of a kind or the Dyno is way off. A non S should only dyno around 420ish.
465 wheel for a non S is very high most C63s don't Dyno that much stock more like 450ish wheel. So either that car is 1 of a kind or the Dyno is way off. A non S should only dyno around 420ish.
Doesn’t really matter that much when the point is to get a delta of before and after.
I think there are a lot of e9x converts over here...
Whoa... I guess this all happened pretty recently. Yeah, Jon said it's just the US market that's not supporting DP's anymore... looks like I might be going down a different route now =(
You can always order it from a non US address and have it shipped to you haha. Just saying.
Dyno numbers in general don't mean ****. I want to see before and after 1/4 times and trap speeds.
This. Dyno is just a tuning device, nothing more. Take the numbers with a grain of salt. Even the increments. Lots of mainstream tuners have amazing before and after dyno numbers, which traslates to jack sh*t on track.
Doesn’t really matter that much when the point is to get a delta of before and after.
No it does matter because obviously if you're saying it makes 537 wheel after tune and you put it on a different dyno and it's only 505 that's a pretty big difference. I'm not trying to bash it at all I'm all for it I hope this puts down good power but it's just odd that a non S is making 465 wheel when an S barely makes this. If you look at all different tuners and see what they get as a base it's nowhere near 465 if it's a non s they're barely reaching for 455 with the S.
I guess my biggest concern was being that I have a C63S what would it Dyno on their Dyno if non S is dynoing 465 because if it's going to dyno like 490 495. Then really it's not that big of a gain for the S model. don't get me wrong I will still be purchasing this because I don't feel like pulling my ECU and going through that process where it takes 3 hours just to get to it. I would of liked to see what the S dynos.
This. Dyno is just a tuning device, nothing more. Take the numbers with a grain of salt. Even the increments. Lots of mainstream tuners have amazing before and after dyno numbers, which traslates to jack sh*t on track.
No no I agree 100% the real numbers are at the track. Or run one of your buddies before the tune and then after and see what the difference is.
No it does matter because obviously if you're saying it makes 537 wheel after tune and you put it on a different dyno and it's only 505 that's a pretty big difference. I'm not trying to bash it at all I'm all for it I hope this puts down good power but it's just odd that a non S is making 465 wheel when an S barely makes this. If you look at all different tuners and see what they get as a base it's nowhere near 465 if it's a non s they're barely reaching for 455 with the S.
They aren’t going to put it on a different dyno lol. The entire point is for them to show a delta before and after on their same controlled environment.
I guess my biggest concern was being that I have a C63S what would it Dyno on their Dyno if non S is dynoing 465 because if it's going to dyno like 490 495. Then really it's not that big of a gain for the S model. don't get me wrong I will still be purchasing this because I don't feel like pulling my ECU and going through that process where it takes 3 hours just to get to it. I would of liked to see what the S dynos.
There is a very good chance that the S version would see higher gains the the non s, simply due to the fact that the s version has a higher base tune, so stock ECU psi would be higher throughout the rpm range/ curve. But my guess is that BMS would probably need to borrow a customer C63s for a day or two to make the the prebuilt maps that comes built in with the tuning box. It probably won't as polished as the one they will make with their own car, but I am positive it would be more than the non s version.
Custom maps that the an experienced end user would make is where you would start seeing some crazy *** numbers. Terry can always go back and release some good firmware updates once you guys start logging data from the s versions of this car. Main challenge is to keep the throttle 100% open all the time, and the throttle graph BMS posted above looks dead flat. If the same thing happens with 63s, I guarantee that it would be faster than non s.
No it does matter because obviously if you're saying it makes 537 wheel after tune and you put it on a different dyno and it's only 505 that's a pretty big difference. I'm not trying to bash it at all I'm all for it I hope this puts down good power but it's just odd that a non S is making 465 wheel when an S barely makes this. If you look at all different tuners and see what they get as a base it's nowhere near 465 if it's a non s they're barely reaching for 455 with the S.
A car is not going to make the same numbers on a different dyno. There are several major dyno makers in the market, and each will get different numbers on the exact same car on the exact same day with the exact same conditions. So while it might be 537 @ the wheels on BMS dyno (a Dynojet), that exact same car will dyno closer to 450-465 @ the wheels on a Mustang dyno.
You just cannot, I repeat cannot, compare dyno numbers from different sources or shops. Even two of the same brand of dyno (Dynojet vs Dynojet) aren't going to always put out the same numbers, as there are factors like smoothing and correction that the dyno operator programs into the computer for each run. That doesn't even take into account whether there is a load simulator on a particular Dynojet, which can make a difference in numbers as well.
As others here have mentioned, the only way that you can use dyno numbers as a point of reference is if they are a before and after comparison of the same car, on the same dyno, same testing conditions. That will give you a percentage increase that you can expect for the given change/modification. You cannot even use blanket hp numbers, because each car can vary in what it's baseline/stock output will be. So, to answer your question about what your S might run on BMS's dyno, all things being equal: if their non-S is putting down 465 stock, then an S should put out close to 500. Again, there are so many variables from car to car and run to run, that the 500 number pure speculation, but would be consistent with the general expectations. It's also very possible that 465 whp, stock, on BMS' C63 is an abberation. They may have a factory freak that puts out more power than the average non-S.
Just don't get too caught up in the numbers themselves. What you need to look at is: what did a car run stock vs what that car runs after a given modification. That will tell you how much of a power difference that mod might make. The track is where it really count's as you acknowledged and others already pointed out. The track will really show how the power is being put down, where the power is in the powerband, and how a given tuner makes the most out of what the car is capable of.
I have a kit that will prevent your check engine light from turning on or giving you a code while running DP; Check our IG profile at @Miami_benz_club or DM us for more info
A car is not going to make the same numbers on a different dyno. There are several major dyno makers in the market, and each will get different numbers on the exact same car on the exact same day with the exact same conditions. So while it might be 537 @ the wheels on BMS dyno (a Dynojet), that exact same car will dyno closer to 450-465 @ the wheels on a Mustang dyno.
You just cannot, I repeat cannot, compare dyno numbers from different sources or shops. Even two of the same brand of dyno (Dynojet vs Dynojet) aren't going to always put out the same numbers, as there are factors like smoothing and correction that the dyno operator programs into the computer for each run. That doesn't even take into account whether there is a load simulator on a particular Dynojet, which can make a difference in numbers as well.
As others here have mentioned, the only way that you can use dyno numbers as a point of reference is if they are a before and after comparison of the same car, on the same dyno, same testing conditions. That will give you a percentage increase that you can expect for the given change/modification. You cannot even use blanket hp numbers, because each car can vary in what it's baseline/stock output will be. So, to answer your question about what your S might run on BMS's dyno, all things being equal: if their non-S is putting down 465 stock, then an S should put out close to 500. Again, there are so many variables from car to car and run to run, that the 500 number pure speculation, but would be consistent with the general expectations. It's also very possible that 465 whp, stock, on BMS' C63 is an abberation. They may have a factory freak that puts out more power than the average non-S.
Just don't get too caught up in the numbers themselves. What you need to look at is: what did a car run stock vs what that car runs after a given modification. That will tell you how much of a power difference that mod might make. The track is where it really count's as you acknowledged and others already pointed out. The track will really show how the power is being put down, where the power is in the powerband, and how a given tuner makes the most out of what the car is capable of.
No I completely understand I'm not all caught up in the numbers it's just the gains they're getting from a non s to the max is what most tuners are getting from an S to the max. Most tunes on a c63s are picking up 75 wheel where they're getting 70ish wheel from a non S so the gain on a S with there tune is probably picking up 45 50 whp. I mean I know they're still testing so maybe they'll get more out of it I know you can't always just go upon number so that's why I said we'll just have to see what happens when but soon actually comes out.
You can always order it from a non US address and have it shipped to you haha. Just saying.
Exactly what I was thinking... 😁
Originally Posted by longbow0404
I have a kit that will prevent your check engine light from turning on or giving you a code while running DP; Check our IG profile at @Miami_benz_club or DM us for more info
'17 AMG S63 Convertible, '17 AMG C63S Edition 1 Coupe
Just to clarify...the appeal of the JB4 is that it's the "best of the best" when it comes to piggybacks, right? Still not a full ECU, so there are limitations (eg timing) to what it can adjust/control? And saves the time/$$ of having to pull and reflash the ECU, correct?
Having said that, wasn't the experience of others that on the W205 C63, doesn't the ECU "outlearn" the piggybacks and essentially nullify the modifications after time? I'm pretty sure this was discussed on this forum a few months back...?
Just to clarify...the appeal of the JB4 is that it's the "best of the best" when it comes to piggybacks, right? Still not a full ECU, so there are limitations (eg timing) to what it can adjust/control? And saves the time/$$ of having to pull and reflash the ECU, correct?
Having said that, wasn't the experience of others that on the W205 C63, doesn't the ECU "outlearn" the piggybacks and essentially nullify the modifications after time? I'm pretty sure this was discussed on this forum a few months back...?
The think the appeal of the JB4 is that it is cheap (relatively speaking) and makes really good power gains. It offers a feature set and user adjustability that other piggybacks don't have, and it is very user friendly and easy to install/uninstall. In terms of what you can do with it, yes, it is probably the best of the piggybacks. You mentioned the limitations, and the lack of timing control is the main one. One major advantage with the JB4, is that if you ever go the route of adding meth injection, there is simply no better tuning option out there to pair with meth, even the flashes.
As far as "learning" around the piggyback...the short answer is no, the ECU will not learn around the piggy changes; certainly not to a point where it negates the piggy tuning. Modern ECUs (especially the Bosch ME series which are arguably the most advanced vehicle ECUs on the market right now) can learn rather quickly around signal modifiers like the old Apexi S-AFC and some electronic boost controllers, as they just alter the signal in-line and are one-way interceptor piggybacks. With those, the ECU sends out a signal, it gets modified, and when it gets to the sensor, the ECU sees that the signal it sent isn't the signal the sensor got. The ECU will then "learn" that it needs to adjust itself to a new sub-table to make the sensor correspond to what it should. The JB4 (and other modern piggybacks) is a two-way interceptor. The ECU sends a signal to the boost sensor, JB4 modifies it, sensor reports back to the JB4, which then tells the ECU that all is normal coming from the sensor. The ECU never really sees something different to "learn" around.
The think the appeal of the JB4 is that it is cheap (relatively speaking) and makes really good power gains. It offers a feature set and user adjustability that other piggybacks don't have, and it is very user friendly and easy to install/uninstall. In terms of what you can do with it, yes, it is probably the best of the piggybacks. You mentioned the limitations, and the lack of timing control is the main one. One major advantage with the JB4, is that if you ever go the route of adding meth injection, there is simply no better tuning option out there to pair with meth, even the flashes.
As far as "learning" around the piggyback...the short answer is no, the ECU will not learn around the piggy changes; certainly not to a point where it negates the piggy tuning. Modern ECUs (especially the Bosch ME series which are arguably the most advanced vehicle ECUs on the market right now) can learn rather quickly around signal modifiers like the old Apexi S-AFC and some electronic boost controllers, as they just alter the signal in-line and are one-way interceptor piggybacks. With those, the ECU sends out a signal, it gets modified, and when it gets to the sensor, the ECU sees that the signal it sent isn't the signal the sensor got. The ECU will then "learn" that it needs to adjust itself to a new sub-table to make the sensor correspond to what it should. The JB4 (and other modern piggybacks) is a two-way interceptor. The ECU sends a signal to the boost sensor, JB4 modifies it, sensor reports back to the JB4, which then tells the ECU that all is normal coming from the sensor. The ECU never really sees something different to "learn" around.
Just saying this from experience, when I got the JB4 for my car, the stock PSI I would get from my turbo was around 9 to 10 psi. Now after running the tune for atleast a year, if I go back to the stock map, I get 15psi as the base boost now. So something changed. Even if I disconnect the JB4. And I can tell you that my car atleast certainly did adapt to JB4. The most aggressive built in map that came with the tuner was giving me 3.9 0-60 on dragy, so I started trying something else. I started with the boost numbers of the most mild map, and started increasing the boost in very small increments from throughout the rpm range. Like 0.25 everytime until the ECU started pulling boost. And then slowly the ECU psi started to increase little by little. Eventually the ECU started giving me 15psi around 5000rpm. Which meant with a request of 7.5 psi over, I was seeing boost as high 23psi.( Values would be different for the 63 and 63s). So now if I use the same map the car ran 3.9 on, it consistently gives me 3.5s, with the lowest of 3.44s.
Just saying this from experience, when I got the JB4 for my car, the stock PSI I would get from my turbo was around 9 to 10 psi. Now after running the tune for atleast a year, if I go back to the stock map, I get 15psi as the base boost now. So something changed. Even if I disconnect the JB4. And I can tell you that my car atleast certainly did adapt to JB4. The most aggressive built in map that came with the tuner was giving me 3.9 0-60 on dragy, so I started trying something else. I started with the boost numbers of the most mild map, and started increasing the boost in very small increments from throughout the rpm range. Like 0.25 everytime until the ECU started pulling boost. And then slowly the ECU psi started to increase little by little. Eventually the ECU started giving me 15psi around 5000rpm. Which meant with a request of 7.5 psi over, I was seeing boost as high 23psi.( Values would be different for the 63 and 63s). So now if I use the same map the car ran 3.9 on, it consistently gives me 3.5s, with the lowest of 3.44s.
Munis, you have the C43, but the info you provide is interesting. Based on what you were seeing, Terry must have taken the same approach on the C43 as with the Mini version of the JB. This would explain why there is no "auto-learning" map on the C43 version of the JB4. Based on what you are seeing, the JB4 is not doing all the boost controlling duties...it's letting the ECU actually control almost all the PID and WGDC through it's own internal subtables. The ECU will move up through its internal psi target by load and it will switch to a progressively higher boost table as it's "base" map. That would explain why you will see higher boost even on map 4. In that case, I stand corrected. There is a degree of "learning" around the JB4 with the way BMS is tuning with C43 platform. On the C43 it still shouldn't learn around the JB4 to the point of negating the tuning though. The only way that would happen given the above info, is if the car consistently runs into a reduced boost, increased fuel trim, retarded ignition advance scenario. And that scenario would have to repeat itself 3-5 times consecutively. This tuning setup also makes it more important to reset adaptations if you switch between maps for multiple runs.
The C63 version appears different from the C43 version. From what I'm seeing in the data log posted at the start of the thread at least. That log shows an ECU boost target of ~9.5 psi, but the JB4 is targeting ~15. This setup seems to be more in line with N54 and N55 setups, where the JB4 is acting as the boost controller. If so, then there shouldn't be the same "learning" phenomenon that you are seeing on your C43. Maybe BMS can chime in and advise which tuning approach the C63 JB4 is using, to confirm one way or the other?
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.
