Upgrading the 722.3 trans - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

RBYCC · #16 12-28-2007, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by altz

m103 vs m119 "there is no power to weight" differences in those engines.
They are both same weight. Because m119 is alloy and m103 is iron block...

??????

And a W126 weighs the same as a W124..............

FLYNAVY · #17 12-28-2007, 02:29 PM

There is a weight difference between the 119 and 103, at least unless the 119 is drastically lighter than the 117 (which with a quad cam head I would doubt). Its not MUCH heavier, but the weight difference would matter a bit. I believe its less than 100 lbs between the 103 and 117, but even that weight could make a difference.

@ RBYCC: Are you running stock internals in your 103, or have things been uprated? I know the iron blocks are strong, but thats a LOT more stress on the whole motor, especially the heads and the rings I would think. Maybe it has worked for you, but I would personally not feel comfortable with the standard internals. I have had enough problems with N/A m103's

Any pics of your CE TT? Sounds like a great car!

pesho · #18 12-28-2007, 02:45 PM

SORRY that was me that sidetracked a little with the 560sec..
on the topic it, the 722.358 is what came with the 300CE? What is the difference between the 722.351 that Motor Head has in the 300sel? And back to the original question as Jonathan mentioned it wouldn't make any sense to go with the 560 722.350 as it will not bolt to the M103. Sounds like the easiest thing is to rebuilt your 300sel tranny and beef it up, probably the most cost effective.
Off topic:
TT'ing a V8 either a M117 or M119 would be great and it has been done, but was leaning to the M103-04 as its much simpler. Less parts...2 less heads to worry about, 2 less cylinders and the biggest reason is the clearance. A TT M119 in a w126 would be a nightmare to get the manifolds and down pipe to fit and the driverside on my 560sec has the ABS/ASR unit that looks like would be in the way. With the M103-04 you can call the engine bay a living room..
Again sorry for getting this thread off topic.

altz · #19 12-28-2007, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RBYCC

??????

And a W126 weighs the same as a W124..............

Dude you should weight these motors your self if you dont belive me.
There is a topic in this forum where all the weights are listed.
Ok, I can even make it more simple for you. Check the empty weight of S350 diesel. (It is 1940kilos(4270lbs) I know it because i own one. My friend has a S500 m119 w140 his car is 1970kg(4340lbs) we have been to same scale @ inspection.Cars are both same with same stuff installed from factory. Why I compare om603 engine with m119? Because om603 has basically the same weight as the m103.Both I6 iron block with alloy 12v head. Factory claims that 3.5 diesel is the second heavyest engine in w140 (I asked them when getting new front springs for my s350td), the m120 is the "fatest" on being 660+lbs (ask Roncallo he knows).
Anyway belive what you want and put the tiny I6 engine to the SEC if you like.

Imo the m119 6.0 stroker or even better m120 7.3 would be the only engines to fit SEC or (Factory m119 5.0 / 6.0 if we are talking about "low cost" project).
Fitting turbos on m119 @ SEC is simple, there are even w124 e500 with twin turbos, I have pics in my PC.

FLYNAVY · #20 12-28-2007, 05:44 PM

Weighing an entire car to compare motor weight is not a reliable method, and I wouldn't trust the figures you got, even if the cars had "all the same things" in them. Even that page you mentioned showed that there was a 40 kg difference between the SOHC m117 and m103. There has to be more weight in the DOHC m119 compared to the 117, so I'd think at least 60-70 kg difference. Even w/ the listed 40 kg diff, that is 88 lbs which is significant any way you cut it

But i agree, the m103 in the w126 chassis is not the way to go. m119 or m120 is the only way to go if you are considering a swap. I guess if he wants to keep his existing motor, the turbo idea might be unique, but for roughly the same money (or maybe even less, depending on how much dyno time is needed to tune the turbo'd motor) you could have a reliable 330 HP m119 throwing you down the road at very illegal speeds

RBYCC · #21 12-28-2007, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYNAVY

@ RBYCC: Are you running stock internals in your 103, or have things been uprated? I know the iron blocks are strong, but thats a LOT more stress on the whole motor, especially the heads and the rings I would think. Maybe it has worked for you, but I would personally not feel comfortable with the standard internals. I have had enough problems with N/A m103's

Any pics of your CE TT? Sounds like a great car!

Both the Mosselman ( as the OP was querying ) and the TurboTechnics were both "period" kits designed for installation on stock M103-12V and M104-24V I6 engines.

Both used twin Garrett T2 turbos with cast iron turbo/exhaust manifolds.
The turbos are set at a fixed .48 bar

Mosselman kits made their way to the USA in the early nineties.
I believe I have the first TurboTechnics install in the USA.
There are a few more in progress at the current time on M104-24V engines.

The kits were old inventory at Hughes of Beaconsfield, a U.K. Merc dealer.
The kits including a full stainless steel large bore exhaust were being closed out at about $2600.00 delivered to the USA.
A whole lot for the money !!!
Hughes had the kits commissioned for them to install on new Mercedes pre delivery.
Probably 50+ cars were done by them in the early nineties and several I know of with over 150K miles, and yet to have the engine open !!

If you start with a strong M103/M104 ( compression 190-195PSI ) and no head gasket leaks, you will end up with a very durable engine that is far from "whinny screaming" as some believe.
An engine doesn't scream when it's making it's power from 4200-5500 RPM.

I also own a 99 C43 AMG and a 03 G55 AMG along with a 71 280SL.
The M103-12V TT will out run any 4.3L/5.4L NA AMG V8.

FLYNAVY · #22 12-29-2007, 01:33 AM

Thats a beauty you have there.....I remember seeing a couple 190e's with the mosselman kit several years back, but I never caught the details of the kit until now (though yours is turbo technic of course). Maybe thats what I should do w/ my spare 103 if I ever run across a kit. $2600 would be an incredible deal. I seem to remember the mosselman kit running upwards of 6 grand when I looked into it!

Hows the torque and low end power compared to the C43?

Motor Head · #23 12-29-2007, 10:42 AM

Wow guys. I had no idea I was going to create this kind of discussion when I openned the thread. Great discussion and it seems that many of us are passionate about solving problems and finding out about tranny upgrades especially for use with power adders.
My rationale, however flawed, is to make the most out of what I've got which is the 103 engine. I never wanted to make a race car out of it but 300 HP sounds a lot more appropriate for a W126 chassis than 188 HP. Also, out here in California, the gas prices are going through the roof and I don't want the permanent penalty of 15 miles to the gallon by running the 560 engine.
I have also swapped my rearend out for a 350 SDL unit which has a 2.88 ratio (available at a junkyard near you!) and the car is so much more pleasant to drive now that it is not turning 3400 rpm at 70 mph. I also saw an additional couple of mpg but that is combined driving. I'm about to leave for a long raod trip today so I will get to see what it does freeway only.
But back to the turbo.

To me it has to be a systems solution.

Define the problem: heavy car, underpowered

Solution: want to retain good mileage, reliably increase power but only when I need it, and increase engine life

Approach:
1. Change rear gear from 3.46 to 2.88. Reduced engine wear and increased mileage (friction increases with the square of the rpm)
2. Update transmission either with high performance parts as seen previously in this thread or try to convert to 560 spec (current problem)
3. Install Mosselman kit: V8 power only when I need it, I6 mileage when I don't, now I can pull the rearend gear better (and uphill) and it may open the door for a gear vendor which actually has an application for the 722 trans.

As has also been mentioned in this post, if I can upgrade my I6 case with the right internals, I won't have to deal with the bell housing issue that was also identified.

Interestingly I found a shop on the internet called Freddies Transmission http://www.freddiestransmissions.com/ who say they can do what I am asking. As soon as I find out the particulars from them about what is involved I will post them here.

Thanks for all the great discussion. I have learned a lot.

FLYNAVY · #24 12-29-2007, 12:19 PM

I understand where you are coming from, but don't expect to get better gas mileage w/ the turbo set-up. Just from a physics/thermodynamic standpoint, the fuel needed to generate 300 HP is essentially the same in either motor (though the torque curve is different over the power band, it will average out in a similar way). If you look at the amount of air and fuel needed to get x amount of HP, it will be similar whether its in a motor cylinder, or in a pot of coffee. Of course its not really that simple, as you get into flow efficiency, fuel atomization (and how much of the fuel you squirt in actually ends up burning), and a few other things.....but you can approximate things pretty well at least. If you are not "on it" all the time, your gas consumption would be better, but it really isnt that bad driving that way w/ a V8 either. I think the best thing you could do if you are concerned about gas mileage is do the rear end swap you were talking about, though it will hurt acceleration somewhat

RBYCC · #25 12-29-2007, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYNAVY

Thats a beauty you have there.....I remember seeing a couple 190e's with the mosselman kit several years back, but I never caught the details of the kit until now (though yours is turbo technic of course). Maybe thats what I should do w/ my spare 103 if I ever run across a kit. $2600 would be an incredible deal. I seem to remember the mosselman kit running upwards of 6 grand when I looked into it!

Hows the torque and low end power compared to the C43?

The M103-TT is far superior to the C43 in low end torque.
Also it has no electronics to control torque and wheelspin like the C43, so it can launch much better from about a 1200RPM stall.

Two major differences in the Mosselman and TurboTechnics.
Most visible is the intercooler location.

Mosselman use a top mount, whereas TT mounts low on the passenger side chassis rail, below the turbos in a plernum created by a fiberglass shroud which intakes air from the front of the car.

Mosselman intercooler

Turbotechnics intercooler

The real difference in the two kits is how they address the fuel enrichment under boost.

Remember the M103-12V uses the Bosch K-Jetronic III CIS-E semi mechanical fuel injection.

Willi Mosselman was far more sophisticated in supplying a proprietary electronic piggy back control which operated the EHA to enrich.
This control was adjustable to assure no lean condition under boost

TurboTechnics used two additional injectors install in a custom casting that replaced the rubber boot between the air valve and the throttle body.

Good idea, well designed but their fuel enrichment electronics which fired the additional injectors was non adjustable and used Hobbs switches to retard timing under boost to prevent detonation.

During our dyno pulls to tune we noticed a constant lean condition, so we decided to scrap the supplied controls and find something more modern.

And the answer is...

Straight from California the Split Second AIC1 control!!!.

For about $350.00 you get a small self contained computer programmable, 3D mappable additional injector controller.
It has a built in MAP sensor so it can think without the assistance of any on engine sensors.
Able to hold 12.5:1 AFR under boost which seems to give max power.
I would estimate that the "modern" control released about 20% more power from the kit !!!

If you're considering modding your M103, the key to power and durability is in the fuel enrichment.
Lean burn engines and boost don't work well !!!

RBYCC · #26 12-29-2007, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motor Head

Wow guys. I had no idea I was going to create this kind of discussion when I openned the thread. Great discussion and it seems that many of us are passionate about solving problems and finding out about tranny upgrades especially for use with power adders.
My rationale, however flawed, is to make the most out of what I've got which is the 103 engine. I never wanted to make a race car out of it but 300 HP sounds a lot more appropriate for a W126 chassis than 188 HP. Also, out here in California, the gas prices are going through the roof and I don't want the permanent penalty of 15 miles to the gallon by running the 560 engine.

Your rational isn't flawed as it is always best to start with a base case of what you have and what you want to achieve.

What you must add to the base equation is the economics / cost of what it takes to get to the 300HP.

If you aleady have a complete Mosselman kit, then install it and you'll get close to your objective.
If you have to buy one, then I'd look at other options such as finding a new Merc with a V8 as you may be able to purchae a W124 500E for what it will cost to find a TT kit plus installation !

Quote:

I have also swapped my rearend out for a 350 SDL unit which has a 2.88 ratio (available at a junkyard near you!) and the car is so much more pleasant to drive now that it is not turning 3400 rpm at 70 mph. I also saw an additional couple of mpg but that is combined driving. I'm about to leave for a long raod trip today so I will get to see what it does freeway only.

I can understand your logic, but it may be flawed.

The 2.88 gear may in fact cause you to be a bit heavier with the pedal in trying to accelerate the mass of the W126 chassis.
That is the reason the W126 with the M103 had a gear that would be more compatible with low speed street driving and acceleration.
Your overall fuel economy may not improve and may actually decrease dependent on how you drive !!!

The TT on my M103-12V in a slightly lighter C124 chassis and the stock 3.07 gear still will get 22-24MPG highway and 18-20MPG city with my "heavy" foot !!!

Quote:

But back to the turbo.

To me it has to be a systems solution.

Define the problem: heavy car, underpowered

Solution: want to retain good mileage, reliably increase power but only when I need it, and increase engine life

Approach:
1. Change rear gear from 3.46 to 2.88. Reduced engine wear and increased mileage (friction increases with the square of the rpm)

It's done so on to the next step !!!

Quote:

2. Update transmission either with high performance parts as seen previously in this thread or try to convert to 560 spec (current problem)

Healthy stock 722 for your M103-12V will handle the turbo.

Quote:

3. Install Mosselman kit: V8 power only when I need it, I6 mileage when I don't, now I can pull the rearend gear better (and uphill) and it may open the door for a gear vendor which actually has an application for the 722 trans.

If you got it then use it !!!!

Quote:

As has also been mentioned in this post, if I can upgrade my I6 case with the right internals, I won't have to deal with the bell housing issue that was also identified.

Interestingly I found a shop on the internet called Freddies Transmission http://www.freddiestransmissions.com/ who say they can do what I am asking. As soon as I find out the particulars from them about what is involved I will post them here.

Thanks for all the great discussion. I have learned a lot.

Rebuild the stock trans to stock or stronger and you'll see another 100K miles even if it's behind a twin turbo M103-12V

Good luck !!!

Motor Head · #27 12-30-2007, 03:00 PM

RBYCC,

I really like your CE. I appreciate your input on the tranny. I assume you are running an essentially stock 722 in your car behind the turbos with good reliability. It sounds like I would make out pretty good with the Kelvar Bands and performance frictions from Blue Ridge MB although I'm still waiting to hear back from Freddie's about their mods and the associated cost/complexity.

You are also a wealth of knowledge on the M103 twin turbo and you have confirmed some of my ideas about my pending installation including the intercooler (I plan on using a custom front mount unit from Turbonetics) and the piggyback injection controller. You wouldn't happen to have the part number for a Bosch pump with enough overhead to support the extra fuel requirement? Also, where did you source your Split Second kit?

Thanks,
Motor Head

FLYNAVY · #28 12-30-2007, 07:34 PM

Thanks for the detailed description, its always interesting to hear about this kind of stuff for future reference. My MB projects will always be pre-'95 so all this is good to know!

RBYCC · #29 12-31-2007, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motor Head

RBYCC,

I really like your CE. I appreciate your input on the tranny. I assume you are running an essentially stock 722 in your car behind the turbos with good reliability. It sounds like I would make out pretty good with the Kelvar Bands and performance frictions from Blue Ridge MB although I'm still waiting to hear back from Freddie's about their mods and the associated cost/complexity.

My trans is stock with 62K miles and always well maintained.
If you rebuild yours with the parts from Blue Ridge you should have no problems with the increased power from your Mosselman install

Quote:

You are also a wealth of knowledge on the M103 twin turbo and you have confirmed some of my ideas about my pending installation including the intercooler (I plan on using a custom front mount unit from Turbonetics) and the piggyback injection controller.

I didn't do my install, but sent the car eight hundred miles to Brian Murphy of Willow Automotive in Chicago.
With daily phone calls trying to sort out the TT kit, I got one hell of an education from Brian on the Bosch CIS-E and whats required to enrich under boost !!!

Quote:

You wouldn't happen to have the part number for a Bosch pump with enough overhead to support the extra fuel requirement? Also, where did you source your Split Second kit?

Thanks,
Motor Head

Originally considered a V8 pump, but we used the stock pump....flow tested and it puts out more then enough for the TT.

Mosselman doesn't use additional injectors so the Split Second won't work.
I got the unit direct from Mark at Split Second

www.splitsec.com

Motor Head · #30 12-31-2007, 12:44 PM

More specifically, I have a partial Mosselman kit with all the important parts like the manifolds, turbos, and some of the piping. I do not have the electronics so to Split Second will solve that problem. I realize I'll have to fab some custom pieces with injector bungs but that is not a problem. I'll give Mark a call to find out which unit will work for my application.