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
  #76  
Old 08-15-2016, 02:09 PM
rwd4evr's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: delaware
Posts: 304
Hey tony! I couldn't remember your handle here and BW is so messed up lately.Glad I found you.
So the 5.6 heads have slightly different head bolt placement? I'm working on a 4.5 manual slc for a track day/lemons car possibly and have a couple 5.6 plus a bunch of 4.5 engines to pick parts from. Not trying to jack your thread, but check mine out and throw some of your expirience my way if you can!

M117 CAM SPECS, HEAD DIFFERENCES?

1978 450SLC Super beater/lemons race car
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 08-17-2016, 09:26 PM
Tony
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Genoa, Nv
Posts: 882
yea I'm still here. My engine project is on hold for now since we are building a house in Nevada. The 5.6 heads will fit an iron block with some machine work but they will decrease the CR on a 4.5 since they have larger combustion chambers. If you have any specific questions I will try to answer them.
__________________
Tony H
1971 280SE 3.5 Coupe(soon to be 5.6)
European Version
Manual transmission
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 08-18-2016, 04:13 AM
rwd4evr's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: delaware
Posts: 304
Well I don't want to lose compression at this point. If a turbo comes along eventually I'm ok with 5.6 heads for better flow. Really just want to know about cam specs. I have '73 DJet US motors,117.982/984 I believe, one sel one slc plus another torn down sl. 78/79 kjet 117.985 and an alum 116.9xx 3.8 US TURD. Plus two 5.6 U.S. Motors available for parts. My 4.5 117.985 kjet in the car will be aimed at high revving. Manual trans makes it much more livable and it's not a street cruiser at all. I just want the best cam and head combo I can put together. Highest compression and bigest lift/ duration. I'm thinking of retarding the cams for top end power. I will prob do a little port work if I end up changing heads.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 08-18-2016, 11:45 AM
Tomguy's Avatar
Vintage Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Not where I want to
Posts: 5,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony H View Post
yea I'm still here. My engine project is on hold for now since we are building a house in Nevada. The 5.6 heads will fit an iron block with some machine work but they will decrease the CR on a 4.5 since they have larger combustion chambers. If you have any specific questions I will try to answer them.
Will they fit on a stock 4.5 block that hasn't been bored over? Or would the valves hit the deck (or the bores)? It may have been answered back in the thread further, but it'd be nice to see clarification for sure
__________________
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
  #80  
Old 08-18-2016, 02:52 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Modesto CA
Posts: 2,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomguy View Post
Will they fit on a stock 4.5 block that hasn't been bored over? Or would the valves hit the deck (or the bores)? It may have been answered back in the thread further, but it'd be nice to see clarification for sure
The valves in the 5.6 heads, IN 46.2mm, EX 39mm, will clear a 92mm bore.
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old 08-18-2016, 03:09 PM
rwd4evr's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: delaware
Posts: 304
no wonder they dont make much power. all except the very worst small block chevy heads had 1.94?1.50(49.2/40.64mm)and the good ones had 2.02/1.60(51.3/40.64). forced induction is the way to go i guess. shame there isnt an affordable agressive cam set available. now i see why the m119 makes so much more power from a nearly identical emgine. the 5.0 versions are almost 80 hp apart!
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 08-18-2016, 03:32 PM
rwd4evr's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: delaware
Posts: 304
honestly i don't think i would be bothering trying to get more power from a m117 iron block if i didn't get this perfect beater/lemons car with a manual trans setup ready to go more or less(well less really!). gotta clean the tank and get a slave cyl to see how it really runs before i get too crazy i guess. How about m119 heads on an iron block!?
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 08-19-2016, 03:58 PM
Tony
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Genoa, Nv
Posts: 882
Smile

I spent a lot of time comparing various cams (Pick n Pull specimens) from 3.5/4.5/5.0/5.6 engines trying to determine what the best choice for my project was. Without going into great detail the general theme is low duration, low lift, the later the engine the more retard and higher LSA-basically motorhome cams. All the cams are retarded quite a bit-especially the 5.6 ones. The best stock Hydraulic cams I could find from a possible performance perspective that are not obscenely expensive are the 02/03 cams from a European 500SL. They have the higher lift of the 5.6 cams and the longer duration/tighter LSA of the 3.5/4.5 cams. I bought a set of these with matched rockers from a fellow forum member.
As far as "performance" cams are concerned I don't think the valve train is robust enough for anything more than stock cams. I have read about noisy, maintenance intensive valve trains using performance cams for a few more HP. The most reliable way to more power is displacement so that is my concept with this project. For a dd that will spend 99% of it's time between 2000-4000 RPM I think it will work well :-)
__________________
Tony H
1971 280SE 3.5 Coupe(soon to be 5.6)
European Version
Manual transmission
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 08-19-2016, 06:12 PM
Tomguy's Avatar
Vintage Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Not where I want to
Posts: 5,018
I am excited to see what your hybrid of old-and-new-school iron block 5.6 will produce in terms of power. Please dyno it after break-in! Very interested to see. Also I'd love to know what it sounds and feels like. You may have a good engine build for 330 crank HP, or it may just be a mid to upper 200s. It may be a good revver, or it may not be. Only time will tell!
__________________
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
  #85  
Old 08-19-2016, 06:15 PM
rwd4evr's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: delaware
Posts: 304
Yes! That is what I've been trying to find out. For your application that sounds correct. My car will be mostly track driven and high rpm abused. When you say retarded do you mean just the intake or exhaust lobe or just in general? And are the 3.5 and 4.5 the same grind? If you have a spec sheet you drew up I'd still love to see it. I'll be running mechanical most likely. Maybe I can find a grinder for a reasonable price.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 08-19-2016, 10:15 PM
Tony
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Genoa, Nv
Posts: 882
Yea I have spent a lot of time day dreaming about getting my project on the road. I will have to put it in storage for about 1.5 years when we move early next year. The emphasis now is getting it on wheels so I can get it on a trailer. (I will start a thread about the air suspension conversion)
You have probably read all about other members experiences with custom cams-I don't think they are worth the trouble and expense for a small HP increase. When you regrind cams you change the base circle and valve train geometry. you can adjust it out but the rocker now pushes on the valve stem at a different angle causing valve guide wear. The valve train is so small on these heads they just won't accommodate any more lift.
All the cams I checked are very similar with only subtle changes-mostly how much they are retarded. Like I said the later the engine the more retard there is. I was pursuing having some adjustable timing gears made so I could play with the cam timing. It will be off anyway since I had the block decked .030 and the 560 head gaskets I have to use are .025" thinner than the 450 ones.
There used to be some cams ground from new blanks but I don't know what happened to them stage II cams for m117 motor - feind motorsports
__________________
Tony H
1971 280SE 3.5 Coupe(soon to be 5.6)
European Version
Manual transmission
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 08-20-2016, 12:25 AM
rwd4evr's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: delaware
Posts: 304
Sold out. Retarded would be better for top end power anyway correct? Y
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 05-24-2017, 11:30 PM
Tony
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Genoa, Nv
Posts: 882
It's been a while since I have done anything with my project other than packing it up and putting it in storage since we are moving but I'm doing some armchair engineering. I'm trying to keep my project as straightforward as possible and I started thinking about my cylinder head choice(again). I had previously decided to use the 5.6 heads with their larger valves/ports and they will fit with some machine work but the downside is the large combustion chambers, the cooling/oil passages need to be matched, the long cam bolts don't line up and the accessories don't fit like the 4.5. I have some K-jet 4.5 heads and took a fresh look at what it would take to turn them into 5.6 heads. The valve guide basic bores are the same so no problem there. New valve seats are no problem and I have 5.6 heads to copy the port design. My concern is breaking through during porting. I'm thinking about experimenting with some junk heads before I go to the expense of new valves.
__________________
Tony H
1971 280SE 3.5 Coupe(soon to be 5.6)
European Version
Manual transmission
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 05-25-2017, 01:04 PM
Tomguy's Avatar
Vintage Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Not where I want to
Posts: 5,018
I wouldn't be surprised if the heads actually had the room inside without worrying about breaking through. The only way to know for sure would probably be to have them sonically examined which would likely cost more than a trip to a U-Pull-It to grab a head to experiment on.
__________________
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
  #90  
Old 05-25-2017, 03:49 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Modesto CA
Posts: 2,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony H View Post
I have some K-jet 4.5 heads and took a fresh look at what it would take to turn them into 5.6 heads. The valve guide basic bores are the same so no problem there. New valve seats are no problem and I have 5.6 heads to copy the port design. My concern is breaking through during porting. I'm thinking about experimenting with some junk heads before I go to the expense of new valves.
Tony, it seems fair to note that the valve sizes and port area of the 4.5 heads will provide sufficient air flow for over 300HP, particularly with the cams that you have chosen (56/57). I may be mistaken, however, information at hand says inlet valve diam. > 44.2mm(1.74"), exhaust > 39mm(1.54"), inlet port @ manifold > 41mm, exh. port > 34mm.
Why did the 5.6 engine receive larger valves, most notably the inlet? As you have pointed out, the valve timing has been retarded (and shortened), again most notably on the inlet, which results in rather fewer degrees of valve open time while the piston is descending on the inlet stroke. To compensate, an increase of flow area has been provided.
The 56/57 cams open the inlet sooner, are longer, and quite importantly, have lobe centers that are 16 degrees closer than the 18/19 cams of the 5.6 (104 vs. 120). The close lobe centers provide a big overlap flow increase, along with higher velocity, without requiring a larger valve.
A bit of careful cleanup work on a flow bench is likely to yield good results.
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 03:53 AM.


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