MHP 2012 E63 AMG Tune Only: 773HP & 925lb/ft SAE

[Fourcam330]

MHP 2012 Tune Only E63 AMG: 773HP & 925lb/ft SAE

MHP 2012 E63 AMG with MHP v3 CDT for AMG M157 5.5L TT DI V8

Stock non PP:

495rwhp/487rwtq SAE on 93 octane

or at the crank:

619HP/609lb/ft SAE on 93 octane

v3 CDT Only (ECU Tuning):

618rwhp/740rwtq SAE on 93 octane

or at the crank:

773HP & 925lb/ft SAE

Rear Wheel Gains of:

123rwhp & 253rwtq SAE

Crank Gains of:

154HP & 316lb/ft SAE

Graph:

Dyno Vid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2DaHAnFL5Y

 

[SVTCobra60]

I was excited up until I saw it was rated at the crank. Now I don't care. But good numbers for tune only

 

[paintless302]

^Yea tune only 618rwhp isn't the slight bit impressive:rollseyes

 

[SVTCobra60]

But it's not 773, which was my point.

 

[Great Asp]

"618rwhp/740rwtq SAE on 93 octane"

I might not be running with the right crowd, but I think those are great numbers for a "luxury car".

Begeezus, that thing will move! :uh oh:

Congrats.

E

 

[foofinator]

Sick!

Pictures of the car?

 

[SVTCobra60]

My only question, and I'm not hating on the car at all, is how do you possibly hook 700+ tq at 2500 rpm, thats insane.

 

[gksingh]

But it's not 773, which was my point.

:dw:

So a gain of 123rwhp & 253rwtq with only a tune is not impressive?

 

[SVTCobra60]

:dw:

So a gain of 123rwhp & 253rwtq with only a tune is not impressive?

I came in expecting 773, instead it had 618, which is disappointing, who cares about crank HP? It IS impressive, didn't say it wasn't but as I said, it wasn't what I was coming in expecting to see, which was a car with close to 1000rwtq. Impressive, but thread title was slightly misleading.

 

[flynz]

My only question, and I'm not hating on the car at all, is how do you possibly hook 700+ tq at 2500 rpm, thats insane.

They have very impressive traction control systems, they manage pretty well acctually, look up e63 amg coupe on wet road in you tube :beer:

 

[brainpa]

I was excited up until I saw it was rated at the crank. Now I don't care. But good numbers for tune only

Yep, you're right. Wow, An E63 laying out 600+ at the rear wheels....with a TUNE.

What a slouch.



(NOT)

 

[SVTCobra60]

Yep, you're right. Wow, An E63 laying out 600+ at the rear wheels....with a TUNE.

What a slouch.



(NOT)

I'll just give up on my point, sorry, statement retracted!:beer:

 

[bam]

Holy

 

[S197OnSpray]

LOL @ posting crank numbers based off of a dyno run. Fact: Car made 618 739, :bs: Car did not make 773 925. <---Those are guesstimates and when the power goes up so do the variables, tires, gears, trans etc... all make a difference and there is no way to know what that car is making at the crank based off of a chassis dyno. Pull the motor and dyno it to post accurate crank numbers. Title is misleading, but the car is still a beast :beer:

 

[Cobra03Mach1]

Shit

 

[Fourcam330]

Thanks guys! The car in fact did not hook in 4th gear necessitating us going to 5th gear to dyno lol. With 7 speeds this car is always in the powerband and acceleration is relentless even in higher gears where the old bi-turbo v12s died off.

Pics of the car here:

Facebook

LOL @ posting crank numbers based off of a dyno run. Fact: Car made 618 739, :bs: Car did not make 773 925. <---Those are guesstimates and when the power goes up so do the variables, tires, gears, trans etc... all make a difference and there is no way to know what that car is making at the crank based off of a chassis dyno. Pull the motor and dyno it to post accurate crank numbers. Title is misleading, but the car is still a beast :beer:

Before you raise a BS flag about anything related to cars or internal combustion engines in general when in contradiction to what I post, do yourself a favor and don't.

You have no argument whatsoever. The test was done on a DJ, not a DD, not a MD, not a SuperFlow. The numbers are SAE corrected and if you want to sit here and argue DT loss %'s with me be my guest. From Input Shaft to 76lb 19" wheel/tire combo I'm not worried. What's more it's as if you're making the translation of rw to crank (which happens daily and vice versa) a sort of black magic. You do realize that your trap speed at the end of a 1/4 mile is calculated based on how quickly your car passes a set distance at the end? Same principle.

Rating in rwhp for marketing purposes is retarded not only do you have typical dyno to dyno variation however one DD can read 100rwhp less than another using a 500rw car depending on how it's setup, etc. rw numbers are quite frankly all over the place (due mainly to the different brands of dynos) and 99% of those outside the U.S. don't use them or know what they are. Everyone understands crank numbers.

When power goes up so do the variables, tires, gears, trans..."

Everything was kept constant between the stock and post tune dynos less the tune. So explain how any of the variables listed matter...They don't. These aren't Mustangs. You don't swap trannys, you can't change rear gearing or stall converters, etc.

If you want to get down to it dynos suck period. They are better for FI cars (N/A will die unless you have serious fans and no one in the U.S. does) however are still not a true measure of performance like track and vbox testing. Being that we just tuned our car, it will be raced and vboxed next. You can also extrapolate crank HP/TQ from VBox numbers and they are just as accurate a measure as trap speed in the 1/4.

My SL65 was an 11.0@128+ car with just a tune, this car feels like it would rape it sideways. I'll call easy 130s with just a tune and DRs.

Check back in 5 weeks when I post 8XXHp and 1000lb/ft after we put a full exhaust on the car. :beer:

 

[HEMIHUNTER]

Batman

 

[mckpat03]

What the ****?!

 

[SVT F15O]

The torque gain is absolutely INSANE!!!

 

[Fourcam330]

Thanks guys. Here's the stock graph for comparison purposes, all else equal of course (same dyno, 93 oct, SAE, etc):