Turbo vs. centrifugal blower
 

Doing searches both here and other places.I've read that non turbo MB 4 cylinder engines don't last very well when converted to turbo.Probably due to the non turbos lack of additional oil sprayed to the underside of the pistons?Or does Mercedes even do this to their turbo blocks?
So I was wondering if a Paxton type centrifugal blower would be a good way to gain dependable performance for a non turbo block.Not planning on any drastic changes any time soon.But I want to keep my old Benz mostly origional with a few cosmetic and performance changes.Any one here with any experience or info on converted non turbo engines?

The turbo 4 cylinder uses all the 617 turbo parts including oil cooled pistons, sodium filled exhaust valves, strengthened bottom end, turbo oil pump and bigger radiator with turbo oil cooler.

If mildly boosted, either with a turbo charger or blower, with careful EGT and engine temp monitoring, one can have good success with longevity.

i agree
 

you prob would be ok if boost level is kept very low. as noted above the factory turbos are so different that about the only parts they share with the non turbo motors is the block and head castings. not even the crank and pan is the same. i think you prob would be on your own for adaptors especially if you are thinking of your 220.

tom w

Centrifugal blowers are less efficient than turbos, so it would be a less desireable option.

Many a NA diesel has had successful and unsuccessful aftermarket or homebrewed turbo systems bolted on to them. The key to longevity with installing a turbo on a diesel that was never designed to have one is to be conservative. Keep the boost to 5psi max and the EGT's under 1000* preturbo and all should be well. Reality is that you could simply install a 5cy 617 turbo motor. Probably easier and quicker than finding a turbo system for a 616. RT

good point
 

it will fit... at least a non turbo will. don t know for sure about the turbo model ..it was never offered in the 115.

tom w