M104 Cylinder Head differences... - Page 9 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

kynsi · #**121** 02-21-2010, 09:09 AM

Heads measured in flow bench.

Old .980

1.75mm__________104.1hp
3.5______________191.4
5.25_____________257
6.0______________274.4

New .940 (little portwork)

1.75_____________118.2
3.5______________199.7
5.25_____________264.7
7.0______________313.9
8.75_____________331.8
10.50____________338.5

Numbers in .980 head look very good.

I hope my new .940 head makes boost even more quickly.

Mercedes head makes better flow that for example saab 16v head tha was tested earlier.

.980 tested to 6mm lift.
.040________ 10.5mm
The paper:

kynsi · #**122** 02-21-2010, 09:18 AM

This is a calculator I found whith google...

Bowling's Engine HP/RPM Calculator

Input Parameters Are the Following:

Air Flow in Cubic Feet per Minute = 131.2
CFM Test Pressure = 10.0 Inches of Water
Engine Cubic Inch Displacement = 186
Number of Cylinders are = 6

Computation Results:

Computed Engine Peak Horsepower is 338
Computed RPM at Peak Horsepower is 9306
.
.
.

400Eric · #**123** 02-22-2010, 03:21 AM

Cool stuff! Thanks for posting!

When the OP posts his airflow numbers from his heads, We'll have quite an impressive database!
Regards, Eric

JayRash · #**124** 02-22-2010, 03:58 AM

Eric,
seems the new heads do flow better like we expected. and as Roman and i have said, merc heads flow really well, M110, 103, 104...
I mean the the M110 makes almost 190 hp from a 2.8L and barely any over lap in the cam profiles, mine with few mods made a dyno proven 202hp from the M110.

MAG58 · #**125** 02-22-2010, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayRash

Eric,
seems the new heads do flow better like we expected. and as Roman and i have said, merc heads flow really well, M110, 103, 104...
I mean the the M110 makes almost 190 hp from a 2.8L and barely any over lap in the cam profiles, mine with few mods made a dyno proven 202hp from the M110.

It was also lightly worked, like the poster said. So like RennTech stated, the heads do flow nearly identical in stock form, as there is less than 3% variation at the identical lifts measured. That being stated mine are going as soon as I get some time (spring break = 3 weeks) and both 320 and 300CE heads will be bone stock as they rolled out of the father land.

400Eric · #**126** 02-23-2010, 12:02 AM

Unless they were "worked" by someone who knew what he or she was doing, that could actually hurt flow rather than help it.

Nonetheless, I did take into account that the later heads may have enjoyed a bit of an advantage which is why I kept a lid on my gloating.

Regards, Eric

AustinsCE · #**127** 02-25-2010, 03:44 PM

So I was reading here:
http://www.supraforums.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=15692
That the flow on a 2jz is 238/154 at .400(~10mm). So, how does that compare? Is it really, really bad or is there another unit conversion I missed?

MAG58 · #**128** 02-25-2010, 06:04 PM

Doesn't that chart say the M104.94 head "cleaned up" flows about 220 on the intake? If so That's just pathetic, actually now that I actually look at the numbers. The 2JZ heads have NEVER flowed well. I don't understand why people like that motor so much. It really does have a piss-poor head design.

FWIW, a 4G63 head flows @ about 320cfm if fully ported. 270ish Stock, both at 28'' and 500thou. The fact that the top end (last two readings) start to equalize on flow also means that the newer head is starting to choke out on the top end (most likely a result of MB trying to move the powerband down) and on a stroker motor could really benefit from some bigger throats on those ports..

AustinsCE · #**129** 02-25-2010, 07:14 PM

And the 1JZ is even worse. Only reason I'm using the 2JZ is so I don't have to tow the Supra into town have mounts made to accommodate a 104... for now. That's got to be the reason all the serious tuners drop like 8 G's in machine work on them. But looking at them side by side, it's basically a toss up?

More for comparison:
http://www.supramania.com/forums/showthread.php?99476-Supra-Head-Flow-%285M-7M-1JZ-2JZGE-2JZGTE%29

MAG58 · #**130** 02-25-2010, 07:28 PM

See this is what bewilders me... My L28 head flows about 220cfm/160ishcfm exhaust. And here's what they look like side to side....

JayRash · #**131** 02-26-2010, 11:43 AM

well if u consider that the merc heads were only intended for engins not making more than 230 hp at best you'll have to agree they aint bad.
Forget abt the 3.4 and 3.6 AMG ones, those were never planed in the pipelines when the heads were made.
Now why AMG hasn't made better work on the 3.6 head is beyond me.
But now i wish i had sent my engine's head to the work shop when it was out for a new gasket.
Anyways i dont expect the gasket to live long on my AMG so i'll do it then.

MAG58 · #**132** 02-26-2010, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayRash

well if u consider that the merc heads were only intended for engins not making more than 230 hp at best you'll have to agree they aint bad.
Forget abt the 3.4 and 3.6 AMG ones, those were never planed in the pipelines when the heads were made.
Now why AMG hasn't made better work on the 3.6 head is beyond me.
But now i wish i had sent my engine's head to the work shop when it was out for a new gasket.
Anyways i dont expect the gasket to live long on my AMG so i'll do it then.

Except for the slim dilemma that there are heads on NA motors that flow WELL over 300cfm stock (honda K series, Nissan QR, etc.) and it has never broken 230 NA from the factory in a 500cc/cyl form. If the L series head flows pretty similarly to the Benz head and it only ever made something on the order of 160hp from the factory (honestly if you get 160hp from a stock L28 you're the luckiest man alive), I just don't see how the MB head can flow so little. I've even heard on 190rev that the standard 2.3 8V motor (same heads as the 3.0L M103 sans two holes) flowed something like 240 on the intake! Maybe it's just ignorrant of me to not understand how the 24valve motor cant out flow the older designed 12 valve motor. So much for dumping lots of money for a better design...

JayRash · #**133** 02-26-2010, 02:03 PM

oh ok now u got me going.
So when will u be doing ur own flow tests. Plz do flow them soon so we can have ur data to comp to the first.
BTW the M103 head, from the loooks of it at least, is amazing i mean the ports are large short and seem like ur looking strt into the large intake valve.
Even one time i took my M103 head to be ported by a shop here and when he saw it he refused to do it. Thou i was going to pay him usd800 for the job, he just said the head need so little work its pointless.
But yes it seems something is off! as mentioned in ur post.

But if a Honda head can flow over 300CFMs, i think the 4G63 should flow more than the honda one. but then again i can be wrong, no sarcasm.

Turbo E320 · #**134** 02-26-2010, 02:46 PM

A 4g63 engine would make less hp than a comparable honda engine if you removed the turbocharger and the real factor is the 4g63 isn't designed to rev as high so it makes sense the honda head would flow better.

MAG58 · #**135** 02-26-2010, 03:20 PM

Admittedly, my example is a little skewed. The K series is a different design than the old B series, and actually doesn't like to wind up to 9-10k and be happy with it. It's a much lower revving motor and is perfectly happy at 8k, like the 4g. So they're in the same RPM class. Difference being that the 4g is a 20 year old design. The K series isn't even old enough to qualify for a learner's permit yet and it was designed with EXTENSIVE improvement over the old B series. IMO the K series (as much as I hate honda) probably has one of the best flowing heads in the 4cyl world, similarly, the VQ Nissan motor probably has some of the best flowing heads in a V6.

I want to know what these heads flow! Max, have you ever had anything flowed in Louisville? I keep looking around here and am not sure if anyone is good...