OM606 Unleashed: My 1998 E300 Chip Tuning Experience - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

vstech · #1 07-23-2014, 01:51 PM

I cannot fathom how any chip can affect a mechanically injected engine's HP or torque... Above idle...
The 98/99 still uses a mechanically injected engine...

Did the guy do anything to the injectors or pump timing?

shertex · #2 07-23-2014, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vstech

I cannot fathom how any chip can affect a mechanically injected engine's HP or torque... Above idle...
The 98/99 still uses a mechanically injected engine...

Did the guy do anything to the injectors or pump timing?

No...all he did was replace two chips.

jay_bob · #3 07-23-2014, 02:02 PM

It must be playing with the response curve of the IP rack actuator, inhibiting the operation of the EGR, and delaying opening the waste gate.

These are the only points that can influence the operation of this engine. The 606 turbo engine vacuum system is very simple, with two vacuum transducers, one for the EGR and one for the waste gate. No vacuum shutoff (it's electrical), and no transmission vacuum control (this is done by CAN bus to the electronic transmission controller).

vstech · #4 07-23-2014, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jay_bob

It must be playing with the response curve of the IP rack actuator, inhibiting the operation of the EGR, and delaying opening the waste gate.

These are the only points that can influence the operation of this engine. The 606 turbo engine vacuum system is very simple, with two vacuum transducers, one for the EGR and one for the waste gate. No vacuum shutoff (it's electrical), and no transmission vacuum control (this is done by CAN bus to the electronic transmission controller).

that makes sense.
so likely he shifted around the HP and Torque numbers by changing the defuel map and turbo wastegate dump... I can see that affecting the seat of pants meter...

sixto · #5 07-24-2014, 12:25 AM

I don't doubt HP gains which are relatively easily achieved by overriding the conservative boost management. The ECU must be able to influence the full load stop because otherwise swapping a pressure wastegate actuator for the devil's own vacuum actuator is half the battle.

Until there's better information, I'll assume the mpg projections are for their chips in general, not specific to this application.

Sixto
MB-less

gsxr · #6 07-24-2014, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sixto

I don't doubt HP gains which are relatively easily achieved by overriding the conservative boost management. The ECU must be able to influence the full load stop because otherwise swapping a pressure wastegate actuator for the devil's own vacuum actuator is half the battle.

Yes - that is basically correct. Also, the ECU can override the "full load stop" on the electronically-governed mechanical pumps. The chip simply maxes out the fuel delivery available from the 6mm elements on the 98-99 E300 / 606.962 IP. And it probably increases boost as well... this would have been easy to measure before/after, bummer I didn't think to ask David to check, oops. Photos of the 606.962 pump internals are here... skip down to photo numbers 15-20, notice the back half is pretty empty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sixto

Until there's better information, I'll assume the mpg projections are for their chips in general, not specific to this application.

Now THAT would make sense. Chips on newer gasser cars can modify fuel delivery and ignition timing (amongst other things), and I could understand a potential for a small gain in economy for certain models/engines. But not on an MB diesel with M-type inline pump. I think you nailed it, Sixto, those are boilerplate claims made for all their chips, even including chips that can't do what they claim. Lousy, misleading, inaccurate marketing. At least there's a good power gain.

shertex · #7 07-24-2014, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gsxr

Now THAT would make sense. Chips on newer gasser cars can modify fuel delivery and ignition timing (amongst other things), and I could understand a potential for a small gain in economy for certain models/engines. But not on an MB diesel with M-type inline pump. I think you nailed it, Sixto, those are boilerplate claims made for all their chips, even including chips that can't do what they claim. Lousy, misleading, inaccurate marketing. At least there's a good power gain.

EXCEPT that I was given the 3-4 mpg increase in an email responding to an inquiry I made about MY PARTICULAR CAR. So the guy at Rocketchip was not holding that out to me as a generic figure.

I am going to continue to monitor mileage for a couple of months, filling up at the same station. Then I will give him a call to ask some questions.

gsxr · #8 07-24-2014, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shertex

EXCEPT that I was given the 3-4 mpg increase in an email responding to an inquiry I made about MY PARTICULAR CAR. So the guy at Rocketchip was not holding that out to me as a generic figure.

He was giving a sales pitch with the intent to make a sale, not necessarily provide accurate information about realistic gains. I'd be willing to bet they never actually put a 210.025 on a dyno to measure the actual change, or at best they took info provided by an early customer and used that info.

I went through this discussion with a different chip maker (or two) years ago when they were claiming steep power gains on a 500E. I eventually got a guy who admitted their charts are based on "average gains for that type of motor" and that it was not accurate for the 500E specifically. I was shocked at the honesty, but also don't think they removed their listing/info for the 500E chip (can't remember - they may have).

Quote:

Originally Posted by shertex

I am going to continue to monitor mileage for a couple of months, filling up at the same station. Then I will give him a call to ask some questions.

I'd expect a tap dance about how you are using the power more and that is affecting the MPG numbers, varying fuel quality, AC usage in summer, winter blend fuel with lower BTU, etc, etc. Hope I'm wrong. It will be interesting to see what they response is after you have more data to share.

shertex · #9 07-24-2014, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gsxr

I'd expect a tap dance about how you are using the power more and that is affecting the MPG numbers, varying fuel quality, AC usage in summer, winter blend fuel with lower BTU, etc, etc. Hope I'm wrong. It will be interesting to see what they response is after you have more data to share.

There's undoubtedly a lot of plausible deniability baked into the whole arrangement. But, if it every occurs to me to be disappointed about no gains in fuel economy, I'll simply stomp the accelerator, feel that smooooooth power, and keep driving.

BTW if a customer is dissatisfied for any reason they'll do the next stage up for free.

sixto · #10 07-24-2014, 10:02 PM

How many data points could he have collected in a month?

Sixto
MB-less

gsxr · #11 07-25-2014, 01:46 PM

1.5mpg change over a total of 1 month (good catch, Sixto)... in the middle of winter with winter-blend fuel.. is not valid data to me. Also, 27mpg up to 29mpg on a 75mph freeway cruise over 500 miles? Seems terrible to me, that car should be mid-30's under those conditions. I can get 28-30 from my old OM603 without the benefit of overdrive tranny!!

shertex · #12 07-25-2014, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gsxr

1.5mpg change over a total of 1 month (good catch, Sixto)... in the middle of winter with winter-blend fuel.. is not valid data to me. Also, 27mpg up to 29mpg on a 75mph freeway cruise over 500 miles? Seems terrible to me, that car should be mid-30's under those conditions. I can get 28-30 from my old OM603 without the benefit of overdrive tranny!!

I don't know that mid 30's mpg is realistic for these cars....although I know several claim to get that. I think the EPA figure of 32 for the 99, 31 for the 98 (why the difference, I don't know) is pretty realistic.

gsxr · #13 07-25-2014, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shertex

I don't know that mid 30's mpg is realistic for these cars....although I know several claim to get that. I think the EPA figure of 32 for the 99, 31 for the 98 (why the difference, I don't know) is pretty realistic.

Anyone have a link to official EPA data?

The 210.025 should easily do mid-30's under long-range cruise conditions, at least on non-enviro-friendly low-BTU fuel. The 606 is more efficient than the 603, and the overdrive tranny helps, and the 6mm elements help. I've gotten 32mpg peak from my 124.133 with "good" fuel (generally peaks at 28 with the crap fuel we get now) and there is no way MB would have 15 years of development to get worse economy.

Besides engine/vehicle condition, fuel variability is one of the biggest factors for MPG differences on MB diesels. IMNSHO, anyway. It's also about the most difficult item to isolate... took me years to figure it out on my cars. Seems to vary between various regions in the nor'west. Not sure what it's like where you live. I have gotten the good stuff in Utah and certain areas of Nevada and Oregon, but we can't get it in Boise anymore, and California hasn't had the good stuff for over a decade now.

uberwgn · #14 07-25-2014, 02:22 PM

We've had a 1998 and a 1999 W210 diesel. Neither car ever showed in excess of 31.5mpg on the road.

(Wasn't the 1999 car EPA-rated at some nonsense like 37mpg?)

shertex · #15 07-25-2014, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uberwgn

We've had a 1998 and a 1999 W210 diesel. Neither car ever showed in excess of 31.5mpg on the road.

(Wasn't the 1999 car EPA-rated at some nonsense like 37mpg?)

The EPA ratings got revised....the current ones are more realistic.