Engine Weight for a 617.952? - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Gil · #16 03-24-2005, 05:02 AM

To belabor the point, the SBC will have more power for less money than any MB conversion. I looked into putting a 6.9 or 560SL motor into the 123, either of which would have been ideal, but the cost of a good used one is high enough, let alone a rebuilt version. Higher still for any type of performance upgrades. It just didn't make financial sense.

The SCB and it's derivatives may be primitive, but so is a 123 motor. Either way, primitive does not necessarily mean unreliable or cheap, and sophisticated designs definitely do not guarantee mountains of power.

Admittedly, the motor I'm going with will cost more than 4 grand, closer to 8 in fact, but it is no rebuilt wheezer from JC whitney. It's a brand new, balanced and blueprinted motor with loads of performance goodies pushing nearly 500 horses. Expensive, yes, but considering the power and the two year warranty, I'll have no regrets. I'd hate to do this conversion with a "used" anything and then have to start all over again when it blows blue smoke 10K miles later.

I didn't go with TPI because the electronics are even more money and not as tuneable as a carbureted setup, which is what I'll have. Fuel economy will not be as good as the diesel, but with 9.5 to 1 compression, I can get away with cheaper (but not the cheapest) gas instead of $$$ diesel, so it evens out somewhat. Frankly, with all that hp, I give a rat's tail about fuel economy, but the overdrive tranny should help a bit (GM 700R4).

Best of all - a quiet passenger cabin and no more plug-ins during the winter!

boneheaddoctor · #17 03-24-2005, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gil

To belabor the point, the SBC will have more power for less money than any MB conversion. I looked into putting a 6.9 or 560SL motor into the 123, either of which would have been ideal, but the cost of a good used one is high enough, let alone a rebuilt version. Higher still for any type of performance upgrades. It just didn't make financial sense.

The SCB and it's derivatives may be primitive, but so is a 123 motor. Either way, primitive does not necessarily mean unreliable or cheap, and sophisticated designs definitely do not guarantee mountains of power.

Admittedly, the motor I'm going with will cost more than 4 grand, closer to 8 in fact, but it is no rebuilt wheezer from JC whitney. It's a brand new, balanced and blueprinted motor with loads of performance goodies pushing nearly 500 horses. Expensive, yes, but considering the power and the two year warranty, I'll have no regrets. I'd hate to do this conversion with a "used" anything and then have to start all over again when it blows blue smoke 10K miles later.

I didn't go with TPI because the electronics are even more money and not as tuneable as a carbureted setup, which is what I'll have. Fuel economy will not be as good as the diesel, but with 9.5 to 1 compression, I can get away with cheaper (but not the cheapest) gas instead of $$$ diesel, so it evens out somewhat. Frankly, with all that hp, I give a rat's tail about fuel economy, but the overdrive tranny should help a bit (GM 700R4).

Best of all - a quiet passenger cabin and no more plug-ins during the winter!

I hope that 700R4 is built using the Corvette servo and all the good parts...500hp is a bit much for one of those that is stock. A 6.2 N/A diesel would shred those in 70,000 miles.

boneheaddoctor · #18 03-24-2005, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 240Demon

That Saturn Mileage is impressive...

I will admit I was thinking 1975 Caprice...

the Saturn on the DC to Pittsburgh run averages about 34mpg...due to the mountains and stretches of 2 lane roads....the jersey Turnpike has all those toll boths but its flat and your speed is fairly steady. THats the only long run I see those sort of numbers on milage...its close to 25mpg in heavily city/stop and go driving about 80% city and 20% highway...

Yeah that '75 caprice would get closer to 15 mpg on the highway....

I know the 1972 caprice my folks had years ago got about 14 on the highway....and the 1970 Hornet Wagon I had back in 1980 232 3-on the tree only got about 18 mpg (and it had only 34K miles then)

Gil · #19 03-24-2005, 11:28 AM

Bonehead -
Yeah, you're right about a stock 700R4 getting ripped to shreds. There are much beefier units of that transmission availble. Check out some of the offerings at http://www.phoenixtransmission.com to see what I'm talking about.

I know what you mean about the old caprices. I had a 74 Impala (same thing) with a 400 SBC that got around 12mpg, but boy that thing sounded great with glass packs

Primitive or not, it also went like a raped ape when you stepped on it.

boneheaddoctor · #20 03-24-2005, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gil

Bonehead -
Yeah, you're right about a stock 700R4 getting ripped to shreds. There are much beefier units of that transmission availble. Check out some of the offerings at http://www.phoenixtransmission.com to see what I'm talking about.

I know what you mean about the old caprices. I had a 74 Impala (same thing) with a 400 SBC that got around 12mpg, but boy that thing sounded great with glass packs

Primitive or not, it also went like a raped ape when you stepped on it.

The 700R4 can be built to handle respectible power.....but the key is they have to be built with that in mind. The Plus side is they need no computer....the 4L80 requires a stand alone computer to control shifts in a non-oem application. THat has kept me from doing that on my Truck...Oh how I wish that had an overdrive.

240Demon · #21 03-25-2005, 03:24 AM

I doubt your "raped ape" Impala ran anything better than a 17 when you "step on it"

I think its funny how people think that old muscle cars and the like are so fast...but in reality could get laid out by a Honda Civic with a B16A. ( I hate Hondas, but the facts don't lie)

Gil · #22 03-25-2005, 07:02 AM

First, I would never classify a 74 anything as a muscle car. Second, you assume too much and know too little about what I installed - it wasn't a totally stock 400. Just because a car is heavy doesn't mean it can't turn OK numbers, though I admit I never clocked it.

Finally, please stop trying to compare Japanese and European cars to "primative" american V8 power. Even though it's technically correct that the japs and euros are better engineered in some respects, so what? That doesn't always mean more power but it usually means more money.

Besides, whenever you hotrod a japansese car, it still often looks ridiculous and sound obnoxious, even if it is fast (too many are not). What's funnier still is when one of those "rice boys" totals their Honda's front wheel drive system down at the drag strip trying to compete with a primative American V8 - rear drive setup. The price you pay for looking "phat" I guess.

boneheaddoctor · #23 03-25-2005, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 240Demon

I doubt your "raped ape" Impala ran anything better than a 17 when you "step on it"

I think its funny how people think that old muscle cars and the like are so fast...but in reality could get laid out by a Honda Civic with a B16A. ( I hate Hondas, but the facts don't lie)

Lookat my Sig line....I got one of those hondas with a B16A1 thats built....

Old300D · #24 03-25-2005, 10:10 AM

What's most telling about the older American V8s is when they come up to Bandimere to drag race. They do ok, but most run in the 16-17 second range, same as the Hondas with engine swaps. Even the newer Mustangs barely run high 15s, and the LS1s and LT1s still run 15s with an occasional high 14. Good drivers can get another 1/2 to full second faster.

Now put on a turbo.

My 280Z with a stock factory turbo engine runs 12s with modest 15psi boost. Nobody suspects it. I love the look on the pimply-faced WS6 driver when I pull away from him at a light in my $hitbox Datsun.

boneheaddoctor · #25 03-25-2005, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old300D

What's most telling about the older American V8s is when they come up to Bandimere to drag race. They do ok, but most run in the 16-17 second range, same as the Hondas with engine swaps. Even the newer Mustangs barely run high 15s, and the LS1s and LT1s still run 15s with an occasional high 14. Good drivers can get another 1/2 to full second faster.

Now put on a turbo.

My 280Z with a stock factory turbo engine runs 12s with modest 15psi boost. Nobody suspects it. I love the look on the pimply-faced WS6 driver when I pull away from him at a light in my $hitbox Datsun.

I run a high 13...low 14 on my honda without a turbo. ( not enough experience to be very consistant however)

Old300D · #26 03-25-2005, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

I run a high 13...low 14 on my honda without a turbo. ( not enough experience to be very consistant however)

That's altitude for you, and it sounds like you are either very light or have a very well tuned engine.

boneheaddoctor · #27 03-25-2005, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old300D

That's altitude for you, and it sounds like you are either very light or have a very well tuned engine.

Low altitude and a combo of both of those.

In Denver I would doubt I could run those numbers

Old300D · #28 03-25-2005, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

Low altitude and a combo of both of those.

In Denver I would doubt I could run those numbers

I've not seen an N/A Honda with a B16 or B18 run into 14s unless stripped or highly modified. Turbo Hondas, on the other hand, have run into the 12s in street trim, provided they get grip and don't break an axle. Sometime even if they don't get grip. Can you say 12.5 @ 125??? Hehehe.

boneheaddoctor · #29 03-25-2005, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old300D

I've not seen an N/A Honda with a B16 or B18 run into 14s unless stripped or highly modified. Turbo Hondas, on the other hand, have run into the 12s in street trim, provided they get grip and don't break an axle. Sometime even if they don't get grip. Can you say 12.5 @ 125??? Hehehe.

Its pretty well modified..it isn't stock

M20 rocket motorsports cams...Skunk2 Type R intake, CAI, 65mm throttle body...4-1 header (w/ 2.5 Inch collector, 2.5 inch carsound cat (its street legal) 2.5 inch catback, Skunk2 adjustible cam gears, Outlaw engineering intake heat isolaters..

Trying to sell it becasue it draws too much attention from the cops with a rash of Teenage deaths due to stree racing around here.

And yes....traction is a BIG problem with street tires.

Gil · #30 03-25-2005, 02:15 PM

Big cars turning decent numbers? It can be done. I know someone who built a Buick GS station wagon. You read that right. It was never a factory car, but he made one from a 1972 buick Skylark wagon by shoehorning a bone-stock 455 Stage I in the engine bay. Same interior/exterior trim treatment, stock floor shifter, rally wheels, etc. The few mods were better tires and 3" pipes all the way back.

This 4000-plus pound car consistently ran 13.56 in NC weather and had the distinct pleasure of embarrassing many pimply faced kids (probably future teenage street-racing statistics). I only wish I could send along pictures - he sold the car a few years ago to a Honda owner - no joke.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Oil Additives	Bill Wood	Mercedes-Benz Performance Paddock	6	08-24-2011 10:53 AM
Weight on 617 engine components	Tirebiter	Diesel Discussion	10	03-22-2005 04:12 PM
240D Engine Weight	jseries	Diesel Discussion	2	12-23-2003 01:30 PM
Diesel Engine Break-in Mileage	Mercedes Man	Diesel Discussion	10	03-21-2002 11:57 PM