|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
16v stroker (2.6) owners and technicians!
My friend, Fred, and I dynoed the Bekkers 16v stroker kits and found the numbers quite disappointing. Do the W201 drivetrains lose a certain percentage over 15%? My car read 169.3 SAE NET HP (@ 6200 RPM) while Fred's was 157.4. Choosing that 15% loss, both our cars are just under 200 SAE HP. I thought Bekkers quoted their kit @ 235 as well as being compartive in bore and stroke to the evolution cars.
The only differences between our setup were 272 degree cam versus 256, stock 2.3 headers versus evo 2.5, and stock versus lightened flywheel. By his dyno and cam characteristics, one can tell that his car would 0-60 and quarter mile faster, but mine takes off around 5000 RPM. So for those master technicians that I know race their 16v and the countless other strokers out there, are these really rated below 200 SAE HP? Or are M-B drivetrain loses significantly more than 15%? Please advise. Thanks, Joel
__________________
92 W124 300TE -- new to the family 85 W460 300GD Biodiesel -- going and going 98 W210 E300 Biodiesel -- 200k and going 86 W201 190E 2.6 stroker 16V -- RIP http://www.190revolution.net Last edited by 190evol1; 08-17-2002 at 10:10 PM. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
FACTORS INVOLVED
There are too many factors involved in tuning a motor. I can take a wild bet that your fuel curve is off. If it is too rich you will lose HP, If it is too lean you will lose HP. also are your cams dailed in for the RPM range of the stroker kit and also compression is a major factor. Bekker's had their engine finely tuned before it went on the dyno. Some companies run a hair lean to bum up their HP figures. If you give me more info I can tell you what to expect.
Stroke: Rod Length: Piston Diameter Head Chamber CC Compression Ratio Camshaft timing Compression test results Transmission Gearing Rear End Gearing Tire Size and Diameter Weight of Vehicle
__________________
WARNING: Bastard Mercedes Builder/Tuner Sorry if I don't answer your email or questions I don't check here too often. I am normally on the 190revolution.net board. Thanks |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
Hi Speedtek,
Unfortunately, I am not running too lean (@14.3 A/F ratio), but it's not ideal. To answer some of your questions at the top of my head: 87.2 mm stroke 97 mm piston dia. 2576 cc 10.5:1 compression ratio camshaft spec's: 276 duration 11.1 mm valve lift (max) 2.7 mm valve lift (tdc) (on my way to get a compression reading) tranmission gearing (stock 16v getrag - don't remember of hand) 3.07 rear end 215/35-18 tire size (i attribute some loss to the large wheels) 3180 lbs for weight (estimated) mahalos!
__________________
92 W124 300TE -- new to the family 85 W460 300GD Biodiesel -- going and going 98 W210 E300 Biodiesel -- 200k and going 86 W201 190E 2.6 stroker 16V -- RIP http://www.190revolution.net Last edited by 190evol1; 08-17-2002 at 10:09 PM. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
dyno 16v
I would measure the drive train loss at 20%.
I believe that running 11 to 1 compression on the 276 cams would be more effiecient. Exhaust may have some effect too not knowing your size. It would also be good if you could get an A/F ratio per 1k RPM. also ignition timing. Since it is running slightly rich you could bump the timing 2 degrees more advanced to see what results would be. (what is the TOTAL advance now?) If you have adjustable cam gears on your car you could play with them to achieve more initial compression. Good luck! |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Here's what Tony @ Bekkers responded with:
Quote:
__________________
92 W124 300TE -- new to the family 85 W460 300GD Biodiesel -- going and going 98 W210 E300 Biodiesel -- 200k and going 86 W201 190E 2.6 stroker 16V -- RIP http://www.190revolution.net |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
FYI:
Model 2.3-16 2.5-16 Cylinder head intake ports 26 mm 28 mm Header pipe diameter 42 mm 55 mm (Primary and Secondary) Your headers, assuming that they are stock, are not helping you much!
__________________
Bernie 1986 190E 2.3-16 |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Thanks for the input Bernie,
However, if you check the dyno graph - the blue run is my friend's Fred. The major difference between our cars is the cam (as you can tell by the characteristics of the run) and the headers! Can you beleive it? There was no major difference in throughput with the 2.5 Evolution II headers!
__________________
92 W124 300TE -- new to the family 85 W460 300GD Biodiesel -- going and going 98 W210 E300 Biodiesel -- 200k and going 86 W201 190E 2.6 stroker 16V -- RIP http://www.190revolution.net |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
I see what you mean. Hard to believe though. I remember MBDOC mentioning in one of the threads that these cams produce most of its usable power at above 7,000 rpm. At this rev, you can expect decreased engine life.
From my research, I also found out that: Some differences btw 2.5-16 vs. Evo II Compression ratio: 9.7:1 vs 10.5:1 (you got this covered) Rear end: 3.27:1 vs. 3.46:1 Max. RPM: 7000 rpm vs. 7700 rpm Horsepower: 204/6750 vs. 235/7200 Torque: 240/5500 vs. 245/6000 Top speed: 147 mph vs. 155 mph 0 - 60 mph: 7.5 sec vs. 7.1 sec I got these figures from a British car magazine long time ago. It appears that in your dyno, you haven't reached the peak of your rpm range when you stopped. (or was it the stock rev limiter?). Being an owner of a 16v myself, I am routing for you guys to create the ultimate M3 killer. More power to you guys!
__________________
Bernie 1986 190E 2.3-16 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
AMG EVO II 2.5L-16V
Here are the engine specs from the racing version:
1992 AMG EVO II 190e Compression 11.8 to 1 (short track engine) Max RACE RPM 10,500 (10,800 is the absolute MAX) Valves Titanium Alloy - Very thin Tulip Camshaft Timing 310 HP During Qualifying 380 HP (shortens the life of the engine) During Race 335-350 HP The crankshaft was not fully counterweighted. The counterweights were very thin and strange looking. They looked like blades. I was told this was to reduce drag. Valves and rods are "thrown away" after 4 days of racing (2 weekends). recycled metal....I should have grabbed them! Another important note: Car weight 2180 lbs with driver 1/4 mile time 11.2 @ 135 mph 0-60 2.6 seconds Last edited by Speedtek; 08-28-2002 at 12:56 AM. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: AMG EVO II 2.5L-16V
Quote:
Less inertial mass requires less energy to rev up and down. this makes it easier/faster for the engine to get to the sweet spot in the powerband. It also helps the engine drop revs faster. This was all accomplishable because machining technology had gotten to the point where they were able to be far more precise and could afford to 1/2 the number of counterweights
__________________
'94 W124.036 249/040 leder; 8.25x17 EvoIIs '93 W124.036 199/040 leder; 8.25x17 EvoIIs, up in flames...LITERALLY! '93 W124.036 481/040 leder; euro delivery; 8.25x17 EvoIIs '88 R107.048 441/409 leder; Euro lights '87 W201.034 199/040 leder; Euro lights; EvoII brakes; 8x16 EvoIs - soon: 500E rear brakes '70 R113.044 050/526; factory alloys; Euro lights |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Wow! Those EVO II racecars were amazing!
But, how is an engine like that balanced when the counterweights are removed? Later,
__________________
87 190E EVO II Turbo |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
EVO II
The counterweights were not removed. They were just (4) odd shaped ones, instead of the normal (8). They looked more like a Medieval Axe blade. Then some of them had cookie bites in the counterweights for balancing. There was something also about crank harmonics that they were just discovering which is why bearings spin at high speeds. It seemed on a 4 cylinder motor the smoothness was not like a 6 or 8 and was very buzzy at high rpms with long stokes and big piston bores. So they did a lot of analysis on the crank and found that to be the culprit. The MB EVO II racing engine is very smooth it doesnt feel like a 4 cylinder. The BMW M3 EVO (4 cyl) engines felt very buzzy at high RPMs also you could tell by the pitch of the exhaust of the MB, The M3 was more raspy. The Benz had a super smooth sound for a 4 cyl.
I miss the EVO racing... |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Re: EVO II
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
92 W124 300TE -- new to the family 85 W460 300GD Biodiesel -- going and going 98 W210 E300 Biodiesel -- 200k and going 86 W201 190E 2.6 stroker 16V -- RIP http://www.190revolution.net |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Re: EVO II
Quote:
The Evos were also short stroked, oversquare engines. made it easier to gain revs and generated more power. Bekker's kit is a straight stroker.
__________________
'94 W124.036 249/040 leder; 8.25x17 EvoIIs '93 W124.036 199/040 leder; 8.25x17 EvoIIs, up in flames...LITERALLY! '93 W124.036 481/040 leder; euro delivery; 8.25x17 EvoIIs '88 R107.048 441/409 leder; Euro lights '87 W201.034 199/040 leder; Euro lights; EvoII brakes; 8x16 EvoIs - soon: 500E rear brakes '70 R113.044 050/526; factory alloys; Euro lights |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Joel
I recently put my '84 Euro model 2.3-16 on the dyno. You are developing quite a bit more power than my stock euro model. The Euro model has a 10.5 to compression ratio and new was rated at 185 H.P. Mine has 160,000 miles on it. My max power was 142.5 and max torque was 141.6. Using a 20% loss factor it is developing 178 HP. Not bad considering the mileage, that the car is 18 years old, and the valves can use adjusting. Peak power was between 4200 and 5000 RPM. One advantage my car has is its weight ... according to the EPA certification they weighed the car at 2,560 lbs. |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|