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 ShopForum > Technical Information and Support > Vintage Mercedes

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old 10-04-2012, 02:43 PM
Tomguy's Avatar
Vintage Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Not where I want to
Posts: 4,985
I would personally use the 560 pistons & rotating assembly (you presumably kept all pistons, rods, pins etc in order so it's pre-balanced). You will have more displacement (more power) and it will be the most unique 5.6 cast iron block around. As far as rings, I would imagine there've got to be the proper rings (chrome I think? Maybe cast iron) in 96.5.
__________________
Current:
1999 Chrysler 300M (Click for pic) - 207,xxx - totalled by Nationwide for $1600 in damage. Being rebuilt better.
2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited (Click for pic) - 32,xxx

My Mercedes Benz 108 109 resource site
August 2014 newsletter live.

Previous: 1972 280SE 4.5 "Quicksilver", 1992 Jeep Cherokee Laredo "Jeepy", 2006 Charger R/T "Hemi"
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-04-2012, 03:31 PM
Tony
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Nevada City, Ca
Posts: 872
I really want to use the 560 pistons as the whole idea is to increase displacement. I can tell the original 560 rings are steel because they are very shiny-not just the face but the entire ring and they ring when tapped-not thud like iron rings. It also looks like they are unplated because the apperance is consistant through the entire ring-not shiny on the face like chrome rings.
__________________
Tony H
1971 280SE 3.5 Coupe(soon to be 5.6)
European Version
Manual transmission
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-04-2012, 10:30 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Modesto CA
Posts: 2,116
Tony H.:

I've been following the 5.0 project with some interest; I've been particularly intrigued by the mod of the 450/92mm piston. In contemplating increasing the bore to 96.5 have you explored the wall thickness after boring? An increase of .180" is usually more than most blocks will accomodate. Even if there is no breakthrough, the walls may be too thin. Yes, sleeves are available with .096" and .125" walls, however it is understood that there will be breakthrough in a few places. If you have X-rayed, or sonicly inspected the block, I think more than a few folks would like to hear the results.

Frank
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-04-2012, 11:59 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 347
X2 on the wall thickness of the cylinders.
It may be worth to cut open a old block to see how much meat is actually there.

All piston rings for aluminum blocks are chromed.

All oil rings for cast iron V8 blocks are also chromed.
All upper compression rings for US 450s are chromed.
Upper rings on 450s for other markets are molybdenum coated.
The second compression ring on all 450s is molybdenum coated.

Does this mean that one should be able to run a set of chromed 560 rings in a cast iron cylinder?
__________________

76 240 D. Bought in 1998 for $25.
85 300D. Got it for free with a bad engine. ( Sold )
60 Unimog 404. What was left of it, was given to me. Now powerd by 617A.
88 560 SEL. Bought without engine and trans. Now powerd by 617A.
67 250 SE. Cuope. For resto or sale.
64 220SE. For resto.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-05-2012, 02:04 AM
Tony
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Nevada City, Ca
Posts: 872
Thanks for the interest. I have thought it out very carefully. I will have the block sonic tested before boring but from checking through the water jacket holes the cylinder walls are consistantly .25" which will leave .18" after boring. I have read people are running 500hp blown engines with .10" wall thickness so I feel pretty safe. If the 560 rings are chrome they would work in a iron block.
__________________
Tony H
1971 280SE 3.5 Coupe(soon to be 5.6)
European Version
Manual transmission
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 10-06-2012, 01:50 AM
Tony
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Nevada City, Ca
Posts: 872
Thanks-I was able to verify the 560 rings are plated by cutting some used ones. I would think they would work in a iron block. According to the info you kindly provided it seems the only difference is the 560 middle ring is chrome instead of moly. From what I have read cylinder preparation is critical for chrome rings to properly seat. Since the engine will be bored the cylinders will be new and there should be no issues. I'm going to try and get the block in for sonic testing next week.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1960mog View Post
X2 on the wall thickness of the cylinders.
It may be worth to cut open a old block to see how much meat is actually there.

All piston rings for aluminum blocks are chromed.

All oil rings for cast iron V8 blocks are also chromed.
All upper compression rings for US 450s are chromed.
Upper rings on 450s for other markets are molybdenum coated.
The second compression ring on all 450s is molybdenum coated.

Does this mean that one should be able to run a set of chromed 560 rings in a cast iron cylinder?
__________________
Tony H
1971 280SE 3.5 Coupe(soon to be 5.6)
European Version
Manual transmission
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-06-2012, 09:26 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 347
If you use the complete 560 rotating assembly, you should use a 560 block as well.
__________________

76 240 D. Bought in 1998 for $25.
85 300D. Got it for free with a bad engine. ( Sold )
60 Unimog 404. What was left of it, was given to me. Now powerd by 617A.
88 560 SEL. Bought without engine and trans. Now powerd by 617A.
67 250 SE. Cuope. For resto or sale.
64 220SE. For resto.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-07-2012, 09:50 AM
Tomguy's Avatar
Vintage Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Not where I want to
Posts: 4,985
This does have me wondering if you could put a 560 rotating assembly into an m119...
__________________
Current:
1999 Chrysler 300M (Click for pic) - 207,xxx - totalled by Nationwide for $1600 in damage. Being rebuilt better.
2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited (Click for pic) - 32,xxx

My Mercedes Benz 108 109 resource site
August 2014 newsletter live.

Previous: 1972 280SE 4.5 "Quicksilver", 1992 Jeep Cherokee Laredo "Jeepy", 2006 Charger R/T "Hemi"
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-07-2012, 12:46 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 347
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomguy View Post
This does have me wondering if you could put a 560 rotating assembly into an m119...
You got me on this one.
I am not that familiar with the M119.
As far as I remember the main bearings in a M119 are smaller in width then the ones in a M117, except for the center bearing, and there is a very tiny difference in the diameter of the base bore in the block.
The dia. of the mains on the cranks are the same.
So it should theoretically be possible to fit a 560 crank in to M119 main bearings.
Block height and cylinder bore are the same.
There is still the question of compression and valve interference between the 560 pistons and the M119 heads.
__________________

76 240 D. Bought in 1998 for $25.
85 300D. Got it for free with a bad engine. ( Sold )
60 Unimog 404. What was left of it, was given to me. Now powerd by 617A.
88 560 SEL. Bought without engine and trans. Now powerd by 617A.
67 250 SE. Cuope. For resto or sale.
64 220SE. For resto.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-07-2012, 06:46 PM
Tomguy's Avatar
Vintage Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Not where I want to
Posts: 4,985
The reason I thought of that is because the M119 is the natural evolution of the M117, and the AMG 6.0 Hammer had 4 valves per cylinder like the M119, so you'd basically wind up with a 5.6 Hammer engine doing this
__________________
Current:
1999 Chrysler 300M (Click for pic) - 207,xxx - totalled by Nationwide for $1600 in damage. Being rebuilt better.
2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited (Click for pic) - 32,xxx

My Mercedes Benz 108 109 resource site
August 2014 newsletter live.

Previous: 1972 280SE 4.5 "Quicksilver", 1992 Jeep Cherokee Laredo "Jeepy", 2006 Charger R/T "Hemi"
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 10-07-2012, 07:24 PM
Tony
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Nevada City, Ca
Posts: 872
Agreed-it would definitely be easier to use a complete 5.6 engine/transmission instead of the way I want to do it but my manual transmission only bolts to an iron block engine. I don’t want to use an adaptor plate but keep it as close to original as possible. Also the 5.6 is a low compression smog engine. If I use 3.5 heads I get about 9.75:1. Granted it will be quite a departure from original but not as much as an aluminum engine. In practically every other application it would make since to transplant the 5.6 engine/transmission as a whole. My original engine needs to be rebuilt anyway and once I get past the learning curve this will mostly be a stock rebuild.
Also I just think it is a cool project.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1960mog View Post
If you use the complete 560 rotating assembly, you should use a 560 block as well.
__________________
Tony H
1971 280SE 3.5 Coupe(soon to be 5.6)
European Version
Manual transmission
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 10-16-2012, 01:31 PM
Tony
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Nevada City, Ca
Posts: 872
The dream is still alive. I should probably start a new thread "Project iron block 5.6" since that's the direction I seem to be headed now.
I was trying to decide how to address the head gaskets since the 4.5 ones will not work due to the large bore. I had found a place that would modify the 4.5 ones with larger fire rings but I hoped for a easier/less expensive solution. I bought some 5.6 head gaskets hoping they would be close enough to work. They are the pretty much the same with the exception of 5 head bolt holes which are off by about 1/16”. All the bolt holes surrounding the fire rings are in the same location and the 5 holes that need to be enlarged are in a non-critical area so they should work. They fit the locating pins just like the 4.5 ones. They appear to be thinner than the 4.5 ones but I have not mic’ed them yet.
Pic to come if anyone is interested.
__________________
Tony H
1971 280SE 3.5 Coupe(soon to be 5.6)
European Version
Manual transmission
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 10-17-2012, 03:48 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Modesto CA
Posts: 2,116
Tony H.:

Re: Head gaskets
Which are the relocated bolt holes? I bet you have a shop manual page that shows the head torquing diagram with the bolt numbering. I ask this due to speculating about the potential for head interchanges between iron and aluminum engines. Do you have both types of heads in hand?

Re: Boring
Do you have any definitive wall thickness info yet?

Frank
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-17-2012, 05:54 PM
Tony
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Nevada City, Ca
Posts: 872
Frank,
I will be using Iron Block heads. I don't think the aluminum block heads fit on a iron block engine. They are very similar, at least judging from the head gasket. I'm sure someone here knows (or has tried).
The 5.6 head gasket is .049" vs the 4.5 gasket which is .074".
Here are the pics. As you can see there are a few holes off a little but not so much I cannot enlarge them to work. The major elements are in the correct place(cylinder bores, locating pins, most head bolts.
Have not had a chance to get the block in.
Attached Thumbnails
Project: Iron block 5.6-gas1.jpg   Project: Iron block 5.6-gas2.jpg   Project: Iron block 5.6-gas3.jpg   Project: Iron block 5.6-gas4.jpg  
__________________
Tony H
1971 280SE 3.5 Coupe(soon to be 5.6)
European Version
Manual transmission
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-15-2012, 05:51 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: brisbane,Qld.Australia
Posts: 2,037
I have seen a alloy 380 engine with 3.5 iron block heads. Great performance too, but there are two bolts which are different so it wasn't really a bolt on fit. A set of 5.0 or 420 heads would work and work well because of the large (huge) port pockets.
The m119 is just a m117 with twin cam heads and a lot of bottom end parts interchange .
So..how about a 3.5 or 4.5 block with M119 heads....?
Re head gaskets, on my old Chrysler hemi (354 Cu.in with 13-1 compression) I had a set of solid copper gaskets made by cutting with a laser cutter. Very simple too, they simply used an old gasket set to get the coordinates and then cut the gaskets .It took about 1 hour and from memory was around $100.
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




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2011 Pelican Parts - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page