E63 Renntech vs MHP data
10-29-2008, 12:43 PM
#151
Out Of Control!!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,394
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
2015 S212
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?
10-29-2008, 12:47 PM
#152
Administrator
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: THE Orange County, California
Posts: 11,921
Received 796 Likes
on
495 Posts
2020 Audi R8 V10, 2016 AMG GTS, 2018 E63S Edition 1, 2018 Porsche GTS Cab, 2012 C63 BS
As for being a sponsor, PM Simon, and sponsors are not above the TOU.
10-29-2008, 12:50 PM
#153
Super Moderator
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. ;=)
10-29-2008, 02:12 PM
#155
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E63 AMG
Well to get back on topic....
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
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
10-29-2008, 02:20 PM
#156
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Daytona, Florida
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes
on
6 Posts
SL600
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.
10-29-2008, 02:37 PM
#157
MBWorld Fanatic!
You'll notice it if the timing's outta whack, though. Pinging, etc. etc. is hard to miss. You wouldn't necessarily notice the AFR's outta whack, until it's too late and you have a burnt valve, ruined cats, etc.
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.
10-29-2008, 02:54 PM
#158
Just scanned through this entire thread. So much drama about nothing. Here we have a MHP tune on an E63 that got 414 peak HP and 400 peak ft lbs of torque. BFD.
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
10-29-2008, 03:26 PM
#159
MBWorld Fanatic!
Well to get back on topic....
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
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
10-29-2008, 03:28 PM
#160
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 2,069
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
2005 E55 ///AMG
Just scanned through this entire thread. So much drama about nothing. Here we have a MHP tune on an E63 that got 414 peak HP and 400 peak ft lbs of torque. BFD.
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
10-29-2008, 03:29 PM
#161
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
02 S500 Sport
Just scanned through this entire thread. So much drama about nothing. Here we have a MHP tune on an E63 that got 414 peak HP and 400 peak ft lbs of torque. BFD.
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?
10-29-2008, 03:31 PM
#162
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'09 C63 AMG
After further reviewing your cal Jeff, there's no way your ECU took our flash as the difference in gains should be much larger. The gains you're seeing are purely from the TCU--since your shifting is so dramatically different and there are mostly torque gains it makes perfect sense. EcU/TCU are 2 seperate flashes.
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
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
10-29-2008, 03:33 PM
#163
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'09 C63 AMG
Hmm So I looked up the regular dyno graphs of 63 models and found this
https://mbworld.org/forums/showpost....2&postcount=12
He had 425 rwhp before?
https://mbworld.org/forums/showpost....2&postcount=12
He had 425 rwhp before?
10-29-2008, 03:41 PM
#164
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E63 AMG
Just scanned through this entire thread. So much drama about nothing. Here we have a MHP tune on an E63 that got 414 peak HP and 400 peak ft lbs of torque. BFD.
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 Hmm So I looked up the regular dyno graphs of 63 models and found this
https://mbworld.org/forums/showpost....2&postcount=12
He had 425 rwhp before?
https://mbworld.org/forums/showpost....2&postcount=12
He had 425 rwhp before?
After further reviewing your cal Jeff, there's no way your ECU took our flash as the difference in gains should be much larger. The gains you're seeing are purely from the TCU--since your shifting is so dramatically different and there are mostly torque gains it makes perfect sense. EcU/TCU are 2 seperate flashes.
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
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; 10-29-2008 at 03:48 PM.
10-29-2008, 03:54 PM
#165
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08 S550, 08 E63, other non-Green cars
After further reviewing your cal Jeff, there's no way your ECU took our flash as the difference in gains should be much larger. The gains you're seeing are purely from the TCU--since your shifting is so dramatically different and there are mostly torque gains it makes perfect sense. EcU/TCU are 2 seperate flashes.
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
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?
10-29-2008, 03:56 PM
#166
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,735
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
CLK 63 Black Series, 2009 S550, 2011 Range Rover Supercharged, BMW F800 GS Anniv Edition
Hang on a sec....Andy/Jeff - are you saying the dyno pull and ECU tune that was just done did NOT have the MHP tuning but just the TCU ?? So was Jeff running the Renntech tune becasue the MHP tune never loaded and the small gains were only as a result of the increased torque from the TCU tne ??
I'm confused ????
I'm confused ????
10-29-2008, 03:58 PM
#167
MBWorld Fanatic!
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
10-29-2008, 03:58 PM
#168
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,735
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
CLK 63 Black Series, 2009 S550, 2011 Range Rover Supercharged, BMW F800 GS Anniv Edition
The TCU is buried in the transmission - taking it out means dropping he trans. Since the ECU and TCU are electronically connected, the TCU can be tuned through the ECU thus the TCU does not need to be removed.
10-29-2008, 03:59 PM
#169
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E63 AMG
I didnt actually mean I found 94 here in VA. I go back and forth the westchester and LI to visit family and go through Jersey and can always find it there.
10-29-2008, 03:59 PM
#170
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
02 S500 Sport
Hang on a sec....Andy/Jeff - are you saying the dyno pull and ECU tune that was just done did NOT have the MHP tuning but just the TCU ?? So was Jeff running the Renntech tune becasue the MHP tune never loaded and the small gains were only as a result of the increased torque from the TCU tne ??
I'm confused ????
I'm confused ????
10-29-2008, 04:03 PM
#171
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E63 AMG
Hang on a sec....Andy/Jeff - are you saying the dyno pull and ECU tune that was just done did NOT have the MHP tuning but just the TCU ?? So was Jeff running the Renntech tune becasue the MHP tune never loaded and the small gains were only as a result of the increased torque from the TCU tne ??
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.
10-29-2008, 04:05 PM
#172
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E63 AMG
Andy/MHP says this is why I only saw minimal gains, I will find out ealry next week I guess. Kinda need my car through the weekend and dont mind having rental for a few days next week as been arranged.
10-29-2008, 04:15 PM
#175
MBWorld Fanatic!
