E63 Renntech vs MHP data
Can I become a sponsor too so that I can have immunity? I( have asked Simon about it a number of times and no response?




As for being a sponsor, PM Simon, and sponsors are not above the TOU.
Nothing to stop one from purchasing each and then logging/reverse engineering, except for the investment necessary. Oh, and MHP’s exclusive sorcery into the inner depths of the TCU. ;=)
Andy and I spoke again today and have agreed upon a time that works for both of us to work this all out.
On monday I will be shipping my ecu back to him. since I only put 93 octane in my car, sometimes more since MIR has 104 and the occasional octane booster, I want my tune changed so it doesnt take 91, which is my understanding of the tune i received can support.
Dont get me wrong its nice to know I dont have to put 93 in my car and can use 91, but around here where i live almost noone carries 91 except sunoco, but I still go for the 93 or 94 depending on the location. I want max performace out of my tune as I believe mhp can and has already shown to produce, but want more and I think he and I are on the same page regarding the changes they will be making.
I beleive, as Andy has mentioned, by ensuring I stick with 93 or better these will give me more gains as some expected I would see. Since yes, I am a little bit of a mod junky, I am electing to have my tune changed to accomodate what i am looking for.
Again to date i am happy with what I am seeing my car produce. From a stock to tune perspective the MHP tune, all over the curve, has shown significant gains which is noticable when driving around in conjunction with the tcu tuning. I am excited to see what more they are going to squeez out of this tune while keeping my afr's at or below the renntech tuning I was previously running.
Anyway just wanted to give an update.
Lets try to keep the responses as civil as possible. Again we are all here to make gains to our rides, and thats all i am trying to do
If I had to pick one, I'd definitely rather run a safer AFR and go for gains on the timing side, than the other way around.
If I had to pick one, I'd definitely rather run a safer AFR and go for gains on the timing side, than the other way around.
Last February when I re-dyno'ed my E55 (bone stock except for addition addition of Evosport shorty headers [see DIY sticky for details] - which was the reason for the new dyno run), my car made 434 peak HP and 491 peak torque. At the time, I was disappointed because the shorty headers only added about 12 HP to my car's original baseline dyno (same dyno, operator, etc.).
And that's without a MHP tune.
The new math is the old math: E55 > E63
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Andy and I spoke again today and have agreed upon a time that works for both of us to work this all out.
On monday I will be shipping my ecu back to him. since I only put 93 octane in my car, sometimes more since MIR has 104 and the occasional octane booster, I want my tune changed so it doesnt take 91, which is my understanding of the tune i received can support.
Dont get me wrong its nice to know I dont have to put 93 in my car and can use 91, but around here where i live almost noone carries 91 except sunoco, but I still go for the 93 or 94 depending on the location. I want max performace out of my tune as I believe mhp can and has already shown to produce, but want more and I think he and I are on the same page regarding the changes they will be making.
I beleive, as Andy has mentioned, by ensuring I stick with 93 or better these will give me more gains as some expected I would see. Since yes, I am a little bit of a mod junky, I am electing to have my tune changed to accomodate what i am looking for.
Again to date i am happy with what I am seeing my car produce. From a stock to tune perspective the MHP tune, all over the curve, has shown significant gains which is noticable when driving around in conjunction with the tcu tuning. I am excited to see what more they are going to squeez out of this tune while keeping my afr's at or below the renntech tuning I was previously running.
Anyway just wanted to give an update.
Lets try to keep the responses as civil as possible. Again we are all here to make gains to our rides, and thats all i am trying to do

Thanks,
Tom
Last February when I re-dyno'ed my E55 (bone stock except for addition addition of Evosport shorty headers [see DIY sticky for details] - which was the reason for the new dyno run), my car made 434 peak HP and 491 peak torque. At the time, I was disappointed because the shorty headers only added about 12 HP to my car's original baseline dyno (same dyno, operator, etc.).
And that's without a MHP tune.
The new math is the old math: E55 > E63 
Last February when I re-dyno'ed my E55 (bone stock except for addition addition of Evosport shorty headers [see DIY sticky for details] - which was the reason for the new dyno run), my car made 434 peak HP and 491 peak torque. At the time, I was disappointed because the shorty headers only added about 12 HP to my car's original baseline dyno (same dyno, operator, etc.).
And that's without a MHP tune.
The new math is the old math: E55 > E63 
https://mbworld.org/forums/showpost....2&postcount=12
He had 425 rwhp before?
Yes, this is our fault, we admit to the error and apologize for the additional invonvenience incurred while we rectify the situation (reflash) early next week. Again we live test the cals before shipping but can't tell which cal is in the ECU (if it took or not), and we will always stand behind our product.
Thanks
Andy
https://mbworld.org/forums/showpost....2&postcount=12
He had 425 rwhp before?
Last February when I re-dyno'ed my E55 (bone stock except for addition addition of Evosport shorty headers [see DIY sticky for details] - which was the reason for the new dyno run), my car made 434 peak HP and 491 peak torque. At the time, I was disappointed because the shorty headers only added about 12 HP to my car's original baseline dyno (same dyno, operator, etc.).
And that's without a MHP tune.
The new math is the old math: E55 > E63 
https://mbworld.org/forums/showpost....2&postcount=12
He had 425 rwhp before?
Yes, this is our fault, we admit to the error and apologize for the additional invonvenience incurred while we rectify the situation (reflash) early next week. Again we live test the cals before shipping but can't tell which cal is in the ECU (if it took or not), and we will always stand behind our product.
Thanks
Andy
) Thanks 
I think it is sae corrected. just was 4th gear pulls.
Last edited by Fr33kn63; Oct 29, 2008 at 03:48 PM.
Yes, this is our fault, we admit to the error and apologize for the additional invonvenience incurred while we rectify the situation (reflash) early next week. Again we live test the cals before shipping but can't tell which cal is in the ECU (if it took or not), and we will always stand behind our product.
Thanks
Andy
So the TCU tune is done on the ECU, not the TCU? I thought you'd do them on the respective units.
What am I missing?
I'm confused ????
I think what he is saying is that his stuff doesn't work.... (JUST KIDDING)

Actually, what he is saying is that the ECU tune didn't take. However, the TCU tune is working and the torque limiters were properly removed which allowed the gains that you see on the dynos.
Tom
I'm confused ????
I'm confused ????
As I said above, Andy/MP says there are two seperate flashes that take place on the single ECU unit. One for ecu performance afr stuff and the other that controls the tcu in the tranny.









