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
  #46  
Old 09-03-2010, 03:21 PM
RBYCC's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: DELAWARE
Posts: 1,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAG58 View Post
Hmm....
V8's are still not light engines.

KA24DE = 368lbs (Source: Drifting.com)
Ford 5.0L Weight = just under 460lbs (source: gomog.com)

I'm not sure where you got that a 302 ford is anywhere near the weight of an I4.

V8's require a substantial amount of work to be a 'revvy' engine because by the nature of the design, they require heavy first and last counterweights. Unless it's a flat plane motor. Then they're very displacement limited and still vibrate. I've built both, and if they're both setup right, the I6 will still out turn a V8 unless it's a small displacement motor vs. a larger displacement under square I6. Again, perfect balance means a bunch of weight can be taken out of I6 bob weights. Unless you do like BMW and put heavy metals in the counterweights ($$$) you're dealing with big, ungangly counter weights lest you like vibrations.

And what are your statistics for highway mileage here? The LSx is the only engine that comes to mind that is close to the modern I6's in mileage relative to body weight. The Atlas I6 did very well against the 5.3 LSx despite having over a liter of displacement disadvantage. I'm not sure what ratio you're talking about here, but there are also surprisingly few V8's that have decent rod/stroke ratios and even fewer that have bore/stroke ratios near/above 1:1 any more. They keep trying to be more compact which means bore goes away in leiu of additional stroke, though unfortunately rod/stroke ratio suffers.


Yes, Iron I6's are heavy because they require a substantial amount of bracing within the engine to dampen NVH of a crank that long. But the aluminum I6's are not heavy at all. Have you weighed the current BMW N series Aluminum/Magnesium I6's? They compare VERY well to any OHC V8 save maybe the featherweight UZ engines.

Packaging is a relative issue. I can tell you right now that an I6 is much more friendly to work on in the long, narrow hood of my 240Z whilst a V8 accommodates much better to the short, wide engine bays of the current trends.
You ever build a push rod elephant motor ?

I built a 426 five over 12.5:1 CR Hemi in the late sixties that redlined around 9000 RPM with just a cam and valve train work.
Crank was stock and balanced and block was lined bored.

Bad pic..it's over forty years old !!!



Needed the RPM to trap over 135MPH with a 5.12 rear gear.

The Chevy Rat and Porcupine motors of the era also had the ability to rev without a roller.

The latest model Dodge Motorsports 500CI with 15.1:1 compression and a roller cam redlines at 9500 RPM.

__________________
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...c/GOWIDE-1.jpg
1971 280SL ROADSTER
1988 300CE TWIN TURBO WIDEBODY
1994 E320 CABRIOLET
1999 C43 AMG
2005 G55K AMG
2008 CLK63 AMG BLACK SERIES
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 09-03-2010, 04:16 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 537
I'm fully aware any configuration can reach a certain rpm. I was referring to 'revvy' as the ability to change rpm's rapidly and gain rpm's rapidly. If you were running the stock crank there was a ton of rotating mass there. Yes I've seen hemi's and built BBC's and BBF's, none of the cranks are light in the counter weights unless they've had a bunch of work done to them.
__________________
1993 190E 2.6 Sportline
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 09-03-2010, 11:05 PM
RBYCC's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: DELAWARE
Posts: 1,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAG58 View Post
I'm fully aware any configuration can reach a certain rpm. I was referring to 'revvy' as the ability to change rpm's rapidly and gain rpm's rapidly. If you were running the stock crank there was a ton of rotating mass there. Yes I've seen hemi's and built BBC's and BBF's, none of the cranks are light in the counter weights unless they've had a bunch of work done to them.
Tell me more about the big blocks you have built...
I'm curious...!!!
Maybe I can learn something...

I always was under the impression that there were many more factors then the "crank" when it came to "revving"
You talk a great deal about "rotating mass' but yet to mention the importance and difference of assembly clearances.
Do you build your race motors with wide main clearance ?

How important is line boring and dynamic crank balancing?

Isn't the conversion of cylinder pressure into crankshaft torque another major factor?

What about windage, how do you avoid adding to dynamic weight and inertial resistance in your builds ?

Selection of vibration damper make any difference?

I'm sure you know that the same engine in different chassis with different drive trains "rev' differently?
That's when transient torque comes into play...
__________________
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...c/GOWIDE-1.jpg
1971 280SL ROADSTER
1988 300CE TWIN TURBO WIDEBODY
1994 E320 CABRIOLET
1999 C43 AMG
2005 G55K AMG
2008 CLK63 AMG BLACK SERIES
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 09-04-2010, 02:44 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
Posts: 16
I don't actually know the weights of both engines, Mag. But the 240SX front end lifted up a full 2 inches at least when I dropped the 302 in there. I assumed it was lighter!

I wasn't talking about bore and stroke and stuff, man. I meant tranny/diff ratios. My old 5.0 would do ~200km/20L with the manual box and 2.73 rear end (highway mileage).

You're right about the packaging thing, but we were talking about 2 different eras of modifying cars, I guess. My dad had an old 240Z, still tells me till today that it and the old Mini Cooper S were his favorite cars of all time.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 09-04-2010, 04:14 AM
Knappy Drag Racer
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,725
And let's not forget how the 308ci Flathead straight six Hudson Hornets tore up bigger, overhead valve V8s on the NASCAR tracks in the 50s!

Seriously, it is really hard to do a proper A-B comparison between I6s and V8s because the I6s for some reason tend to have poorer rod length to stroke ratios and poorer bore to stroke ratios than the smaller V8s do. And yes, we do have to use smaller displacement V8s so we can have similar displacement engines in this comparison. For this comparison to be valid there can't be any other variables.

I'm no BMW guy but their little 3.0 V8 might work for such a comparison but the problem is we would still run into the problem of their sixes having poorer rod length to stroke ratios and poorer bore to stroke ratios than that little V8 does.

You guys are gonna hate this but I think one valid comparison is the Big Three's pick-up diesel engines. They are all similar sized, four valve turbo engines and they are all comparable in performance in both stock and modified form the only difference being that one of them is an inline 6 and the other 2 are V8s. Maybe it winds up being a moot point. (At least as far as trucks go anyway.)

I dunno, like I said a few pages back, I kike em both but Roncallo has me fantasizing about V12s too.

Hey Shoomakan, do you know board member Jay Rash? You guys should hang out!
Regards, Eric
__________________
89 300E "Benzer1" 15.924 Uncorrected
93 400E "Benzer3" 14.200 U.C.
95 E420 "Benzer4"
92 300E "Benzer5" 16.299 U.C. Future turbo CNG
87 300D "Benzer7"
87 300D "Benzer8"
87 300D "Benzer9"
87 300D/70 AMC Javelin "Sidewinder-Benzer"
87 300TD "Benzer11"
06 E320 CDI "Benzer12"
05 E320 CDI "Benzer12A"
71 AMC Javelin AMX 401 "Sidewinder"
74 AMC Hornet 401 "C.K.10" 13.63 U.C.
74 Bricklin SV1 "Presto" AMC 360 pwrd.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 09-04-2010, 05:24 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
Posts: 16
Yep! Coincidentally, Jayrash and I have been friends for a while. I had no idea he was this popular, though! He's already given me invaluable advice.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 09-04-2010, 05:42 AM
Knappy Drag Racer
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,725
Yeah, you've gotta love that Jay! He's the man!
Don't ride in a car if he's driving it though!
Regards, Eric
__________________
89 300E "Benzer1" 15.924 Uncorrected
93 400E "Benzer3" 14.200 U.C.
95 E420 "Benzer4"
92 300E "Benzer5" 16.299 U.C. Future turbo CNG
87 300D "Benzer7"
87 300D "Benzer8"
87 300D "Benzer9"
87 300D/70 AMC Javelin "Sidewinder-Benzer"
87 300TD "Benzer11"
06 E320 CDI "Benzer12"
05 E320 CDI "Benzer12A"
71 AMC Javelin AMX 401 "Sidewinder"
74 AMC Hornet 401 "C.K.10" 13.63 U.C.
74 Bricklin SV1 "Presto" AMC 360 pwrd.

Last edited by 400Eric; 09-04-2010 at 05:52 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 09-04-2010, 12:06 PM
RBYCC's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: DELAWARE
Posts: 1,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by 400Eric View Post
And let's not forget how the 308ci Flathead straight six Hudson Hornets tore up bigger, overhead valve V8s on the NASCAR tracks in the 50s!

Seriously, it is really hard to do a proper A-B comparison between I6s and V8s because the I6s for some reason tend to have poorer rod length to stroke ratios and poorer bore to stroke ratios than the smaller V8s do. And yes, we do have to use smaller displacement V8s so we can have similar displacement engines in this comparison. For this comparison to be valid there can't be any other variables.

I'm no BMW guy but their little 3.0 V8 might work for such a comparison but the problem is we would still run into the problem of their sixes having poorer rod length to stroke ratios and poorer bore to stroke ratios than that little V8 does.

You guys are gonna hate this but I think one valid comparison is the Big Three's pick-up diesel engines. They are all similar sized, four valve turbo engines and they are all comparable in performance in both stock and modified form the only difference being that one of them is an inline 6 and the other 2 are V8s. Maybe it winds up being a moot point. (At least as far as trucks go anyway.)

I dunno, like I said a few pages back, I kike em both but Roncallo has me fantasizing about V12s too.

Hey Shoomakan, do you know board member Jay Rash? You guys should hang out!
Regards, Eric
The most important thing to consider is not the number of cylinders but the engine design and the chassis it's installed in.

Overhead valve will rev different then side valve.
Pushrod versus SOHC or DOHC
Chain driven, belt driven, gear driven cam..
Compression ratio...very important because it's what drives the crank.

The real determinant of how freely an engine, regardless of cylinders, bore stroke, valve train design is the "transient" loss created by the chassis.

An engine will spin freely under no load...it's the load ( transient not constant ) that will alter based on condition how fast and engine can rev.

Put a 15K rpm F1 engine in a G55 chassis...heavy with three locking differentials..
Will it spin up as quickly...???

Common sense....

Reality check Mr. Crank Man...it's the transient load that determines how fast the engine RPM delta will be...


All else about crank design is more text book then real world...
__________________
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...c/GOWIDE-1.jpg
1971 280SL ROADSTER
1988 300CE TWIN TURBO WIDEBODY
1994 E320 CABRIOLET
1999 C43 AMG
2005 G55K AMG
2008 CLK63 AMG BLACK SERIES
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 09-04-2010, 09:20 PM
Knappy Drag Racer
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,725
"Overhead valve will rev different then side valve.
Pushrod versus SOHC or DOHC
Chain driven, belt driven, gear driven cam..
Compression ratio...very important because it's what drives the crank."

Yes, All of these and more.....

For this comparison to be valid, both engines need to have the same head/combustion chamber design, the same induction/breathing/fuel delivery, the same bore to stroke ratio, the same rod length to stroke ratio, be the same displacement, be installed in the same chassis, preferably be from the same manufacturer. I don't think we can possibly meet all these criteria so I don't think this question will ever be properly answered.

In the meantime I'm working hard to spank that C36 on our next track day 9/18/10. Looking for a couple of tenths!

With all of this "I6 vs. V8" talk, this race is the only case of two guys actually putting it on the track to find out! Yes, it's less than ideal in that it's just straight line racing and doesn't meet hardly any of the above criteria but it's all we've got at this point unless some of the rest of you attempt to do better! Who's gonna come watch?
Regards, Eric
__________________
89 300E "Benzer1" 15.924 Uncorrected
93 400E "Benzer3" 14.200 U.C.
95 E420 "Benzer4"
92 300E "Benzer5" 16.299 U.C. Future turbo CNG
87 300D "Benzer7"
87 300D "Benzer8"
87 300D "Benzer9"
87 300D/70 AMC Javelin "Sidewinder-Benzer"
87 300TD "Benzer11"
06 E320 CDI "Benzer12"
05 E320 CDI "Benzer12A"
71 AMC Javelin AMX 401 "Sidewinder"
74 AMC Hornet 401 "C.K.10" 13.63 U.C.
74 Bricklin SV1 "Presto" AMC 360 pwrd.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 09-05-2010, 12:25 AM
RBYCC's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: DELAWARE
Posts: 1,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by 400Eric View Post
"Overhead valve will rev different then side valve.
Pushrod versus SOHC or DOHC
Chain driven, belt driven, gear driven cam..
Compression ratio...very important because it's what drives the crank."

Yes, All of these and more.....

For this comparison to be valid, both engines need to have the same head/combustion chamber design, the same induction/breathing/fuel delivery, the same bore to stroke ratio, the same rod length to stroke ratio, be the same displacement, be installed in the same chassis, preferably be from the same manufacturer. I don't think we can possibly meet all these criteria so I don't think this question will ever be properly answered.

In the meantime I'm working hard to spank that C36 on our next track day 9/18/10. Looking for a couple of tenths!

With all of this "I6 vs. V8" talk, this race is the only case of two guys actually putting it on the track to find out! Yes, it's less than ideal in that it's just straight line racing and doesn't meet hardly any of the above criteria but it's all we've got at this point unless some of the rest of you attempt to do better! Who's gonna come watch?
Regards, Eric
You got it...

Keep in mind that you may be modding your car but never engineering it...
You have to live with the basic design that the manufacturer provides.
All else is esoteric textbook BS...

The most important part of the equation is the chassis and its ability to get the power to the road surface.

For instance two identical chassis setups, tires etc with one using a 400HP engine and the other a 1000HP engine....
My money is on the 400HP....

Uncontollable power is like having no power...numbers only count if they make contact with the asphalt...
__________________
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...c/GOWIDE-1.jpg
1971 280SL ROADSTER
1988 300CE TWIN TURBO WIDEBODY
1994 E320 CABRIOLET
1999 C43 AMG
2005 G55K AMG
2008 CLK63 AMG BLACK SERIES
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 09-05-2010, 05:13 AM
JayRash's Avatar
DON'T PANIC
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Beirut, Lebanon
Posts: 1,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAG58 View Post
I was thinking it was the 145mm rod too but if I calculated right, the CR on that is tiny. I checked EPC and while all other M104's either carry M104 or the M102 number (149 or 145), EPC listed the rod as an HWA part # (AMG Specific), though there are plenty of non HWA parts in the motor.

Just remember, BMW turns 8k on a 91mm stroke 139mm rod in a much more distended engine.... Hence my inquiry.
I think the C36 Rod is 1mm shorter than that of the M103 3.0


but have you seen the M3's piston size vs. that of the 3,6 M104! its less than half, and then there is the valve gear as well. the cam followers on the E46 M3 are so light and tiny its ****ing impressive.

its the weight of the m104 internals that limit it.
__________________
Jay,
-----------------
-1995 Blue W202 C36 AMG (M) SOLD ;(
-1995 Black W140 S500 (Lady)
-1992 Black W124 E300 (Dima) (Ex-Mosselman
Twin turbo Kit).
-1988 Black W124 300 E 4-Matic.(Nadeen)
-1983 Brown W126 500SEL.(Old Lady)(Sold)
-1981 Gold W123 280CE.(Dareen)(Sold)
http://www.youtube.com/user/jayrasheed
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 09-05-2010, 05:33 AM
nick.ged's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 393
if the c36 rod is 1mm shorter than the 3.0 103, it could be used to lower the comp ratio on a 3.0... i wonder what diff would 1mm make?
__________________
ce 320 amg
widebody
tiwn turbo
Mutty 'der nail'
soon to be a six speed nail


"some mods improve your car and make it into something it never was, other mods, however, although essentially the same, are not, and make that car a ricer"

if your car isnt shiny, you dont know what you are talking about, remember; paint shine = knowledge. In order to be taken seriously, you should spend all your money on paint, (and get a dyno reading).
Dont forget to polish it often
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 09-05-2010, 05:44 AM
JayRash's Avatar
DON'T PANIC
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Beirut, Lebanon
Posts: 1,281
calculate the volume increase and u will know. i say its alot. i guess it drops comp to abt 8.5.
__________________
Jay,
-----------------
-1995 Blue W202 C36 AMG (M) SOLD ;(
-1995 Black W140 S500 (Lady)
-1992 Black W124 E300 (Dima) (Ex-Mosselman
Twin turbo Kit).
-1988 Black W124 300 E 4-Matic.(Nadeen)
-1983 Brown W126 500SEL.(Old Lady)(Sold)
-1981 Gold W123 280CE.(Dareen)(Sold)
http://www.youtube.com/user/jayrasheed
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 09-05-2010, 06:52 AM
nick.ged's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 393
thats perfect for a big boost project then!
__________________
ce 320 amg
widebody
tiwn turbo
Mutty 'der nail'
soon to be a six speed nail


"some mods improve your car and make it into something it never was, other mods, however, although essentially the same, are not, and make that car a ricer"

if your car isnt shiny, you dont know what you are talking about, remember; paint shine = knowledge. In order to be taken seriously, you should spend all your money on paint, (and get a dyno reading).
Dont forget to polish it often
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 09-05-2010, 07:04 AM
JayRash's Avatar
DON'T PANIC
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Beirut, Lebanon
Posts: 1,281
the number i gave was just guess work, do ur proper calculations so u know exactly where ustand.
There is a member here Orttolan i guess who knows the exact dimentions of the amg rods

__________________
Jay,
-----------------
-1995 Blue W202 C36 AMG (M) SOLD ;(
-1995 Black W140 S500 (Lady)
-1992 Black W124 E300 (Dima) (Ex-Mosselman
Twin turbo Kit).
-1988 Black W124 300 E 4-Matic.(Nadeen)
-1983 Brown W126 500SEL.(Old Lady)(Sold)
-1981 Gold W123 280CE.(Dareen)(Sold)
http://www.youtube.com/user/jayrasheed
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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Parts intechange from 4.5 to 3.5 V8s? tristar_north Vintage Mercedes Forum 6 02-14-2003 01:32 AM
K&N performance air filter for 4.5 liter V8's M D Nugent Mercedes-Benz Used Parts For Sale & Wanted 0 01-16-2003 03:06 PM
K & N filters for the V8's (400/500e's) aldedmon Mercedes-Benz Performance Paddock 0 04-25-2002 03:18 PM
Oil Change info on M116/M117 V8s! David C Klasse Tech Help 0 03-26-2002 11:59 PM
Has anyone any experience with E430 V8's Bax Tech Help 4 12-03-2001 06:54 AM



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2024 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page