Kleemann SLK 55K S8
12-03-2005, 11:12 AM
#26
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: sac, calif.
Posts: 1,164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'06 slk55
ECU Mapping
Rookie question...
When they remap the ecu, is it not the same for all vehicles? If you have an S8, then will your map be identical for every S8 or is it specific for every car?
When they remap the ecu, is it not the same for all vehicles? If you have an S8, then will your map be identical for every S8 or is it specific for every car?
12-03-2005, 01:27 PM
#27
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'93 RX-7, SLK55
Originally Posted by dsb
Rookie question...
When they remap the ecu, is it not the same for all vehicles? If you have an S8, then will your map be identical for every S8 or is it specific for every car?
When they remap the ecu, is it not the same for all vehicles? If you have an S8, then will your map be identical for every S8 or is it specific for every car?
Just fyi, mine is just WAY off right now (partially due to the ECU not learning yet....but why let it "learn" when my dyno graph clearly indicates a non linear curve - this is why the ECU must be reprogrammed). Once its optimized (get the ECU back next week), I'll give it a week to learn.
Hope this anwers your question.
Dragon, any corrected dyno numbers yet my friend?
-Matt
12-20-2005, 06:24 AM
#28
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLK55 black, heads, cam and tune
Originally Posted by Yellow R1
My ECU had to go back to Kleemann today for reprogramming as my rwhp is off (only 411 rwhp = 485 Hp @ the crank w/15% drivetrain loss). When I get the car back next week, I'm going to have to drive it for a week to allow the ECU to "learn" again before going back for its final dyno.
(its down about 90 rwhp right now which is why we pulled the ECU again & resent via Fed Ex today). See ya,
-Matt
(its down about 90 rwhp right now which is why we pulled the ECU again & resent via Fed Ex today). See ya,
-Matt
Good luck.
Some photos would be nice.
12-20-2005, 08:32 AM
#29
Originally Posted by Yellow R1
My ECU had to go back to Kleemann today for reprogramming as my rwhp is off (only 411 rwhp = 485 Hp @ the crank w/15% drivetrain loss). When I get the car back next week, I'm going to have to drive it for a week to allow the ECU to "learn" again before going back for its final dyno.
This tuning has been taking a while due to the iterative sending of the ECU back & forth to Colorado, checking dyno, finding small problems like a failing fuel pump, etc....pain in the **** man
. Ah well, I must await while these "kinks" have been getting worked out. I'm hoping it will be the last time on the dyno next week but its crucial to ensure the set up is indeed producing the power its supposed to. (its down about 90 rwhp right now which is why we pulled the ECU again & resent via Fed Ex today). The software must be adjusted as the latest dyno clearly shows a non linear curve. #1, the power is down since ECU has not had time to learn (must re learn each time Kleemann guys try a different map), #2...the overall curve is down by about 90 rwhp - software base map is not right. Brandon @ Kleemann is working to adjust. John (CT Motorsports) has been great....its just taking some more time. 
I'll post pics when I get my car back....power production is my priority right now. 500 RWHP is the goal.
See ya,
-Matt
This tuning has been taking a while due to the iterative sending of the ECU back & forth to Colorado, checking dyno, finding small problems like a failing fuel pump, etc....pain in the **** man
. Ah well, I must await while these "kinks" have been getting worked out. I'm hoping it will be the last time on the dyno next week but its crucial to ensure the set up is indeed producing the power its supposed to. (its down about 90 rwhp right now which is why we pulled the ECU again & resent via Fed Ex today). The software must be adjusted as the latest dyno clearly shows a non linear curve. #1, the power is down since ECU has not had time to learn (must re learn each time Kleemann guys try a different map), #2...the overall curve is down by about 90 rwhp - software base map is not right. Brandon @ Kleemann is working to adjust. John (CT Motorsports) has been great....its just taking some more time. I'll post pics when I get my car back....power production is my priority right now. 500 RWHP is the goal.
See ya,
-Matt
..........on 11/10/05 you posted a dynograph that showed your car was making 489RWP. You have now posted on 12/2/05 that your Ecu had to go back to Kleemann because your car was making only 411RWHP. I am confused, did your RWHP drop or was the dyno you showed on 11/10/05 mistakenly described as RWHP when it should have been crank HP. No offense intended at all........I have an S7 and I am trying to understand if this is something I should be concerned about. By the way the dyno you posted on 11/10/05 is below.
Ted
12-20-2005, 08:51 AM
#30
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Matt,
Sorry your having issues with your car
I dont understand why the ECM needs to be recalibrated if the original tune was accurate.
Was your fuel pump bad prior to the tune?
I think i would bite the bullet and drive to Kleeman where they can dyno and tune at the same location. This back and forth stuff will drive you nuts!
Good Luck
Sorry your having issues with your car
I dont understand why the ECM needs to be recalibrated if the original tune was accurate.
Was your fuel pump bad prior to the tune?
I think i would bite the bullet and drive to Kleeman where they can dyno and tune at the same location. This back and forth stuff will drive you nuts!
Good Luck
12-20-2005, 12:59 PM
#32
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'93 RX-7, SLK55
Originally Posted by Ted Baldwin
..........on 11/10/05 you posted a dynograph that showed your car was making 489RWP. You have now posted on 12/2/05 that your Ecu had to go back to Kleemann because your car was making only 411RWHP. I am confused, did your RWHP drop or was the dyno you showed on 11/10/05 mistakenly described as RWHP when it should have been crank HP. No offense intended at all........I have an S7 and I am trying to understand if this is something I should be concerned about. By the way the dyno you posted on 11/10/05 is below.
Ted
Ted
1) Yes, the car orginally put down 489 rwhp. However, my check engine light came on the next morning & the car felt more "sluggish".
2) Took the car back to fix the above issues & found out the rising rate fuel regulator had failed so boost had dropped to 3.5 lbs maximum. This was confirmed on the dyno & a boost meter...power had dropped to 411 rwhp due to the 50% lower boost. Even at 50% boost, 411 rwhp is 495 Hp (assumes a 17% drivetrain loss).
3) Fuel regulator was fixed & ECU reprogrammed (optomized further since a total of 27 dyno pulls were now in Kleemann's library allowing them to read not only my ECU parameters for these pulls, but see the associated power output with their changes). Tuning takes time & contrary to John Long's above input, the dyno location was an inconveniece (added an extra 3 days each time the ECU was sent back) but makes absolutely zero difference in how well the ECU is tuned. CT Motorsports has all the MB software & can read & faxed the ECU output data to Kleemann. The associated reprogramming @ Kleemann was "why" the ECU had to be sent to Colorado (they must get downloaded software from Kleemann Denmark - so having the car in Colorado only decreases tune time but, as stated, makes no impact in power output).
Gang, I've just not been in a rush. I've got 3 cars. I figured its better to take my time & make sure this little "semi exotic" is optomized via tuning to refine power output - just not a biggie to me?
The car is back, in perfect shape with about 4k miles & 600 Hp. It HAULS AZZ (tires break lose at 70 mph - did the other night when I destroyed a new pesky Mustang Cobra pacing me on the highway). I'm driving with 100 octane to let the ECU not only learn, but learn 100 octane for maximum power. I'll put on the dyno in mid/late Jan after some more mileage is put on the car to allow learning. Gentlemen, it was worth the wait to work out some minor bugs & tune the car. It is LETHAL fast & absolutely EVIL :v :v .
PS - I guess I'll break down & get a digital camera as it seems people want to see pictures? My Sony is no longer working - software incompatability issue with my PC all of the sudden. POS!!!
.Ted, just watch your MAF sensor. Due to the S7 upgrade, more air is flowing & its not uncommon for the check engine light to come on UNLESS you get one that has an uncharacteristicly high tolerence band (approx 1 in 5 MAF from MB have a wider tolerence to avoid the check engine light from coming on). Mine "ate" 2 before getting a good one. Sound like yours is OK
.Cheers!
-Matt
12-20-2005, 04:33 PM
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: SFV, CA
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06 SLK55
Originally Posted by Yellow R1
2) Took the car back to fix the above issues & found out the rising rate fuel regulator had failed so boost had dropped to 3.5 lbs maximum. This was confirmed on the dyno & a boost meter...power had dropped to 411 rwhp due to the 50% lower boost. Even at 50% boost, 411 rwhp is 495 Hp (assumes a 17% drivetrain loss).
Cheers!
-Matt
Cheers!
-Matt
:v
Last edited by Falco; 12-20-2005 at 04:35 PM.
12-20-2005, 06:24 PM
#35
Originally Posted by Yellow R1
Hmm, seems I've confused some people? My bad, ....sorry gang, I'll clarify to all.
1) Yes, the car orginally put down 489 rwhp. However, my check engine light came on the next morning & the car felt more "sluggish".
2) Took the car back to fix the above issues & found out the rising rate fuel regulator had failed so boost had dropped to 3.5 lbs maximum. This was confirmed on the dyno & a boost meter...power had dropped to 411 rwhp due to the 50% lower boost. Even at 50% boost, 411 rwhp is 495 Hp (assumes a 17% drivetrain loss).
3) Fuel regulator was fixed & ECU reprogrammed (optomized further since a total of 27 dyno pulls were now in Kleemann's library allowing them to read not only my ECU parameters for these pulls, but see the associated power output with their changes). Tuning takes time & contrary to John Long's above input, the dyno location was an inconveniece (added an extra 3 days each time the ECU was sent back) but makes absolutely zero difference in how well the ECU is tuned. CT Motorsports has all the MB software & can read & faxed the ECU output data to Kleemann. The associated reprogramming @ Kleemann was "why" the ECU had to be sent to Colorado (they must get downloaded software from Kleemann Denmark - so having the car in Colorado only decreases tune time but, as stated, makes no impact in power output).
Gang, I've just not been in a rush. I've got 3 cars. I figured its better to take my time & make sure this little "semi exotic" is optomized via tuning to refine power output - just not a biggie to me?
The car is back, in perfect shape with about 4k miles & 600 Hp. It HAULS AZZ (tires break lose at 70 mph - did the other night when I destroyed a new pesky Mustang Cobra pacing me on the highway). I'm driving with 100 octane to let the ECU not only learn, but learn 100 octane for maximum power. I'll put on the dyno in mid/late Jan after some more mileage is put on the car to allow learning. Gentlemen, it was worth the wait to work out some minor bugs & tune the car. It is LETHAL fast & absolutely EVIL :v :v .
PS - I guess I'll break down & get a digital camera as it seems people want to see pictures? My Sony is no longer working - software incompatability issue with my PC all of the sudden. POS!!! .
Ted, just watch your MAF sensor. Due to the S7 upgrade, more air is flowing & its not uncommon for the check engine light to come on UNLESS you get one that has an uncharacteristicly high tolerence band (approx 1 in 5 MAF from MB have a wider tolerence to avoid the check engine light from coming on). Mine "ate" 2 before getting a good one. Sound like yours is OK .
Cheers!
-Matt
1) Yes, the car orginally put down 489 rwhp. However, my check engine light came on the next morning & the car felt more "sluggish".
2) Took the car back to fix the above issues & found out the rising rate fuel regulator had failed so boost had dropped to 3.5 lbs maximum. This was confirmed on the dyno & a boost meter...power had dropped to 411 rwhp due to the 50% lower boost. Even at 50% boost, 411 rwhp is 495 Hp (assumes a 17% drivetrain loss).
3) Fuel regulator was fixed & ECU reprogrammed (optomized further since a total of 27 dyno pulls were now in Kleemann's library allowing them to read not only my ECU parameters for these pulls, but see the associated power output with their changes). Tuning takes time & contrary to John Long's above input, the dyno location was an inconveniece (added an extra 3 days each time the ECU was sent back) but makes absolutely zero difference in how well the ECU is tuned. CT Motorsports has all the MB software & can read & faxed the ECU output data to Kleemann. The associated reprogramming @ Kleemann was "why" the ECU had to be sent to Colorado (they must get downloaded software from Kleemann Denmark - so having the car in Colorado only decreases tune time but, as stated, makes no impact in power output).
Gang, I've just not been in a rush. I've got 3 cars. I figured its better to take my time & make sure this little "semi exotic" is optomized via tuning to refine power output - just not a biggie to me?
The car is back, in perfect shape with about 4k miles & 600 Hp. It HAULS AZZ (tires break lose at 70 mph - did the other night when I destroyed a new pesky Mustang Cobra pacing me on the highway). I'm driving with 100 octane to let the ECU not only learn, but learn 100 octane for maximum power. I'll put on the dyno in mid/late Jan after some more mileage is put on the car to allow learning. Gentlemen, it was worth the wait to work out some minor bugs & tune the car. It is LETHAL fast & absolutely EVIL :v :v .
PS - I guess I'll break down & get a digital camera as it seems people want to see pictures? My Sony is no longer working - software incompatability issue with my PC all of the sudden. POS!!!
.Ted, just watch your MAF sensor. Due to the S7 upgrade, more air is flowing & its not uncommon for the check engine light to come on UNLESS you get one that has an uncharacteristicly high tolerence band (approx 1 in 5 MAF from MB have a wider tolerence to avoid the check engine light from coming on). Mine "ate" 2 before getting a good one. Sound like yours is OK
.Cheers!
-Matt
Ted
12-20-2005, 06:25 PM
#37
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sin City
Posts: 2,731
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
12' C63 P31, 06' Supercharged Range, 08' BMW 550i
Originally Posted by Yellow R1
Yes, the car orginally put down 489 rwhp.
12-20-2005, 07:58 PM
#38
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLK55 black, heads, cam and tune
Originally Posted by Yellow R1
3) Tuning takes time & contrary to John Long's above input, the dyno location was an inconveniece (added an extra 3 days each time the ECU was sent back) but makes absolutely zero difference in how well the ECU is tuned. CT Motorsports has all the MB software & can read & faxed the ECU output data to Kleemann. The associated reprogramming @ Kleemann was "why" the ECU had to be sent to Colorado (they must get downloaded software from Kleemann Denmark - so having the car in Colorado only decreases tune time but, as stated, makes no impact in power output).
Cheers!
-Matt
As i said before real time tuning is by far the best, the tuner can make a change and immediately see the effect on the dyno. Kleenman can only guess what impact their changes. This is a well know FACT.
Good luck
Last edited by John Long 55; 12-20-2005 at 08:02 PM.
12-20-2005, 08:00 PM
#39
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: SFV, CA
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06 SLK55
Originally Posted by dinko
I would probably be more interested in the lower boost S/C since the SLK is my daily car.
Dinko
Dinko
that was my point and interest above...if the .3 bar s/c can get me well into the 400 range it would make more sense as it is my daily also...
Who has info on kleemanns low pressure s/c for the lsk55?
12-20-2005, 08:00 PM
#40
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'93 RX-7, SLK55
Originally Posted by dragonAMG
Sounds more like the dyno not being calibrated correctly. The car is not putting down 489 rwhp.
As I mentioned, the rising rate fuel regulator had reset to stock parameters thus the ECU would not allow for more than 3.5 lbs of boost because the A/F was getting too lean...thus the lower 411 rwhp#. I've been around boosted cars my whole life - if you don't have adequate boost & the right A/Fs & timing, output is compromised. Getting the car tuned properly solves the problem. Boost is now linear & at 7 lbs. Output has returned to prior levels & is climbing as the ECU adapts.
Ted, any time.
-Matt
12-20-2005, 08:21 PM
#41
Out Of Control!
Originally Posted by Yellow R1
Due to the S7 upgrade, more air is flowing & its not uncommon for the check engine light to come on UNLESS you get one that has an uncharacteristicly high tolerence band (approx 1 in 5 MAF from MB have a wider tolerence to avoid the check engine light from coming on). Mine "ate" 2 before getting a good one. Sound like yours is OK .
Cheers!
-Matt
.Cheers!
-Matt
12-20-2005, 09:01 PM
#42
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'93 RX-7, SLK55
Originally Posted by JamE55
Just curious so how much more air do you think is flowing on a S8 kit? Reason i ask is because i've never had my check engine light come on other than that annoying ESP light.
I know, I hate that damn ESP light. My car went sideways the other day coming to work when I got on it a bit to merge...dash looked like a Christmas tree.
-Matt
12-20-2005, 09:11 PM
#43
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 8,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
g
Originally Posted by Yellow R1
More air over stock, or S8 over S7 (which would be extremely minor as S8 is just the sport cams)?
I know, I hate that damn ESP light. My car went sideways the other day coming to work when I got on it a bit to merge...dash looked like a Christmas tree.
-Matt
I know, I hate that damn ESP light. My car went sideways the other day coming to work when I got on it a bit to merge...dash looked like a Christmas tree.
-Matt
12-20-2005, 10:05 PM
#44
Out Of Control!
Originally Posted by Yellow R1
More air over stock, or S8 over S7 (which would be extremely minor as S8 is just the sport cams)?
I know, I hate that damn ESP light. My car went sideways the other day coming to work when I got on it a bit to merge...dash looked like a Christmas tree.
-Matt
I know, I hate that damn ESP light. My car went sideways the other day coming to work when I got on it a bit to merge...dash looked like a Christmas tree.
-Matt
12-20-2005, 11:09 PM
#45
Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Boston
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2006 SLK55 AMG
low boost kleemann
don't go with that bro... its $8,000 ... the regular kompressor is $11,000. save the extra $3,000 and get the real deal. from there on you can play around with it to see how much you want.
post some pictures! i wanna see that gorgeous engine!!!
post some pictures! i wanna see that gorgeous engine!!!
12-21-2005, 01:09 AM
#46
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'93 RX-7, SLK55
Originally Posted by NOTKTS
Pictures... Videos?
). Give me a couple days - maybe a familiy member will buy me one for Xmas & I can save a few hundred smackers
. See ya.-Matt
12-21-2005, 03:48 PM
#47
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: SFV, CA
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06 SLK55
Originally Posted by nishi
don't go with that bro... its $8,000 ... the regular kompressor is $11,000. save the extra $3,000 and get the real deal. from there on you can play around with it to see how much you want.
post some pictures! i wanna see that gorgeous engine!!!
post some pictures! i wanna see that gorgeous engine!!!
12-21-2005, 06:47 PM
#48
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'93 RX-7, SLK55
Originally Posted by JamE55
Just curious so how much more air do you think is flowing on a S8 kit? Reason i ask is because i've never had my check engine light come on other than that annoying ESP light.
"The air flow increase is proportion to the HP increase. Therefore, air flow
volume is increased by 80%. The MAF signal has been modified thru a voltage clamp for ECU to read the correct range. The software in the ECU is
programed to process the fuel delivery accordingly with the revised MAF
signal scale/range along with the increased fuel pressure delivery for
correct fuel mapping."
In a nutshell, the MAF is adjusted according to the Hp increase. If you are not seeing a light, your MAF is operating within its adjusted range to account for your Hp increase.....you are good to go (no Check Engine Light).
See ya.-Matt
12-21-2005, 06:58 PM
#49
Out Of Control!
Originally Posted by Yellow R1
Jam, got a more definitive answer for you according to my Kleemann installer:
"The air flow increase is proportion to the HP increase. Therefore, air flow
volume is increased by 80%. The MAF signal has been modified thru a voltage clamp for ECU to read the correct range. The software in the ECU is
programed to process the fuel delivery accordingly with the revised MAF
signal scale/range along with the increased fuel pressure delivery for
correct fuel mapping."
In a nutshell, the MAF is adjusted according to the Hp increase. If you are not seeing a light, your MAF is operating within its adjusted range to account for your Hp increase.....you are good to go (no Check Engine Light). See ya.
-Matt
"The air flow increase is proportion to the HP increase. Therefore, air flow
volume is increased by 80%. The MAF signal has been modified thru a voltage clamp for ECU to read the correct range. The software in the ECU is
programed to process the fuel delivery accordingly with the revised MAF
signal scale/range along with the increased fuel pressure delivery for
correct fuel mapping."
In a nutshell, the MAF is adjusted according to the Hp increase. If you are not seeing a light, your MAF is operating within its adjusted range to account for your Hp increase.....you are good to go (no Check Engine Light).
See ya.-Matt
That's good to hear! Now how do we get rid of that annoying christmas light ESP? I mean i know it's christmas and all but what happens after christmas is over? lol :p Also what's your current rwhp now?
12-21-2005, 08:01 PM
#50
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'93 RX-7, SLK55
Originally Posted by JamE55
Matt,
That's good to hear! Now how do we get rid of that annoying christmas light ESP? I mean i know it's christmas and all but what happens after christmas is over? lol :p Also what's your current rwhp now?
That's good to hear! Now how do we get rid of that annoying christmas light ESP? I mean i know it's christmas and all but what happens after christmas is over? lol :p Also what's your current rwhp now?
Output was 489 rwhp prior to having to replace the rising rate fuel regulator. Thats been replaced & power "feels" like its back according to the butt dyno (which trumps all objective measurements). Its likely 489 & climbing a bit as the ECU learns (just took me a month to fix that stupid regulator/check engine light error). I'll dyno next month for grins & post.
Merry Christmas!
-Matt
