Parts Catalog Accessories Catalog How To Articles Tech Forums
Call Pelican Parts at 888-280-7799
Shopping Cart Cart | Project List | Order Status | Help




Go Back   PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum > Mercedes-Benz Tech Information and Support > Mercedes-Benz Performance Paddock

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 12-26-2008, 10:54 PM
Knappy Drag Racer
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,725
I wanted to give credit to these two gentlemen for one of the ideas that didn't come from Dave the G-man. I don't know how much of my gain came from this mod, and I believe one might need to enrich the fuel a bit at WOT to get the full benefit from it if one is running a post '92 ECU. Regards, Eric 500e/amg
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-27-2008, 09:55 AM
gsxr's Avatar
Unbanned...?
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 8,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by 400Eric View Post
G-man, It's probably the chip. remember, even the cars sold in Germany were limited to 155 MPH and all M-119s were limited to 6000 RPM. I think it was you that told me that another benefit of the chips is they sometimes raise the rev limiter.
Actually, the 119.97x was limited to 6000 continuous, 6400 intermittent. Mine upshifts at WOT at 6400 rpm even with the stock LH module and stock chip. It must be something with the 4.2L programming if you're hitting a limiter at 6200 (or, your tach is off...?).




Quote:
Originally Posted by 400Eric View Post
...Pretty impressive for a 4.2... with those awful 2.24 gears! I'd been hearing and reading that Fontana is a slow track. I thought it was about 500 feet but it is actually 1110 feet! And they say that it slowly, slighty rises in the last half of the quarter! I'm not complaining, I know other guys have it worse, but I also know other guys have it better! (We used to have it better at Carlsbad. The track was nearly at sea level, it was almost always cool, and the track ran downhill!) I hate having to use a correction but you have to in order to compare to other's times on other days at other tracks and remember, the magazine times are corrected as well. Conditions on the money run: 73 degrees F, Bar. press. 30.11, Rel. density 93.96%, Density altitude 2113 feet, 14.959@93.81 U.C. which was another goal met: an uncorrected 14. The 60 foot time was 2.396 U.C. on that run. The corrected MPH was 96.219. I had 2 rims and tires in the trunk for traction. Without them it was wheelspin city. With them there was none at all. Amazing the difference a little weight back there made. Also was running a half tank of fuel that day.
Heh-heh. My local track is at 2700 feet. I never bother correcting (too much work, and the correction factors are often optimistic). Also, I would use the actual altitude, not density altitude, for corrections... this can also exaggerate performance. Still, an uncorrected 14 is darn good. I'd start looking for a 2.65 rear axle to pop in there. That would be a help.

Any chance you could do a run or two with the stock 4.2 LH module, then swap in the 5.0L module for comparison?

__________________
Dave M.
Boise, ID

1997 E420 - 155kmi (Bugeyes)
1994 E420 - 145kmi (Blondie)
1993 500E - 193kmi (Lollipop)
1992 400E - 189kmi (Stinky Dirty)
Check out my website photos, documents, and movies!
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-27-2008, 07:05 PM
Knappy Drag Racer
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsxr View Post
Actually, the 119.97x was limited to 6000 continuous, 6400 intermittent. Mine upshifts at WOT at 6400 rpm even with the stock LH module and stock chip. It must be something with the 4.2L programming if you're hitting a limiter at 6200 (or, your tach is off...?).





Heh-heh. My local track is at 2700 feet. I never bother correcting (too much work, and the correction factors are often optimistic). Also, I would use the actual altitude, not density altitude, for corrections... this can also exaggerate performance. Still, an uncorrected 14 is darn good. I'd start looking for a 2.65 rear axle to pop in there. That would be a help.

Any chance you could do a run or two with the stock 4.2 LH module, then swap in the 5.0L module for comparison?
6200 is all I get from the 4.2 LH or 5.0 LH.

That was the plan. I had the 4.2 ECU with me that day. I wanted to do a lot of things that day. But when the car's first run was a U.C. 15.3, the focus quickly changed to getting that U.C. 14. I also wanted to try Zayed's EZL but his address is in a PM that I can't get to cuz Scott's site is down. Is Zayed over at the new site? I will have to try the things that I didn't get to on the next trip. Regards, Eric

Last edited by 400Eric; 02-12-2009 at 05:09 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-27-2008, 07:40 PM
gsxr's Avatar
Unbanned...?
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 8,017
I'm not sure if Zayed is at the new site, but probably 75% of the regulars have moved over. You should post a "where's Zayed?" thread to see if someone has his email addy. (Yet another reason to use email and avoid PM's, lol!)

I need to get a good video of my instrument cluster during a 0-120mph run so you can see the shift points. That's not going to happen anytime soon, as my 500 is tucked away until the snow melts (we got another 3-4 inches today). In the meantime, check out this video of a Euro-spec 500E, at 11 seconds into the clip you can see the tach indicating ~6400rpm (or at least, clearly past 6200).

BTW - keep this under your hat, but during my last dyno runs, I lifted at an indicated ~6500, and the Dynojet RPM pickup shows the graph running up to 6550. If it makes you feel any better, the power starts to drop off a little right at 6200...

Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-27-2008, 08:33 PM
Knappy Drag Racer
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,725
The reason I want to wind the eng. a little tighter, even though it's past it's power peak, is so it can be a little bit better into it's powerband when it hits the next gear. There is a big ratio spread between 1st and 2nd. Also, I want to milk the greater torque multiplication of the lower gears as long as possible. Gotta do something when you're running 2.24s! Regards, Eric
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-27-2008, 08:41 PM
gsxr's Avatar
Unbanned...?
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 8,017
Why not get a 2.82 then? Fresno Silver Star Recycling has one for $225, maybe they'll come down on the price a little...

:
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-27-2008, 09:57 PM
Knappy Drag Racer
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,725
We've been through this before LOL. This is my daily driver with a good amount of freeway driving. Plus, I like the fact that I can hold 3rd until 134 MPH which means I have an overall ratio of 3.23 until 134 MPH vs. 2.82 at what? 110 MPH? I'll admit I don't get to exploit it everyday, but when I do it's GREAT! My usual freeway brawls go from 70 to 120 and I'm unbeatable in that zone. Only recently did a guy stay in it past 120. A Honda S2000 stayed on my tail to 145 before giving up. Had it been a quater mile, he would have spanked me. He said his digital speedo read 150 and it's "dead-on accurate". BTW, I'm on 205/60 15s which are 24.7 inches vs. the stock 195/65 15s which are 25 inches. Are you sure your speedo is 10 MPH fast? Regards, Eric

Last edited by 400Eric; 03-12-2009 at 05:22 AM. Reason: correct 24.9 inches to 24.7 inches
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-28-2008, 11:34 AM
gsxr's Avatar
Unbanned...?
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 8,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by 400Eric View Post
We've been through this before LOL. This is my daily driver with a good amount of freeway driving. Plus, I like the fact that I can hold 3rd until 134 MPH which means I have an overall ratio of 3.23 until 134 MPH vs. 2.82 at what? 110 MPH? I'll admit I don't get to exploit it everyday, but when I do it's GREAT! My usual freeway brawls go from 70 to 120 and I'm unbeatable in that zone. Only recently did a guy stay in it past 120. A Honda S2000 stayed on my tail to 145 before giving up. Had it been a quater mile, he would have spanked me. He said his digital speedo read 150 and it's "dead-on accurate". BTW, I'm on 205/60 15s which are 24.9 inches vs. the stock 195/65 15s which are 25 inches. Are you sure your speedo is 10 MPH fast? Regards, Eric
Yeah, I keep forgetting. Still, I would toss the 2.24 and install a 2.65, like the Euro 400E has. That would still get you into the 120 range in 3rd. Once in motion, the acceleration difference is pretty slim between axle ratios... meaning, a 2.65 in top gear is going to pull almost equally as hard as 2.24 in 3rd gear (3.23 final drive), even though it SEEMS that's not the case. Trust me.

Verified against GPS, my speedo is almost dead-on to 100mph (within 1%)... but then it starts drifting beyond that, and it gets more optimistic as speed increases.

You should post a new thread on the *********, though, so we don't hijack this thread too much...

Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-29-2008, 01:56 AM
Knappy Drag Racer
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,725
Isn't this thread about making M119s faster? That's what we are talking about. Look at the link I posted at the top of this page. That's a good starter mod for the guy that started this thread that he hadn't mentioned. All he needs to do is study Rik's site and yours and he'll be in good shape. My car gained 7/10ths corrected vs. corrected and the only money it cost me was the $45 for the used, private party S class ECU. The other mods were of the "elbow grease" variety.
I guess I should list the mods as the car now sits though (same as race day).: Headlight panel mod (see link), Nice "Y" and 3 inch pipe after the stock cats (no muff, no res.), Removed the 2nd screen (the one after the "hot" wire) on the mass air meter (learned that one from the RWD turbo Volvo guys though they are far from the only ones who are doing it), Turned the "T" bar in the trans. modulator one full turn tighter (clockwise) (thanks to John in Atlanta area for that one), 5.0 S class ECU in place of the 4.2 one. Dave wants to try an AMG 6.0 ECU on his 5.0 to see if what worked for my 4.2 will work on the 5.0. Can anybody help him out? Everyone would benefit. Also have done the Jim F "Cool Harness" mod but that had zero effect on my better runs cuz you've got to be at 80 degrees C or less to get a good time and the Jim F mod doesn't kick the fans on till well after that temperature. I guess a guy could run a higher value resistor to get the fans to keep the temp at 80C but I would rather run a second resistor at the other temp sensor to fool the ECU and EZL into thinking it's 80C all the time so that they will allow full "Party Time" mode all the time.
I don't want to go over to the "new" site. I feel like it would be cheating on Scott. Like we are abandoning him while he is down and out. This site does not count cuz I was here before I ever found Scott's site. Regards, Eric

Last edited by 400Eric; 12-29-2008 at 03:44 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-29-2008, 10:42 AM
gsxr's Avatar
Unbanned...?
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 8,017
Actually any 6.0L EPROM chip would be great (AMG, RENNtech, or otherwise). I can install that into my spare LH module for testing. The problem is finding someone with a 6.0 chip who has the ability to copy it...

Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 01-03-2009, 07:58 PM
gsxr's Avatar
Unbanned...?
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 8,017
The weather cleared up a bit, and I was able to sneak the E500 out for a little exercise. It looks like I need to eat a little humble pie. I was wrong about the upshift RPM's. It's not 6400. After watching a video of a WOT run, I went frame-by-frame to try and determine the exact shift point. From what I can tell, my shift points are - approximately:

1-2: 6200-6300rpm
2-3: 6300-6400rpm
3-4: 6000-6100rpm

Click here to watch the video (20MB download). Note that after each upshift, the RPM drops back to around 4400, just past the torque peak, and right in the meat of the powerband (according to my dyno charts). I think a 6100-6300 shift point is nearly perfect.

BTW, this run was with 3/4 tank of fuel on a level road, 32F ambient temp, 2400' elevation. I was pretty happy with the 25-second time from 0-130, too (measured via AP-22 performance computer). Average uncorrected times (over two runs) were:

0-60: 5.85 sec
0-100: 13.85 sec
0-130: 24.90 sec

And that was with a little wheelspin & ASR engagement at launch, at 2400'. With LSD at sea level, and/or with 15 fewer gallons in the tank, it should be even quicker.


__________________
Dave M.
Boise, ID

1997 E420 - 155kmi (Bugeyes)
1994 E420 - 145kmi (Blondie)
1993 500E - 193kmi (Lollipop)
1992 400E - 189kmi (Stinky Dirty)
Check out my website photos, documents, and movies!
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-27-2009, 09:59 PM
Knappy Drag Racer
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,725
Thanks for that informative post Dave. Sorry, I've been gone for a month---just got back tonight and one of the first things I did was check here! Regards, Eric
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-28-2009, 10:53 PM
Knappy Drag Racer
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsxr View Post
Actually, the 119.97x was limited to 6000 continuous, 6400 intermittent. Mine upshifts at WOT at 6400 rpm even with the stock LH module and stock chip. It must be something with the 4.2L programming if you're hitting a limiter at 6200 (or, your tach is off...?).





Heh-heh. My local track is at 2700 feet. I never bother correcting (too much work, and the correction factors are often optimistic). Also, I would use the actual altitude, not density altitude, for corrections... this can also exaggerate performance. Still, an uncorrected 14 is darn good. I'd start looking for a 2.65 rear axle to pop in there. That would be a help.

Any chance you could do a run or two with the stock 4.2 LH module, then swap in the 5.0L module for comparison?

While the correction factors MAY be optimistic, They remain a valid basis for comparison because everyone (including the magazines) are using them. We do have to compensate for altitude and atmospheric conditions to be able to compare times and until something better comes along we have to use what we have. Regards, Eric
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-29-2009, 02:09 PM
gsxr's Avatar
Unbanned...?
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 8,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by 400Eric View Post
While the correction factors MAY be optimistic, They remain a valid basis for comparison because everyone (including the magazines) are using them. We do have to compensate for altitude and atmospheric conditions to be able to compare times and until something better comes along we have to use what we have. Regards, Eric
True, as long as everyone is using the identical correction formulas, based on the identical parameters... easier said than done. I use uncorrected data from my higher elevation because that way my car should be a bit faster than I claim, and I'd rather under-estimate my performance instead of over-estimate it. BTW - check out my signature closely, notice anything different?

__________________
Dave M.
Boise, ID

1997 E420 - 155kmi (Bugeyes)
1994 E420 - 145kmi (Blondie)
1993 500E - 193kmi (Lollipop)
1992 400E - 189kmi (Stinky Dirty)
Check out my website photos, documents, and movies!
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-30-2009, 07:54 PM
Knappy Drag Racer
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsxr View Post
True, as long as everyone is using the identical correction formulas, based on the identical parameters... easier said than done. I use uncorrected data from my higher elevation because that way my car should be a bit faster than I claim, and I'd rather under-estimate my performance instead of over-estimate it. BTW - check out my signature closely, notice anything different?

We still need you to correct your times so we can compare them to other car's figures. It's OK to post both.

An E420! Cool! I'm proud of you! When did this happen? Like I said before, for a 500E/E500 guy, there is no better a car to have as a daily driver than a 400E/E420. Are you going to slip in 1 of your spare 5.0 ECUs to see what happens? Don't forget to improve the breathing to get the full benefit. What are your other plans for this car? Does it have ASR? What does "W.I.P." stand for? Work in progress? Do tell! Grab a 92 5.0 S class, swap the engines, and then sell the S class. That would be slick.

Please tell me you didn't get this car just to slip in some lower gears because of my refusal to do so on my car. Regards, Eric

Last edited by 400Eric; 01-30-2009 at 09:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2018 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page