C63 PPP - KW V3 Coilovers

[Simon_M]

Well I am paying £1200 for carbon mirrors so I would say £1600.

Either way, I need one.

Simon

 

[Palmball]

Here was my response from Kicherer.....


Many many thanks for your mail!

It is nice that you are interested in our products.

I can offer you following:

KICHERER-CARBON DIFFUSOR in CARBON - 2.190,00 Euro without tax

When you have any questions, about other products please come back to me!

Erm...I think I'll give that one a miss!

 

[Legin]

Palmball, thanks for posting this graph.

I am surprised that they have opted for such a rich mixture at high revs, it is generally accepted that maximum power is achieved around the 12.3:1 ratio.
From your graph, you can see the AFR's up at 14.5 at low revs (this is probably still ECU controlled closed loop mode - due to small throttle opening, and low load). Then AFR drops to around the 12.0-12.5 mid range, which is ok, but I think going down to such a rich mixture (low 11's) on a normally aspirated car is playing it very safe.
You would normally see low 11's late 10's on a highly boosted turbo engine. This extra fuel is being used to cool the combustion chamber and reduce the chance of detonation.
A good mapper would be able to take some of this fuel out, and get a few more ponies (less thirsty ones too )

I guess I should have expected such a rich brew on a generic map.

At full chat there is going to be a fair amount of unburnt fuel going down the exhaust, which will probably ignite in the CAT's and get them very hot. O2 sensors and exh. manifold won't be liking that heat either.

Good news that Brabus are going to refund. :bannana:

I totally agree thats boost territory rich. I know of a generic Kleemann 55 n/a remap that was exactly the same. It looks like playing ultra safe is the tuners order of the day but I would also be concerned if this getting towards bore wash rich.

 

[lee m]

Hi Chaps

Just a quick hello interesting post this ive got a c63 arriving sept 1st, just standard no PPP or LSD iknow but its a lease car hence just wanted cheapest deal.
Obviously i dont want to spend much money on it but will probably go for delimit and remap, anyone had any dealings with DMS ?
After reading Palmballs posts il probably give CPR a shout as there not far away
Is there anything else that i should be aware of (besides tyres) reguarding running car ?

Thanks in advance Lee

 

[Palmball]

Hi Chaps

Just a quick hello interesting post this ive got a c63 arriving sept 1st, just standard no PPP or LSD iknow but its a lease car hence just wanted cheapest deal.
Obviously i dont want to spend much money on it but will probably go for delimit and remap, anyone had any dealings with DMS ?
After reading Palmballs posts il probably give CPR a shout as there not far away
Is there anything else that i should be aware of (besides tyres) reguarding running car ?

Thanks in advance Lee

Hi Lee and welcome!

I have been warned off DMS by two totally independent people for exactly the same reason! Basically, it has apparently been known for them to tune a car to a level that it isn't really supposed to be tuned to and at the same time deactivate certain warning systems in the ECU so it doesn't shut the car down in the event of the engine being put in danger of damage.

I must stress that this is not first hand experience and I only report what I have been told but suffice to say, the individuals that gave me this exact information were totally independent of each other so would be a coincidence if this wasn't true.

CPR I only have good words to say and as you're local to them (unlike me) you may as well use them. They are the UK's Northern Kleeman dealer and as Kleeman are one of the worlds biggest and most experienced Mercedes tuners, you can't go wrong.

If you're getting a standard C63 then your base line is around 450bhp and you will still get in excess of 500bhp from any stage 1 ECU tune (in Kleeman's case, it's called a K1).

Hope this helps and you enjoy your new car (although I feel with a GTR already, the C63 will seem rather more ordinary!)

 

[Jack Wood]

I'm a bit confused....

I was under the impression that "our" 6.2 motor was just an electronically restricted 6.2 motor that is found in the more powerfull AMG cars, such as the E63. They all produce (according to the marketing bumf) 525hp. They do not have the SLS internals either.

If that assumption is correct, how come the PPP engine cannot be made to produce at least 525hp with just a basic "E63" map? Are there other components in the other 6.2 engines that give them the higher power output that Mec hold back even from the PPP 6.2 in the C63?

Hope that makes sense

Jack

 

[crockers]

Hi Chaps

Just a quick hello interesting post this ive got a c63 arriving sept 1st, just standard no PPP or LSD iknow but its a lease car hence just wanted cheapest deal.
Obviously i dont want to spend much money on it but will probably go for delimit and remap, anyone had any dealings with DMS ?
After reading Palmballs posts il probably give CPR a shout as there not far away
Is there anything else that i should be aware of (besides tyres) reguarding running car ?

Thanks in advance Lee

If you lease a car - are you the legal owner?? I have no idea about that..

If not do you need the Lease Company's permission to re-map it?

 

[Palmball]

I'm a bit confused....

I was under the impression that "our" 6.2 motor was just an electronically restricted 6.2 motor that is found in the more powerfull AMG cars, such as the E63. They all produce (according to the marketing bumf) 525hp. They do not have the SLS internals either.

If that assumption is correct, how come the PPP engine cannot be made to produce at least 525hp with just a basic "E63" map? Are there other components in the other 6.2 engines that give them the higher power output that Mec hold back even from the PPP 6.2 in the C63?

Hope that makes sense

Jack

There's three reasons that I think explain this!

Firstly, the 525 figure is actually PS and is often misquoted as BHP. This means that they produce a claimed 518bhp. However this still makes the E's, SL's etc have a claimed output some 11bhp more than my 'real' figure in standard tune.

Secondly, the other models don't appear to make quite the quoted power - when at CPR, Max showed me a variety of dyno runs for other models including an E63 (W211) and an SL63...both of which AMG claim to make 518bhp. Neither of them made as much power as my car in standard tune - indeed, the SL made as little as 480bhp. They said my C63 (pre-Brabus) produced the highest figure for a standard '63 engine AMG that they'd seen so those fancy internals must be worth a bhp or two!

Now, the variables between AMG's quoted figures and the dyno results shown to me can be explained by the fact they would be measured on different dyno's and use different fuel so in reality, a different brand of dyno or the use of V-Power instead of 95-ron supermarket fuel could see the power get much closer to the claimed figure for those E's and SL's.

In the example above, the comparisons between my car and the dyno graphs of the other models were all measured on the same dyno...but of course I can't speak for the conditions or fuel used so it's not a perfect comparison.

What I can 100% confirm is that my before and after measurements were done on the same dyno, using the same fuel and in pretty much the same conditions so they really are a like for like.

Thirdly and finally, the dyno assumed an approx. 18% transmission loss so my 506.9 flywheel bhp is based on 415 rear-wheel hp divided by 0.82. This again isn't an exact science so cannot be 100% compared with AMG's claimed stats hence the only realistic comparison can be same dyno, same fuel, same conditions which is what i did with my pre and post Brabus runs!

Now, I'm starting to confuse myself so I hope some of this makes sense!

 

[lopes80]

There's three reasons that I think explain this!

Firstly, the 525 figure is actually PS and is often misquoted as BHP. This means that they produce a claimed 518bhp. However this still makes the E's, SL's etc have a claimed output some 11bhp more than my 'real' figure in standard tune.

Secondly, the other models don't appear to make quite the quoted power - when at CPR, Max showed me a variety of dyno runs for other models including an E63 (W211) and an SL63...both of which AMG claim to make 518bhp. Neither of them made as much power as my car in standard tune - indeed, the SL made as little as 480bhp. They said my C63 (pre-Brabus) produced the highest figure for a standard '63 engine AMG that they'd seen so those fancy internals must be worth a bhp or two!

Now, the variables between AMG's quoted figures and the dyno results shown to me can be explained by the fact they would be measured on different dyno's and use different fuel so in reality, a different brand of dyno or the use of V-Power instead of 95-ron supermarket fuel could see the power get much closer to the claimed figure for those E's and SL's.

In the example above, the comparisons between my car and the dyno graphs of the other models were all measured on the same dyno...but of course I can't speak for the conditions or fuel used so it's not a perfect comparison.

What I can 100% confirm is that my before and after measurements were done on the same dyno, using the same fuel and in pretty much the same conditions so they really are a like for like.

Thirdly and finally, the dyno assumed an approx. 18% transmission loss so my 506.9 flywheel bhp is based on 415 rear-wheel hp divided by 0.82. This again isn't an exact science so cannot be 100% compared with AMG's claimed stats hence the only realistic comparison can be same dyno, same fuel, same conditions which is what i did with my pre and post Brabus runs!

Now, I'm starting to confuse myself so I hope some of this makes sense!

I'm Confused too! hehe lol!

Mate your car stormed up the strip to 170mph in a standing mile, there was probably more in it if you didn't struggle with the launch.

The car has allot of power mate, there is no doubt in my mind, If only you could go back after the "tune" is removed...

 

[RBYCC]

I'm confused...
Were you pulls done on a chassis dyno?

Chart indicates "ATFW" ( at flywheel ? )....this reading is only accurately recorded on an engine stand.

Not sure why a chassis dyno which reads RWP would convert to ATFW.

Also was it an inertia ( dynojet type ) or load ( Mustang type ) dyno...
Inertia dynos typically show a 15%-18% drive train loss where as a "real world" load dyno will show closer to a 30% drivetrain loss...

 

[NISFAN]

I'm confused...
Were you pulls done on a chassis dyno?

Chart indicates "ATFW" ( at flywheel ? )....this reading is only accurately recorded on an engine stand.

Not sure why a chassis dyno which reads RWP would convert to ATFW.

Also was it an inertia ( dynojet type ) or load ( Mustang type ) dyno...
Inertia dynos typically show a 15%-18% drive train loss where as a "real world" load dyno will show closer to a 30% drivetrain loss...

I'm afraid it is not as simple as a % loss of power.

Take a gearbox/Propshaft/Diff, etc being driven by an engine at a particular speed.
Now if you double the power of that engine at the same speed, the gearbox doesn't suddenly want twice as much power to drive it. Sure it needs more power as extra strain is put on the gears, etc, but much less than double the power.

At the end of the day, the power at the wheels is what matters. Who cares what the engine is actually producing, that figure is for bragging down at the pub. And when you are down the pub, there is always going to be someone who knows someone that has a 1000bhp Skyline

Palmball, 415 at the wheels is a good strong number

 

[Palmball]

I'm confused...
Were you pulls done on a chassis dyno?

Chart indicates "ATFW" ( at flywheel ? )....this reading is only accurately recorded on an engine stand.

Not sure why a chassis dyno which reads RWP would convert to ATFW.

Also was it an inertia ( dynojet type ) or load ( Mustang type ) dyno...
Inertia dynos typically show a 15%-18% drive train loss where as a "real world" load dyno will show closer to a 30% drivetrain loss...

As I said it was done at the wheels and the flywheel figure was estimated using an 18% transmission loss. I appreciate this isn't an exact science but I never intended for it to be a comparison against AMGs claims. It was merely to measure a before and after Brabus tune and given the same rules applied to both, it did it's job! Hence I'm now sat in MB Milton Keynes getting it removed and my money back

The dyno used was Dyno Dynamics and they all have the capability of working out an estimated flywheel hp using pre defined (and again estimated) transmission losses. Not a perfectly scientific solution but as a means to compare different tunes on a car it does the job as long as the dyno operator can ensure consistency in the way they perform the run.

 

[RBYCC]

I'm afraid it is not as simple as a % loss of power.

Take a gearbox/Propshaft/Diff, etc being driven by an engine at a particular speed.
Now if you double the power of that engine at the same speed, the gearbox doesn't suddenly want twice as much power to drive it. Sure it needs more power as extra strain is put on the gears, etc, but much less than double the power.

At the end of the day, the power at the wheels is what matters. Who cares what the engine is actually producing, that figure is for bragging down at the pub. And when you are down the pub, there is always going to be someone who knows someone that has a 1000bhp Skyline

Palmball, 415 at the wheels is a good strong number

Not sure what your point is......
Basically I questioned why any CHASSIS dyno converts RWP to read ATFW.

There is drive train loss which can be accurately calculated by performing a base line pull and compare with the published fly wheel figure which the manufacturer obtains from an engine stand / dyno.

The RWP number is a direct result of drive train loss..power output starts at the flywheel...

As I clearly stated the RWP will be higher on an inertia dyno versus a load dyno...
So the RWP will vary from the two types of dynos by as much as 15%-18%....

The 415RWP is an excellent number...stock CLK63 BS typically around 432RWP.

 

[RBYCC]

As I said it was done at the wheels and the flywheel figure was estimated using an 18% transmission loss. I appreciate this isn't an exact science but I never intended for it to be a comparison against AMGs claims. It was merely to measure a before and after Brabus tune and given the same rules applied to both, it did it's job! Hence I'm now sat in MB Milton Keynes getting it removed and my money back

The dyno used was Dyno Dynamics and they all have the capability of working out an estimated flywheel hp using pre defined (and again estimated) transmission losses. Not a perfectly scientific solution but as a means to compare different tunes on a car it does the job as long as the dyno operator can ensure consistency in the way they perform the run.

Agree with what you are saying...just no reason for any dyno/operator to use an arbitrary number to establish ATFW from RWP.

Dyno's are merely tuning tools...always comparing after mod pulls to an established base line.

Many variables will be seen on the same dyno on the same day primarily due to heat soak of the engine.

 

[NISFAN]

Not sure what your point is......
Basically I questioned why any CHASSIS dyno converts RWP to read ATFW.

There is drive train loss which can be accurately calculated by performing a base line pull and compare with the published fly wheel figure which the manufacturer obtains from an engine stand / dyno.

The RWP number is a direct result of drive train loss..power output starts at the flywheel...

As I clearly stated the RWP will be higher on an inertia dyno versus a load dyno...
So the RWP will vary from the two types of dynos by as much as 15%-18%....

The 415RWP is an excellent number...stock CLK63 BS typically around 432RWP.

If you are happy to work out losses from comparing a bare engine with test airbox, and test exhaust, in a controlled lab on an engine dyno, with the totally contrasting conditions found on a chassis dyno, then that's up to you. It's a free world.

In Europe, it is common for dyno figures to be listed as ATFW, as I guess many people want to see improvements over stock. (?!?)

My point is, there is no % correction that will accurately work back to a flywheel figure. A 1200hp Supra with a stock drivetrain, will not have 4X the losses as a stock 300hp Supra, which is what your listed % range will conclude.

The OP has quite rightly used the same dyno to get a before and after figure, and has a base line for future mods, which I am sure we will get to read about

I agree with what you said above.

 

[GMW]

Lol - I have been considering the Kleeman but having looked into that further, to do it properly needs ECU, Headers and Cats...and thats even more money than the Brabus option. I'm currently debating this in my head but I am very nervous about non-genuine engine changes on such a new and in-warranty!

With regards to AMG doing the upgrades, I already begged and pleaded with them for both the engine and diffuser when I had my interior done and they are not in the slightest bit interested. I guess these days they are no wholly owned by Mercedes and not independent so are going to be very straight-down-the-line corporate rigid!

I totally feel your frustration in your last paragraph. I also visited AMG, in September last year. I begged and pleaded for them to do an ECU tune for me as the engines are virtually the same. My contact kept his official tone. I even gave examples of so many other companies doing this. Still no reaction. I remember years ago that my old contacts were very flexible. Now, this is quite frustrating. Having a C63 engine option that makes it the fastest does not stop people buying an SLS (Gullwing doors!?!). Plus they would rake in a lot more cash from the willing.

I believe the new line of thinking that is going to become more prevalent in the future, is that even though someone can afford an S-class, they would rather have a C-class or E-class for style or handling reasons but would want all the luxury and technological trimmings available on the S-class. I don't have any plans to buy an S-class. I am very happy with having a C-class for the handling and style. I just wish I could select all those other options like night view assist, alcantara roof trim, etc.

 

[Palmball]

Here is the latest update in my ongoing quest for improvements on this car!

I went out to Germany at the weekend to drop my car off with Uli for him to get a perfect setting on the car. Firstly, we tried the car on one of the softest settings which, after a couple of laps of the 'ring, I described as the 'Cadillac Setting'. It was far too soft and bouncy and it's amazing what extremes this suspension can go to!

Anyway, Uli's aim for this week was to get KW to re-valve the rear dampers so he could have more adjustment but after speaking to him today, it appears that all KW wanted to do was get him to put it at their recommended settings (which are far too stiff for the UK). In the end, he spent the whole day just tuning it! Indeed, the guy who arranged all this for me and is out there having things done to his own car this week and he has assured me that Uli has achieved an incredible set up on the car

Still to do is the corner weight balancing which will ensure the car handles exactly the same whether turning left or right (you'll find most cars respond slightly differently when turning left or right as the diagonal weight is different across the car). The KW V3 suspension allows the ride height to be adjusted to ensure the diagonal weight is the same from one side to the other...apparently

I guess I'll find out next week when I pick it up whether all this is worth it but given the result Uli achieved on my car from just a couple of hours work and minor tweaks a few weeks ago, I think it'll be pretty good!


***Breaking News!***

After explaining my Brabus woes to Uli, he had a little chuckle to himself and pretty much confirmed that no remap alone is going to give any noticeable difference to the cars performance.

So, he suggested what has previously been recommended by CPR - a pretty much guaranteed and noticeable performance increase from headers and cats as the standard system is incredibly restrictive. And it just so happens that a new header and cat design has recently been developed and would I like to have it fitted to my car to see what I think?

Errrm....let me think about that for a moment. YES PLEASE!

So, whats the difference and what the downsides?

The current headers are 52mm in diameter and the new ones will be over 40% larger at 75mm. The front cats are also being changed for larger items with less restriction and the combination of both is reckoned to give 40bhp (even on my car) with absolutely no ECU changes whatsoever.

The downside is that the car will have higher emissions hence they cannot fit such items to production cars - it will pass the UK MOT but they're not legal in every market the car is sold in! In all honesty...this isn't a concern to me.

So, they're starting to fabricate the components tomorrow and by the end of the week, they'll be on! Let's hope this is more successful than my previous attempt to better the HP on this car but as always, I will report back exactly as I find.

 

[NISFAN]

Wow, getting some popcorn and a comfy seating position ready for the next instalment.

Who is making these new headers and Cats? AMG?

Just so I get this right, they are going to fit 75mm headers (tubular tuned versions or cast log type?), sports cats, and full exhaust system, or couple to the existing exhaust? What diameter are the standard pipes to backbox?

2x 75mm is very very large for a normally aspirated engine, in fact 2x 52mm is large. Too big and you lose the back pressure required. Will be interesting to see the results.

To put the proposed size into perspective, a 600-700 Turbo charged engine will be OK on a single 3" exhaust. Just slightly choked at the 700 limit.

 

[Palmball]

Wow, getting some popcorn and a comfy seating position ready for the next instalment.

Who is making these new headers and Cats? AMG?

Just so I get this right, they are going to fit 75mm headers (tubular tuned versions or cast log type?), sports cats, and full exhaust system, or couple to the existing exhaust? What diameter are the standard pipes to backbox?

2x 75mm is very very large for a normally aspirated engine, in fact 2x 52mm is large. Too big and you lose the back pressure required. Will be interesting to see the results.

To put the proposed size into perspective, a 600-700 Turbo charged engine will be OK on a single 3" exhaust. Just slightly choked at the 700 limit.

Woah...so many questions!!

I'm not sure if they're tubular or log type but I assume the latter as there is just no space in the engine fit tubular ones. AMG don't fabricate their own but it is the company that is used when developing the items and mine will the just the 2nd C63 with this kit on it. Now I'm worrying myself

Its just headers and cats to the stock centre section. I am very interested to see the results and I hope it all works well otherwise

I am just going to check I've got those sizes right tomorrow....I might look a total tool but I'm sure thats what he said but then again, his english isn't the best!

 

[Palmball]

Here are some pics of the weekends' 'development' work

Me about to enter the carousel in the right way...

And on another lap, this is what happens when you drive into the carousel incorrectly - i.e. the inside of the car on the flat inner surface of the corner, with the outside of the car pushed up against the steep banking...this wasn't good and Uli wasn't happy with me as I should've driven entirely on the banked part (note that my excuse was that the situation was not helped by the car being in Cadillac spec at this stage )...

It looks almost photoshopped in this one but I can tell you...this is for real! There was no rubbing and the suspension was still providing effective compression damping...

Uli driving the car properly and about to show an M3 how it's done...

Uli taking the right line in the carousel...

C63 leading the way with my driving under Uli's guidance (or was I holding them up??). Check out the tyre compression on the front which wasn't helped by the softer settings on trial...

Leaving the carousel....