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

[lucheski]

Thanks for sharing this fourcam, people always get so worked up over dyno numbers (which don't matter). Some people are offended this luxury car would eat their mustang and spit out the bones. Please post up when you run this at the track. Cheers

 

[Fourcam330]

All bs'ing aside, I want to see how it will do on E85.......

Would be interesting. It's got the fuel system, but as you can see it's out of turbo at 5k.

MB likes to ensure they have enough fuel lol. They stuck dual 300lph in tank pumps in the N/A M156 6.2L 4Vs.

 

[Fourcam330]

There is not one other person on SVTP that quotes their flywheel horsepower and correct me if I'm wrong but your not an OEM? :shrug: IMO putting the crank horsepower as the title is very misleading

No we're an aftermarket tuner and as I said 3x before we post both. So deal with it.

Thanks for sharing this fourcam, people always get so worked up over dyno numbers (which don't matter). Some people are offended this luxury car would eat their mustang and spit out the bones. Please post up when you run this at the track. Cheers

Thanks bro, always do. There are enough members from back in the day still on here that make the assclowns worthwhile. Plus I'm gonna grab a 2013 GT500 to **** with soon.

 

[StngStr]

Math is not a guess.

No, math is not a guess. But your crank HP numbers are, as is your drivetrain loss numbers.

 

[STAMPEDE3]

I'm gonna leave this here for some of you to read.

http://www.svtperformance.com/forums/road-side-pub-17/461200-svtperformance-rules.html

As far as crank numbers some of you are too stuck on RWHP dyno numbers which in reality due to different dynos and the figures that can be entered are what?

A GUESS.

Crank numbers were the standard for years and still are for OEM.
I think he was being generous at 20% DT loss because we all know reality they should be less than that.

 

[2K1 SVT]

No we're an aftermarket tuner and as I said 3x before we post both. So deal with it.

So your the same as Shelby :lol1:

This is an automotive forum, no one else posts crank hp numbers, NO ONE. The only people I tell my estimated crank hp are people who know nothing about cars. IMO you were just purposely inflating your numbers....

 

[Fourcam330]

I'm gonna leave this here for some of you to read.

http://www.svtperformance.com/forums/road-side-pub-17/461200-svtperformance-rules.html

As far as crank numbers some of you are too stuck on RWHP dyno numbers which in reality due to different dynos and the figures that can be entered are what?

A GUESS.

Crank numbers were the standard for years and still are for OEM.
I think he was being generous at 20% DT loss because we all know reality they should be less than that.

Agreed with everything less the 20% DT loss statement but we can agree to disagree. There are quite a few variables you have to take into account vs other makes. MB uses a rubber U joint hub at the rear of the driveshaft to eliminate diff shock that also eats 20lb/ft however removing it causes the diffs to want to explode. Ask me how I know. Also the stock converter never locks up more than 95% even at WOT full load.

So your the same as Shelby :lol1:

No, Shelby is an OEM, we are an aftermarket tuner. As I said before, again, both OEMs and aftermarket tuners use both CRANK and RW numbers. Believe it or not in countries other than the U.S. no one understands RW. Brabus is another great example as is MKB, Vath, etc. Why would I rate my car in whp on a Dyno Dynamics dyno when I know my competitors are using a Dyno Jet?

Aside from that we have 10x the amount of records Shelby does and you can tune a Ford with a calculator and duct tape by comparison to what we have to use on the Euro ECUs. Sorry just facts.

This is an automotive forum, no one else posts crank hp numbers, NO ONE. The only people I tell my estimated crank hp are people who know nothing about cars. IMO you were just purposely inflating your numbers....

So telling them your estimated rwhp numbers makes you feel better by comparison?

I can add or take away a fan on a dyno jet on a N/A car and lose 30rwhp or gain it back. And you're saying there is some global standardization in dyno setups? LOL

So manufacturers purposefully inflate their numbers by rating in crank HP/TQ? The way it has always been and will always be--due to the reasons cited above.

So to all the whiners out there that have posted in this thread, anyone want to run the E at our next track rental at MIR? :thumbsup:

 

[STAMPEDE3]

Learn something everyday.

Those things suck some HP then. I've never been under one. lol

 

[Fourcam330]

Learn something everyday.

Those things suck some HP then. I've never been under one. lol

Yeah brother, not like the good old days...

You can imagine how frustrating it was going 10.1@140 in Keith's C63 short shifting the 1-2 at 5000rpm with a worse 60' than we cut N/A on a 200 shot knowing the converter was never locking LOL...

SLS is more on par with 15% DT loss. It is a DCT but comes with CF DS, etc. from factory.

 

[STAMPEDE3]

When you gonna build another Modular and make some people happy? lol

Any plans on the GT500?

 

[Fourcam330]

When you gonna build another Modular and make some people happy? lol

Any plans on the GT500?

Hopefully in the next 2-3 mos.

The only thing I've had time to think about reg the GT500 is where to send the depo check. I've been making rounds for work so haven't been home much but with 2 new project cars we have a lot of work to do in the next few weeks/months in both the hardware and software departments.

Ultimately with the GT500 we'll be 2.3L TVS limited (which is more than enough for most) but I'm sure we'll find a reason to change everything else out too. Don't we all. :rolling:

 

[Fourcam330]

No, math is not a guess. But your crank HP numbers are, as is your drivetrain loss numbers.

"as are your..."

I'm not sure if it's read every other post day but DT loss numbers used are not guesses, quite the opposite actually. They are recorded data that can and are shared among tuners/dyno owners that own and/or use load bearing dynos. For the people in the back row: You can measure DT loss via a load bearing dyno.

For example to determine the difference in DT loss between a conventional 7G stall converter and the MCT wet plate clutch setup we compared dynos from 50+ cars (from the same dyno doing our best to eliminate at least one major variable) before and after the MY conversion including C, SL, and E63s (M156). Of course we checked the software and rest of the hardware to see if there were any differences and there were not. Others doing similar comparisons found similar results.

Industry standard has been for decades (RWD/AWD I don't give a shit about FWD) and assuming a front engine/rear drive layout.

Manual Trans : 15%/20%

Auto Trans: 20%/25%

Exceptions would include 30%+ from heavy duty drivelines in diesel 4x4 trucks, commercial trucks, etc.

While significantly newer enough data exists already to suggest DCTs eat ~18%. However if mounted in the rear of the car (ala SLS) that number may drop to 15%.

That said for the car in question there is no question.

 

[Screamin Cobra]

Holy crap that thing is bbbad

 

[Fourcam330]

Holy crap that thing is bbbad

Thanks!!

FWIW here's another MB tuner's tune only claims from the same engine (E and CLS are the same chassis with different bodys):

Notice the Crank numbers, and how much lower they are , in ad:

RENNtech Product Catalog | RENNTECH MERCEDES

 

[Sonic605hp]

that shit cray

 

[Ry_Trapp0]

holy ****ing torque - i love it! LOL those TT12s are just plain BAD ASS. great stuff as usual andy!

 

[04SCRMINYLWVERT]

I think I'll be picking up one of these if the 2013 face lift looks good.

 

[TurbdC5Z]

sexy

 

[shaved03gt]

beautiful car fourcam..

Don't listen to any of these haters .. " oh its misleading "... who care's!!! Go sip on some wine and wipe your tears...

Bad ass ride !!
Cheers :beer:

-S

 

[Phiber Optik]

"as are your..."

I'm not sure if it's read every other post day but DT loss numbers used are not guesses, quite the opposite actually. They are recorded data that can and are shared among tuners/dyno owners that own and/or use load bearing dynos. For the people in the back row: You can measure DT loss via a load bearing dyno.

For example to determine the difference in DT loss between a conventional 7G stall converter and the MCT wet plate clutch setup we compared dynos from 50+ cars (from the same dyno doing our best to eliminate at least one major variable) before and after the MY conversion including C, SL, and E63s (M156). Of course we checked the software and rest of the hardware to see if there were any differences and there were not. Others doing similar comparisons found similar results.

Industry standard has been for decades (RWD/AWD I don't give a shit about FWD) and assuming a front engine/rear drive layout.

Manual Trans : 15%/20%

Auto Trans: 20%/25%

Exceptions would include 30%+ from heavy duty drivelines in diesel 4x4 trucks, commercial trucks, etc.

While significantly newer enough data exists already to suggest DCTs eat ~18%. However if mounted in the rear of the car (ala SLS) that number may drop to 15%.

That said for the car in question there is no question.

I'm impressed by the gains for a tune only, congrats.

I think the problem with your claims are if you have established the drivetrain loss at stock OEM quoted crank power to stock RW dyno numbers, and then used that to calculate a percentage, that's fine, but you can't use that percentage when your making more power, you can only use the crank hp number that is lost going through the drivetrain not the percentage. it doesn't take 20% to spin a 70+lb wheel, it takes 5hp... once you have established the drivetrain loss in percentage that can only be used at the stock level not throughout the power gains...