|
|
|
|
|
#1
05-18-2011, 03:08 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
M104 to M103 Head Comparison
I have been really wondering if the early M104 - 24 3.0 head can and will work on a M103 3.0. Check out the pic. There are only a few minor differences... i mean technically it would bolt up... But there is a whole in each gasket that is different. i don't remember off the top of my head what that hole corresponds to on the head itself. maybe someone can fill in the blanks. if its nothing big i would like to put one on my new m103 3.0! It would be like Mercedes Mini me version of Honda's D15 Mini me build (vtech head on non vtech block). This could make it possible to have an extra 40 horse and roughly 15 ft. lb. of torque on a non turbo'd m103!
|
|
#2
05-18-2011, 05:22 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
its an oil runner
__________________
Jay, ----------------- -1995 Blue W202 C36 AMG (M) SOLD ;( -1995 Black W140 S500 (Lady) -1992 Black W124 E300 (Dima) (Ex-Mosselman Twin turbo Kit). -1988 Black W124 300 E 4-Matic.(Nadeen) -1983 Brown W126 500SEL.(Old Lady)(Sold) -1981 Gold W123 280CE.(Dareen)(Sold) http://www.youtube.com/user/jayrasheed 
|
|
#4
05-18-2011, 11:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
You also have a different front drive. The M104's have a different top locating pin on the timing guide rail (which all has to be changed since M103's are simplex and M104's are duplex) as well as having a different oil routing for the timing chain tensioner.
__________________
1993 190E 2.6 Sportline
|
|
#6
09-03-2011, 02:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Still, eh... Not sure why you'd want to? Maybe the displacement?
No idea if the valves in the M103 hit the pistons in the 104. The front covers are different for the simplex vs duplex chains. The oil pumps and pans are also different. If you find a way to put an M103 head on it and make the simplex chain work on the duplex bottom end or make a duplex chain work on the simplex top end, go for it.
__________________
1993 190E 2.6 Sportline
|
|
#7
09-03-2011, 02:14 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Displacement and it has oil spray for cooling pistons.
|
|
#8
09-03-2011, 02:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'd bet it a lot simpler to just drop the 84mm stroke crank into the 103 block.
__________________
 90 300TE 4-M Turbo 103, T3/T04E 50 trim T04B cover .60 AR Stage 3 turbine .63 AR A2W I/C, 40 LB/HR MS2E, 60-2 Direct Coil Control 3" Exh, AEM W/B O2 Underdrive Alt. and P/S Pulleys, Vented Rear Discs, .034 Booster. 3.07 diffs 1st Gear Start 90 300CE 104.980 Milled & ported head, 10.3:1 compression 197° intake cam w/20° advancer Tuned CIS ECU 4° ignition advance PCS TCM2000, built 722.6 600W networked suction fan Sportline sway bars V8 rear subframe, Quaife ATB 3.06 diff
|
|
#9
09-03-2011, 03:15 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Actually, this oil spray for pistons was the reason(because of turbo) and in the bigger picture OM603 crank, which i have understood doesn't fit into m103.
|
|
#10
09-03-2011, 03:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Along similar lines. There's another user on here that took the M103-24V intake,CIS,head, harness etc and bolted it to a C36 amg block. That's what I'm going for. I'm just a sucker for N/A.
__________________
http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z...-RESIZED-1.jpg 1991 300E - 212K and rising fast...
|
|
#11
09-04-2011, 12:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not all 104s have oilers, and most 103 blocks have all of the oiler machine work minus the threads and hole to the galley. The 103 block can support the 92mm crank with the proper rods and pistons. In stock bore I believe this nets 3.4L. There is speculation that this combo leads to an unfavorable bore to stroke ratio. Regardless a 3.4L 103 engine would be really sweet. There is also the option of using the 84mm crank to net a 3.1L with the stock bore in the 103. If I were to seriously consider building a turbo'd stroker for a hot street engine, that's probably the avenue I'd pursue.
__________________
90 300TE 4-M Turbo 103, T3/T04E 50 trim T04B cover .60 AR Stage 3 turbine .63 AR A2W I/C, 40 LB/HR MS2E, 60-2 Direct Coil Control 3" Exh, AEM W/B O2 Underdrive Alt. and P/S Pulleys, Vented Rear Discs, .034 Booster. 3.07 diffs 1st Gear Start 90 300CE 104.980 Milled & ported head, 10.3:1 compression 197° intake cam w/20° advancer Tuned CIS ECU 4° ignition advance PCS TCM2000, built 722.6 600W networked suction fan Sportline sway bars V8 rear subframe, Quaife ATB 3.06 diff
|
|
#12
09-04-2011, 12:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
This. The cradle where the crank is carried is exactly the same M103 or M104.
With the 92mm crank, it's not the bore to stoke ratio that's the issue. Hell, it's still relatively square at that bore/stroke. IMO, the dilemma is the pathetic rod/stroke ratio you'd have to run with that crank. You've only got 217.625mm to deal with on deck height. Take out the 46mm for the distance from centerline to centerline of the crank and 145mm for the standard 6cyl rod (sans 2.8 M104) and you're only dealing with 28.625mm for a compression height. So... Long story short, you get a poor 1.57 rod/stroke ratio with a itty bitty compression height. Oh yeah, you've also got a ton of weight to grind out of that crank to even get it into the ballpark of the other 6cyl gasser cranks.
__________________
1993 190E 2.6 Sportline
|
|
#13
09-04-2011, 06:56 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
But with regards to the 3.6 m104 just look at the c36 engine. It revs free and true all
The way to 7000rpm. It makes makes max hp at just abt 6000 and then by 6600 power drop is less than 10 hp. So it obvious that the rod to stroke ratio isn't killing the engine. And mind u this engine makes 220lbft at just abt 1500 rpm. Almost v8 power. And trust me it feels more torquy than the 4.3 v8
__________________
Jay, ----------------- -1995 Blue W202 C36 AMG (M) SOLD ;( -1995 Black W140 S500 (Lady) -1992 Black W124 E300 (Dima) (Ex-Mosselman Twin turbo Kit). -1988 Black W124 300 E 4-Matic.(Nadeen) -1983 Brown W126 500SEL.(Old Lady)(Sold) -1981 Gold W123 280CE.(Dareen)(Sold) http://www.youtube.com/user/jayrasheed
|
|
#14
09-04-2011, 09:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Doesn't that engine have the slightly longer 2.8 rods that brings the rod ratio up to about 1.6 to 1? (I don't have the exact numbers in front of me but I think it's about 154 mm or 5.875" long.) Still not great, but at least slightly better than 1.57 to 1!
Regards, Eric
__________________
89 300E "Benzer1" 15.924 Uncorrected 93 400E "Benzer3" 14.200 U.C. 95 E420 "Benzer4" 92 300E "Benzer5" 16.299 U.C. Future turbo CNG 87 300D "Benzer7" 87 300D "Benzer8" 87 300D "Benzer9" 87 300D/70 AMC Javelin "Sidewinder-Benzer" 87 300TD "Benzer11" 06 E320 CDI "Benzer12" 05 E320 CDI "Benzer12A" 71 AMC Javelin AMX 401 "Sidewinder" 74 AMC Hornet 401 "C.K.10" 13.63 U.C. 74 Bricklin SV1 "Presto" AMC 360 pwrd. Last edited by 400Eric; 09-04-2011 at 10:09 AM.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
