http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucHv3TvDeMo

Now it sound's like a RICER!!!

__________________
Current Garage
2008 Mercedes GL320 CDI 188k mi Repair/Work in progress
1994 S350 160k mi Garage Queen & prepping for repairs
2005 E320 CDI 203k mi Healthy & Daily Driver
1994 S350 357k mi Retried as parts car
1984 300TD 214k mi Blown OM617 Poss OM603 Swap??

Sold
1987 300SDL 200K+
1994 S320 181K mi
2008 E320 Bluetec 127k mi
1999 S420 130K mi
1980 240D 360k mi
15+ Others that has come, stay and gone

GONE, BUT NOT FORGOTTEN
1995 E320 SE 220k mi
1984 300SD 350k mi

I dont think its that bad

dumas

__________________
1986 300SDL, 211K,Dealership serviced its whole life
1991 190E 2.6(120k)
1983 300D(300k)
1977 300D(211k)

What he says as the reason for replacing it showed he was full of it:
"It's better than any engine Mercedes could come up with"

He also claimed it was only 180HP - which was about what the 2.8 did, not the 6.3, makes me believe that it wasn't actually a 6.3 to begin with (and, if it was, it'd say 6.3, not automatic, even if it were aussie delivery). He does have the 1/4 time right however. Weird claim from the kid conflicting HP and 1/4 times, but whatever. If his 6.3 was badly out of tune I guess it may only do 180 @ the wheels, he claims the rotary does 195, which is probably what my 4.5 does @ the wheels with the head work. Not bad from a wankel...

But it does sound like it has no balls. And notice they did not say the 1/4 time of the rotary benz. With that weight and power, probably in the 15's.

__________________
Current:
2021 Charger Scat Pack Widebody "Sinabee"
2018 Durango R/T

Previous:
1972 280SE 4.5
2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited "Hefe", 1992 Jeep Cherokee Laredo "Jeepy", 2006 Charger R/T "Hemi"
1999 Chrysler 300M - RIP @ 221k

He said 180HP at the wheels. what are the numbers for the 6.3? HP,torque

Raw/SAE figures for the 6.3 are 300 HP and 434 FT-LBS. Net is lower.

__________________
Regards

Warren

Currently 1965 220Sb, 2002 FORD Crown Vic Police Interceptor

Had 1965 220SEb, 1967 230S, 280SE 4.5, 300SE (W126), 420SEL

ENTER > = (HP RPN)

Not part of the in-crowd since 1952.

I do think the car is a ugly bastard, but being in the bastard business I tend to think:

1. The car (body) IS preserved, and kept for
2. It can always be restored to original condition

True?
Better than those that let perfectly good specimens rot out in a field or barn because of some minor repair task and 30 years later conclude the car is too rusted out to restore.

__________________
Tomas, Sweden
1966 Mercedes Benz 230S with OM617.912, automatic. Disk brakes from W108
1983 Mercedes Benz 300TD grey, OM617.912 and 5-speed manual
1983 Mercedes Benz 300TD blue 7-seater, OM617.912 and 5-speed manual

I don't know if the 6.3 ever came with a column shift. The car may have been a 3.5.

The handling must be much improved, what with the drastically reduced front end weight. But the sound is certainly, uh, incongruous.

__________________
Berfinroy in CT
Present vehicles:
1973 300 SEL 4.5
1959 Rolls Royce Silver Cloud I
1959 Ford Thunderbird convertible/430
Past vehicles;
1958 Bentley S 1
1976 ex-Max Hoffman 6.9
1970 300SEL 2.8
1958 Jaguar MK IX
1961 Jaguar MK IX
1963 Jaguar E-type factory special roadster
1948 Plymouth woody
1955 Morgan plus 4
1966 Shelby GT350H Mustang

If raw is 300HP and you figure in 20% loss @ the wheels for a RWD vehicle then you are looking at about 240 to the wheels. 20% is on the high side, avg is about 15, but even with 20% sapped you're still WAY above his numbers. 255 is probably about what it did to the rear wheels with the average 15% loss. Kid should have just done a tuneup!

__________________
Current:
2021 Charger Scat Pack Widebody "Sinabee"
2018 Durango R/T

Previous:
1972 280SE 4.5
2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited "Hefe", 1992 Jeep Cherokee Laredo "Jeepy", 2006 Charger R/T "Hemi"
1999 Chrysler 300M - RIP @ 221k

A three rotor wankel would be interesting, it just seems mismatched to the chassis.

It's like putting a modded motorcycle engine in a mid sized sedan, huge expense and effort with no change.

__________________
1974 240D 3.0L 4(M) - 250K -OM617.910 + 300D FW + Rajay turbo power!
1977 6.9 3(A) - 84k

Are you poking fun at British cars?

rotary engines are high revving, which a big V8 isn't

I guess so! (I have no idea).

I thought it was truck motors with strange split gearing to make up for the lack of rev range.

__________________
1974 240D 3.0L 4(M) - 250K -OM617.910 + 300D FW + Rajay turbo power!
1977 6.9 3(A) - 84k

NASCAR engines use pushrod V8s that rev over 9500 RPMs.
Italian supercar mfg's make V10's and V12's that do over 10k RPMs as well.

Not to say that some Wankel engines don't push that even higher, but high-revving doesn't help a heavy car get off the line. Low end torque does. Wankels have notoriously low torque at low RPMs.

__________________
Current:
2021 Charger Scat Pack Widebody "Sinabee"
2018 Durango R/T

Previous:
1972 280SE 4.5
2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited "Hefe", 1992 Jeep Cherokee Laredo "Jeepy", 2006 Charger R/T "Hemi"
1999 Chrysler 300M - RIP @ 221k