[MountainviewTruck]

Greetings all!! After installing a Steinbauer on a customer's Case 8120 last night, I was reminded that I should think about informing the world around me of those capabilities. I own and operate a truck and equipment repair facility in a busy little town, and have been selling and installing Steinbauers for over a year, with generally very satisfied customers. Most of the customers have been on-highway trucks, but I would like to assist the farming community at large, and this is just one step in that direction.
If I can be of any assistance, please let me know!

 

[pete gads]

What is a steinbauer that you are installing.

 

[MountainviewTruck]

Steinbauer makes, in my opinion, the world's finest electronic power-enhancement module for diesel (and some gas) engines. Call it a chip, if you will. Their application range is second to none, covering cars, pick-ups, heavy trucks and, of course, ag equipment.

STEINBAUER Performance - Power Enhancement for Diesel and Turbo-gas Engines/Motors | STEINBAUER Performance
Taber Diesel - The Diesel Saver
Mountainview Truck and Trailer Centre in Olds, Alberta

Admittedly, the last link is to my own business, and that site is under construction.

 

[MountainviewTruck]

There is a lot of misinformation out there, and one of the biggest ones I hear about is that installing one of these will void warranty and men in black will come and throw you in jail and fine the pants off you. Please understand, the Steinbauer approach to horsepower increases does not utilize altering data into the ECM, or reprogramming the ECM. The injection signal (power from the ECM to turn on the injectors) passes through the Steinbauer module, and at approx. 65% engine load, the module starts to lengthen the injector on-time 20-25%. This increase in on-time is added to the tail end of the injection signal, so timing is not altered. How do you think Iveco changes the power ratings in a 12.9 Cursor? Totally different injectors, heads, pistons, etc?? No, more likely a simple program change in the ECM, telling the ECM to allow the injectors to open longer at a given load/rpm, thereby increasing power. Being on the output side of the ECM, and not altering any data into or inside the ECM, the Steinbauer's patented approach leaves no electronic footprint, no tattletale that logs a fault and sends FBI tactical units into your quonset at night. Utter nonsense.

 

[hiway mike]

Have you made a chip work on a 2014 7230?

 

[MountainviewTruck]

I personally haven't installed one, but there is a module available. I'm assuming you're referring to an Axial Flow 7230 with the FPT 8.7L?? The Steinbauer # is 220695, it retails for $3065. Interested?

 

[hiway mike]

Nope. Just curious ! Thanks.

 

[MountainviewTruck]

I am not going to try and blow smoke, nor make claims and promises that I can't back up with evidence. I will tell you this. I am not just a forum-skulking sleazeball salesman trying to make a quick buck, rather a conscientious multi-disciplined technician that started my own repair business after spending too many frustrating years at various dealers and distributors.
Steinbauer modules plug into the engine harness between the ECM and the injectors, and most get a power source from the alternator post and engine ground. The injector signal passes through the module, and at approx 65% engine load the injector's pulse-width begins to lengthen. The modern diesel engine ECM is monitoring the injector circuitry for validity and coil closure times, and because the Steinbauer is not altering any input data, or changing the ECM fuel mapping, no footprint is left behind. They are, in fact, turning the injector on longer the same way the factory ECM is doing it. Think of it this way, if you unplugged the injector harness and lengthened the wires with the same gauge wire, just longer, would the ECM log some fault code? Not unless it could measure some discernible voltage drop. The codes you refer to are "check sum" codes, the ECM compares it's own data, a virtual ledger balance or audit. Crude chips or ECM reflashes fail miserably at this, and log check sum faults, raising warranty red flags. But not Steinbauer's patented approach. One of my HD truck customers didn't really believe me, but bought one anyway for his 2012 Cummins ISX. When he went to the Peterbilt dealer for an update reflash, he specifically asked the shop foreman, (who is quite aware of deletes, tunes, reflashes, etc.) if there was anything the ECM could see. What do you think he saw. That's right class, nothing. And Cummins, like most if not all OEMs, gets pretty picky about this kind of thing. So, if there is nothing for the ECM to see, nothing altered, no false data, why should there be a warranty concern? Will it cause a failure? Highly unlikely, given that it increases power the same way all the engines have different power ratings, via injector duration changes. Should you make a 350hp engine produce 600hp? Don't be silly, something has to give. Want proof? Some Steinbauer modules carry Euro TUV certification, and multiple independent lab test results can be viewed at www.thedieselsavers.com.

http://www.thecombineforum.com/forums/www.thedieselsavers.com

 

[scott]

So if there was an engine warranty claim, and the manufacturer wanted to look at the ECM to verify it hasn't been "tuned in a warranty-voiding/EPA violating" manner, are you saying they could not detect that a Steinbauer module is in use?

More specifically, are you saying Steinbauer works with the FT4 launching from Case? That it is FALSE that permanent codes requiring ECM replacement from FPT with their approval to why a new ECM is needed will not occur because FPT has no policy and does not "lock" an ECM when tuned?"

Specifically are you saying that John Deere, through the use of JDLink, can not monitor a motor and determine if it is being "tuned" with a Steinbauer module?

Do engines with a Steinbauer meet/pass EPA emissions standards, or would they fail with excessive emissions?

Steinbauer modules do not "void" the factory warranty because they do not breach the warranty terms? Or do they only "void" the warranty if "caught" being used by the manufacturer or it's use reported to the manufacture?

These are the important questions people want answered. Since you seem knowledgeable with this product and are a dealer, many of us are curious to fact-based answers to these questions. You would be more likely to have fact-based responses than internet folklore.....right?

farmerjones, you make valid points, I install Steinbauer modules, if machine is under warranty I won't install, customers call, will show how to install. As you mentioned JD link monitoring, tamper proof locks on ecm's that have been removed by a non certified tech, if machine is off warranty, I leave it up to customer, he is warned of possiblitys that could arise. I wonder how long before ag sector gets shut down for using power modules, the same way auto industry did, Scott.

 

[offroadnt]

This is probably a dumb question but wouldn't the little box tied into the harness be a dead giveaway to anybody doing warranty work?

Scott, the auto industry doesn't use them anymore down there? Up here there must be a hundred suppliers of this stuff, a fellow from Montana wanted me to install some chip he bought for $75 on the internet into the MAF sensor that made the engine think it was sucking cold air all the time supposedly making it more efficient.

 

[Prairie Boy]

Warranty is a bit of a non issue here I would think. You only have one year of warranty with JD anyways so by the second year you'd be free to install the chip regardless. And if you're still worried that JD is going to share info about your machine via JD link with the big bad EPA so that they can come and harass you with gigantic fines maybe you should consider escaping from your country while you still have a chance because that would mean you have some mighty big problems. I don't think it's that bad yet.

 

[kenworth man]

Just finished my first full day of harvesting since installing a Steinbauer module. 2011 NH 9070 with 400 hrs. Dealer made the offer- install it, try it, if you don't like it bring it back. It won't be going back. Gained approx. half a mile an hour, went from 100-102 percent engine load to 80-85% load, went from 21-22 gph to 18 gph. fuel. threshed 13000 bushels hard red wheat on one tank of fuel without the warning light coming on. Although it wasn't a real hot day there were no cooling issues, the only other difference was it went from 42 to 44 pounds of boost under load.

 

[PFC-TYLER]

Yes Im bringing back a old thread, but I needed to say this.

At one point in time we sold hundreds of Steinbauer modules, we wont even look at them anymore.

Module failures, wire harness failures, fault codes generated due to increase rail pressure (yes they will tell you rail pressure is not altered, but it is), modules melting because they were installed too close to heat sources, and we had engine failures that were related to units that were on the higher end of the model spectrum and were being pushed beyond there abilities. Bring this up with Steinbauer and yes you too can have the wonderful return email direct from Herbert Steinbauer (I didn't know Austrians could swear that well in English!), trust me it wasn't pretty.

Any device that you can open up and turn a dial to change to level of performance increase obviously is a adjustable resister that is altering rail pressure. The easiest, yet worst way to increase horsepower.

Just becareful when using these, there are better options out there. Anyone interested please PM me.

 

[torriem]

Can you post about these options here? I would think a discussion of what's available would be of value to lots of folks. Never hurts to know the pluses and minuses of all these different chips.

 

[PFC-TYLER]

I replied to this last Friday night but obviously didn't take or was deleted.

I have the ability to overwrite the factory ECU to gain power, save fuel, and very soon for DEF deletes. Power gains are infinite within reason of the vehicle components of course.

Here is a quick example of one tractor done, it was the "small" tractor in the model range and I brought it to the same power levels as the "big" tractor in the model range:

Base Tune - 201 HP & 527 FT LBS @ 1000 PTO RPM
Mod Tune - 277 HP & 726 FT LBS @ 1000 PTO RPM
Gain: 76 HP & 199 FT LBS - Fuel: 9.3% per HP less fuel used after modification

 

[torriem]

Have you put any of these different boosts on any of the Tier 4 Final FPT engines (2014 model year)?

Also if these ECU changes increases efficiency so much, why don't the manufacturers do these tunings in the first place? The expense of tuning each engine individually for a certain job? Or is it mainly because of emissions requirements?

What does "9.3% per HP less fuel used" mean?

 

[SWMan]

I replied to this last Friday night but obviously didn't take or was deleted.

Maybe not the best sales pitch for a guy in the business of computer programming!

 

[PFC-TYLER]

Have you put any of these different boosts on any of the Tier 4 Final FPT engines (2014 model year)?

Also if these ECU changes increases efficiency so much, why don't the manufacturers do these tunings in the first place? The expense of tuning each engine individually for a certain job? Or is it mainly because of emissions requirements?

What does "9.3% per HP less fuel used" mean?

Yes, I have tuned two Tier 4 Final engines so far. Honestly I cannot answer the questions you have asked, you would think the OEM would want the engine as efficient as possible. No different than programming a truck/car to get them more efficient, why would they not do it from the factory?

9.3% per HP less fuel used.....after a unit is tuned it makes more power obviously, if we were to measure fuel consumption before and after at the same measurement (1000 PTO RPM), the "instant" fuel consumption is not fair as one is making much more power than the other. So, doing some calculations you can determine how much fuel is used to generate 1 HP in each scenario making the efficiency a accurate comparison.

For example the unit described above was using 9.6 GPH to develop 201 HP and 12 GPH to develop 277 HP. 9.6 GPM = 0.04776 GPH/HP, and 12 GPM = 0.04332GPH/HP, making this unit 9.3% more efficient to do the same "job" than before tuning.

All units have difference efficiency changes depending on model, before and after HP, etc. I have seen them as low as 3% and as high as 10%. Some others used to claim 20% better on fuel, but have since removed these claims as they were false...mine are real world results done on our dyno.

 

[PFC-TYLER]

Maybe not the best sales pitch for a guy in the business of computer programming!

My post was delete as someone had complained to admin. We are considering becoming a Supporting Vendor, but until then I have to be careful on what is posted. For more specific information in what I can do, or my option on the brand of tuning devices that this thread was started for please send me a PM.

 

[joesixpack]

Yes, I have tuned two Tier 4 Final engines so far. Honestly I cannot answer the questions you have asked, you would think the OEM would want the engine as efficient as possible. No different than programming a truck/car to get them more efficient, why would they not do it from the factory?

9.3% per HP less fuel used.....after a unit is tuned it makes more power obviously, if we were to measure fuel consumption before and after at the same measurement (1000 PTO RPM), the "instant" fuel consumption is not fair as one is making much more power than the other. So, doing some calculations you can determine how much fuel is used to generate 1 HP in each scenario making the efficiency a accurate comparison.

For example the unit described above was using 9.6 GPH to develop 201 HP and 12 GPH to develop 277 HP. 9.6 GPM = 0.04776 GPH/HP, and 12 GPM = 0.04332GPH/HP, making this unit 9.3% more efficient to do the same "job" than before tuning.

All units have difference efficiency changes depending on model, before and after HP, etc. I have seen them as low as 3% and as high as 10%. Some others used to claim 20% better on fuel, but have since removed these claims as they were false...mine are real world results done on our dyno.

I'm finding it really hard to believe your getting 9.3% less fuel per HP and I sure hope your not using the ecm calculated fuel usage after you fool with the quantity tables.