y would amg do this? is it for the same reason?
Attachment 97982

No idea. That's .008in. As far as valve springs are concerned, that's hardly any. Is the base circle the same? best guess is it's for the lifter so it's not either over nor under extended.

Because AMG is insane. Some guy their needed a job and decided that he could spend a year in research and development making this incremental change that was probably not necessary. I have seen changes made to parts on cars that serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever. Sometimes you can not wrap your head around the stuff they do. Then because it is completely unreasonable to continue to make the different parts just change to the standard part as a replacement.
Or what Bob said. Although I can not see any reason to do this they may have decided that the valve springs needed to be tighter for the different intake cam.

Took an intake and exhaust valve out of my mock up head today. I will take in next week but I have say after taking quick glance there is a fair bit of improvement in the exhaust bowl. The intake does not look to bad. I was looking through Kynsi's thread and saw the work he did on the bowls. The valve stems are not stepped and the opening before coil bind is pretty far. I did not measure it but at least a half inch.

Say I retard the exhaust cam on the m104 by a tooth, could that cause the valves to interfere when the intake came goes into advance?

no it won't. the more i look at the timing though i think it is optimized pretty well. without more lift and duration i do not see any gains. But give it a try. I will say it again though that head work and cams and headers should show some pretty significant gains though. I think that any one though would show fairly low gains. I am going to have my cams profiled and then have the head work done to relieve the heads the proper amount for the increase lobe height. I am hoping to get the spare head over on friday to have it looked at.

Took the head over and coil bind is before 2mm more lift. The guy says 1.5mm more max. Spring tension is good. I will have to get different springs if I want more. Another 200.00 to machine the head for higher lift lobes over the 700.00 for the bowl work and valve job. The guy thinks he can gain 7% on the exhaust bowls alone. Not to much on the intake maybe a couple percent. So I have to have the cam profiles done before the head work.

MERCEDES C36 AMG twin turbo, 6cyl 4valve. engine type 104. Inlet- 35mm valves, all sts parts.

24.22 49.1 72.79 95.3 111.1 120.8 127.95 131.4 134.17 136.25

As above, modded. All std parts.

24.5 49.27 72.37 96.2 113.88 128.46 138.88 142.25 144.98 146.8

As above, std Exhaust flow. 31mm valves. All std parts.

21.55 48.38 80.64 99.65 107.53 112.2 113.6 115.7 116.45 117.13

As above, modded. All std parts.

22.27 48.68 79.8 111.48 121.36 126.3 130.35 131.76 133.89 136.72


Found these on a uk machine shop site. These are cfm at .050 lift increments.

Cross posting for reference here. Cylinder head flow.

do the .98 and .99/94 have different oil sumps??

reason i ask is im trying to put a .98 in the 202 and i just with first impression i dont know if the sump will clear the sway bar??

Some have a cutout for the sway bar. I think it is just for certain models though.

Never thought I would see these posted on another site...This is the head of my c36 twin turbo. Engine is in a w124 saloon and has a Motec Ecu and assorted other engine mods.

The block is currently a paperweight and I'm looking at either replacing
it or the engine depending on which works out more cost effective. If and when I get it running again I'll post some pics.

Cool, I found that this data was at 10" on the bench somewhere. I was wondering if you could confirm that. Hope you do not mind. Just trying to put as much info together in one place as possible.
Sorry to hear that you had engine problems. As I have said before go to a 3.2l bore with the boost. Everyone that I know of that has gone for more than a low boost app has lost the motor. Stroker 3.4l is where it is at. I think that this will be my next engine.

There are multiple different types of oil pumps. The rear plate to the pump is different pending which pan you use (C/E class, W140, maybe G-wagen (never seen one )).

Next is rotor size. Swept volume is greater in early M104 3.2's and M104 3.0's. I've never seen a 2.8 pump or a late (my95+) 3.2 pump so I cannot verify those. M103's use a pump that has about a ~5mm shorter set of spur gears on it.

Edit: Saw you were talking about sumps. To my knowledge most M104's shared the C/E class front sump with the mid/rear only being on the W140. I don't know if the G-wagens had a different sump

Posted by 97SL320

I've come across two pistons for the 3.2 M104

I know that the 97 up M104 got ME2.1 ( dual knock sensors ) so I'd expect it to have higher compression. If the older HFM-SFI didn't have sensors / was less capable I'd expect that to have lower compression.

PISTON
( looks like higher compression )
NURAL Part # 87287530
Bolt length [mm]: 56;
Bolt Ø [mm]: 22;
Bore Ø [mm]: 89.900;
Compress. Height [mm]: 32.900;
Length [mm]: 57.900
Prod. No.: 09025-/09027;
Recess Depth[mm]: 1.450;
Recess Diam [mm]: 70.000;
Valve Pocket Depth[mm]: 2.980;
Oval piston skirt form;


( looks like lower compression )
NURAL Part # 87287510
Bolt length [mm] 55
Bolt Ø [mm] 22
Bore Ø [mm] 89.900
Compression Height [mm] 31.125
Length [mm] 56.125
Production Number 09034
Recess Depth 1 [mm] 3.250
Recess Diameter [mm] 70.000
Valve Pocket Depth 1 [mm] 2.605