c32used

Zal


Was there an issue and was it fixed?

Zal

Well, If we agree that not getting a significant bump in Peak HP and Torque is a problem after the tune, then the problem was not resolved and based on the conversations with Adam at evotech a retune (from evotech) would not really make a difference. There was an initial disappointment simply based on expectations I had that I would have a significant bump in HP/TQ.

All that being said, while I do not have the quantified higher peak hp and TQ, I will say my subjective reaction to the tune is that the higher HP and TQ at lower RPMs and speeds has made the driving experience more enjoyable. The acceleration is much smoother at lower speeds and the car seems much more responsive in normal driving situations.

So whether it was worth it for a grand is debatable but experiences do have a price and I am enjoying the new experience..

I just love the 208 so all said and done I am enjoying the car and driving experience, which is what it is all about in the end, isn't it?

c32used

Check your PM...

Chappy

Zal,

You'll have to give me a ride in that thing Saturday. Please track your fuel mileage on the trip over...like to compare notes or see if yours has changed post-tune.

Looking forward to seeing you again!

Zal

Will definitely track mileage etc. I just put in a new set of plugs and K&N air filters as well. curious myself as to what to expect. Heck you can drive it yourself on Sat and have a first hand comparison to your car, since our cars were almost identical in Louisiana. Likely your first reaction compared to driving your car will be telling, as I am getting used to the way the car performs post tune. Looking forward to seeing you guys on Sat.

ChicagoX

WOW !

No re-tune until satisfied? No refund? No HP increase?

I'm sorry you had to pay a grand to hear "no power? too bad."

What is this world coming to?

SoCalCLK

Isnt there a saying out there that goes, "The factory always does it better" ...?

Either way, best of luck with the tuning and the ECU. Perhaps it just needs the fresh plugs and filters and some more miles under the belt to get itself right.

juicee63

I would be willing to wager 1-2k or the cost of a tune, same day same dyno. No tuner will create a significant increase in peak hp and tq on an N/A motor via a change in ecu mapping. My car still has the Evotech map and it is still the fastest non NOS CLS in the USA. And only 2/10ths slower than a car with an 80-100 shot of NOS. My powerchip tune netted me 1 hp I did not get any monies returned and I sent the car back 2x. Did the car feel faster? Yeah it did, seemed faster but it did not translate on the dyno or the track. I do not believe ECU tuning alone will get you much. Changing the map is insignificant and likely difficult to accurately measure on a dyno. This is all my opinion based solely on my experience

ChicagoX

What is your definition of "significant increase?"

I might take that bet.

Improviz

Several years ago, Car & Driver had an article entitled "Chips Ahoy", where they tested several cars (including two BMWs), running before and after tests for acceleration. The BMWs were both tuned with Dinan, forget the others...but the thing is that *none* of these chips made any difference on any of the normally aspirated cars.

The editors did some research, and found that these cars are *already* optimized from the factory, and there was nothing to be had from these remaps.

On forced induction cars with electronic boost control (B5 Audi S4), it will make a difference as it actually increases the boost, and therefore the power, to the engine--at the risk of engine knock, overspun turbos, etc., which will not be covered by factory warranty--and in fact, the only car they tested where they got any gain in performance was a Passat 1.8T, which picked up something like 50 hp. But the other cars gained nothing.

Caveat emptor.

ashutt

While I tend to agree with the consensus that there is little that can be changed in the mapping of a non-aspirated car in order to increase HP and TQ, there are two things that can be done to improve performance: (1) remove limitations and/or restrictions and (2) increase the timing.

Previous post: https://mbworld.org/forums/showthrea...963&highlight=

I have a 2001 CLK55 AMG with a SpeedTunningUSA chip upgrade that was installed in March of 2007. Cost was $350.00. The chip modifications advanced the timing and consequently the car was configured for 93-94 octane (to avoid nock). I also removed the 155 mph limitation and advanced the RPMs to 6500.

I dynode the car in April of 2007 after the chip modification.The problem with this analysis is that I failed to establish a baseline of performance before the chip modification. In any case, assuming my car had the standard HP (342) and TQ (379) numbers as commonly posted, the chip modification can be reviewed.

In order to dyno the car, I used a Dynapack 5000 load bearing dyno machine. It hooks to the hubs of the rear wheels. It doesn't use a roller system like the dynoJet. The temp was about 52 degrees, Bar was 25.26 and the altitude was around 4500 ft (Salt Lake City).

Let me just start by saying that the shop had a hard time configuring my car to run correctly on the dyno since it is an automatic and the ESP can't be fully shut-off. Even after I turned off the ESP using the switch inside the car, it still cut in and wouldn't let the car perform correctly on this load bearing dyno (hooked directly to rear wheel hubs). So we pulled fuse 24 and 37 (for ESP) in the engine bay on the drivers side- which triggered the ESP, BAS and ABS warnings. However, this allowed the car to rev up smoother to redline of 6,400. Please note that according to the user manual on page 216, that with these three malfunction indicators "only partial engine output will be available." I am not sure this was the case for me but it is possible I experienced some power loss- I wouldn't think so but I didn't see the timing map either.

Regardless, we went forward with the dyno runs. We manually shifted using 3rd and 4th gear to reach the highest dyno numbers. The best pull came on run 3 which was 303 Hp SAE to the wheels at around 5,2000 RPM. The shop indicated that this would be about 364.3 to the crank (using a calculation of 20% for drive train loss). My other runs varied from about 290 to the 303 to the wheels but admittedly it was hard for them to get consistent linear graphs because of the downshifting of the car under load. They were not happy with this issue, so they didn't charge me.

The shop thought the car was very strong and a 302 in that area was pretty good. The air/fuel ratio was about 13.0 (which I believe is on the leaner side). They also thought it would pull higher numbers if we could figure out how to not allow the car to downshift under load. If anyone knows how to avoid this, please let me know so I can have it retested.

So, it appears that the car has at least a 22 hp gain [342 hp stock to crank vs 364 now] with the addition of the Green Filters and the SpeedTuningUSA chip and possibly more if we can get the car to function properly on the dyno. For $350.00 I have no complaints.

rsr911

My 2002 CLK55 posted 302 HP and 320 lb/ft of torque bone stock. This was done in Nov 2006 at the Atlanta AMG GTG. Fuel was 93 octane Shell temp was high 50's low 60's.

Sorry I don't see any improvement.
Car has 40,000 miles on it.

rsr911

Pplease remember AMG and Mercedes has put millions of dollars and thousands of hours into developing our cars. They do not leave much on the table.

ashutt

Remember that Atlanta is around 1050 feet while while I dynoed at 4,770 feet above sea level. Dynos and drag times will be less at higher elevations. While there are estimated correction levels to compensate for this issue, the fact remains that the best numbers and times come from the areas with low elevations.

However, if my car was stock at that rating, I would still be happy with the chip modification because it removed the 155 speed restriction and the raised 6500 rpm level so I could hold a gear longer before hitting red-line.

Improviz

Sorry, but there is NO WAY you're going to get 22 hp out of a normally aspirated car with a chip. Further, there are plenty of bone stock dynos in this forum with 290-300 rwhp, so that's no different from a stocker; in addition to the one rsr911 mentioned above, we have Chappy's (per his sig, he got 304 rwhp and 321 rwtq stock) and these:
Stock 208 CLK55 dyno: 290 rwhp:

Stock 208 CLK55, three runs, 290, 295, 301 rwhp:

Plus, as you said: you performed no baseline run, and so you really cannot establish any gains over stock with only a post-mod dyno....and given that your numbers are no different than a stocker, this sort of gain seems doubtful.

Lastly, advancing the timing gains you nothing unless the stock timing is, basically, wrong and is not occuring at the optimal point, and frankly, this would mean that the Engineers at AMG are a bunch of morons who cannot properly design and test engines with optimal ignition timing, a rather dubious position.

And again: Car and Driver tested stock cars, modded the ECUs from several tuners, and tested them again. NO gain in performance.

Manufacturers whose chips were tested:
Superchips, Inc.
AutoThority Performance Engineering
Dinan
Hypertech, Inc.
JET Performance Products

ashutt

Improv,

As I stated, “The problem with this analysis is that I failed to establish a baseline of performance before the chip modification. In any case, assuming my car had the standard HP (342) and TQ (379) numbers as commonly posted, the chip modification can be reviewed." You are kind of wasting our time attacking this assumption.

Also, you quote C&D for reviewing chips but fail to show where they reviewed the SpeedTunningUSA chip? Also, it appears that possibly only one of your five chips reviewed actually make a chip for our car? I admit it would be nice to generalize this review to fit your assumptions but it would have been more persuasive to have provided a comparison to chips specific to our car- don’t you think?

Have you modified a car before? I only ask because your comments such as “advancing the timing gains you nothing” and “this would mean that the Engineers at AMG are a bunch of morons who cannot properly design and test engines with optimal ignition timing, a rather dubious position” seem without real world experience. Does anyone on this forum believe their W208 car is optimally configured without any ability to increase performance?

Further, I assume you realize that most geographical areas do not sell 94 octane and so what reasonable manufacturer would configure the car to run on 94 octane that isn’t sold in most states? Thus, your argument that AMG has configured our car to run with “with optimal ignition timing” is based off of a gasoline product with the widely sold 91 octane and not anything higher. That begs the question of what performance differences could AMG have programmed with a higher octane if it was commonly sold?

I can assure you through personal experience in modifying other cars in my past that advancing the timing can increase power to the car and is a widely used performance gain in conjunction with other modifications and higher octane usage. Pick-up a car parts magazine and review the section on timing and see what the track world has to offer in this area of performance.

Finally, do you really think that any manufacturer of a car gives it the optimal performance? Really? The reality is that they always reserve in order to protect the car for warranty issues.

Improviz

No, I'm saying that you cannot claim that your car picked up any horsepower without a baseline, particularly when your car does not produce any more rwhp than stockers.

Yes, yes, of course: the only possible conclusion is that Dinan, Superchips, Inc., AutoThority Performance Engineering, Dinan, Hypertech, Inc. , and
JET Performance Products, not to mention the incompetant engineers at AMG, do NOT know how to optimize ignition timing, but that SpeedTuningUSA, of course, does. And you know this because you have no data to support their chip giving you any additional horsepower over stock...right?

Yes, I have. And this question is ad hominem and irrelevant. I have not competed in the 100 m dash, but I can tell you who is the fastest runner because there is empirical data to show it.

Can you produce any empirical data to support your claim that your car picked up 22 hp? No, you cannot, because you do not have a baseline dyno.

The complete quote was "advancing the timing gains you nothing unless the stock timing is, basically, wrong". And this is true, which, if you knew anything about ignition timing, you wouldn't foolishly be trying to debate. Ignition timing is explained here, very nicely, courtesy of wikipedia:
So, in order for your car to realize ANY power gains, the factory ignition timing would have to be set such that it does NOT have optimal timing, as shown above.

Do you have any empirical data to show that this is the case?

Translation: "Improviz, you don't agree with beliefs I have for which I have no proof, so I'm going to attack you personally."

Attack away, but the fact is that you've got no numbers indicating that your car produces anything remotely close to 22 hp above stock.

In terms of ignition timing maps: yes. Do you have any data to support anything to the contrary, i.e., can you empirically demonstrate in any way that the ignition timing maps included in the stock ECU firmware are NOT optimal?

93 octane gasoline is commonly available in the US. I know this because I fill my car up with it.

And, you would do well to note that US gasoline is lower-octane than what is commonly sold in Europe and elsewhere, where if I'm not mistaken, Mercedes designs and sells their cars. Per handy-dandy wikipedia, we have this:
It would seem that there might be a very good reason for Mercedes to have programmed their ECUs to higher octane ratings, along with the FACT that 93 octane is sold throughout the US.

Which might help you in this debate had I said that advancing the timing would not increase power full stop, which is not what I wrote: again (third time now), I said that it would increase power ONLY if the factory timing was NOT optimal, and nothing you have produced shows this not to be the case.

Do you have one single iota of documentary evidence to support the assertion that they do not optimize their ignition timing?

Really?

Come back when you do.

ashutt

Improv,

I stopped ready after the first paragraph since I remember all of your other magazine (and now wikipedia?) quoting authority and know that I can't possibly argue with such wisdom and knowledge.

Please, in the future just save us the time and provide something other than an article that reviewed chip manufacturers that don't make chips for our cars and wikipedia on timing that didn't help your case on the advantages of timing advance for 94 octane.

In order to spare the others another long winded diatribe on why you are right, I will not respond to any further comments by you. It is best this way so that a meaninful thread can still be salvaged. Once you get a chip upgrade and then get the car dynoed, which I am sure will show no gains for you, let us know. Everyone can then stop waisting their money on trying to fix a perfect car. God bless AMG for a superior product.

Improviz

....I know, I know, it's so awful of me to point out those nasty li'l ol' facts and intrude on your rosy little reality there....so sorry to intrude. But the facts are these:

1) The Car & Driver crew tested multiple cars, with multiple chip tuners, with no gains. It is therefore prudent to take any and all such claims with a grain of salt until and unless they are independently, scientifically (same day, same conditions, only variable changed = chip) verified.

2) You do not have a baseline dyno. You therefore have no means to establish that your chip picked you up 0.000001 horsepower over stock, let alone 22 horsepower.

3) We do have multiple examples of stock W208 CLK55s dynoing with 290-305 rwhp. We also have your car, post chip mod, dynoing at 302. This is in the range of a stock car, so we therefore have no reason to conclude that your car runs any stronger than a stock car, or that it picked up 22 hp.

4) It is well-documented that changing ignition timing will NOT, in and of itself, increase horsepower, UNLESS the pre-modded ignition timing was not optimal.

5) You do not have any proof whatsoever that Mercedes' stock factory ignition timing maps are not optimal, only an unsubstantiated belief.

6) 93 octane fuel is widely available in the US (I can post a photo of a pump if you'd like), and octane ratings in Europe are higher than the US. Mercedes is a European company who designs and sells cars in Europe. Therefore, to assume that they do not design their ignition timing maps beyond 91 octane is not only unfounded, it is patently ridiculous.

Iow, you really cannot empirically establish anything that you've claimed.

So you can make all of the personal attacks you like, a convenient cover for refusing to respond to valid points/refutations I've made, but you've got no data.

And I will also point out that it is rather curious that you choose to attack me, my knowledge, and my credentials now, when you certainly seemed to hold me/them in high regard in the not too distant past: then, you took the time to generate the following thread, specifically addressed to me, which you entitled Performance Questions For Improviz or Others:
What happened....don't you love me any more?

Lastly, in a similar vein, it is rather amusing to see you throw rocks at Wikipedia, given that you started this thread about your entries there regarding the W208 CLK55...I guess your views of the site, like your views of me and my credentials, are subject to change, depending upon which the side of the fence you are sitting.

rsr911

By the way Chappy's dyno run numbers were done only an hour after mine on the same day. Both of our 2002 CLK55 dynoed with virtually the same numbers. How's that for a base line?

Cylinder Head

iTrader: (1)

Chipping an NA engine without any other modifications is like Joan Rivers getting another facelift. It's just not gonna get you anything but ugly.

This is a dumb argument, 22hp guy is full of it and it's plainly obvious.

speedybenz

On the subject of Chip tuning I believe that it is possible to gain some Hp and TQ if the chip is tuned on a dyno. The AMG guys while they did a great job in tuning the engines for EMISSIONS. They were not tuning for the best Hp performance, but for the best emissions out-put. So I think that there is some gain to be had by focusing on performance and not CO2.

How much gain is always hard to pinpoint and even more difficult given the very restricted set of first stage cats on all these cars, which tend to be a limiting factor in and increase in HP.

I would fully expect the a carefully tuned chip could net gains in engine response and driveability over stock with a possible net gain in torque near redline, where the stock power falls of pretty quickley.

Just my thoughts,

Jeff

Improviz

Well, that's not really the case...emissions actually suffer if unspent fuel is dumped out via the exhaust, which is what happens if your timing is retarded too much (see the Wikipedia quote below)...and these motors are ULEVs, which means that they're burning more, not less, of the fuel going into the cylinder. This is why they have two spark plugs instead of one.
So, if the manufacturer retards the timing from the optimal setting, they get lower power, higher emissions and lower fuel economy. If they advance it beyond the optimal setting, they get detonation and engine damage. Neither of these are desirable, for obvious reasons. There is simply no reason for them not to optimize it from the factory, while conversely there are very good reasons for them to optimize it from the factory.

You might expect it, but C&D tested such chips from several manufacturers, and got zip. Their research found that these vehicles' timing is already optimized from the factory, which makes sense: why on earth would any manufacturer ship a vehicle out with less than optimal ignition timing? Fuel economy *and* performance would be degraded, along with poorer emissions. It just doesn't make sense that any manufacturer would do this, and the C&D tests show this to be the case.

ashutt

Something to consider: https://mbworld.org/forums/showthrea...advance+timing. There are so many of these threads on every peformance car forum that I won't even waste our time listing them for review.

Readers, please don't confuse the stock W208 timing program for "optimal timing" using 91 octane pump gas as the same as an ECU reprogram that advanced the timing a few degrees to produce more output when using a higher octane such as 94 to 100+. The higher octane is needed to avoid knock or pre-detonation so that the timing is not retarded and as a consequence the ECU dialing back the power so that the car is not hurt.

Responders, please do not take us down the path of "no benefit from using a higher octane" when we are talking about using a higher octane than 91 when the timing has been advanced.

Carl Lassiter

94 octane? We only get 91 in Cali unless you spend 8bucks for 100. I thought the rest of the country got 93 not 94.