Bolt on superchargers? - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Dee8go · #1 05-19-2008, 10:14 PM

I have seen ads for these bolt on supercharger and wondered whether they were any good. Has anybody had any experience with them? On an M117 engine in particular.

300EVIL · #2 05-19-2008, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dee8go

I have seen ads for these bolt on supercharger and wondered whether they were any good. Has anybody had any experience with them? On an M117 engine in particular.

What's the source? If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is. Any good supercharger kit will be more complicated than "bolt on" sounds. Give me a manufacturers name and I'll let you know if it's any good.

Dee8go · #3 05-20-2008, 09:29 AM

I'll have to hunt around to find it, Evil. In the meantime, is there one that you have some experience with or can recommend? I'm not in a hurry, just trying to plan and budget right now.

300EVIL · #4 05-20-2008, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dee8go

I'll have to hunt around to find it, Evil. In the meantime, is there one that you have some experience with or can recommend? I'm not in a hurry, just trying to plan and budget right now.

Well, there is no one currently offering a kit for the M117 that I know of. However, you could fit a centrifugal supercharger with a little effort. If you did most of the work yourself, your looking at under $3K for a worth while upgrade. Probably $5K-$10K If you hire a shop to do it. Good performance upgrades are expensive. Nice SEC by the way!

MTI · #5 05-20-2008, 09:27 PM

Hmm, a bolt on supercharger (how else would one afix a blower?) is likely . . . but is there a bolt on fuel management system so that you don't fry a bunch of valves when it start to run really lean?

Dee8go · #6 05-21-2008, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 300EVIL

Well, there is no one currently offering a kit for the M117 that I know of. However, you could fit a centrifugal supercharger with a little effort. If you did most of the work yourself, your looking at under $3K for a worth while upgrade. Probably $5K-$10K If you hire a shop to do it. Good performance upgrades are expensive. Nice SEC by the way!

Thanks. That's helpful. things are rarely as simple or easy as I imagine them to be. I'm a salesman. Everything seems easy to me, the technicians who do the work usually tell me otherwise . . . .

Dee8go · #7 05-21-2008, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

Hmm, a bolt on supercharger (how else would one afix a blower?) is likely . . . but is there a bolt on fuel management system so that you don't fry a bunch of valves when it start to run really lean?

Well, what I meant, of course, something that wasn't total rocket science,

300EVIL · #8 05-21-2008, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dee8go

Well, what I meant, of course, something that wasn't total rocket science,

Any time you add more air, you have to add more fuel. That's how the extra power is made. Fortunately, the fuel component is the easier to add than air. Your existing CIS fuel injection will compensate for a low number of boost pressure. However, if your looking to make over 7 PSI or, over 100 more horses, Your going to need a supplementary injector or a completely different injection system.

Dee8go · #9 05-22-2008, 08:55 AM

Okay, that's what I was afraid of. Each thing you tweak over here requires further tweaking over there. Which gives you more boost, a supercharger or a turbocharger? I know the supercharger's boost is instantaneous whereas the turbo's has a lag, but haven't heard anything much about the comparative gains from each.

RBYCC · #10 05-22-2008, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dee8go

Okay, that's what I was afraid of. Each thing you tweak over here requires further tweaking over there. Which gives you more boost, a supercharger or a turbocharger? I know the supercharger's boost is instantaneous whereas the turbo's has a lag, but haven't heard anything much about the comparative gains from each.

Turbo only has a lag if it's too large for the engine displacement.
Lag comes from the exhaust pressure needed to spool the compressor up.
Larger the compressor the longer the lag and higher the rpm the boost comes in at.

I run twin Garrett T2"s which come in without being noticeable at 1500 rpm....zero lag and at .48 bar boost around 2500 rpm.
A larger single turbo may just be coming in at 2500 rpm.

Larger turbo may show more HP and boost, but I'm gone by the time their boost begins to make power !

CIS-E isn't the easiest injection to enrich under boost.
Two additional injectors with a stand alone control will give the ability to do a 3D map while leaving the stock semi electronics untouched.

High boost, claimed high horsepower, does not always equate to street performance.

I dyno'd on a Mustang load unit at 195 HP on a stock 62K M103-12V with a Turbotechnics twin turbo kit installed.

Ran a 14.39 @ 99.5 mph with poor traction...
Figure it out using a 3900lb car ( car + driver + fuel )....
With drag radials I'm 13.5 and 103-105 mph....
0-60 mph around 5.1 seconds

Dyno numbers are just for establishing a base line and tuning !

Ed A.

Dee8go · #11 05-22-2008, 11:09 AM

Thanks, Ed. If you said what per centage of HP increase you gained, I must have missed it. What was your gain as a per centage with the T2s?

Did you put them on yourself? What kind of expense was involved with that?

RBYCC · #12 05-22-2008, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dee8go

Thanks, Ed. If you said what per centage of HP increase you gained, I must have missed it. What was your gain as a per centage with the T2s?

Did you put them on yourself? What kind of expense was involved with that?

Base line dyno 3rd gear 70-105MPH was 135.9HP @ 5500 RPM and 145.3 lbft torque @ 4500 RPM.

Published figures for the M103-12V are 177HP / 188 Torque.
Mustang load dyno indicates a 30% powertrain loss.
Inertia type like Dyno Jet would show less loss, and read 13%-18% higher.

After twin turbo install 195.6HP @ 5500 RPM and 220.4 lbft torque @ 4250 RPM.

Intake mods using K&N panel filter and aluminum tube/silicone hose instead of Fram filter and coil hoses was 211.4HP and 239.7 Torque

211.4/135.9 = 56% HP increase
239.7/145.3 = 65% Torque increase

Use the percent increase on the dyno on the published flywheel figures

177 x 1.56 = 276.12 HP
188 x 1.65 = 310.2 Torque

Using a 1/4 mile calculator based on ET ( 14.39 ) Trap speed ( 98.68 ) and weight ( 4000 lbs ) the result is as below

"Your HP computed from your vehicle ET is 217.81 rear wheel HP and 242.01 flywheel HP.
Your HP computed from your vehicle MPH is 269.99 rear wheel HP and 299.99 flywheel HP."

I did not do the install but sent it to a shop that is the best in the USA on turbo charging M103/M104 and most Mercs.
Any boost needs to have the AFR's set on a dyno or you risk leaning out and smoking your motor.

Worst that happened on the dyno was rattling the bricks loose in two Merc V8 OEM cats...solved the problem by using a higher performance, higher temp spun metal technology cat.

Expense...including new suspension, motor mounts, O2 sensor, and many other bits and pieces was about $12K....
Would I do it again, most certainly !!!

Ed A.

Dee8go · #13 05-22-2008, 01:37 PM

That's very impressive, Ed. Thanks for the information. I just noticed you're in DE. Was the shop near you that did the turbos? I'm in N VA.

RBYCC · #14 05-22-2008, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dee8go

That's very impressive, Ed. Thanks for the information. I just noticed you're in DE. Was the shop near you that did the turbos? I'm in N VA.

Shipped the car to Chicago for the install....

Willy Mosselman was quoted in the August 17, 1987 Autoweek as saying about my installer..." His car is faster to 60 and 100 mph then ours..."

The shop was the main USA installer for Mosselman in the eighties and nineties.