M104 Cylinder Head differences... - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

JayRash · #31 01-18-2010, 04:57 PM

Pagz, i have been saying i want to do exactly that to my AMG but i have been scared of tryin an SA ecu.
What i plan was to keep the ecu connected to all sensors and a set of coils and injectors that are set aside just so as the ecu keeps running Asr and the electronic TB. And then set up an MS ecu to control a new set of coils and injectors. Complicated and pointless maybe but in winter on our roads and the slick asphalt we have ASR really helps, even if its limited to TB control without timing retard. Atleast ETS remains.

Sorry for the off topic again but its such threads that really give us facts and ideas and the comments on them.

MAG58 · #32 01-18-2010, 10:46 PM

I plan on running MS3 on my M104 as soon as it comes out, it should give me all of the features that Standalones costing three times as much have, as well as having the ability to control literally tens of different controls.

I personally think that a good LSD in the back combined with a well setup and MS controlled turbo (which is possible), you will find that it will perform as well (if not better) than the standard ASR.

400Eric · #33 01-19-2010, 01:33 AM

If the external ribs weren't of some benefit, M.B. would not have spent the tooling money to add them. I've seen the same thing occur with the AMC I6 as it has evolved through the years to become the Jeep 4.0 and gained power, additional external ribs have been added. Again, they wouldn't have spent the tooling money if there wasn't a benefit. Car companies are disgustingly cheap.

If the 3.4 AMG was the hot set up, there never would have been a 3.6 AMG.

That BMW M3 3.2 was a peaky engine compared to the C36. They got away with putting wilder cams in it because it was originally a manual trans only car. When they put an automatic behind it that car was a full second slower in the quarter mile. You cannot believe those power ratings. And I don't think that is the power it was rated at here in the States. That C36 that I wrote about on my "1/4 mile action" thread is stock and running uncorrected 14.20s at an 1100 foot track in 73 degree weather with an automatic and 2.82 gears. I'd like to see a 3.2 M3 with an Automatic do that. I'd like to see one even show up but I think they've all already expired to that great BMW field in the sky.

Whippleman said folks have gotten 500 horsepower out of the later M104 block without breaking it. And we know nothing will break that 3.5 diesel crank. When the end of time comes all that will be left are the roaches, ants, and those 3.5 cranks. All that is needed are some aftermarket forged pistons with an even deeper dish than stock so we can turbo the pee out of it.
Regards, Eric

JayRash · #34 01-19-2010, 02:00 AM

Eric, if ur talking abt the 3.2 e36 M3, u r correct it was rated at 240hp. but i am talking abt the e46 2002 on M3s those had 343hp and could do the 1/4mile in 13.5
http://www.supercars.net/cars/2324.html

As for the LSD, i know for sure it will out perform ASR but it aint as easy as it seems. any way it would be cool to wring out a few more hp from the 3.6.

400Eric · #35 01-19-2010, 02:44 AM

Oh, I thought we were talking about the BMW M3 of the same time period as the C36. It didn't seem fair to compare it to a later car.

Did we get that "CSL" version of the M3 over here? Did we get it with all of those same horses that they got in Europe?
Regards, Eric

MAG58 · #36 01-19-2010, 02:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 400Eric

If the external ribs weren't of some benefit, M.B. would not have spent the tooling money to add them. I've seen the same thing occur with the AMC I6 as it has evolved through the years to become the Jeep 4.0 and gained power, additional external ribs have been added. Again, they wouldn't have spent the tooling money if there wasn't a benefit. Car companies are disgustingly cheap.

If the 3.4 AMG was the hot set up, there never would have been a 3.6 AMG.

You're also assuming that everything was done in the sake of performance.

You have to remember, that even in a company that produces the product that Mercedes does, the final vehicle design is determined by their crack team of accountants. I'm personally of the belief that the M104 is better than the M112, but that's just me.

Anyway, back to the block, The later model blocks have seen 500hp, but Pumpish is pushing his M103 (which is the same block as the .980) to well over 650hp on stock internals before still using the stock block and crank to get to 1k. I'm not saying the later block is weaker, nobody has tested one to failure (save for a C36 block and that was due more to cylinder wall thickness). Next time I get the chance, i want to weigh and check the thickness of the blocks, as I'm willing to bet that NVH and overall amount of material in the later blocks will both be large factors in this. Since these blocks still are so similar, the tooling cost wouldn't be that much different considering the massive scale on which these engines were made.

And have you ever considered that AMG went from the 3.4L .980 based motor to the 3.6L .940 based motor because they stopped producing the .980 motor?

JayRash · #37 01-19-2010, 03:23 AM

Eric, i know but even the 3.0 and 3.2 of the same yrs made alot more power (286Hp & 321HP). i have also seen an e46 2002 M3 engine taken apart and the the details in the head are amazing. I mean the Airbox has individual plastic cones that feed each cyl perfectly, i bet they r sprayed by teflon to make them as slipery as can be. then the cam rocker are so thin you would think they will break in ur hands. i wish i had taken pics back then cause its just a sight. The pistons are so light and thin, its made like a race engine.

I am more than sure that the AMG engines will out live any M3.

Below guys are a few docs to show what AMG does to the Blocks to make them 3.6
AMG BLOCK MOD.pdf

::: The 3.6 was created mainly as response to Brabus's 3.6-24 engine that made 280hp and was fitted to the W202 cars among others. Btw Carlsson has pushed this engine to 3.7 and has 2 setups. one that makes just short of 300HP and another whose pic is here makes 316 hp.

M104 Cylinder Head differences...-calrsson-c37-3.jpg

400Eric · #38 01-19-2010, 03:42 AM

Are those E36 3.2 and E46 3.2 short blocks related?

JayRash · #39 01-19-2010, 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 400Eric

Are those E36 3.2 and E46 3.2 short blocks related?

yes for sure they are, its te same block since 1992 atleast.
http://www.supercars.net/cars/2406.html
http://www.supercars.net/cars/182.html
http://www.supercars.net/cars/2405.html

400Eric · #40 01-19-2010, 04:10 AM

Thanks Jay.

Bob, please don't get me wrong, I am super thrilled that you are going to work toward getting this engine the recognition it so richly deserves. I just wanted to steer you towards the version that I think will best accomplish that goal.
Regards, Eric

JayRash · #41 01-19-2010, 04:26 AM

Eric, You have to consider that the tooling made can be more based on using new tools for new engines, also keep in mind that merc had no reason to worry abt block rigidity on an I-6 that at best makes 280HP.
If Bob has the intention to go over 500Hp wheel he might actually benefit for from seriously rigid cylinder housing. thou i am sure he can use an M104 with SS Hg and never think twice abt any block issues for that power. Cast Iron I-6 are renowned for making silly hp figures.

I seriously believe going over 500Hp wheel will present many limitations in the Chassis and drive train before the engine block comes a priority, but that’s my opinion.

400Eric · #42 01-19-2010, 04:57 AM

"Eric, You have to consider that the tooling made can be more based on using new tools for new engines, also keep in mind that merc had no reason to worry abt block rigidity on an I-6 that at best makes 280HP."

Yes I'm well aware of this. Such was the case on an engine here in America from Ford know as the "FE". The fact is M.B. still spent the time and effort and money to add reinforcing ribs to the blocks when they upgraded the tooling. Why expend the effort if it didn't accomplish anything? Why not just replace the tooling and call it done? All I'm saying is the newer block clearly had some thought and effort (which is money) put into it that they didn't have to do but they did. Must have been a reason. Must have been a benefit.

On the second point it's not true they had no reason to worry as the OEMs are always trying to continually reduce NVH levels to ever lower levels. Competition in the car biz is brutal! The side benefit of this effort is we get ever stouter, stronger blocks for their efforts.
Regards, Eric

MAG58 · #43 01-19-2010, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 400Eric

Thanks Jay.

Bob, please don't get me wrong, I am super thrilled that you are going to work toward getting this engine the recognition it so richly deserves. I just wanted to steer you towards the version that I think will best accomplish that goal.
Regards, Eric

I feel that at some point I'm going to find the limits of quite a few things that Mercedes made, I'm just not sure in what order.

I also don't believe that block strength will be an issue in either of these designs, though we need to provide valid reasons (above bench racing) as to why mercedes altered their block design. You'd be surprised how many times dealing with NVH actually leads to more flexible parts! I hate the giant manufacturer NVH fights.

As far as I'm concerned however, I believe that I will most likely use the M104.98 block and head for my initial plans. I'll save the big block and head for the 350sdl crank.

Back to heads!

Turbo E320 · #44 01-19-2010, 09:49 PM

If you saw how horrible a 2jz head flow tested you would wonder how in the hell stock ones make over 700hp. The M104 is more than suited to making over 500hp, even completely stock, and by this summer I'll prove it again but with some proof this time

. Running 18psi through a 99.3% stock engine(.7% is the $60 .075 head spacer I got

) on the stock ECU with an AEM piggyback for over 3 months should be enough to convince you guys

.