Custom Exhaust on 6.9?
 

Hey,

I've been toying with the idea of putting a custom exhaust on my 6.9. I was thinking of a cat-back system using flowmasters (since it it a '79 and not yet smog exempt). That big-block sounds pretty mean with the stock pipes on it, and I think it would really sound great with a Flowmaster system. What concerns me is performance. I understand that all of these cars were dialed in from the factory and I don't want to screw up the back pressure and jeapordize performance, or worse!


Does anyone have any experience doing this or know the possible effects - good or bad? Thanks! :cool:

the only thing I can think of is reducing backpressure is likely to lean out the fuel injection..................that may need correcting. But if you have access to a tuner........one of the guys that do imports with a pair of O2 bungs welded into the pipes as clsoe to the motor as possible (these can be pluged with a screw in plug) you can hook up a wideband sensor and tweek the pump to get the right Air fuel mixture set.

But I bet that baby sounds awesome.

I started out changing my 6.9 in stages and carefully monitored any decline in performance. None yet. First I got what Timevalve calls "engine pipes" which are straight pipes that directly replace the cats. Since you're not smog exempt yet, you might want to skip this. Mine's a 78 and I am free to modify re: emissions. That helped some and didn't adversely affect power; to the contrary, I felt it open up. Later I had the resonator cut out. Big sonic difference and not boomy or unpleasant to my ear at all. I cut the resonator out of my 190 2.6 and had to put it back after a week. I set off every car alarm in the parking garage at work. With no cats and resonator, the sound was good and the power increase was evident on the 6.9. A couple of weeks ago I put in an "X" pipe or crossover or whatever you want to call it. I recommend this and would have done this first if I had known. The exhaust pulses are better balanced and it actually worked to cut the sound down. In fact I read somewhere that a couple of properly placed x-pipes would allow you to run without a muffler at all. When I get a little further along, I might try a flowmaster at the rear, or maybe just try another x-pipe and see what that's like. I wouldn't worry about losing anything, all I have seen so far are gains. The sound suits the car, too. I've done some other stuff to the car recently and it has never run better. Your car is CIS, too and it's all pressure and flow and a mixture adjustment that is mechanical, not electronic, so I don't think a lack of backpressure will alter any of that. Does your car run well otherwise? I took mine on a long trip at Christmas and we ran 90-95 effortlessly. I have got it burning rubber now which it has never done in my 9 years with it. Part of my trouble has been that I have never ridden in one that ran as it did from the factory, so it has only been by other people's desciptions of how their cars ran that has got me changing things and experimenting with various things in the injection system, etc. Hope this encourages you to continue.

Out of curiosity, what are the some of the "other stuff" that you have done to your car to get it burning rubber again? :D I too don't know what the car drove like from the factory (since it was made before I was born :) ) and so who's to say it's not peforming better or worse than factory spec or better in the event that future modifications are made.

The previous owner had the engine completely rebuilt. It has approx 7k on it since then. This is a euro-model which I understand had a little more H.P. but I don't exactly know the details (by driving it, I'd guess around 300). It burns rubber effortlessly and is a blast to drive on a rainy day! I am planning to Dyno it, but haven't got around to it.

Anyway the exhaust is one of a couple of things I want to modify. I'm sure the MBZ engineers did a fantastic job at the factory back in the 70's but I'd bet that exhaust technology has seen some improvements in the last 30 years. I like the idea of the crossover pipe. I had a custom 3" exhaust similar to what you are talking about on a big block Buick ('68 GS 400) years back and LOVED that unbelieveable rumble which came from those pipes- used Flowmaster 2 chambers. I bet that this beast will sound the same.

I've heard that the top end on these is around 150 mph, which I plan to find out for myself. The best I've ever had her was 120+/- mph on a stretch of I-5 in California before my radar detector started to buzz. Oh well, I'm trying to get it on one of the racetracks - the oval at Las Vegas Motor Speedway would be ideal to get an accurate top end attempt, but we'll see. :cool:

I believe the Euro model has 286hp. Mine has the measly 250hp. I drove mine during the LA downpour a few weeks ago and it was rather scary as to how easy it was to break traction on the rear tires from a stop! AS for burning rubber I guess I have never had the confidence to try it since the car shudders a little when under load....do your cars do this or is my tranny slipping?....what's your style? Mash the gas or hold the brakes and rev the engine and then let off?

As for the exhaust I like the crossover idea. Even as it is now, I take the car to a parking garage with a hundred riced cars and it sets off every one of em if you blip the throttle....oh what fun :)

I got mine up to 110mph for a few seconds going uphill at about 4% incline but had to back off because buses don't go 110mph. Perhaps when it has better rubber and track available i'd venture out and see what the top end is.

i dont think you need two or more x pipes (ive never seen or heard of anyone doing that) - their job is to balance out the exhaust gases and let teh exhaust pipes scavange the air as effortlessly as possible - resulting in a more pleasurable sound,better performance....a h pipe might work too i am not sure the fire order of this engine but a x pipe and an h pipe have alternate effects depending on fire order....or shoot even a new style "D" pipe...

i am running a borla performance universal muffler, and i love the sound...it is a 2.5" system with headers....this is not on a 6.9 - but the sound is aggressive without being rash and rude...a very nice rumble and roll - no bee can or 60s muscle car (which i love, but not for my w123) - hadflowmaster 40s - i thought it was too much for it...the borla is more "refined"

for what its worth
jake

id look into headers as that is great for the engine

The biggest increase in performance for me was getting my warm up regulator working right. I had read that the 6.9's strong point was its huge torque and ability to really accelerate from 60 to 100. Mine wasn't doing that. It almost felt like a tire out of balance. I could go fast, but the acceleration from cruising speed to high speed wasn't there, and it seemed like the car was laboring to get it up there and keep it there.
I swapped in a used WUR from a spare engine I bought and it was like having a new car! There was a change in 79 to the plumbing on the vac. lines of the WUR and the vac. hose at the top of the WUR swapped positions with the hose connected to the lower chamber in the WUR. I think this was to provide enrichment at full throttle.
I rebuilt with a kit the "system pressure regulator" and the "pressure compensating valve". These are in the fuel distributor and the kit provides new o-rings and a new closing plug and shims to adjust the control pressure. I don't think this added to any increased acceleration, but it improved cold starts.
I pulled in all the slack from the throttle linkages and now the throttle responds with any movement in the pedal; it's not like you have to move it an inch to get things started.
I'm not saying I can leave 30 yard rubber stripes, but I can mash the pedal from a standstill with no brake torquing and get some pretty serious spin, not that I am advocating this, of course. Yes I am. It's great.
I have been cleaning all the fuel system parts by disassembly where I can and using Lucas FI cleaner in the gas tank. My fuel system was pretty dirty after 27 years without any serious efforts at cleaning.
I read on the m-100 sites that a bit of ATF in the gas tank, like maybe a 1/4 quart per tank every other fillup would help lube and clean the internals of the fuel distributor, etc., and there is an added benefit of raising knock resistance. I bumped the timing up a few degrees, too.
I am nowhere near Euro 6.9 performance territory, but it's running better than ever right now.

With reference to the exhaust business, I wasn't saying that an extra x-pipe would further improve scavenging, one's enough for that; I was saying that some of the old hot rodders can put more than one crossover in and eliminate the need for a muffler. I don't know how restrictive the stock muffler is, but I am guessing it does offer some back pressure and eliminating it would free up the exhaust that much more.

I also pulled in some slack from the transmission pressure rod. This adjustment is exceptionally sensitive and small adjustments make large differences. It holds the lower gear longer and shifts a bit later when you get it just right.

The top speed on a 6.9 is 140-145 MPH. The three-speed tranny is a huge limiter, as are the aerodynamics, which are akin to a brick. It's a lot of sled to move at high speed.

The acceleration of the 6.9 from 60-120 is really indescribable, even with the 250-HP US models. THe European cars with 36 extra HP are not significantly faster, though some people swear they are.

I had my 6.9 up to 125-130 MPH a couple of times, and though they can go that speed pretty easily, they tend to lift a bit and don't feel too firmly planted on the road at that speed despite being a heavy car. It's the aerodynamics, again.

I would think a crossover exhaust would be an excellent idea. ANother tip would be to disconnect the smog pump, as that robs a bit of HP and is an expensive devil to replace, cost-wise. Different people have different ideas when it comes to the exhaust; I found that just goign with a stainless steel Timevalve system was an excellent choice. I doubt that exhaust mods are going to provide much real-world HP difference above stock.

The best things that could be done to get more speed out of a 6.9 would be to replace the transmission with a four or five-speed unit, do a better exhaust, and probably to alter the rear-end gearing for more acceleration.

On the drag strip, the best I could do with the 6.9 was 16.1 seconds; by comparison my 6.3 could do 15.07-15.2 (stock) and the 500E can do (stock) 14.0-14.1. With nitrous oxide, the 500E is down in the 12.9 second range. It is also capable of 185 MPH and feels firmly planted to the road at speeds above 150 MPH.

In the 80-100 MPH range, a 6.9 is a really nice car, very smooth.

Cheers,
Gerry

as far as wind drag ... the SLR uses about 150 horses just to beat the wind at speed....200mph

wow - thats crazy
jake

I got my 450SEL 4.5 up to 115mph today and it felt so so so firm down on the road. Good enough to try and get around cracks and potholes on the highway. It all depends on suspension set up and that 10mph more may make the car act way different. I did this a few times but when the tire pressure is up to spec and running 215s, its comfortable at speed. I used to have balding 195 and it was a scary ride even at 90. Tires make a huge difference too.

Peter

6.9 fans, first, are you aware of a Benz site dedicated to your M100?? Find the one that ends with cc.
Now your pipes, yes, I've heard the theory about performance and pipe size on M100s. My very best performing 6.3 uses stainless Tymevalves. As another very knowledgable fellow said, tune it for that exhaust system. Borlas are slightly bigger, I still haven't used them but only because we now make our own systems, all stainless in two cases including headers but the majority use regular steel headers but stainless crossovers and pipes. We use several different mufflers from Tymevalves to now a new devlopment for us, stainless steel glass packs. The best sound by far, the glass packs, no comparison. Performance??? Don't know yet. The air is too cool to judge the recent Glass packs on the Green Hornet to our Tymevalve system mounted on the Silver Bullet. It feels good but only a time slip proves the horsepower. One thing for sure, regular steel pipes and crossovers are a total waste of funds if you plan on driving the 6.9 for 6 years or more. That's the expected life.
On those cross overs; find some photos of a 6.3 system. Note how close to the headers, the 6.3's crosovers are mounted. The closer the better and thats proven. Here in Oregon, we have now found a pro shop that bends the stainless steel making the under the 6.3 view much cleaner than our original stainless cross overs.

500e 185MPH
 

You expect us to believe that? 185 MPH? that's 300kmh.
I've done 245 and it's right scary. That was in a V6 w210 and they had better suspension than an airmatic w211, or any 211 for that matter.
W211 is limited to 250kph

And it wouldn't do 12.9 on the 1/4 mile either. CL65 does 11.8 and it has twice the HP, bigger tyres to put down and only weighs 300kg more.
Anyone agree?

Gerry's E500 is Nitrous Oxide equipped. Why couldn't his car run in the high 12's? A stock 211 E55 with 469 hp can run in the low 12's so why couldn't Gerry's E500 with a 150 shot of NOS run in the 12's? Stock the E500 has around 320 hp add 150 hp with NOS and you have 470 hp. The CL65 does not have twice the hp at 609 hp. It would need around 940 to have double what Gerry's car has. Besides, the CL 65 is traction limited. I've seen the 65 series run mid 11's on stock tires. I'd imagine low 11's with slicks is very possible for the CL65.

My timeslips don't lie, my friend.

Times are dependent on a number of things, including outside air temperature, rear-end gearing, altitude, tires used, wheel diameter, etc.

My car has dyno'd out several times well over 430 HP (gross). I can get 13.2 second times all day, any temperature (even 70 degrees).

Cheers,
Gerry

Heh, are you accusing me of lying -- ? I don't lie -- I drive fast, on straight roads, in the middle of the night.

My car has an electronic black box (obtained from a firm in Germany :D )installed that removes the 155 MPH top speed limitation. The 500E in stock form, with no additional help, can do 170-172 MPH top speed. Add 100+ HP with N2O and modifications, and you can go noticeably faster.

The nerve of some people...

Cheers,
Gerry

Gerry, out of curiosity, how does the transmission hold up when you start ripping those hydrocarbons? :)

The last dyno run on my supercharged SEC was 346 RWHP and 404 RWTQ. According to the Bergwerks site that sells the E500 NOS, the NOS equipped E500 has the same hp as my SEC before the addition of my intertercooler and cog drive system. I have no idea what hp I have in my SEC now but I'd guess its close to or over 500 crank hp. The tranny in my 126 SEC is the same as that of a E500 and it holds pretty well once it is warm. I don't feel it would stand constant thrashing with run on top of run but it works pretty well in day to day driving. The Porsche 928S4 equipped with an automatic also uses this tranny. I know of some guys pushing around 500 RWHP with this tranny in their 928's and it holds just fine.

At least 100 good solid burn-outs, and the 722.3 tells me it's doing just fine. Generally the flex disc is the first thing to go, but mine shows no problems to date. Of course, drag radial tires are recommended...

Cheers,
Gerry

Yep, the one before the differential on mine is heading south. Looks like it could go any day. Any trick to changing that out? It looks very stratight forward.

You can get a Bilstein unit for around $70 via mail order. Pretty straightforward replacement. Six bolts.

Cheers,
Gerry

Thanks. That's what I thought.

Ahh nitrous!
 

Sorry, didn't realise he was running nitrous. Stock E55 does 12.9 1/4 mile. In Australia, a nice E500 AvantGarde with a few good options is almost $190,000AUD. An E55 is about $240,000. Plus you get better suspension, AWESOME brakes, body kit, quad exhausts, AMG interior, paddle shift gears plus body mods to take extra torque. How much did the nitrous cost? I'd go a stock E55 over a modded E500.

Any knowledgeable MB mechanic or dismantler will tell you otherwise with the W210 and W211 E55s vs. the 500E.

The fact is, that the 500E was specially, structurally modified and purpose-built (not to mention handbuilt, in the most literal sense of the word) to be a high-performance sedan. It received specific and extensive structural modifications and chassis-level reinforcements to handle the higher levels of performance of the drivetrain and suspension.

The W210 and W211 E55 models are simply ordinary chassis that were/are pulled off the main MB production line, shipped to AMG to receive their drivetrains, and shipped back to MB for final assembly and testing. I don't know the specifics of the current W211 E55s, but I can definitively tell you that the W210 received no additional body, structural or chassis modifications (other than the drivetrain and suspension components bolted in) to improve its rigidity or performance characteristics. It is in all sense of the word, an ordinary W210 with high-performance components and content added.

Now, you may say in response to that statement, that the W124 chassis was inferior to the W210 and that's why the W124 required the additional structural modifications, while the superior design of the W210 didn't necessitate any changes.

Alas, it's not that simple. The W124 500E was a purpose-built car that was conceived and built with a "cost no object" philosophy. There are quite a few non-drivetrain and suspension components that are specific just to the 500E. The decision to build the 500E was made back in the waning days (mid-late 1980s) before the bean counters took over MB, and the decision to build cars was still made to a specific engineering/performance specification (at the expense of perhaps even losing money) rather than to a specific cost point.

The fact that the 500E was subcontracted to and built by Porsche is evidence enough of this. The only car that MB has done this with since, has been the SLR McLaren (which I saw an example of last Thursday at Fletcher Jones MB in Newport Beach, CA, with a sticker price of well over $400,000).

MB would never do this type of subcontracting today with an "ordinary" style production vehicle. Absolutely no profit in doing so.

The 210 and 211 E55s have been designed and built with cost-savings and component-sharing in mind -- mainly to cut costs and squeeze the maximum profit from each vehicle. If you look at the cost of the the successive E55 models you will see that they are significantly less expensive than the 500E (which was $80,000 when new, with inflation significantly more than this).

All this said, the E55s of both generations do handily exceed the 500E in performance (all cars in stock form). This is due in large part to the dubious strategy, in the case of the W211 E55, of supercharging the engine. The W210 E55 is merely an incremental, but statistically significant, performance leap over the 500E.

Another thing to keep in mind, is the reliability and fit/finish of the newer generation cars, which is mediocre at best. Again, any knowledgable dealership mechanic or shop owner will tell you about the horror stories inherent in these W210 and W211 cars, particularly in the electricals/computer system but also in the electromechanical assemblies. The W124 was at the end of its lifecycle (production having started in late 1985) so most of the kinks had been worked out of the car by the time that it received the 500E treatment in 1991.

Also, MOST experienced mechanics will tell you in spades that the M119 engine of the 500E/R129/W140 has been the overall best V-8 engine (some will say the M117 in 560 form is also quite excellent) that MB has ever made -- certainly far better than today's "modular" M113s.

The fact that MB started with the M119's twin-cam 4-valve cylinder head design, and migrated downward in the 1997-98 time frame to the cheaper-to-produce 3-valve M113, and is now migrating back to a 4-valve design, tells you something.

Cheers,
Gerry

Cost of 3 valve VS 4 valve
 

I don't know if that's the reason they changed. They went from the M110 with dual cams to the M103 with single then back to the duals in the M104. Now they run V6's with all that added expense. 2 heads vs one, longer cam chains, 2 cats, more O2 sensors, more gaskets, 2 rocker covers, dual spark.
I think we should be less skeptical regarding so perceived "cost cuttings".
Oh, and the next crop of engines will be 4 valve with quad cams anyway.

What is wrong with an M113 motor anyway? Apart from it's Lucas, err i mean Bosch electronics!!

European motorcycle manufactures have in most, seen the light and started using Japanese electronics and fuel delivery systems. Maybe, (perish the thought!) MB should give it a go?

Out of curiosity, does anyone else prefere the unequal length control arm front suspension in the W210 etc vs the new "multi-link" in the w211 etc?

I was specifically talking 8-cylinder engines, not 6-cylinder engines.

Nothing is wrong with the M113 -- it's a decent engine, smooth. The jury's out on it as far as durability and reliability, but the early returns that I hear from the techs says hands down that they prefer the M119 and M117....

The fact of the matter is, that the M112 and M113 are produced on the same manufacturing line, and are "modular" engines -- variants of a common design that was conceived and engineered for maximum cost savings and reduced production times.

The other key reason for the production of the M112 V-6 was compactness -- it can be put in a smaller space, and thus crammed into a smaller car (or a larger car with a smaller frontal area).

They are considerably less-expensive to manufacture than the old M103 and M104 inline-six motors. In addition, engineers tell us that all things being equal, the inherent/natural smoothness and balance, not to mention torque, characteristics of an inline-6 are superior to those of a V-6. The fact that BMW has continued with its own inline-6 designs says (to me) a lot.

MB has scrimped in other ways as well -- for example, going from recirculating-ball steering to rack and pinion; or going to MacPherson front struts vs. its traditional multilink suspension. Look at leather quality, dashboard and interior materials, carpet thickness, the list goes on. The use of modular assemblies (rather than assemblies comprised of individual parts) also contributes mightily to the reduced cost of recent and current MBs.

Merely look at the price of a new C-Class or E-Class -- you can see that these cars cost far less than they did 15 years ago! With inflation, they should cost far more.

Cheers,
Gerry

Mercedes went to the 3-valve engine due to emission laws. At the time, they could not make the M119 meet the new and stringent emission laws while maintaining good performance. The 3-valve engine allows the catalytic converter to get to it's operating temperature more quickly and thus fewer emissions than the 4 valve at the time. With that said, I feel a 4-valve engine is better than a three valve engine but I'd still take a 210 E55 over the 124 E500. Looks and performance the E55 wins hands down. Not to mention, there is a much greater aftermarket parts availability with the 210 E55. For not a whole lot of money, a 210 E55 can run low 12's in the 1/4 mile and still be driven daily.

You are right about the E500 in terms of build quality and a "cost no object" mentality of Mercedes when they made the car. The dash material is very cheap in the 210's but the leather in the 210 E55 is much much nicer than that of a 210 E430 and I might venture to say that it is as good as that of the 124 E500. The overall interior build quality of the E500 is much nicer though.

That is a true statement, and I have read that before.

But I don't for a minute believe, in this Schrempp day and age, that MB would try to do ANYTHING without also trying to squeeze the costs out of it. :eek:

Cheers,
Gerry

Where is a stock w210 e55 that can run a 1/4 in low 12's? low 13's perhaps.
W140 is widely regarded as the last "money no object" built mercedes. They are also regarded as the most expensive to run. Look at the s350 diesels. Thank christ we never got them in Australia.
Also, as time goes on, technology becomes less expensive to produce. I bet an ESP/ABS unit doesn't cost anything near what the first W126 ABS units cost to produce. And airbags. With every car that is released now using them, they must cost peanuts to produce in comparison to when they were first available. Also, the enourmous number of cars sold now brings production costs down again. The main cost is in R&D and then in setting up the tooling. If you are selling 100,000 cars a year, the per vehicle is going to be much lower thanif the production number was, say 50,000 cars per year.
Then there's the competition. Look at the standard equipment list on an LS430 compared to an S500? In Oz, and USA may be different, we don't even get Xenon lights on a $275,000AUD sedan. But the lexus gets them. Among other things. And I bet the lexus warranty costings are far less than that of MB.

These factors all help to bring the prices down. I guarantee that Bosch are charging Mercedes and the other manufactures just as much markup or more for their current range of shoddy gear as they were for the older stuff that seemed to be of a far better grade.

Oh, and don't think that I don't like MB's. I have two (w124 and W126), my mother has an ML430, father an S430, both grandmothers have c classes (one a 203, one a 202) my bother a 202, uncle an E500, aunt an SLK230 and I worked for the group since I entered the workforce (now no longer).
I find them excellent vehicles.
I do not agree that the change to V6 was entirely cost related. Imagine the cost not only to develop the new M112 and M113 but then the cost to set up tooling to start production. I suggest that BMW have stuck with the 6 cylinder design because of the cost involved in developing a better motor.

Remeber that MB spent more on R&D for the multilink rear suspension in the 80's (US$300,000,000?) than BMW spent on the entire development of their 3 series range!!

Back to the topic at hand.

Check out this shop's handy work:

http://www.budsmuffler.com/performance.html

:-) neil

I don't think the E55 can run in the 12's stock but they can run in the low 13's out of the box. Maybe they could with drag slicks?

Here's a supercharged 210 E55 in the 11's:
http://www.dragtimes.com/Mercedes-Benz-E55-AMG-Timeslip-3171.html

Here are a mix of 210 and 211 E55's:
http://www.dragtimes.com/Mercedes-Benz--E55-AMG-Drag-Racing.html

Do you know of anyone that has had exhaust work performed on their 6.9 at this shop?

A stock W210 E55 AMG can run in the mid 13s, but not the 12s even with drag slicks.

A stock W211 E55 AMG can run in the 12s.

I have a document that I'll post that has all relevant MB performance figures from most notable cars from the past 30-35 years, but it doesn't include the W211 E55. BUt this data can be gotten from Road & Track. I'll add it all and post the results here tonight.

A W210 E55 AMG isn't terribly faster than a stock 500E -- hence my earlier "incremental" comment. The W211 E55 AMG is a significant performance departure from both predecessor cars.

Cheers,
Gerry

A stock 210 E55 can run low 13's stock on stock tires. Here's a link to a 13.209 second time slip. http://www.dragtimes.com/Mercedes-Benz-E55-AMG-Timeslip-1978.html I'd bet with a set of slicks he could break into the 12's.

The 210 E55 is significantly quicker than a stock 124 E500. A stock E500 does 0-60 in around 6.0 to 6.5 and an E55 does the same feat in 4.8 to 5.2 seconds.....that's significant. The E500 stock 1/4 mile is 14.2 to 14.6 and the E55 is 13.2 to 13.8 depending on the track, driver, ETC. You wouldn't say that is significant or am I missing something?

No argument that the W210 E55 AMG times are better. What I said was that they are "incrementally" better than the 500E -- I would consider anything within a (real-world time of) 1 second to be incremental performance increase. The W211 cars are more of a step up. And I am not talking 0-60 at all, rather 1/4 mile times only.

My best experience with a stock 500E is 14.02 seconds on street tires, in cold weather (35 degrees). 14.2 times are easily repeatable even in the hottest weather. On nitrous, with drag radials: 12.89 seconds in cold weather.

W210 cars are safely in the mid-13s.

I'll get the promised doc tonight and post the "official" times for all of the cars. These are based on magazine tests which are probably more reliable/generalized than one-off timeslips (such as my 14.07 time in my E500, which I wouldn't say is real-world. Dave Meimann got into the high 13s in a (relatively stock) E500.

Cheers,
Gerry

A W210 e55 doesn't wheelspin enough to benifit from slick. Even with esp/asr off you can only get a squeak.
The 211? Well, they light up even with 5 guys in the car!!
Also, remember that the power/time increases exponentially, that is, if a 211 e55 does a 12.9 1/4 with 350kw, it will not do middle 6's with 700kw. The 3 10ths of a second from 13.2 down to 12.9 is enourmous in power terms and the 210 e55 already puts down it's power quite efficiently even with stock tyres.
It takes 5000hp to get a top fuel over the line in low to middle 4 seconds.

Sounds like you need an new MAF. My E55 will smoke the tires if I stand on the gas without ESP.....as long as the car is straight. I can lay down a set of tread marks to 40 mph. Something must be seriously wrong with that 210 E55 if it won't light the tires up with close to 400 lb-ft of tq.

Here you go:

http://homepage.mac.com/gerryvz/MBperf.pdf

In addition, here some other stats on the newer cars........

Current stats (Road & Track) for a W211 E55 AMG:
0-60: 4.2
1/4 mile: 12.4 @ 116.4


W211 E500:
0-60: 5.9
1/4 mile: 14.4 @ 98.8

(the current E500 is roughly equivalent to the old 500E in these stats)


W210 E55 AMG:
0-60: 5.6
1/4 mile: 13.7

Notice that the W210 E55 figures are roughly 3-4 tenths of a second better than a 500E. This is why I say "incrementally" better vs. the "dramatically" better (1+ seconds above the W210 E55; 1.5+ seconds better than the 500E) figures of the latest W211 E55 AMG.

Cheers,
Gerry

"W210 E55 AMG:
0-60: 5.6
1/4 mile: 13.7"

Here is an exerpt from a Motor Trend article on the 210 E55:

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedan/112_0204_m5/index.html

Here's another Motor Trend article that says the 210 E55 runs 0-60 in 4.8 seconds and the 1/4 mile in 13.3:
http://motortrend.com/roadtests/sedan/112_9912_bmwm5/index2.html

Heck, I think the factory even conservatively rated the 210 E55 at 13.5 seconds in the 1/4 mile but as evidenced by the drag slips I posted they can run in the low 13's stock.

Well, there are so many variables in drag times that it's impossible to say what the right time is. Again, I'm just going on what I found in some research -- I didn't make the numbers up.

I also wouldn't quote my 14.02 "best" 1/4 mile time for my own stock E500, nor my 12.89 "best" N2O time, as "typical" times for the breed. In general, I would put "typical" 1/4 mile times at 0.2-0.4 seconds slower.

I'm not going to quibble on numbers anymore -- any number I come up with from a legitimate source, someone can find a better one. By the same token, any time I quote for a 500E, someone will come up with a slower one. I saw magazine times of 14.6-14.7 seconds and that is DEFINITELY slower than times that I know that people with stock cars have achieved.

Cheers,
Gerry

I've driven at minimum, a dozen different W210 e55's. They won't light up from a flat foot standing start. Perhaps out road surfaces are different in Oz?
Even the W211 on our roads doesn't light up imeadiately. First a little squeaking, then she breaks traction and spins. I've left 140metres of black without any brake in a W211 e55.
I've also had the furtune to drive an SL65. Wheelspin at 70mph anyone?

The Motor Trend article was talking about the 210 E55. Read: "the E55 was all too happy to smoke them at the starting line." Once again, if you can't light up the tires on an E55 with ease, there is something wrong with your 210 E55. No need to power brake. Maybe the Australian version 210 E55 was in some way detuned?

Maybe Australian Design rules specify stickier standard rubber? Our E55's are 260kw per spec sheet. I assume yours are the same?

Honestly, they won't smoke without brakes.

Sounds about right on the KW and 530 NM. I don't know why it won't smoke the tires. Maybe my E55 and all the ones they tested in the magazines were specially modified by the factory. Just kidding, mine is stock as were the ones they tested. Maybe you were running the car in 115+ degree weather :sun_smile . I don't know if I could smoke them in that heat but it is no problem in normal temps.

The only think I can think of is that the car had drag radials, the outside temp/road temp was extremely hot, or that the car was defective. :confused:

Don't forget at the same time Jim Feuling who patented and licensed the 3-valve head had slapped a lawsuit against Daimler-Chrysler (DC).

My understanding is that DC went back to 4-valve heads in order NOT to pay the licenseing fees to Feuling.

Unfortunately, I did a GOOGLE search and could not find out the disposition of the case.

:-) neil

BTW: Jim passed away in 2002.

Here's the case taken from:

http://www.autointell-news.com/News-1999/july-1999/news_of_July-20-99-p4.htm

:-) neil
===============
News of July 20, 1999

Feuling Sues DaimlerChrysler AG

SAN DIEGO, July 16,1999 - Feuling Advanced Technologies today announced it is expanding its patent infringement lawsuit against Mercedes-Benz by adding DaimlerChrysler AG as a defendant in the case.

The Feuling action adds DaimlerChrysler AG to the federal action for infringement of the multiple Feuling patents on three-valve technology. Specifically, the suit involves over 360,000 Mercedes cars and SUVs sold in the United States since 1997. "We put Daimler on notice back in 1997, but it would appear that Daimler did not disclose this very serious issue to Chrysler Corporation and its stockholders prior to the merger." Jim Feuling, President, Feuling Advanced Technologies, stated, "Stuttgart's knowing and willful infringement of four United States patents places not only DaimlerChrysler at risk, but also its stockholders, dealers and customers. It's unfortunate that Daimler has chosen to ignore the integrity and authority of the United States Patent and Trademark Office."

Feuling has been a leading automotive engineering design firm for over 25 years with clients including Ford, General Motors and Harley Davidson.

=====================
taken from: http://www.mining.ubc.ca/ipmm/news/fuel/fuelcells.html

DaimlerChrysler Board Ignores Feuling Ad

DETROIT, Jan. 5, 2000 /PRNewswire/

Jim Feuling’s open letter to DaimlerChrysler's Board of Directors titled "A Call For Responsible Corporate Citizenship," published in Automotive News on August 2, received the Roper Starch Worldwide Inc top ranking for "readership among auto industry leaders." The ad received an index rating of 279 awareness points compared to second- highest ad, a Ford of Canada ad at 187. Compared to other advertisements in Automotive News, readers who saw the Feuling letter read the text of the entire ad. The special full-page ad was placed by Feuling Advanced Technologies, to attempt resolution of patent infringement by DaimlerChrysler. The German conglomerate has been using Feuling patented three-valve technology in the majority of its Mercedes-Benz passenger car and truck engines built since l997.

Jim Feuling stated, "To date we have not received a response from DaimlerChrysler’s Board of Directors. DaimlerChrysler continues to ignore the authority of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. They now have escalated the legal issue by introducing the new Mercedes Benz 5.5L V-8 and 5.8L V-12 engines that also utilize our patented three-valve technology. Stuttgart's bunker mentality and historic lack of respect for the rights and property of others is grossly apparent in the way they have handled this entire patent infringement matter."

Feuling added that his company has been overwhelmed with calls from consumers seeking information on the status of the DaimlerChrysler patent infringement lawsuit and in response, the company has created a new web site: www.mercedes-lawsuits.com . This site allows visitors to follow the progress of the three-valve lawsuit, along with other DaimlerChrysler lawsuits, as well as links to related sites.

Feuling estimated there are currently more than 500,000 Mercedes-Benz vehicles in the United States using the patented three-valve technology and noted that those vehicles could be subject to recall, for removal of the patented components.

"We expect the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to look into the fact that although we put Daimler on notice regarding the three-valve patent infringement issue back in 1997, Stuttgart did not disclose this very serious issue to the Chrysler Corporation and its stockholders prior to their merger," Feuling added. "It's obvious that Daimler likes our patented technology. It enables Mercedes-Benz to meet stringent new Environmental Protection Agency and California Air Resources Board emission standards while improving power and fuel economy."

Feuling Advanced Technologies holds four U. S. patents for three-valve cylinder head design in addition to more than 100 U.S. and foreign patents and trademarks. Feuling is a leading automotive design company with more than 25 years of experience with top OEMs including Ford, Oldsmobile, Chevrolet, OMC, Cessna, John Deere and Harley-Davidson.

SOURCE Feuling Advanced Technologies
CONTACT: Bruce MacDonald of MacDonald Communications,
248-647-1189, for Feuling Advanced Technologies; or Jim
Feuling of Feuling Advanced Technologies, 805-650-2598
Web site: http:// www.mercedes-lawsuits.com
Web site: http://www.feuling.com

UPDATE:

In 2003, the court ruled that disclose of previous lawsuits from Batten engine; possibly prior-art from the Batten engine and possibly Honda; combined with a misleading "small entity status"; made his patents for 3-valve heads un-enforceable:

DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG v. FEULING ADVANCED TECHS. | Leagle.com.

:-) neil