birth of another C55

[98c43amg]

The conversion is happening. My C4.3L motor came out yetsterday (I actually feel sad & guilty). 5.4L is to go in today. I took a lot of pics; though the wife has the digital camera on her trip so I had to use our APS camera. Will have it developed to a CD.

Carl (coolcarlskic43) couldn't have been more correct. He set me up with a great guy to do it. The whole krew is a pisser; lots of euro tuner talent and "enthusiasm" (haven't seen a pissing contest to that degree about who's car can kick who's ass for about 20 years, but with wads of cash this time! :D ... though I figure that was answered in the wee hours of the morning after the work was done ). more to come. :cool:

[Under Pressure]

Nice. A few years ago (before E55 motors became more available) the cool W202 thing to do was forced induction. THis is definitely going to be the new hotness!

[albanianbenz]

about how much does the labor of this swap run, if I send it to same guy doing yours?

I assume all the parts cost around $8k

[98c43amg]

It's Done ... And it's more then I could have imagined!

Right after restart, there was a "scarry" bunch of minutes (to me at least) with all the clanking coming out of the engine. After all, it had a complete valve job, so there was some concern in the back of my mind that not everything went together perfectly. But I was assured the lifters were so dry, it would take some time for it to "lube up". And that's what happened.

I let Jeff, the guy who did the work, have 1st crack at behind the wheel. Picture this -- a man who owns a turbo'ed C36 (used to be dual turbo measured @ 450hp @ the wheels, now one big honk'n turbo), who's no stranger to run'n it out and a good street race here and there -- exclaiming very enthusiastically saying things to the effect of "holy shit man, this car is fast ... this car can run..." (with three people in the car too). I'm not say'n my car's compared to his. But the fact that my car can impress a guy like that ... I'm freak'n on cloud nine.

Stock exhaust, Stock chip (on RON93 ignition retard), and it rips -- low milage engine with a good valve job making a lot of compression has a lot to do with it I'm told. I'm kind'a sorry I dished out the dough for chip'n it (wheels are in motion and I already paid 100%). But Carl and Jeff think I'll still get more out of it.

To answer, he spent I'd say, 20 hours on my job (25 - 30?). However realize, mine was in a fire, had crap throughout the cooling system so needed a few hours work to flush it clean; water and crap in the heads and some cylinders, so hours with that, had a valve job so was broken down to the point before removing the rods from the crank, then rebuilt , and needed =every= external part transfered from my C43 motor to the E55 motor (I basically got a long block with problems). Carl's job was more like 10 - 12 hrs I believe (not counting the post install problems they encountered due to the one of the cam's timing being off and the resolution of that).

I'm not going to estimate any cost though as every job is unique; I might owe Jeff more for the extra work he didn't expect with the original quote. But those are the hours. You should be able to get an engine from $5000 - $10000. The hourly or job rate to install. Plus ancillary parts that wear that you don't want to re-use on the new replacement, then plugs, fluids, etc.

I can't imagine a better man to do the job however.
:bunny:

[coolcarlskic43]

It's just amazing just how fast Steve's car feels.I'd swear it feels a tad quicker than mines. Yep Steve's car is a real beast so now I understand that there are now four w202's in the US with the 5.4L motors installed and Jeff is now the builder of two of them.

Congratulations Steve!

I knew you'd love it.

[98c43amg]

Thanx for everything Carl. :D
I still think your car feels more like a locomotive when it hits second. The RON93 setting I'm running just makes it jump off the line a bit more. Amazing how close the two cars are tho. (for all those reading, Carl and I played a bit. when we both sync'ed up a good launch for about a 3/16th mile run, the two were absolutely neck & neck) I kinda think if we ran it out through 4th you'd have me. I Gotta go for a dyno!

Jeff ... I'm die'n for that suspension! :cool:

[coolcarlskic43]

Originally posted by 98c43amg
Thanx for everything Carl. :D
I still think your car feels more like a locomotive when it hits second. The RON93 setting I'm running just makes it jump off the line a bit more. Amazing how close the two cars are tho. (for all those reading, Carl and I played a bit. when we both sync'ed up a good launch for about a 3/16th mile run, the two were absolutely neck & neck) I kinda think if we ran it out through 4th you'd have me. I Gotta go for a dyno!

Jeff ... I'm die'n for that suspension! :cool: Steve I'm going to ask jeffrey to set my car up for RON 93 and see what happens.I belive even though the chip is modded the car should still compensate.I was truly surprised at how your car ran with the Stck C43 computer.Jeff says he's almost sure the files are pretty much the same other than a few things lie the traction control etc.Also the yr motor that you have I think has 11 to 1 compression vs my 10:5 to 1 . I swear I woke up this morning just thinking about how fast your car is. I may have a very slight edge up top but when you get the software upgrade and exhaust done I think I'lll be asking for trouble.Good Job by Jeffrey and of course yourself!

[J Irwan]

wow.. nice.


and the two of you live in the same area...



need to start racing for pink slip :p ;)



It would be awesome if the two of you playing with the badge-reengineering..
badging the car with 230K and the one with C280 LMAO :D:D:D


You can tottally smoke a lot of ricer out there, and they won't even know what hit'em



Regardz,

[98c43amg]

Originally posted by 98c43amg
You should be able to get an engine from $5000 - $10000. The hourly or job rate to install. Plus ancillary parts that wear that you don't want to re-use on the new replacement, then plugs, fluids, etc.

For those very interested, I got the final Grand Total for =everything= [engine, shipping, labor, valve job, rebuild, parts, fluids, etc.] ... just a bit shy of $11K. I'm fine with that considering I can still get more by SC'ing it if this becomes tired or I want more, but if I SC'ed the 4.3L , that would have been it.
:cool:
I know where there are two more E55 motors (one asking $10K, another $12K) if they were not sold (maybe three actually). Lemme know if you want me to dig up their contact info.

Personally, I don't know why Norman's white C43 > C55 conversion in SoCal hasn't sold ... and why he has to keep dropping the price. At the current price, it's a frigg'n steal (if perf is anything like mine & Carl's).

[98c43amg]

Originally posted by J Irwan
It would be awesome if the two of you playing with the badge-reengineering.. badging the car with 230K and the one with C280 LMAO :D:D:D You can tottally smoke a lot of ricer out there, and they won't even know what hit'em

:p hehe... well, I don't know if I'll go that far, but I'm taking Carl's approach and instead of my first thought of putting C55 badges on it, I'm keeping the C43 badges on it.

thanx much.

[Ashkan's C280]

no one is buying it because people just don't buy modded cars, whether they don't trust the modding done, or they just want a stock car, a modded car has a very limited market, so good luck with that....

[coolcarlskic43]

Originally posted by Ashkan's C280
no one is buying it because people just don't buy modded cars, whether they don't trust the modding done, or they just want a stock car, a modded car has a very limited market, so good luck with that.... In a way I can agree with you but your comment is way too general.I think it mainly depends on the car.There are plenty of modded Japanese cars that sell very well.Shall I name them? ;) I've seen many a modded Porsche(911,944T) and BMW's get sold as well.;)

[98c43amg]

Originally posted by Ashkan's C280
....so good luck with that....

Good answer, but why the helll did you end it like that...? ruined the whole thing.

I'm not the one selling it ... I don't need the luck ... and it's a sarcastic, confrontational thing to say whether I was or not ... No wonder people jump on your ass when you post. And here I thought Club202.com had a "no a-holes" policy. :ermm:

[Renn 208]

Originally posted by 98c43amg
And here I thought Club202.com had a "no a-holes" policy. :ermm:

Not a policy per se, but something we always work towards...unfortunately, this be the internet and people will always comment however they want.

[coolcarlskic43]

OK lets get back on topic. About that w202 C43 to C55 conversion.........:cool:

[98c43amg]

Originally posted by Renn 208
Not a policy per se, but something we always work towards... I didn't mean for it to be taken seriously :P ... was just being facetious.

[kameraguy]

Man you NY guys don't mess around!! This sounds awesome :)

Can you post up some pics? So there should be like THREE w202 C55s??? That would be a most impressive shot!!

Congrats man, sounds like an awesome come back for your 202 :)

[Renn 208]

Originally posted by 98c43amg
I didn't mean for it to be taken seriously :P ... was just being facetious.

so was I... you have to forgive my dry British humor:p

(disclaimer: I am neither British, nor humorous)

Anyway, back to topic...ECU issues aside, what would you guys do differently if you were to go through the process again?

[J Irwan]

With all the east coast club202'er having fun with the big displacement...

where are you west cost club202'er , you guys should start playing with high-boost on those 3.6L .... :p
you know who you are :D :D :D



Regardz,

[98c43amg]

Originally posted by Renn 208
so was I... you have to forgive my dry British humor:p
(disclaimer: I am neither British, nor humorous) That's funny. You did a good job at "dry"... wasn't sure.
Anyway, back to topic...ECU issues aside, what would you guys do differently if you were to go through the process again? I'm real happy. Nothing on my end, is my thought. Even with the work the motor needed, it sill came in thousands less then if I bought a 5.4L motor @ the typical amount salvage yards hold out for. However, I reserve the right to have another opinion later, as I haven't picked the car up yet ; just drove it about a 1/2 hour after the job was done.

[98c43amg]

Originally posted by kameraguy
Man you NY guys don't mess around!! This sounds awesome :)
Can you post up some pics? So there should be like THREE w202 C55s??? That would be a most impressive shot!!
Congrats man, sounds like an awesome come back for your 202 :)

I'd hop in the Jeep and go to Ekerds and get the pix, but I fear they'll be closed. I'll pick up the pix (on CD) tomorrow.

Only two C55's here in LI. Carl believes there are four in the nation. Ours, MB Auto Werks', and Norman in SoCal.

Last night after the job was done, my car was next to Carl's in front of Jeffrey's house, 90 degrees to the curb. That would have made a great pic (night tho, with an APS camera :( ), but I forgot; plus had used the roll I had loaded.

Ya, come-back is a good way of putting it. Over the years, I was sure I was going to be an M3 owner, or S4 owner or RS6 owner (or RS4 if it had come sooner) or CTS-V owner ... much cheaper this way tho with equal or better perf compared to that list. Especially after application of the speedybenz suspension that should be ready any day now. (hint hint :p jeff, you read'n this ;) )

BTW, I haven't touched upon this until now, but let me make mention. I'm very pleasantly surprise at the C43's stock AMG exhaust ... I would have thought it would have caused serious reduction in performance, especially in that the E55 has complete dual exhaust, but the car rips with it anyway.

[98c43amg]

Originally posted by J Irwan
you guys should start playing with high-boost on those 3.6L .... :p you know who you are :D :D :D Actually, Jeffrey, the guy who did the install is one of them. His car used to be dual turbo, but is single turbo now. from him, high boost goes with high heat in the heads leading to burnt gaskets... even with an upgraded cooling system.

[coolcarlskic43]

Originally posted by 98c43amg


BTW, I haven't touched upon this until now, but let me make mention. I'm very pleasantly surprise at the C43's stock AMG exhaust ... I would have thought it would have caused serious reduction in performance, especially in that the E55 has complete dual exhaust, but the car rips with it anyway. The W210 E55 and the C43 share the same exhaust setup.2 downpipes w/2cats each going into 1 resonator with 1 pipe leaving the resonator going into the exhaust pan.i'm pleasantly surprised as well withthe way your car runs with the stck exhaust.

[coolcarlskic43]

Originally posted by J Irwan
With all the east coast club202'er having fun with the big displacement...

where are you west cost club202'er , you guys should start playing with high-boost on those 3.6L .... :p
you know who you are :D :D :D



Regardz, You guys have more W210 E55's over there than we have over here on the East Coast so I hope you guys start getting with it over there.

[98c43amg]

Originally posted by coolcarlskic43
The W210 E55 and the C43 share the same exhaust setup.2 downpipes w/2cats each going into 1 resonator with 1 pipe leaving the resonator going into the exhaust pan.i'm pleasantly surprised as well withthe way your car runs with the stck exhaust. oh, that's news to me. I thought it was true dual all the way front to back. Thanx.

[coolcarlskic43]

Originally posted by 98c43amg
oh, that's news to me. I thought it was true dual all the way front to back. Thanx. Nope! Not after the pipes hit the resonator.

[Under Pressure]

My call is that these two C55's are the heavy hitters of club202.

Like J Irwan said, you Cali guys (who have ruled this site so long) need to step up to the plate. Less show, more go. Think "high pressure forced induction." Its sort of affordable if you get a smaller (but qualified) shop to do it. I want to see a twin turbo'd C43 making at least 13psi (which I believe is very realistic and easy to do). If I had the money, as a college student, to turbo my old C220, one of you baller C43 guys has the money to do the same.

[Renn 208]

Originally posted by Under Pressure
My call is that these two C55's are the heavy hitters of club202.

Like J Irwan said, you Cali guys (who have ruled this site so long) need to step up to the plate. Less show, more go.

ahem,

http://www.club202.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6948

http://www.jrentech.net/benz/willow/mini-DSC01310.JPG

http://www.jrentech.net/benz/ry/G4R2980.JPG

:cool:

hehe, nothing like a little East Coast/West Coast rivalry to keep things going:D

[98c43amg]

Originally posted by Renn 208
ahem,
http://www.club202.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6948
:cool:
hehe, nothing like a little East Coast/West Coast rivalry to keep things going:D

Oh man ... a glimps of "Part II" ? ... YES! :p :p :p (tho I know that's not speedybenz in the 2nd pic; who is it?)

But don't forget, the West Coast master you're referring to is supplying this East Coaster with the goods... :D (and my motor came from the West Coast too)

[coolcarlskic43]

Well we've got the fastest w202 C55 on the east coast(Donnie "benzmac" of MBautowerkes) and you guys have the best handling w202 C43(Jeff "Speedybenz").We have 3 W202 C55's and you guys have 1:D

[Renn 208]

Originally posted by coolcarlskic43
Well we've got the fastest w202 C55 on the east coast(Donnie "benzmac" of MBautowerkes) and you guys have the best handling w202 C43(Jeff "Speedybenz").We have 3 W202 C55's and you guys have 1:D

You guys can keep the 1/4 mile as long as we get to own all of the road courses;)

[98c43amg]

Originally posted by Renn 208
You guys can keep the 1/4 mile as long as we get to own all of the road courses;) I don't want to comment as that might risk my impending shipment from Jeff to get "lost in transit"... :p ;) (speedybenz Jeff, not the Jeff that did the swap)

[kameraguy]

Originally posted by J Irwan
With all the east coast club202'er having fun with the big displacement...

where are you west cost club202'er , you guys should start playing with high-boost on those 3.6L .... :p
you know who you are :D :D :D



Regardz,

Hmmmm...

Well, to be honest, if I had the spare cash, i'd strongly consider the 5,4 motor swap....or even a 4,3 swap since those engines are getting pulled out like they are out of style :p

....but IF I had the spare cash!!! :(

Actually....what IS happening to those 4,3 motors? How much do they go for?

[98c43amg]

Originally posted by kameraguy
Actually....what IS happening to those 4,3 motors? How much do they go for? There's two of them sitting in a garage in Freeport NY (LI). :)

Click here for Carl's (http://www.club202.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5977) (almost 1500 views!)

I haven't listed mine yet, as I was considering giving the long-block to a fabricator to have him build me an adapter plate so I can mate the M113 engine to a Getrag S6S 420G or 226 tranni (6-speed tranni used on the BMW 5-series past and present) ... However Jeff (M., not speedybenz) has probably talked me out of it. I need to spend some time behind the wheel to decide.

Carl's engine is more complete. My engine will be sold as a bare long-block.

[NISMOPOWERED]

So when is someone going to build a C65?!?

[98c43amg]

Originally posted by NISMOPOWERED
So when is someone going to build a C65?!? :werd: ...but it's not "plug & play" like the NA 5.4L swap.

[speedybenz]

Lots of motor is a great thing if you can get the power to the ground. Look at the squareness and how flat those tires are to the pavement. The Chassis is were its at!! A fast motor at the track is a second or maybe two on the lap time, but keeping the tires all working evenly and the ability to carry more corner speed is the key to a really fast and consistant lap time.

By the way that is a Lotus Elise behind me that is very modded and although is car was slightly faster in a straight line I was smoking him on the brakes. Ha Ha Ha.

http://www.joeyandmona.com/albums/speedybenz-c43/P6060001.sized.jpg

[J Irwan]

Originally posted by speedybenz
Lots of motor is a great thing if you can get the power to the ground. Look at the squareness and how flat those tires are to the pavement. The Chassis is were its at!! A fast motor at the track is a second or maybe two on the lap time, but keeping the tires all working evenly and the ability to carry more corner speed is the key to a really fast and consistant lap time.

By the way that is a Lotus Elise behind me that is very modded and although is car was slightly faster in a straight line I was smoking him on the brakes. Ha Ha Ha.

http://www.joeyandmona.com/albums/speedybenz-c43/P6060001.sized.jpg


nice pic (btw I like your front grill :D)..


wow what is your front camber ? The photo looks mean...


Regardz,

[Denlasoul]

Originally posted by speedybenz
http://www.joeyandmona.com/albums/speedybenz-c43/P6060001.sized.jpg
What a stance!!! :drool:

[coolcarlskic43]

Originally posted by speedybenz
Lots of motor is a great thing if you can get the power to the ground. Look at the squareness and how flat those tires are to the pavement. The Chassis is were its at!! A fast motor at the track is a second or maybe two on the lap time, but keeping the tires all working evenly and the ability to carry more corner speed is the key to a really fast and consistant lap time.

By the way that is a Lotus Elise behind me that is very modded and although is car was slightly faster in a straight line I was smoking him on the brakes. Ha Ha Ha.

http://www.joeyandmona.com/albums/speedybenz-c43/P6060001.sized.jpg Nice pic! By the way,what's the deal with the phenolic spacer's?Do you have any available to sell?

[98c43amg]

... I think you have a new homepage image to add the CFade Applet on speedybnz.com! ...oh, never mind, I see it's already there!


Originally posted by speedybenz
Lots of motor is a great thing if you can get the power to the ground. Look at the squareness and how flat those tires are to the pavement. The Chassis is were its at!! A fast motor at the track is a second or maybe two on the lap time, but keeping the tires all working evenly and the ability to carry more corner speed is the key to a really fast and consistant lap time.

But you can have both... ;) I was going to say yesterday that it'll now be your turn to come out here and check out my car ... but I realized, where you gunna drive it like you're used to?! ...plus, the car'll need some suspension work before that so as not to embarass itself!

I bet that Lotus owner is feaverishly working on that ride trying to correct for that embarassment. :p

BTW, how far do you drive for track meets?

[speedybenz]

Yes, Steve you can have both and I hope to see your car with both very soon. Penske should be here shortly and then all will be well in the Eatons Neck part of the World.:cool:

Just trying to heat up the East-West Competition

Jeff

[98c43amg]

Originally posted by speedybenz
Yes, Steve you can have both and I hope to see your car with both very soon. Penske should be here shortly and then all will be well in the Eatons Neck part of the World.:cool: oh ... bless your heart! Exactly what I needed to hear! :D

Originally posted by speedybenz
Just trying to heat up the East-West Competition
Jeff ya, but I know my place in the world... :cheek: as a man with a big gun who enjoyed having his day made once said "a man's got to know his limitations". :p Great hear'n from ya.

[Josh R]

Watch this happen, I'm taking a 112 2.8, giving it some help and the 112 will make more useable whp than a 202 C55, and it will get better gas mileage. That's gonna heat things up alot wouldn't you agree?:D

[Renn 208]

Originally posted by Josh R
Watch this happen, I'm taking a 112 2.8, giving it some help and the 112 will make more useable whp than a 202 C55, and it will get better gas mileage. That's gonna heat things up alot wouldn't you agree?:D

Prove it!:cool:

[98c43amg]

Originally posted by Josh R
Watch this happen, I'm taking a 112 2.8, giving it some help and the 112 will make more useable whp than a 202 C55, and it will get better gas mileage. That's gonna heat things up alot wouldn't you agree?:D ... you mean like overheat the heads, burn the gaskets and overload the cooling system ... yes I agree. :rambo: :p

[98c43amg]

Carl ... this has been a few days of extremes. I just went from total exuberance to "eh, it works".

Guess what ... I just got your message tonight. I was actually thinking the same thing. I didn't know you were too. Against my gut feeling though, I let Tonino do the reprogramming of my ECU (I couldn't be there), and guess what .... You got it! It lost all of its luster. :mad:

It's no longer a torque monster. There's a delay to movement of the foot pedal. And when it runs, it just doesn't run as hard ... It thinks about applying the torque while the RPM is rising, instead of being 100% on from the split second you punch the trottle. At least if it had the "locomotive" feeling in second I've been saying you car has ... but it doesn't have that either. At least a plus for you ... I =know= your car would take mine now if we ran them again...

I'm frig'n pissed! :angry:

I feel like a heal for not leaving well enought alone (my wife's say'n "you always gotta go one step too far... you can't leave well enought alone once you're happy") ... and I'm frigg'n pissed at myself that I didn't check my cell phone and listen to that message where you told me to hold off chip'n it until I do a dyno run first... because I was thinking the same thing and if I would have heard your message that would have settled it for me. I'd have held off. ....Frigg'n PISSED @ myself!
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

There's one thing I can hope for... That I ask Jeff to put my car on the Star Diagnosis System of his ; I'm willing to bet it's no longer on RON93. After he set is, I have high hopes that the car will go back to the way it was ... (also make'n the $800 spent on the Superchip'n a waste :( )

[98c43amg]

on a positive note, the new motor mounts fixes a whole lot'a weird things my car was doin... I'm going to post a new topic on the subject.

[98c43amg]

PIX ARE UP! (http://public.fotki.com/m8o/kar_krazy/birth_of_my_c55_amg/)

I didn't take pix of the motor going in because it's basically the same as it coming out, just in reverse! :p

[JonC43]

Those are incredible pix. I was always wondering what the internals looked like. I owe you for the education.

[jnolte]

whoa that C36 with the phatty turbo is crazy!

[c280nz]

Nice swap man.
:-o i need to know more about that c36t.
what sortof setup is he running on the comp/injection side of things, it the biggest point of contraversy

[mambo]

Very nice C55, what sort of times are you guys getting 0-100kmph?

[Under Pressure]

The swap was done under a tent at someone's house? I thouhght you would need all sorts of expensive diagnostic machines and what not following the swap to do proper tuning that only a shop would likely have.

Also, what kind of wheels does your C55 have? I had trouble making them out and I thought I knew every wheel on the market.

Finally, can you please have the owner of the turbo C36 join this site. As a previous owner of one, I have a thing for Mercedes' with turbo kits.

[J Irwan]

Originally posted by Under Pressure
The swap was done under a tent at someone's house? I thouhght you would need all sorts of expensive diagnostic machines and what not following the swap to do proper tuning that only a shop would likely have.

Also, what kind of wheels does your C55 have? I had trouble making them out and I thought I knew every wheel on the market.

Finally, can you please have the owner of the turbo C36 join this site. As a previous owner of one, I have a thing for Mercedes' with turbo kits.

Looks like it a kinesis wheel I am sure of it, but I am not sure which one , I can only tell it's k50 series.


Regardz,

[98c43amg]

I'll answer a bunch of posts @ once...

:p The guy doing the swap (with the blue shirt you see kneeling on top of the motor at times) owns HIS OWN Mercedes Star Diagnosis Computer... He's a head mechanic @ that Mercedes Dealership here on LI that owns the 1st SLR off the assembly line, Rallye Motors. He works the night shift & 4 days a week. ...niiiiice..... time for jobs like this.

Yes, Kinesis K58 (18") ... not K58r :( which is a smooth lip giving a deeper look. What I wanted was K28r, but new would have been about $3000 more. They were bought from a chap through this board. dunno off hand but a search will answer that. They're =really= beat up. Badly stained centers. Thinking of painting them. Came with bad road rash, but I knew that . I spent hours grinding, sanding,polishing the rims lip's edge and did a great job. The wife hit two curbs over one week -- once parking once driving -- making me now =have= to change the lips on at least one. Will probably do them all. They were beat up, but I'm sick of spending thousand and thousands on nice rims and having them bend on me ... so I thought I'd go this route for a fraction of the cost; yet I can change out what get damaged since they're 3-piece.

I don't think Jeff is very into the computer thing (he used his wife's account to exchange a few e-mails with me, and he probably wasn't even the one sitting there typing it ;) ) or has the time with all the side work he does... owning your own Star Diagnosis Computer can be a good thing.

No measurements yet. Will do though, I promise.

The last pic in my gallery is of the =Dual= Turbo he took out of the car. One of the guys in the pics is taking them.

I'll ask him about technicals, if Carl can't answer them himself.

l8r,
Steve

[98c43amg]

Originally posted by JonC43
Those are incredible pix. I was always wondering what the internals looked like. I owe you for the education.

BTW, Those are actually the lower res preview pix. I'm going to replace them all with higher-res versions... They're in TIF now and I didn't want to get involved with a batch conversion of all of them late last night, so will do tonight.

[714guy]

Wow, Sick cars, you NY guys know how to do it. Wish i could afford that stuff.

Can you Ask Jeff (MB tech) where he got the Exhuast manifold flanges for his turbo manifold?? Do you have any more pictures of his Single Turbo manifold??

Thanks.

[98c43amg]

Originally posted by 714guy
Wow, Sick cars, you NY guys know how to do it. Wish i could afford that stuff.

Can you Ask Jeff (MB tech) where he got the Exhuast manifold flanges for his turbo manifold?? Do you have any more pictures of his Single Turbo manifold??

Thanks.

Manifold (should I assume the flanges too?) was 100% hand fabricated by a local fabricator. I know that because I was thinking of giving my "spare" engine to the same guy to fabricate an adapter plate b'twn the M113 engine and a Getrag 6-speed manual transmission.

no more pix. I'll work on the contrast/brightness of the higher-res versions of the pics to try to bring it out more.

-steve

[coolcarlskic43]

Originally posted by 98c43amg
Carl ... this has been a few days of extremes. I just went from total exuberance to "eh, it works".

Guess what ... I just got your message tonight. I was actually thinking the same thing. I didn't know you were too. Against my gut feeling though, I let Tonino do the reprogramming of my ECU (I couldn't be there), and guess what .... You got it! It lost all of its luster. :mad:

It's no longer a torque monster. There's a delay to movement of the foot pedal. And when it runs, it just doesn't run as hard ... It thinks about applying the torque while the RPM is rising, instead of being 100% on from the split second you punch the trottle. At least if it had the "locomotive" feeling in second I've been saying you car has ... but it doesn't have that either. At least a plus for you ... I =know= your car would take mine now if we ran them again...

I'm frig'n pissed! :angry:

I feel like a heal for not leaving well enought alone (my wife's say'n "you always gotta go one step too far... you can't leave well enought alone once you're happy") ... and I'm frigg'n pissed at myself that I didn't check my cell phone and listen to that message where you told me to hold off chip'n it until I do a dyno run first... because I was thinking the same thing and if I would have heard your message that would have settled it for me. I'd have held off. ....Frigg'n PISSED @ myself!
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

There's one thing I can hope for... That I ask Jeff to put my car on the Star Diagnosis System of his ; I'm willing to bet it's no longer on RON93. After he set is, I have high hopes that the car will go back to the way it was ... (also make'n the $800 spent on the Superchip'n a waste :( ) Steve this is what I would do.Ask Tonino to put your C43 file back in the ECU.Set it back to Ron 93 and then test drive it.If it still feels slow then that means the mass probably got screwed up by all the oil that was placed on the K&N filters.If the original C43 program and Ron 93 settings has the car feeling like the first night it was on the road,then the mass is fine and Tonino needs to get off his ass and check the files.If it's the same or similar file that I have now the car is supposed to run mean.I noticed it right away and so did you remember!

[Josh R]

Originally posted by 98c43amg
... you mean like overheat the heads, burn the gaskets and overload the cooling system ... yes I agree. :rambo: :p

On the contrary it's called "Boost" bottle feeding is for sissy's. When I get done in a few weeks we can do a dyno shootout, you pick your favorite place and I'll do mine here, and I'll put mine on video for you.. East meets West :D

[714guy]

Originally posted by Josh R
On the contrary it's called "Boost" bottle feeding is for sissy's. When I get done in a few weeks we can do a dyno shootout, you pick your favorite place and I'll do mine here, and I'll put mine on video for you.. East meets West :D

Are you fabricating your own manifold?? I need to check it out. Whats your address to your place, i want to swing by sometime to check it out if thats cool. What are the shop hours??

Thanks

[98c43amg]

Originally posted by Josh R
On the contrary it's called "Boost" bottle feeding is for sissy's. When I get done in a few weeks we can do a dyno shootout, you pick your favorite place and I'll do mine here, and I'll put mine on video for you.. East meets West :D Momma didn't raise no fool ... :rolleyes: ...apples to oranges. With a NA engine, there's little to "dial-in" if the chip's map runs near max. You have what you have [or built]. With a boosted motor one can always dial it up for tests but turn it down for longevity. (why the hell am I even responding to this?)

Of course I'll post my results, but I'm expecting it'll be under 300hp/320trq @ the wheels. I certainly hope you do better if you're going through that effort. [!]

BTW, what are you doing it to? Does it have electronic shifting or vacuum activated shifting in the tranni?

[what made you think I was referring to NOS?]

[coolcarlskic43]

Originally posted by Josh R
On the contrary it's called "Boost" bottle feeding is for sissy's. When I get done in a few weeks we can do a dyno shootout, you pick your favorite place and I'll do mine here, and I'll put mine on video for you.. East meets West :D Let's be fair now.We are talking about all motor here!:cool: If we go F/I watch out!!!!

[98c43amg]

Originally posted by coolcarlskic43
Steve this is what I would do.Ask Tonino to put your C43 file back in the ECU.Set it back to Ron 93 and then test drive it.If it still feels slow then that means the mass probably got screwed up by all the oil that was placed on the K&N filters.If the original C43 program and Ron 93 settings has the car feeling like the first night it was on the road,then the mass is fine and Tonino needs to get off his ass and check the files.If it's the same or similar file that I have now the car is supposed to run mean.I noticed it right away and so did you remember!

Ya know, something's screwy. Today, the car was "better"; not as good as the first night, but better in 1st, less so in second (nothing like yours in second), then by third and above it was pretty lazy. I'm wondering if yesterday had to do with the transmission causing a problem. For some reason, after gassing up and entering the Southern State, the car wouldn't go out of 2nd... wouldn't upshift. I had to get off @ the next exit and turn the car off. When I started it up it was shifting normally. I wonder if that caused the ECU to go into some type of protection mode and dialed out the fun...?

[Josh R]

Put it to you like this, We have a CLK 430 that lays down 407 whp at 8 psi peak boost. Car originally dyno'd 213whp stock.

The 280 in stock trim laid down 154whp, I figure with some headwork, cams and our charger we can get close to if not more than 300whp.

In response as to why I thought you where talking about NOS, is because you where reffering to thermal nuclear meltdown.

We do not believe in "cooking numbers" after all the gains really are not that much to even bother with it. With us the numbers the numbers and that's it. If it's low, that means it needs to be made better so it can achieve the higher number. Anyways back on subject, we having a shootout or not? I need a good reason to make BIG POWER!!

[coolcarlskic43]

Originally posted by 98c43amg
Ya know, something's screwy. Today, the car was "better"; not as good as the first night, but better in 1st, less so in second (nothing like yours in second), then by third and above it was pretty lazy. I'm wondering if yesterday had to do with the transmission causing a problem. For some reason, after gassing up and entering the Southern State, the car wouldn't go out of 2nd... wouldn't upshift. I had to get off @ the next exit and turn the car off. When I started it up it was shifting normally. I wonder if that caused the ECU to go into some type of protection mode and dialed out the fun...? Well I 'm not sure but like I said you could have screwed up the MAF.Or like I said just tell Tonino to put back in the original c43 file and see what happens.No sense speculating.

[98c43amg]

Originally posted by Josh R
Put it to you like this, We have a CLK 430 that lays down 407 whp at 8 psi peak boost. Car originally dyno'd 213whp stock.

The 280 in stock trim laid down 154whp, I figure with some headwork, cams and our charger we can get close to if not more than 300whp.

In response as to why I thought you where talking about NOS, is because you where reffering to thermal nuclear meltdown.

We do not believe in "cooking numbers" after all the gains really are not that much to even bother with it. With us the numbers the numbers and that's it. If it's low, that means it needs to be made better so it can achieve the higher number. Anyways back on subject, we having a shootout or not? I need a good reason to make BIG POWER!!

...err, umm... congratulations ... ? :confused: ... ohhh you're my hero. ? Is that what I need to be saying to you to get you to leave me the f*** alone!

Before I get to what I really want to say ... I bring up burnt head gaskets because that's what made the guy who's got the single turbo'd C36 in my pic gallery who did my swap, take out the dual turbo setup of his you see as the last pic in my gallery, that was giving him 450 hp @ the wheels. His biggest wish is he can find someone who can make him gaskets that will last so he can crank up the boost on his current setup. Like I said, before, if my car is the apple, his car, like your car, is the oranges. ...are you getting it yet?! :confused:

I don't normally do this ... but ... What the f*** is up with you?! Have you seen me boast as "my car can kick any one of your car's asses" even once? Quite to the contrary I said " ya, but I know my place in the world... as a man with a big gun who enjoyed having his day made once said "a man's got to know his limitations"." And you start in after that.

How many thousands of people have CLK55's or W210 E55's ... Go to mbworld.org or amgpower.com and bug them... Let's see... Search: Josh R ... oh here's some post that I can go pester him on equally like an imature idiot...

...too bad this board doesn't have a "twit filter" so I don't have to see your posts between the others... [final expletive deleted]

[Renn 208]

Watch out now...sounds like a couple of mis-communications are snowballing into unintended offense.

My take:

1. 98C55 shows us all his new car

2. J Irwan sparks up the East Coast/West Coast challenge

3. couple others play along (myself included)

4. Josh R comes in to partake in the internet racing (and I assume he missed the earlier mention of the turbo'd C36)

5. 98 C55 makes a crack about engine meltdown referencing the turbo C36, but josh believes that 98C55 is making the assumption that Josh will use N20 for his C280 buildup. As an adjunct, there's an undercurrent/implication that Josh R's buildup will be unreliable.


6. on topic discussion continues

7. Josh R, being both an active internet as well as actual street racer...continues to egg the East Coast West Coast battle, beacuse, as seen far too many times in the past, people on the internet like to keep their drag races on the internet, and hardly ever get time slips/get track times...so I'm guessing he's looking for competition....the driver of development

8. Friendly Internet BSing and bench racing turns into mild anger from 98C55...and so that's when I come in.


No need to get actually angry...since both of you are taking radically different approaches to building the fastest cars you can. I think we'd all love to see a video showdown once the C55 gets dialed in, and the C280 k gets built...

[98c43amg]

o Thank you for the reality check.
o Excellent synopsis.
o Perfect conclusion.

Yes, our approaches are radically different ... and I =know= my approach is not pushing the motor into the "red-zone" and getting unusual output from it ... (though I know we still can when/if we want to ;) )

SO JOSH, STOP POKING ME WITH A STICK! I'll dyno my car. I'll post it. But I =don't= think it'll be higher then your car with it turbo'd so I don't need you to keep pestering me into saying I think it will!

p.s. not angry , just really annoyed.

[Under Pressure]

All I know is that I love any substantially modified car. I guess thats why I hang out in the "Performance Tuning" sections of Club 202. Props to anyone making thier cars faster.

[kameraguy]

Thanks for the info on the 4,3 engines 98c43amg :) Man, it's really tempting!

And congrats again on your car. Sounds like a beast :D

[Josh R]

98C43,

Sorry if I inadvertantly ruffled your feathers,didn't mean to do so. I'm the type of individual that loves a good challenge, and like Renn posted earlier there was talk about an East vs. West challenge. Obviously your car being the one talked about is 1 of the big guns on the East coast, while us over here we get 91 octane gas to make power on. From my interpretation of the posts nobody wanted to represent the West coast so I took the job. Realise that it was not my intention to make you spit at your monitor in anger. I just see it as healthy bench racing, a.k.a. "keyboard racing". :D

[98c43amg]

Originally posted by kameraguy
Thanks for the info on the 4,3 engines 98c43amg :) Man, it's really tempting!
And congrats again on your car. Sounds like a beast :D
Thanks much. It certainly is better... :p

But you have a '97 C36 ... ? The 4.3L motor might have about 19% more displacement, but it certainly doesn't have 19% more HP/Torque... Your motor's a great motor. The last of the truely "AMG worked" motors I'm made to understand. It begs the question, is it worth it? ...as opposed to hooking up with someone like Josh and letting him go to town to turbo it for probably less then the V8 conversion.

[98c43amg]

Originally posted by Josh R
98C43,

Sorry if I inadvertantly ruffled your feathers,didn't mean to do so. I'm the type of individual that loves a good challenge, and like Renn posted earlier there was talk about an East vs. West challenge. Obviously your car being the one talked about is 1 of the big guns on the East coast, while us over here we get 91 octane gas to make power on. From my interpretation of the posts nobody wanted to represent the West coast so I took the job. Realise that it was not my intention to make you spit at your monitor in anger. I just see it as healthy bench racing, a.k.a. "keyboard racing". :D

Well alright, but I don't know why you're saying "inadvertently". I let it be known several times I didn't think a NA engine could compete (don't forget, I'm running stock exhaust w/single muffler, not dual like all other 5.4L AMGs); if I didn't believe in it why would I partake in some "competition" that would only assure me a public defeat? Ignoring those statements, it seems you set out to get a rise out of me and you finally did.

[Renn 208]

Originally posted by 98c43amg
...as opposed to hooking up with someone like Josh and letting him go to town to turbo it for probably less then the V8 conversion.

I don't believe Josh to have any plans to turbo charge any of the project cars. His core approach tends to involve vortech superchargers.

[coolcarlskic43]

OK I'm here! Tell Josh to bring it onnnnn!!!!;)Nothing wrng with a friendly lil competition.That's what this forum needs in my opinion. F/I vs F/I Josh , and hope you can make it out east.Let me know!!!:)

[Under Pressure]

I hope no one gets shot in Shug Night's car in Vegas over this West/East hp contest. For what its worth, this 5.4L W202's are some bad muthas, and they are already in existence (as in, could be dyno'd today). If one of the 5.4L's supercharges, its pretty much over unless someone swaps in an AMG 6.5L twin turbo!

[98c43amg]

Originally posted by Under Pressure
All I know is that I love any substantially modified car. I guess thats why I hang out in the "Performance Tuning" sections of Club 202. Props to anyone making thier cars faster.

My friend sent me this ... Gotta love insanely modified race cars that =DON'T= have to run within restrictive rules set by the World Challenge or CanAm, etc.. In an effort to "equalize" the field, the make it so no car like this could ever run.

http://www.dumpalink.com/post/1118218575

Click the pic for the video.

[98c43amg]

Jeff (speedybenz), this one's for you:

http://www.dumpalink.com/media/1118242853

Somehow I think you did better your 1st time... :p

[Renn 208]

Originally posted by 98c43amg
My friend sent me this ... Gotta love insanely modified race cars that =DON'T= have to run within restrictive rules set by the World Challenge or CanAm, etc.. In an effort to "equalize" the field, the make it so no car like this could ever run.



CanAm restrictive? Man you are hardcore! :p

[98c43amg]

...err, woops! :o ...serious flub-up ... definitely not CanAm. Gran-Am!
I was looking @ some classic cars before that, Chaparral 2J, and I had CanAm on the brain ...

[Renn 208]

Originally posted by 98c43amg
and I had CanAm on the brain ...

Ain't nothing wrong with that at all! In fact, I'd encourage it!

[J Irwan]

woah...


I didn't this thread going to heated up this way.

I was encouraging a healthy competition... (hint hint : kameray guy ;) ).


Anyway, let keeps the focus on cars discussion..


Damn now I wish I have a C43 so that I can do the engine swap :D
All this 5.4L conversions make me drool..

Regardz,

[98c43amg]

Originally posted by 98c43amg
Carl ... this has been a few days of extremes. I just went from total exuberance to "eh, it works".
Against my gut feeling though, I the reprogramming of my ECU (I couldn't be there) happen, and guess what .... You got it! It lost all of its luster. :mad:
It's no longer a torque monster. There's a delay to movement of the foot pedal. And when it runs, it just doesn't run as hard ... It thinks about applying the torque while the RPM is rising, instead of being 100% on from the split second you punch the trottle. [snip] Update for any that care ... the car's doing much better today. The car must have been in some weird mode; perhaps having to do with the tranni getting stuck in second soon after I got going.

I'm beginning to think having the AC on has something to do with it, as the AC was off today. (I hardly ever used my AC with the 4.3L motor) You'd think with all that torque a lousy AC wouldn't make much difference... Does everyone else notice the AC sapping the power to a noticable degree?

[98c43amg]

Originally posted by mambo
Very nice C55, what sort of times are you guys getting 0-100kmph? definitely 5 second-ish ... I've owned the "RoadDyno" for years ... time to install it!

[98c43amg]

Originally posted by Under Pressure
The swap was done under a tent at someone's house? I thouhght you would need all sorts of expensive diagnostic machines and what not following the swap to do proper tuning that only a shop would likely have.
BTW, I'd mentioned Jeff owned his own MB Star Diagnosis Computer ... but he didn't need to use it. The motor swap was 100% plug & play ; old motor out, now motor in, start it up, run it, and smile.

[Under Pressure]

Originally posted by 98c43amg
BTW, I'd mentioned Jeff owned his own MB Star Diagnosis Computer ... but he didn't need to use it. The motor swap was 100% plug & play ; old motor out, now motor in, start it up, run it, and smile.

Nice.

By the way, did you ever just consider boring out your previous 4.3L into the 5.4L as a possibly more affordable alternative? If so, what made you choose the swap anyway?

[98c43amg]

Originally posted by Under Pressure
Nice.

By the way, did you ever just consider boring out your previous 4.3L into the 5.4L as a possibly more affordable alternative? If so, what made you choose the swap anyway? I dunno ... I wouldn't have gotten the trick silica sleeves that's pressed into the block while the aluminum is hot so they fuse with it, and beefy bottom end. Plus according to Josh R the 4.3L motor has its limits to overbore. Click Here (http://www.club202.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=62481&highlight=bore#post62481) and scroll up to Josh R written 04-13-2005 01:57 PM.

[coolcarlskic43]

Originally posted by Under Pressure
Nice.

By the way, did you ever just consider boring out your previous 4.3L into the 5.4L as a possibly more affordable alternative? If so, what made you choose the swap anyway? Now that whole process would be very expensive.Just about everything in the bottom end would have to be new.

[98c43amg]

Originally posted by Under Pressure
what made you choose the swap anyway?

I forgot to mention ... When I heard C55's were made in extremely limited quanitites (50?) and only available in Europe, I wanted one. I would have bought an E55 in 2000 or 2001, but a) didn't have fold-down rear seats b) my wife and I didn't like the dark burl walnut wood used in the dash. So I've wanted to do this since about 1999 or 2000. The first 5.4L motors I found about 4 years ago were out of ML55s used as crash mules down south in crash test certification. However they wanted 15K for the motors. Brand new, but I wasn't up for paying that much then.

[Denlasoul]

Originally posted by J Irwan
Damn now I wish I have a C43 so that I can do the engine swap :D
You can have my engine when I do a swap. :)

[J Irwan]

Originally posted by Denlasoul
You can have my engine when I do a swap. :)

I meant to do the swap for 5.4L not to 4.3L :p


if I do 4.3L I wouldn't gain that much :)


Look like we have another candidate for 5.4L swap from the West land :D:D:D



Regardz,

[98c43amg]

Doesn't jnenad16 have a E55 motor for sale? Shipping from Hawaii to you in Cali shouldn't be too obnoxious.

[98c43amg]

Originally posted by c280nz
Nice swap man.
:-o i need to know more about that c36t.
what sortof setup is he running on the comp/injection side of things, it the biggest point of contraversy

c280nz,

I talked to 'da man today wit'da c36t. I hope I understood and transposed everything correctly.

He's running an M48 Motec stand alone system for ignition timing and fuel map. He did the programming himself.

He's using a fuel pump out of an S55.

Using 65 lb. injectors. (aren't those frigg'n huge?)

Hope this helps.

I may be going to dyno tomorrow with the chip tuner and Jeff both there. Carl was to be there but -- you ready? -- an employee driving his car out of the car wash nailed the gas instead of the brake and got into a head on collision with it!

[98c43amg]

Originally posted by Renn 208
I don't believe Josh to have any plans to turbo charge any of the project cars. His core approach tends to involve vortech superchargers.

that reminds me... I've been thinking about a unique way to run centrifugal superchargers the last year that I'm thinking I might want to patent as I've never seen it done before.

[98c43amg]

Originally posted by 714guy
Can you Ask Jeff (MB tech) where he got the Exhuast manifold flanges for his turbo manifold?? Do you have any more pictures of his Single Turbo manifold??


714guy,

I asked Jeff about this today. He gave the exhaust gaskets to a fabricator, and that guy made everything custom ... pipes and flanges. Would you like me to find out the fabricator's contact info?

-steve

[c280nz]

Originally posted by 98c43amg
c280nz,

I talked to 'da man today wit'da c36t. I hope I understood and transposed everything correctly.

He's running an M48 Motec stand alone system for ignition timing and fuel map. He did the programming himself.

He's using a fuel pump out of an S55.

Using 65 lb. injectors. (aren't those frigg'n huge?)

Hope this helps.

I may be going to dyno tomorrow with the chip tuner and Jeff both there. Carl was to be there but -- you ready? -- an employee driving his car out of the car wash nailed the gas instead of the brake and got into a head on collision with it!

Oh yep, sorta already presumed he would have gone stand alone with the power hes making, hes stepping it up hard out. i have no intention to go standalone, to complicated and expensive for a pleb like me :-(.
im not sure what 65lb injectors are, we run metric here, but at a guess thats prolly like 850-1000 cc * 6 injectors :-)

whats the basics of your idea for a centrafugal sc? if u dont mind me askn? not intention of copying just read a fair bit of everything that can be done for them and it may have already been tried ;)

[98c43amg]

Originally posted by c280nz
Oh yep, sorta already presumed he would have gone stand alone with the power hes making, hes stepping it up hard out. i have no intention to go standalone, to complicated and expensive for a pleb like me :-(.
im not sure what 65lb injectors are, we run metric here, but at a guess thats prolly like 850-1000 cc * 6 injectors :-)

whats the basics of your idea for a centrafugal sc? if u dont mind me askn? not intention of copying just read a fair bit of everything that can be done for them and it may have already been tried ;)

For reference ... Doing a search on this board (this board is incredible) I learned that the C43 uses something like 24 - 26 lb. injectors ... so 65 lb. injectors are a mega step-up over that.

Sorry, I can't say. I have to do a patent search and discuss with an attorney specializing in this field. I just don't want to chance it in such an open forum.

[714guy]

Originally posted by 98c43amg
714guy,

I asked Jeff about this today. He gave the exhaust gaskets to a fabricator, and that guy made everything custom ... pipes and flanges. Would you like me to find out the fabricator's contact info?

-steve

Thanks, for the info. Just didn't know how i could get the flanges.

[c280nz]

Originally posted by 98c43amg
For reference ... Doing a search on this board (this board is incredible) I learned that the C43 uses something like 24 - 26 lb. injectors ... so 65 lb. injectors are a mega step-up over that.

Sorry, I can't say. I have to do a patent search and discuss with an attorney specializing in this field. I just don't want to chance it in such an open forum.

yea, i have no idea even how big 24-26lb injectors are,
but remember u have 8 and he will only have 6 injectors.

it must be quite a unique sc idea then if ur going that hard out, just cant imagine another improvement that could be made to it :-? when u finially sort out all that legal stuff and its registered to u do share.

[knvs]

man all this talk of swaps has me really itching to do it. I've contacted "Norman" (I don't know if its the same Norman everyone is talking about) and he has a E55 engine with about 35k on it. Clean engine, just a strait swap. So there may be another C55 on the WEST COAST!!!:D

I was reading that the two C55 conversions feel different? One o the cars feels faster than the other? What are teh other mods that have been done to the cars to make a difference in feel? I'm sorry if I missed them earlier in the post.

[coolcarlskic43]

Originally posted by knvs
man all this talk of swaps has me really itching to do it. I've contacted "Norman" (I don't know if its the same Norman everyone is talking about) and he has a E55 engine with about 35k on it. Clean engine, just a strait swap. So there may be another C55 on the WEST COAST!!!:D

I was reading that the two C55 conversions feel different? One o the cars feels faster than the other? What are teh other mods that have been done to the cars to make a difference in feel? I'm sorry if I missed them earlier in the post. At this point both cars should feel almost identical.Months ago I had
M AF issues so when I replaced it the car woke the hell up and posted 293 whp.It should be higer now.


Yep and Steve is right some asshole wrecked my car and it's in the body shop now.It's a short but long story.:(

[98c43amg]

Originally posted by knvs
man all this talk of swaps has me really itching to do it. I've contacted "Norman" (I don't know if its the same Norman everyone is talking about) and he has a E55 engine with about 35k on it. Clean engine, just a strait swap. So there may be another C55 on the WEST COAST!!!:D

...are the wheels in motion? :cool:

[coolcarlskic43]

Nah!!! West coast guys have the money! But they won't spend the money! LOL!:D

[knvs]

Originally posted by 98c43amg
...are the wheels in motion? :cool:
yeah they are:cool: . Just talking about loose ends and what not, and checking out another c55 conversion. What did u guys do with the old engines? I don't have anywhere to store it and im talking with the guys who are doing the swap if they could give me a discount if I let them keep the old engine.

I'll be going on vacation soon, so it might not happen til july august tho.

[98c43amg]

Originally posted by knvs
yeah they are:cool: . Just talking about loose ends and what not, and checking out another c55 conversion. What did u guys do with the old engines? I don't have anywhere to store it and im talking with the guys who are doing the swap if they could give me a discount if I let them keep the old engine.

egggcellent... :p

Both Carl and I were able to leave them at the installer's house ... he's good enough to let us leave them there until we sell them. He might actually have a buyer for me.

Best of luck with it. I'm sure I'll be exchanging posts on a thread of yours like this... :D

[98c43amg]

Originally posted by JonC43
Those are incredible pix. I was always wondering what the internals looked like. I owe you for the education.

Jon, dunno if you'll check this thread again, but full-res pix are now up on the sight. Just click the link @ the bottom of the pic to load it.

[98c43amg]

Originally posted by 714guy
Can you Ask Jeff (MB tech) where he got the Exhuast manifold flanges for his turbo manifold?? Do you have any more pictures of his Single Turbo manifold?? 714guy, as mentioned above, full-res versions of the pix are up, where in one or two, you can get a better view of the integrated flanged & manifold.

[98c43amg]

Originally posted by c280nz
it must be quite a unique sc idea then if ur going that hard out, just cant imagine another improvement that could be made to it :-? when u finially sort out all that legal stuff and its registered to u do share. update. I called a Paxton dealer today. He recommended I call Paxton directly. Worried about opening my komono tho; not ready to ask them to sign a non-disclosure agreement yet.

BTW, do any reading this recommend any other Centrifical Supercharger manufacturer over Paxton?

[98c43amg]

OK, finally fixed the computer so it saw the scanner. I'm a firm believer in the real @ the wheels numbers ... none of this interpreted crap faking some overly generous @ the crank figure. So here's the @ the wheel graphs.

Please ignore the peak HP and torque figures. The shifting, torque converter, (and ignition timing pullback/alteration?) before and during the shift makes that erroneous.
- Peak torque is about 325 ft-lb.
- Peak HP is just under 300hp.
(both @ the wheel... I live near sea level, pressure 29.9in.Hg, vapore pressure 0.55 in.Hg, Intake Air Temp 88.1 degrees, Correction Factor 1.03 STD ... so there wasn't too much correction applied to equate the values to the "standard day".)
- A/F was pretty flat @ 12.5. That magnitude of the peak on the 2 - 3 shift is an aberation due to the bung in the exhast pipe having about a 1/2 second delay to changes. There's a blip, but not that bad.

Very disappointed with how low torque goes at redline. ...Carl, I bet you now agree about me giving up some of my low end torque to gain some high end torque by doing the exhast and headers... ;)

Where the graphs cross is 5252 rpm.
http://images10.fotki.com/v194/photos/2/296054/2283186/c55_dyno-vi.gif
I'm not too thrilled with where it was run.
- The guy doing it didn't want to spend some time getting me some runs from the mid 3K rpm and up in fourth .... needed finesse.
- You'll note no torque for 1st is even shown because the tires were slipping.
- The composite graphs (not scanned and posted) I have are from only 4.6K and up ... I hate that!
- Those graphs (again, not scanned and posted) have power scale from 0 to 350 on the left, and scale for torque of 0 to 400 on the right, so the graphs don't cross @ 5252 like they're supposed to. (in this dyno graph above, it does)

[coolcarlskic43]

Steve ,300 whp and 325ft-lbs of TQ is Damn great man!

[ledrocnoc]

(Newbie here...)

If you are talking about Norman's N1 Concepts C43 to C55 conversion, he actually is in Northern California.

I went and looked at the car and the conversion is great... great power, drives pretty good.

Unfortunately, the car "curb appeal" is way low: broken bits inside, scrached rims, car needs thorough detailing, relatively high mileage, some squeaks and rattles and it has had a paint job on one side (not obvious, but anyone with a good eye and a little bit of experience will see it).

I don't know how much Norman put in it total, and he might be able to get even on it, but it most likely a good marketing tool for it as he's already done another conversion and might get more business doing either C43 -> C55 and / or C36 -> C43 (with the C43 motors leftover) conversions.

BTW, I just picked up a 1998 C43 with 40k mile (black on black) last week (So Cal car � 1 owner - $17k) and I am thinking about doing either a HPS conversion or an E55 engine swap.

DC

[c55m8o]

ledrocnoc, welcome to the club. Congrats....Best of luck with the C43. HPS Gen II does indeed look nice for the price.

thanx for chiming in about Norm's C55; that condition you describer then certainly explains the mystery to me about why he kept having to lower his price.

[knvs]

norm's car isn't in the greatest of condition, but if he had it detailed and fixed a few things here and there he would definetly get what he is asking for. When I test drove his car before my swap I was kinda surprised his car wasn't as clean as I would have imagine. Norm's a busy guy. I wish him the best of luck

[ledrocnoc]

Hey knvs,

Was that your black C43 at Norman's waiting for the conversion? If it was yours great looking one.

How do you like the car with the new engine? I am still debating an HPS vs. E55 engine swap...

DC

[knvs]

Originally posted by ledrocnoc
Hey knvs,

Was that your black C43 at Norman's waiting for the conversion? If it was yours great looking one.

How do you like the car with the new engine? I am still debating an HPS vs. E55 engine swap...

DC Was it about 2 weeks ago? If it was, then it was me! I totally love the swap! and I'd recommend it. there is so much more power and excitement. I say do the swap first and then if you need more power then go hps supercharger ;)

[ledrocnoc]

Yeah... although it can be done either way (i.e. E55 then HPS later or HPS then E55 later as the HPS will fit both engines).

I have a line on a HPS for $4,000, but I would have to self install. How much did Norman charge you for the swap?

DC

[c55m8o]

edit: (deleted the 1st response; sorry, I didn't realize the add'l responses above and context of the reply)

edit: is that a new GenII for $4K or the used/old GenI one being sold on mbworld.org (that people there are claiming is a stolen unit)?

[coolcarlskic43]

Originally posted by c55m8o
edit: (deleted the 1st response; sorry, I didn't realize the add'l responses above and context of the reply)

edit: is that a new GenII for $4K or the used/old GenI one being sold on mbworld.org (that people there are claiming is a stolen unit)? OOOoooooooooo:eek:

[c55m8o]

Originally posted by coolcarlskic43
OOOoooooooooo:eek:

[click me] (http://www.mbworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=112884)

[jlomon]

I've been reading this thread with big dreams of doing something similar to my C280, maybe picking up an orphaned 4.3 V8 from someone who steps up to the 5.4. But I have a question that nobody seems to have addressed. What do you do about insurance?

With a substantial mod like that, you'd have to inform your carrier or else risk being denied coverage in the event of a claim. However, there is no official data for a C55, so it presents a problem for an insurer to decide what the risk is compared to a C43. Clearly there is a performance difference between the two, or else you wouldn't have invested your time and money in the conversion.

Insurance laws are going to be different everywhere. On a whim I called my broker yesterday and asked how my carrier would react if I did the same thing, converting a C43 to a C55. His response? My insurance company would decline coverage and I would have to go into the high-risk pool in order to seek a company that will cover me.

I'm curious how others have dealt with this.

[coolcarlskic43]

Originally posted by jlomon
I've been reading this thread with big dreams of doing something similar to my C280, maybe picking up an orphaned 4.3 V8 from someone who steps up to the 5.4. But I have a question that nobody seems to have addressed. What do you do about insurance?

With a substantial mod like that, you'd have to inform your carrier or else risk being denied coverage in the event of a claim. However, there is no official data for a C55, so it presents a problem for an insurer to decide what the risk is compared to a C43. Clearly there is a performance difference between the two, or else you wouldn't have invested your time and money in the conversion.

Insurance laws are going to be different everywhere. On a whim I called my broker yesterday and asked how my carrier would react if I did the same thing, converting a C43 to a C55. His response? My insurance company would decline coverage and I would have to go into the high-risk pool in order to seek a company that will cover me.

I'm curious how others have dealt with this. My friend,how would the insurance company even know I installed a 5.5L motor in my car? It's a M113 engine just like the 4.3L motor.There's no issue at all.I have full covrage on my C43/55.

[jlomon]

I hadn't considered the fact that both are M113's that would look the same under the hood, so this would be a mod that they'd never find out about, even if (God forbid) you were to write the car off and the adjustor comes out to inspect it. Unless you were a Mercedes mechanic, who could tell the difference.

In my case, since I'd be taking out an M104 and replacing it with an M113, which wasn't available in my year of production in a W202, I'd be screwed. I'd imagine most adjustors could tell the difference between a V8 and an inline 6. Its probably easier to just look for a 3.6 M104 from an AMG car.

[c55m8o]

Originally posted by jlomon
I hadn't considered the fact that both are M113's that would look the same under the hood, so this would be a mod that they'd never find out about, even if (God forbid) you were to write the car off and the adjustor comes out to inspect it. Unless you were a Mercedes mechanic, who could tell the difference.

In my case, since I'd be taking out an M104 and replacing it with an M113, which wasn't available in my year of production in a W202, I'd be screwed. I'd imagine most adjustors could tell the difference between a V8 and an inline 6. Its probably easier to just look for a 3.6 M104 from an AMG car.

I agree, it's probably easier installing the 3.6L AMG motor.... however regarding coverage, don't forget, you're "creating" a C43 from the C280; not such a big deal ... C43's exist today from the factory as just that, and have standard coverage. As long as you follow the engineering design MB/AMG employed when dropping the 4.3L motor in your engine bay, why would there be anything in the picture different the buying a C43 straight-up and getting standard coverage? It's not like you're dropping a racing Hemi crate engine in the bay... :p (like me, wondering if I can take my 4.3L engine and drop it in my '97 Jeep Wrangler's engine bay... ;) ...unless you'd like to buy it for $2500? ; long-block w/63K miles [long block contains no ancillary externals, wiring harness, fuel rail, etc.] )

[coolcarlskic43]

Originally posted by c55m8o
As long as you follow the engineering design MB/AMG employed when dropping the 4.3L motor in your engine bay, why would there be anything in the picture different the buying a C43 straight-up and getting standard coverage? And a whole lot of $$$ because there are tons of differences between the two cars.(tranny,driveshaft,diff,ECU's,body and subframe reinforcements along with subframes)yep ,better off buying a C43 like Steve says,straight up.

[jlomon]

Originally posted by coolcarlskic43
And a whole lot of $$$ because there are tons of differences between the two cars.(tranny,driveshaft,diff,ECU's,body and subframe reinforcements along with subframes)yep ,better off buying a C43 like Steve says,straight up.

Not to mention a complete front suspension replacement to carry the weight of a V8.

I know it would be easier to just go out and buy a C43, but I'm sentimental when it comes to my car. I'll probably spend twice as much money rebuilding it as it would cost to get what I want elsewhere. But if I didn't stick with this car, I'd almost feel like I was abandoning it. Its part of the family. I'd imagine that you feel similar about yours, seeing as you just went to a big expense yourself. Its never rational, its emotional.

I think the 3.6 M104 will be the way to go. I can keep the same 722.4 transmission, motor mounts, suspension, rear end, etc.

[c55m8o]

Originally posted by jlomon
Not to mention a complete front suspension replacement to carry the weight of a V8. Actually, I believe I've read on this board that the C43 motor is the same weight or lighter then the 3.6L engine...;) (or is it lighter when comparing it with the 2.8L? I forget...)

* EDIT:
From this post, devoted to your subject of interest:
http://www.club202.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7253

Is a statement that was not refuted (sic?) or corrected:

Originally posted by J Irwan
On the contrary I am almost 100% that the subframe is still the same ...between 4 cylinder, 6 cylinder and 8 cylinder.

After all the 3 engines doesn't differ that much in term of weight..
in term of weight. I think . 2.3L/2.3LK < 2.8L V-6 < 4.3L V-8 < 3.6L I-6/5.4L V-8

But I could double check once I got home tomorrow night to see if the subframe part number is different between 4 cylinder and V-8 model..
with a follow-up post saying the 2.8L I-6 motor being the same base motor as the 3.6L so they're the same weight.

...so write me when you wanna stop dreaming and are ready for action. $2500 + shipping. :D

[c55m8o]

Originally posted by jlomon
I know it would be easier to just go out and buy a C43, but I'm sentimental when it comes to my car. I'll probably spend twice as much money rebuilding it as it would cost to get what I want elsewhere. But if I didn't stick with this car, I'd almost feel like I was abandoning it. Its part of the family. I'd imagine that you feel similar about yours, seeing as you just went to a big expense yourself. Its never rational, its emotional.
So have you done any mods, or gussied her up? Let's see some pix if so. :cool:

[jlomon]

I haven't got any pics, I'm afraid. But I have done a few minor modifications. I did a bit of work on the brakes, with Brembo cross-drilled rotors, stainless steel Goodrich brake lines, and Porterfield R4S pads. I picked up a set of 16 inch rims on eBay from a CLK, so I'm plus-one with 205 55 VR 16 Goodyear Eagle F1 GS D3s. And I've installed Bilstein HD shocks to firm up the ride a little more.

Future mods will include a complete repaint this September, with pretty much everything stripped off the car before painting, and then after I get one last road-salt filled winter out of the exhaust, I'm going with a Remus muffler and a high-flow catalytic converter next spring. I'll remove the resonator at the same time. Beyond that? Maybe an engine swap with that 3.6 M104, but who can say. I've got a baby on the way this November, and I hear they can be almost as expensive to maintain as a Benz.

[coolcarlskic43]

Originally posted by jlomon
I haven't got any pics, I'm afraid. But I have done a few minor modifications. I did a bit of work on the brakes, with Brembo cross-drilled rotors, stainless steel Goodrich brake lines, and Porterfield R4S pads. I picked up a set of 16 inch rims on eBay from a CLK, so I'm plus-one with 205 55 VR 16 Goodyear Eagle F1 GS D3s. And I've installed Bilstein HD shocks to firm up the ride a little more.

Future mods will include a complete repaint this September, with pretty much everything stripped off the car before painting, and then after I get one last road-salt filled winter out of the exhaust, I'm going with a Remus muffler and a high-flow catalytic converter next spring. I'll remove the resonator at the same time. Beyond that? Maybe an engine swap with that 3.6 M104, but who can say. I've got a baby on the way this November, and I hear they can be almost as expensive to maintain as a Benz. Well good luck finding that motor!Not Easy!

[c55m8o]

Originally posted by coolcarlskic43
Well good luck finding that motor!Not Easy! ...but Carl, don't we know someone who can build one for him...? ;)

[c55m8o]

Quite the list. It all sounds good.

Originally posted by jlomon
I've got a baby on the way this November, and I hear they can be almost as expensive to maintain as a Benz.
LOL... nice way to look @ it. Ya, do your child a favor and take the cash you'll spend on a motor and put it in a long term investment for school for him/her. Those prices, like homes, are astonomical and only getting higher... :eek:

[coolcarlskic43]

Originally posted by c55m8o
...but Carl, don't we know someone who can build one for him...? ;) Yea tru,it would be a nice project,but he would have to go aftermarket bigger bore pistons and rods to do so!

[d1deez]

Nice job guys! The 202 C55s are making some noise now.

[c55m8o]

from a different thread ; posted here for better categorization and organization of material & answers...


Originally posted by sig425
the list of what one would need to buy is tough to find. Can I do it with just a block and heads or do in need the intake, injectors, UIM etc as well? Yes, (if I understand you correctly) you just need a long block. Everything, I mean everything, can come off the 4.3L engine and get swapped onto the 5.4L engine. Of course, parts that wear should be replaced, however you really don't need to buy "anything" if you don't want to. I even was surprised @ 63K miles, I was recommended not to waste money on a new water pump.

- I'd change the plugs (I went with Densos)
- Change the belt
- I was recommended to change the belt tensioner, as I was told that can go after 60K.
- I had the flywheel sensor changed.
- You can't help but replace all those fluids (sure adds up in $$$ too).
btw, I never realized, you have to take care filling the radiator fluid; have to force open the thermostat to force the air out in the beginning as you prime the engine with the fluid, as the engine is dry @ the start after the swap.
- DEFINITELY new motor mounts -- makes a world of difference (I have a separate thread on just that). There's some disagreement whether the E55 mounts are sturdier then the C43 mounts ... I went with the E55 mounts regardless.

However to repeat, all electrical related systems (wiring harnass, wires, ECU, coils, etc) and fuel related systems (fuel pump, filter, injectors, anything else), intake manifold, airbox, all ancillary external components, are swappable from the 4.3L motor to the 5,5L motor.

[sig425]

I think I may have just answered my quetion about supercharging or bigger motor. :D

Now I just need to find a motor!

Im guessing calling salvage yards to ask for an e55 from 99 to 2000 is the best bet?

[Ashkan's C280]

what about 01-02 those should work too right?

[c55m8o]

Originally posted by Ashkan's C280
what about 01-02 those should work too right? Yep ; word is from Jeff M. (mb mech who did the swap) in 2001 the compression went from 10.5:1 to 11:1 (tho the specs still say 10.5:1 ; I dunno).

[knvs]

Originally posted by c55m8o
Yep ; word is from Jeff M. (mb mech who did the swap) in 2001 the compression went from 10.5:1 to 11:1 (tho the specs still say 10.5:1 ; I dunno).
what does that mean? bc I swapped in a 2001 engine into my car.

[sig425]

more compression = a good thing = more power for less work

[sig425]

what about other cars? SL class? Sorry Im such a newb but I would imagin it will be tough to track down a motor since e55's are probably not as plentiful as say ford taurus :D

[c55m8o]

Yup. Supposedly I did too ... weird think is it said 2000 on the manifold in chalk. However the car the engine came out of (according to the engine serial #) was a 2001 E55, so I'm hoping I have the higher compression too.

[coolcarlskic43]

Originally posted by c55m8o
Yup. Supposedly I did too ... weird think is it said 2000 on the manifold in chalk. However the car the engine came out of (according to the engine serial #) was a 2001 E55, so I'm hoping I have the higher compression too. Sure did feel like it!;)

[Ashkan's C280]

few mroe question is the tranny from 00 c43 the same as the tranny as 00-02 e55? Also are the drive trains and diffs from 00-02 e55 same as the drive train and diff from 98-00 c43? Last question can quick shift be added to a 98,99 c43 tranny? One mroe question last one... How much can these tranny's hold (e55,c43). Thanks, I know n00b questions but I am not sure which parts were the same during these years.

[c55m8o]

Originally posted by Ashkan's C280
few mroe question...
[snip]
.
.
.
....dunno
.
.
,
:p

Seriously tho, I'd just be answering 2nd or 3rd hand. With that said, yes, they're the same tranni ... however many posts here and on other boards have described how the tranni has evolved and grown more reliable in later years.

E55 uses a bigger (heftier) rear differential and longer gears (2.82:1 or there abouts vs. 3:07:1 for the C43) ... driveshaft should be the same.

dunno about quick shift (I like rowing the shifter for direct gear selection better anyway) ; dunno about torque handling in general ; tho it's pretty safe to say the tranni in the C43 can handle what the E55 motor can dish out.

...what's it matter?

[c55m8o]

Originally posted by sig425
what about other cars? SL class? Sorry Im such a newb but I would imagin it will be tough to track down a motor since e55's are probably not as plentiful as say ford taurus :D ...any M113.9## 5.4L engine I believe...

[Ashkan's C280]

is there anyway to beef up this tranny, i.e. if you were going to add kompressor or just some better internals and wanted make the tranny stronger, how would this be done? is there another tranny that could be used? Or can parts from another tranny be used? Aftermarket?

[Ashkan's C280]

Happy Labor Day!

[coolcarlskic43]

Originally posted by Ashkan's C280
is there anyway to beef up this tranny, i.e. if you were going to add kompressor or just some better internals and wanted make the tranny stronger, how would this be done? is there another tranny that could be used? Or can parts from another tranny be used? Aftermarket? Donnie Drummond told me he's using the stck C43 Tranny in his 11.5 sec S/C C43/55.So it's more than capable to handle the power of a supercharged M113 motored car.The newer E55 compressor trannies are better though for the built extra Pwr from those F/I motors.

Yes speed shift can be adapted to the 98-99 C43 trannies.The 2k C43 already comes with the speedshift tranny and is the same in the E55.. Finally, most automatic trannies can get beefed up if you have the payola($$).

[J Irwan]

Originally posted by coolcarlskic43
Donnie Drummond told me he's using the stck C43 Tranny in his 11.5 sec S/C C43/55.So it's more than capable to handle the power of a supercharged M113 motored car.The newer E55 compressor trannies are better though for the built extra Pwr from those F/I motors.

Yes speed shift can be adapted to the 98-99 C43 trannies.The 2k C43 already comes with the speedshift tranny and is the same in the E55.. Finally, most automatic trannies can get beefed up if you have the payola($$).

If I remember corectly.
Someone asked him before on another forums.
He has gone through couple transmission units before he went and used the V12 unit on his S'd C55.

C43 might be able to handle E55 power and torque, but Donies is a monsters, I don't think the tranmssion can handle those extra power.

After all, even with C36, C43, E430, E420, CLK430, C32 and 99 E55 I've seen some transmission failure, let alone when you uprate the power that much.


But if I'd swap to 5.4L engine from 2.8L I would get the matching transmission as well. But from C43 to 5.4L I would use the existing transmission first. If at the end it breaks so be it. Then times to get a new ones.


Regardz,

[Ashkan's C280]

so donnie has a v12 tranny in his c55k? I didn't know they would fit into our cars.... Would the newer e55f/i trannys fit into our cars oris it more troouble than worth

[c55m8o]

I'm pretty sure they're the same physical dimensions.

BTW, J, when you said "couple transmission units", did you mean that as in ECU/controller, or actual entire transmissions?

[knvs]

but I thought AMG took the tranny out of the SL and put them into the C43 and E55 to handle the power... Thats what I've always thought.

[Ashkan's C280]

I was wondering how some of you conversions are getting so much more power mbusa quotes a c43 at 304 and an e55 at 349 maybe its just me, but I don't get how there is a world of difference in 45hp? And at a 15 % loss it would only be a 38.25 hp gain? does 38 hp really make a huge difference OT I know but I was curious.

at 15% loss the

c43 would have 258.4 hp
e55 would have 296.65 hp

Difference of 38.25 hp

[c55m8o]

actually, 65 rwhp gains with the 5.4L swap ; more importantly, about 95ft-lb gains in torque in the mid-band where the engine spends all its time when driving around normally. Car's a real stoplight killer now, as you get to use the lowend torque in 1st on take-off.
There's no way you can use 15% loss with that drivetrain... I don't know anyone who measured more then 240/245-ish rw hp or trqu with their =stock= C43 ... mine measured on the low side.

[Ashkan's C280]

how can it be 65 rwhp there is only a 45hp difference between the two engines? unless the c43 takes a larger loss than the e55 from the crank to the wheels I don't get how it can be a 65hp gain, those numbers are from mbusa

[c55m8o]

interesting, isn't it? sure seems like that. I go by actual rear wheel HP and torque I measured of my car on a dyno ; my numbers are real-world, so it's the actual thrust applied @ the contact patch of the rear tires, which not for nuth'n, is all that matters.

[ledrocnoc]

Do you have the before and after numbers? (i.e. with the C43 engine and with the E55 engine). Or point me to where they are posted?

I am looking at doing the conversion on mine and I'd be very interested in looking at them.

BTW, how much does a dyno run costs these days?


Originally posted by c55m8o
interesting, isn't it? sure seems like that. I go by actual rear wheel HP and torque I measured of my car on a dyno ; my numbers are real-world, so it's the actual thrust applied @ the contact patch of the rear tires, which not for nuth'n, is all that matters.

[c55m8o]

after (and graph) is right in this thread. before, I have to find as it was from a good many years ago. was around 235 range for max torque and power @ the wheels I believe.

I paid too much; $150 (or was i $175?) for the tie-down and first 3 (I think) pulls + $25 per pull after.

[sig425]

crank figs vs rwhp figs are driving me nuts!!!

Maybe the HPS system is the way to go? Dont they say 415rwhp? $7-8k for SC vs approx $12k for the e55 swap? Maybe it was 415 at the crank? HPS SC would certainly be much easier to install....although Im not so sure I would want an HPS after reading all the smack on other forums. Plus finding out if HPS sells a kit for the c43 now and peoples exp with the new vs the old one is tough to dig up. I know there is lots of testimanials for them but what about long term results? Plus my car has 80k on the ticker--she might not like a SC installed. Bah! All I can say is it isnt fast enough for me now :D Is there a NOS kit for the c43..that would be the best bet for me lol. LOTS of power on the rare occasions some corvette is makin me mad :p Lots of power to blow it up :D

[J Irwan]

Originally posted by c55m8o
actually, 65 rwhp gains with the 5.4L swap ; more importantly, about 95ft-lb gains in torque in the mid-band where the engine spends all its time when driving around normally. Car's a real stoplight killer now, as you get to use the lowend torque in 1st on take-off.
There's no way you can use 15% loss with that drivetrain... I don't know anyone who measured more then 240/245-ish rw hp or trqu with their =stock= C43 ... mine measured on the low side.

Just a little information that might help explains
even you if drop the same engine 5.4L V-8 on the stock E55 (W210) chassis and C43 the dyno result would be different ..

why..???


Here is why
All W210 E55 runs on 2.82 rear end while C43 runs on 3.07 rear end.

Naturally the one with 3.07 will be able to put down more hp to the asphalt. Hence the rwhl hp would be higher.

So for C43 - 5.4L convertion to get the more accurate crank hp you will need to have different correction factor. What's the number ? I don't have the number.


But because of the higher wrhp on your car doesn't necessarily mean the Engine producing more hp than E55 spec. :)


Regardz,

[coolcarlskic43]

Originally posted by J Irwan
If I remember corectly.
Someone asked him before on another forums.
He has gone through couple transmission units before he went and used the V12 unit on his S'd C55.

C43 might be able to handle E55 power and torque, but Donies is a monsters, I don't think the tranmssion can handle those extra power.

After all, even with C36, C43, E430, E420, CLK430, C32 and 99 E55 I've seen some transmission failure, let alone when you uprate the power that much.


But if I'd swap to 5.4L engine from 2.8L I would get the matching transmission as well. But from C43 to 5.4L I would use the existing transmission first. If at the end it breaks so be it. Then times to get a new ones.


Regardz, Donnie has personally told me that they use the stck transmissions in all their Kleeman applications.He said that the stck trannies in all of the cars mentioned have been tested and are well up to the rigors of the kleeman supercharged applications.

No matter what car it is as long as it's modified and using a stck manual tranny or auto ,it's reliability is always going to be compromised especially based on (x) hp.Mercedes has built the AMG trannies to be able to handle their present hp apps and beyond.They're not gonna build it just good enuff to handle only their present stck hp.
Some stck C43 trannies last the life of the car and some don't this is a fact. Yes S/C the car will compromise some reliability but it is a fact that there are plenty of stck tranny MB's with F/I experiencing no tranny failure at all.And then there are those that are blowing up while leaving the car stck. What can i tell you.I don't think these trannies have failed solely because of tremendous hp.

[coolcarlskic43]

Originally posted by knvs
but I thought AMG took the tranny out of the SL and put them into the C43 and E55 to handle the power... Thats what I've always thought. One minute the mag media's will quote the the trannies are from the SL500 and then the next minute they'll quote that they are from the S600.Go figure!Bottom line is that up to date with some hard ass driving Steve and I find that the stck C43 trannies can handle the abuse and rigors of the 5.4lm113 engine especially with timely auto tranny fluid changes.You can also speak to Speedybenz about this fact since he has autocrossed his C43 at several events without any posted transmission failures.He does frequent auto tranny fluid changes as well.

[c55m8o]

Originally posted by sig425
Maybe the HPS system is the way to go?
[snip] yes, I won't argue it's the "better deal" for hp/$. Me, I considered
- It's not the 5.4L motor which has a number of advantages all covered already [ only(?) disadvantage is weight ] ; I always wanted this motor.
- superchargers have whine ; HPS gen one was the loudest, HPS gen II is quieter, Kleemann is quieter still.
- that's it for the 4.3L motor. Me, I'm still able to do an HPS or a Kleemann or custom "something" (turbo or centifical) ; where the Kleemann S/C of a previous gen E55 or CLK55 is said to be over 500hp (estimated crank value) ...
;)

[c55m8o]

Originally posted by J Irwan
Just a little information that might help explains
even you if drop the same engine 5.4L V-8 on the stock E55 (W210) chassis and C43 the dyno result would be different ..
why..???
Here is why
All W210 E55 runs on 2.82 rear end while C43 runs on 3.07 rear end.
Naturally the one with 3.07 will be able to put down more hp to the asphalt. Hence the rwhl hp would be higher.
So for C43 - 5.4L convertion to get the more accurate crank hp you will need to have different correction factor. What's the number ? I don't have the number.
But because of the higher wrhp on your car doesn't necessarily mean the Engine producing more hp than E55 spec. :)
I dunno if that math factors out tho ... before running the dyno, I asked if the guy running it needed the tranni ratios in each gear, and rear diff. He said no, it measures and relates wheel RPM to engine RPM throughout the whole mesaured range, through the gear changes, thereby taking into account the torque multiplication gained through tranni + rear diff gearing, and =normalizes= it. (well, he didn't say "normalization", but I know that's what it is ;) ).

So what I am saying by that is if I were to put in 2.82:1 gears in my car, that should not affect the measured rear wheel power [and inturn interpreted torque] if I re-dyno it, because the reduced torque multiplication offered by the new combo of tranni + rear diff gears would be less, and taken into account when normalized.

[coolcarlskic43]

Originally posted by c55m8o
yes, I won't argue it's the "better deal" for hp/$. Me, I considered
- It's not the 5.4L motor which has a number of advantages all covered already [ only(?) disadvantage is weight ] ; I always wanted this motor.
- superchargers have whine ; HPS gen one was the loudest, HPS gen II is quieter, Kleemann is quieter still.
- that's it for the 4.3L motor. Me, I'm still able to do an HPS or a Kleemann or custom "something" (turbo or centifical) ; where the Kleemann S/C of a previous gen E55 or CLK55 is said to be over 500hp (estimated crank value) ...
;) Well the weight difference in my opinion is minimal Steve.We are talking about a 50lb weight trade off.Now really,do you feel a weight difference? ;) Not only that but we have 360+ reliable HP as compared to a S/C high compression stck C43 motor.Which one do you think will require less maintenance and last longer.Best thing to do in either case would be to S/C either motor and build them with LC pistons or thicker head gaskets to reduce the risk of detonation. Why do you think the neww S/C E55's now use lower compression pistons in their F/I applications?:D Reliabiltity!

[c55m8o]

Originally posted by coolcarlskic43
Well the weight difference in my opinion is minimal Steve.We are talking about a 50lb weight trade off. ...ya, I didn't elaborate ... had I, I would have mentioned that a S/C weighs a good something too, with the weight up high only. At least in the 5.4L motor, the weight addition is down low primarily in the crank.
:D
Hey, don't shoot down SC'ing the 4.3L too much tho ; after all, you have a high boost car (yes, I know made for it from the start) ; and I know you, like me, are still considering boosting your 5.4L motor... ;)

[J Irwan]

Originally posted by c55m8o
I dunno if that math factors out tho ... before running the dyno, I asked if the guy running it needed the tranni ratios in each gear, and rear diff. He said no, it measures and relates wheel RPM to engine RPM throughout the whole mesaured range, through the gear changes, thereby taking into account the torque multiplication gained through tranni + rear diff gearing, and =normalizes= it. (well, he didn't say "normalization", but I know that's what it is ;) ).

So what I am saying by that is if I were to put in 2.82:1 gears in my car, that should not affect the measured rear wheel power [and inturn interpreted torque] if I re-dyno it, because the reduced torque multiplication offered by the new combo of tranni + rear diff gears would be less, and taken into account when normalized.

what I am saying is that higher rear end will yiled higher rear wheel hp.


for example with the current power that your car makes.
IF you were to switch 3.07 to let's say 3.45
Naturally you will get faster acceleration and when you put it on dyno it will yield higher rear wheel hp number.

At this point your engine will still be producing the same HP at cranck/fly-wheel.

When comes to tuning the performance out of the car, the ability get the power to the ground is as important (it could even be more important at some cases depending on a lot of factor) as getting the engine to produce more hp.



Regardz,

[Ashkan's C280]

I think speedybenzwas looking at moving the rear diff to 3:67:1

[c55m8o]

Originally posted by J Irwan
what I am saying is that higher rear end will yiled higher rear wheel hp.
for example with the current power that your car makes.
IF you were to switch 3.07 to let's say 3.45
Naturally you will get faster acceleration and when you put it on dyno it will yield higher rear wheel hp number.
At this point your engine will still be producing the same HP at cranck/fly-wheel.
When comes to tuning the performance out of the car, the ability get the power to the ground is as important (it could even be more important at some cases depending on a lot of factor) as getting the engine to produce more hp. I know you are saying that ; but it is not true. Dynos are "smarter" then that, and factor out torque/hp multiplication based on gearing from the final value ; any final value ; every final value. You are confusing the drum force @ a wheel rotational speed the dyno is measuring to the calculated HP it converts that too and produces as the final output.

Dynos are comparing engine RPM to the dyno drum's MPH continuously and applying a normalizatin factor. They are "gearing aware" you might say, and apply a different normalization factor to the values measured, unique to each gear shift. The higher the gear ratio, the higher the torque multiplication factor is that the measure HP is divided by.

Go from 3.07:1 gears to 3.45:1 gears, and re-dyno your car, and the dyno will detect the higher engine speed related to the drum's spinning speed, and apply a =larger= normalization factor to divide the measure HP values by. ...The end wheel HP & interpreted torque values will be the same. ...I should add, assuming it's a computerized dyno!

If dynos did not do this, when you look @ my dyno graph I posted in this thread (or any dyno grap), that shows a WOT run from 1st through 4th, the third gear torque would be graphed well above the 4th gear torque; the second gear torque would be graphed well above the 3rd gear values, etc. ...i.e. that would be the "raw" force @ the contact patch. However, again, dynos do more then measure raw force. They =interpret= that force with a =lot= of factors, to arrive @ a real wheel HP/Torque figure.

...dynos automatically normalize. Changing your gearing will not change the measured value of a dyno ; assuming it's a fully automated computerize dyno. If not, it's up the the operator to take the raw measured values @ the wheel in each gear, and divide that by a normalization factor that's something akin to :

[[ tranni gear ratio X rear diff ratio ] &#247; wheel radius ]

[c55m8o]

Originally posted by Ashkan's C280
I think speedybenzwas looking at moving the rear diff to 3:65:1 no, 3:45 or there abouts. He has it. It comes from W202s (not C43s) that were sold in Mexico.

[Ashkan's C280]

I would really like a 3.46 or 3.67:1 for my C43 with LSD.

What have you found out about the ECU adaptation to the new gear ratio.

Jeff.

3:67 my bad

[J Irwan]

Originally posted by c55m8o
I know you are saying that ; but it is not true. Dynos are "smarter" then that, and factor out torque/hp multiplication based on gearing from the final value ; any final value ; every final value. You are confusing the drum force @ a wheel rotational speed the dyno is measuring to the calculated HP it converts that too and produces as the final output.

Dynos are comparing engine RPM to the dyno drum's MPH continuously and applying a normalizatin factor. They are "gearing aware" you might say, and apply a different normalization factor to the values measured, unique to each gear shift. The higher the gear ratio, the higher the torque multiplication factor is that the measure HP is divided by.

Go from 3.07:1 gears to 3.45:1 gears, and re-dyno your car, and the dyno will detect the higher engine speed related to the drum's spinning speed, and apply a =larger= normalization factor to divide the measure HP values by. ...The end wheel HP & interpreted torque values will be the same. ...I should add, assuming it's a computerized dyno!

If dynos did not do this, when you look @ my dyno graph I posted in this thread (or any dyno grap), that shows a WOT run from 1st through 4th, the third gear torque would be graphed well above the 4th gear torque; the second gear torque would be graphed well above the 3rd gear values, etc. ...i.e. that would be the "raw" force @ the contact patch. However, again, dynos do more then measure raw force. They =interpret= that force with a =lot= of factors, to arrive @ a real wheel HP/Torque figure.

...dynos automatically normalize. Changing your gearing will not change the measured value of a dyno ; assuming it's a fully automated computerize dyno. If not, it's up the the operator to take the raw measured values @ the wheel in each gear, and divide that by a normalization factor that's something akin to :

[[ tranni gear ratio X rear diff ratio ] &#247; wheel radius ]



If you look at dyno tuning.
They could care less about the hp at cranck since eveyone will have theories of their own. (15% drivetrain loss vs 18% vs 20% some will say mercedes has 20%+ drivetrain loss).

When it comes down to measuring hp, the rwhl hp is the one that counts.


For example Let's take E55 stock with 349 hp. (with 20% drivetrain loss)
Most people see the runs about 280 rearwheel hp which with 20% drivetrain loss would be 290 x (100%/100%-20%) = 350 cranck hp.


Now you switch to 3.45 from 2.82 stock diff.
Now when you dyno it has 298 (just hypothecical #).
So now do calculate the hp at cranck you cannot use the same 20% drivetrain loss again. You will have to guesstimate the new number for the drivetrain loss.

so the next time you have other mods, such as ECU remap, Header you use the new correction factor to get the more accurate cranck hp number.

I am sure some of the new computer will have the correction factor calculation automatically calculate based on users input.


Bottom line what I am trying to say

while stock E55 running 280 rwhp and your C55 conversion running 298 rwhp that doesn;t mean your crank hp is higher.

Like I said before. Many people could care less about how much hp at cranck. When doing dyno tuning is rwhl is what counts.

The reason being is that not all engine created equal. Some will have lower hp and some stronger engine will have more power.
More power could lead to higher hp and lower torque from manufacture spec #, and vice versa.

And since dyno is only measuring approximate number, it is very hard to get the exact and consistent number since there are a lot of factor that affect the rwhl hp such as air temp, humidity, plus size rims and tires and so on (the list goes on).
That's why many people only look at the rwhl hp number.

Even with the same car , same dyno shop , and same dyno machine, different day it might produce different rwhl hp.


PS: Different dyno engine also produce different rwhl hp number for the same exact same car in the same condition. (off course these dyno engine has different correction factor number).



Regardz,

[c55m8o]

you don't need to say "When it comes down to measuring hp, the rwhl hp is the one that counts." ; you'll see in this thread and others I've posted to I say the same thing. I =hate= when someone (or some company) tries to tell me the engine HP based on chassis dyno readings. (I once voiced my disagreement with this to HPS about this in private)

But again, I'm going on one track, and you go off and imply I'm saying something else ...did I once say =crank= HP? ...or that what was being normalized was a crank HP? no.

...you're still confusing linear force @ the contact patch with the HP figure a dyno produces. And a normalization factor can and does get brought into the HP readings of a dyno, based on the difference between tne engine RPM vs. the rear wheel's RPM ... it does =NOT= have ta'do with having to estimate a crank HP to get to that value...nor am I implying that.

[c55m8o]

Originally posted by Ashkan's C280
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would really like a 3.46 or 3.67:1 for my C43 with LSD.

What have you found out about the ECU adaptation to the new gear ratio.

Jeff.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3:67 my bad ...argh... geez... ALLL THAT PROVES IS JEFF DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS AVAILABLE FOR THAT REAREND PUMPKIN WE HAVE @ THE TIME HE WROTE THAT -- HE HAS SINCE =BOUGHT= IT, AND =OWNS= IT, AND i =SAW= IT WHEN i WAS @ HIS HOUSE, AND TALKED ABOUT WHAT THE RATIO WAS, AND i CALLED THE SALVAGE YARD HE BOUGHT IT FROM SO i ALSO KNOW WHAT IS AVAILABLE, PLUS, i LOOKED IT UP FOR MYSELF ON THE INTERNET TA'BOOT...AND YOU CAN TOO! <grrrr>

Here... (dag nab-it)

From Potomac German Auto @
http://www.mbpartsonline.com/recycled.html

Perform an "Inventory Search" (OEM Recycled Used MB Part)

Select
1998
Mercedes C Class
Ring & Pinion Only

You are returned the sub-selection of:

Select your option
202 Type, C230, Mexico, MT, 3.46 ratio
202 Type, C230, Mexico, AT, 3.27 ratio
202 Type, C230, US, 3.27 ratio
202 Type, C280, 3.07 ratio
202 Type, C43, 3.07 ratio

:mad:

...from what I learned from both them, and BergWerks (before they closed their doors) minus changing out the whole rear-end assembly, 3.46 is as high as we can go in that rear-end.

So can I ask you...please just freak'n stop?! ...ney, I know what... I'm just going to stop responding... Next I'm going to have to purchase an entire dyno unit so I can scan the manual and post it here too...

[Ashkan's C280]

don't be a jerk... I am sick of fucking hearing it, you have good info and I just backed the info a search came up with... and back to the diffs you guys used the one from 202 Type, C230, Mexico, MT, 3.46 ratio? And you said minus replaceing the entire thing the most you can get is a 3.46, what would you replace it with? Hey man I'm a n00b when it comes to diff changes and gearing, just trying to figure some info out man cut some slack....

Another question jeff and some others ahve the kleeman lsdif I changed the ring and pinion to this c230 3.46 mexican type could I add lsd? And if not what would I have to change in order to add the kleeman lsd and a better diff?

[c55m8o]

Oh, and I'm supposed to edjamacate you now? good one... I recommend you edit and delete that opening and incoherent shit you just posted. It's called humility. Get some; much better then being arrogant, after being so wrong.

...consider this ... that info you so confidently refer to from a search... GEE, didn't it say something else too ?[i.e. "3.46"] ...and wasn't that the very same thing I confirmed to be the actual case?

Now, after reading my post stating the actual reality, you had two choices --
- be like all the others that read it, accepted it, and went on with life ...
- or choose the other of the two possibilities mentioned for no particular other reason for backing it then it being opposite to what someone else [I] said, as it's something you can pick-up on and be argumentative with ... Ya just missed the point you "should" only choose an argument you actually have a reason for backing ; NOT backing it just because it is the opposite to what someone else said.

...call me RodneyD.

[coolcarlskic43]

Originally posted by J Irwan


Bottom line what I am trying to say

while stock E55 running 280 rwhp and your C55 conversion running 298 rwhp that doesn;t mean your crank hp is higher.

Regardz, I don't see how you feel that the gearing will affect HP. E55's stck dyno from 285-293hp as well with the 2.82 rear diff.Same #'s as Steve's and my car pre chip upgrade!Same thing with the CLK55 which has a 2.82 rear end.All 3 cars have dynoed the same #'s in spite of them having the diffrerent rear end gear ratios.

[c55m8o]

Originally posted by coolcarlskic43
I don't see how you feel that the gearing will affect HP. E55's stck dyno from 285-293hp as well with the 2.82 rear diff.Same #'s as Steve's and my car pre chip upgrade!Same thing with the CLK55 which has a 2.82 rear end. Thanx for reminding me of that Carl. That's right... When I did my dyno, I did it chipped (soup'd up E55 program) two or three times (peak HP was 306, but a small peak so I don't really count it or usually mention it). Then had the C43 maps loaded and lost about 30 hp & ft-lbs ; then had the Stock E55 program loaded and was in the high 280's - low 290's like Carl mentions, inline with measured E55's. Chipping the E55 program yeilded about 9 - 16 hp in different areas of the HP curve.

[sig425]

heh that potomac place has an e55 motor :D too bad is $10k Yikes!!

[c55m8o]

Originally posted by sig425
heh that potomac place has an e55 motor :D too bad is $10k Yikes!! yep ... all salvage yards I found (3) over the years that had them always wanted $10K - $15. Wouldn't budge. :( ...like a leprechan (sic) and their gold... :p

[sig425]

well that settles that. I thought the total bill would be like $11k installed. I can install the SC but not a motor.

[c55m8o]

Originally posted by sig425
well that settles that. I thought the total bill would be like $11k installed. I can install the SC but not a motor. I won't disagree; just want to add tho, it would/could be $11K (or easily less if the engine doesn't need reconditioning), if you get the motor from Norman or directly from someone who wrecked their car like Carl did; getting the engine for a more realistic $6K range. ...I waited some 4 - 5 years because of that price before I stumbled on Carl, who then put me in touch with Norman after I was bitching about the engine prices to him. Just thought I'd mention that ; but w/o a doubt, there's some luck & timing involved in trying to source the engine from someone other then a salvage yard. Doing a S/C is =much= quicker and easier.

[sig425]

lol you are killin me. Just when I think I have made up my mind you throw a wrench in there. :D :D It prolly doesnt make much difference as I have to sell my bike or my rx7 before I can do anything. The nickle dime repairs to get the car to 100% are more like $1 to $5 on this thing. So my slush fund is about gone now and I have not replaced the suspension bushing yet.

[J Irwan]

Originally posted by coolcarlskic43
I don't see how you feel that the gearing will affect HP. E55's stck dyno from 285-293hp as well with the 2.82 rear diff.Same #'s as Steve's and my car pre chip upgrade!Same thing with the CLK55 which has a 2.82 rear end.All 3 cars have dynoed the same #'s in spite of them having the diffrerent rear end gear ratios.


you're missing my point.

What I was trying to say gearing will affect the hp you put down on the rearwheel.

Don't get confused with cranck hp.

I was just saying...that if you use different rear end than factory, then you do further modification your correction factor to get cranck hp estimate will be different.!!


I am not trying to say anything different.. (please read my post)
The reason I was posting because I sensed some confussion regarding estimated cranck hp from the same engine that is being put on the different car with different rear end ratio 3.07 vs 2.82 which both has the same exact geaing (same exact gearing for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, ...5th).

CLK55 W208 and E55 W210 have the same 2.82 rear end.


I have a lot of buddies back in the old days of E36 M3.
Changing to taller rear end result in faster acceleration (stock engine - no mod) and when you dyno , it will have higher rearwheel number.... (everything I said, there is a formula...)

thats why perfect gearing will get you far..

Take a look E46 M3 vs C5 corvette vs C32/C55.

E46 M3 will have the least hp and torque, while C5 corvette have the most hp and torque and the lightest of all.

But why E46 M3 can keep up.... ..its the gearing..!!
BMW did a good job on gearing no doubt about it.



I've seen too many people got so hang on achieving additional hp at the engine, but not try to minimize drivetrain loss....

A long time aga at benzsport (now bnzsport) I was exploring option to change my rear end to achieve this...
But I didn't pursue at the time, since I don't have a good MB mechanics that I can trsut to do the swap in my nearby area.


If you look at one of the best bang for the buck for E46 M3 and E39 M5 is changing rear-end to taller one. This will allow you to transfer more of that power to the ground....which result in faster acceleration..


Same reason speedybenz want to swap to taller rear-end. Faster acceleration !




Regardz,

[Ashkan's C280]

so what could we change to? And you're talking about a change of the entire rear diff?

[coolcarlskic43]

Originally posted by J Irwan
you're missing my point.

What I was trying to say gearing will affect the hp you put down on the rearwheel.

Don't get confused with cranck hp.

I was just saying...that if you use different rear end than factory, then you do further modification your correction factor to get cranck hp estimate will be different.!!


I am not trying to say anything different.. (please read my post)
The reason I was posting because I sensed some confussion regarding estimated cranck hp from the same engine that is being put on the different car with different rear end ratio 3.07 vs 2.82 which both has the same exact geaing (same exact gearing for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, ...5th).

CLK55 W208 and E55 W210 have the same 2.82 rear end.


I have a lot of buddies back in the old days of E36 M3.
Changing to taller rear end result in faster acceleration (stock engine - no mod) and when you dyno , it will have higher rearwheel number.... (everything I said, there is a formula...)

thats why perfect gearing will get you far..

Take a look E46 M3 vs C5 corvette vs C32/C55.

E46 M3 will have the least hp and torque, while C5 corvette have the most hp and torque and the lightest of all.

But why E46 M3 can keep up.... ..its the gearing..!!
BMW did a good job on gearing no doubt about it.



I've seen too many people got so hang on achieving additional hp at the engine, but not try to minimize drivetrain loss....

A long time aga at benzsport (now bnzsport) I was exploring option to change my rear end to achieve this...
But I didn't pursue at the time, since I don't have a good MB mechanics that I can trsut to do the swap in my nearby area.


If you look at one of the best bang for the buck for E46 M3 and E39 M5 is changing rear-end to taller one. This will allow you to transfer more of that power to the ground....which result in faster acceleration..


Same reason speedybenz want to swap to taller rear-end. Faster acceleration !




Regardz, I can not see how that has anything to do with HP.I can see that with the 3.07 rear vs the 2.82 rear the car with the 3.07 will spin the rear wheels faster as a result of the shorter gear ratio.

I cannot see how if you take an E55 with a 3.07 diff and an E55 with a 2.82 diff,place them both on the dyno in 4th gear how the dyno would show one of the cars putting down more hp to the wheels.

I think the car with the shorter gearing would put the same whp down but the difference would be that the actual axles would spin much faster and for a shorter time giving you quicker acceleration.I can't see how this necessarily increases HP to the wheels.


However, what will also happen in the long run is that the car with the same exact crank hp with the longer gears will also have a much higher top speed and at some point down the road,and even further down the road better acceleration potential at atmospheric speeds.

Because the longer gearing will also allow (x) car to stay in the sweet spot alot longer.This is also why guys that use F/I on the E36 cars opt for taller gears because the power will be stretched out over a wider range.This does not increase their wheel hp.


Perhaps someone can chime in on this.I sort of see your point somewhat but for some reason the dyno is making up for the gear ratio differences.How does the diff gear ratio's also equate to drivetrain loss?

Also 3.07=shorter.2.82= taller! Shorter for faster acceleration taller will result in less revolutions which = slower acceleration.

[c55m8o]

Originally posted by J Irwan
you're missing my point.

What I was trying to say gearing will affect the hp you put down on the rearwheel.

Don't get confused with cranck hp.
...
OK, sorry then. I'm with you on that.

Ya know, though, surprisingly, that vehicle performance simulation and optimization program I've fallen in love with, CarTest2000, had some interesting things "to say" about shorter gears in my car. It's got this really great "optimization" capability that maximizes performance varying one set of parameters, while you hold certain other parameters fixed... (and it combines measured wheel HP with rated flywheel hp & torque figures, takes into account various losses, to give you a realworld torque and hp engine curve it runs the optimization with) ... So hold the tranni gears fixed, then change the rear and do some 0-whatever mph passes, or 1/4 mile passes (or let it do the optimizations itself instead of you choosing gears)... and...

...long story short, something I read years ago from someone who wrote a great article on HP vs torque and the importance of each, proved true:
- all things being equal, it's better to make torque @ high rpm then low rpm because then you can take advantage of =gearing=.
- and as Carl has said, the MBs "shoot their load early" when it comes to torque... where you see my torque is @ 325 in the mid 4K rpm, but drops to near 225 near redline ... i.e. the 5.4L does =not= makes its torque @ high RPM

... well it turns out if I were to go to a higher rear gear ratio (w/o rasing redline), I'd actually be =increasing= times for 0-60 and 1/4 mile... :rolleyes: ; i.e. decreasing performance .... bummer. Going lower is actually a different story with the 5.4L engine, because of the low torque peak ... After all, as you're =only= using the low rpm torque peak in 1st gear, you want to maximize the pull 1st gear gives you ; i.e. longer gears. I should do some screen captures of 0-60 or 1/4 miles with different rears. That was pretty shocking, but it sure makes sense in retrospect.

The way Jeff has his car breathing tho, his car would be a different story. Actually, if Jeff were to dyno his car and get me the table data, I could do some optimizations (or, he could spend $40 & buy it himself; it's well worth the cost ;) )

[tho in the case of the BMW you make mention of ... yes it had higher raw force #s @ the wheel, but calculated rwhp shouldn't change, else someone was doing something wrong ; same idea of dyno'ing your car in 3rd, then dyno'ing it in 4th -- that's basically the same as dramatically changing your rear diff but keeping the tranni in the same gear -- the dyno will report the =same= HP & torque numbers measured in 3rd as when measured in 4th (ignoring possibly some more tranni losses in 3rd) ]

[c55m8o]

Originally posted by coolcarlskic43
...
Because the longer gearing will also allow (x) car to stay in the sweet spot alot longer.This is also why guys that use F/I on the E36 cars opt for taller gears because the power will be stretched out over a wider range.This does not increase their wheel hp.

Perhaps someone can chime in on this.I sort of see your point somewhat but for some reason the dyno is making up for the gear ratio differences.How does the diff gear ratio's also equate to drivetrain loss?

Also 3.07=shorter.2.82= taller! shorter for faster acceleration taller will result in less revolutions a slower acceleration. Yes, 100% on those accounts. I recommend everyone into this invest in CarTest2000 ... program's awesome.

The only thing I'd say counter to that is when a car is "torque-deficient", but torque stays flat or even rises up to readline, and redline is into the 7Ks or higher, it's =better= to run with shorter gears (higher ratio like Carl's saying) ... like the stock E46 M3 as an example.

[coolcarlskic43]

And from my understanding the differential is basically the TQ multiplier not the hp multiplier!Which we know affects the pwr over a given rpm range!

[J Irwan]

Originally posted by coolcarlskic43
And from my understanding the differential is basically the TQ multiplier not the hp multiplier!Which we know affects the pwr over a given rpm range!



sorry about the taller vr shorter gears...

I was mixed about that and I realized that I after I re-read my post. :)


Now about hp vs torque just so you know...
HP is derived from rpm x torque.. (I don't remember the formula but that is the general concept).

Just looking at your statement if rear-end affect torque (making it higher at rear wheel) it will also increase the rearwheel hp.


Regardz,

[J Irwan]

Originally posted by c55m8o
OK, sorry then. I'm with you on that.

Ya know, though, surprisingly, that vehicle performance simulation and optimization program I've fallen in love with, CarTest2000, had some interesting things "to say" about shorter gears in my car. It's got this really great "optimization" capability that maximizes performance varying one set of parameters, while you hold certain other parameters fixed... (and it combines measured wheel HP with rated flywheel hp & torque figures, takes into account various losses, to give you a realworld torque and hp engine curve it runs the optimization with) ... So hold the tranni gears fixed, then change the rear and do some 0-whatever mph passes, or 1/4 mile passes (or let it do the optimizations itself instead of you choosing gears)... and...

...long story short, something I read years ago from someone who wrote a great article on HP vs torque and the importance of each, proved true:
- all things being equal, it's better to make torque @ high rpm then low rpm because then you can take advantage of =gearing=.
- and as Carl has said, the MBs "shoot their load early" when it comes to torque... where you see my torque is @ 325 in the mid 4K rpm, but drops to near 225 near redline ... i.e. the 5.4L does =not= makes its torque @ high RPM

... well it turns out if I were to go to a higher rear gear ratio (w/o rasing redline), I'd actually be =increasing= times for 0-60 and 1/4 mile... :rolleyes: ; i.e. decreasing performance .... bummer. Going lower is actually a different story with the 5.4L engine, because of the low torque peak ... After all, as you're =only= using the low rpm torque peak in 1st gear, you want to maximize the pull 1st gear gives you ; i.e. longer gears. I should do some screen captures of 0-60 or 1/4 miles with different rears. That was pretty shocking, but it sure makes sense in retrospect.

The way Jeff has his car breathing tho, his car would be a different story. Actually, if Jeff were to dyno his car and get me the table data, I could do some optimizations (or, he could spend $40 & buy it himself; it's well worth the cost ;) )

[tho in the case of the BMW you make mention of ... yes it had higher raw force #s @ the wheel, but calculated rwhp shouldn't change, else someone was doing something wrong ; same idea of dyno'ing your car in 3rd, then dyno'ing it in 4th -- that's basically the same as dramatically changing your rear diff but keeping the tranni in the same gear -- the dyno will report the =same= HP & torque numbers measured in 3rd as when measured in 4th (ignoring possibly some more tranni losses in 3rd) ]



Whewss.... finally I am glad you see what I am trying to say. (I almost gave up :p ).

I agree with what you said, that the torque on E55 engine is available on low rpm and they could use the taller gear (2.82 as opposed to 3.07) to get the optimum sweet spot on the power band.

I have to disagree with you.
However if you switch the rear-end from 3.07 to 3.45 you will gain better 0-60 time and 1/4 miles times. After all 3.07 is not that extreme at all. Now if you go extrem from 3.07 to say 4.21 that you might still be gaining quicker 0-60 time and slower on 1.4 miles.
As I said 3.07 is still not optimum. I think the reason MB choose 3.07 to be the most aggressive rear-end on their car is to preserver MPG number. (everything is design and fitted for a reason, after all not everyone who buy AMG is willing to put up with poor MPG)


But like everything else, a lot of thing is stock form from exhaust setup (noise vs free flow), chip (ignition timing and fuel map) to gearing is setup that way for a reason. To compensate for all kind of driver / consumer. for minimum noise optimum fuel efficiency/optimum mpg.

Many has switch to shorter rear-end to be on the more aggressive side. But at the same time you don't want it to be too short so that you lose some of the high-end performance (decreased top speed, etc).
If MPG if not a concerned I am sure shorter gearing will be faster.

The same reason you see CLK55 W209 and C55 W203 use 3.07 rear end. 0-60 4.7 sec
And CLK55 W208 2.82 0-60 5.0 sec (All 3 of these cars has the same exact gearing for 1st -5th)


Also On E36 M3 F/I only a few people who gone extreme hp will opt for taller gear (2.82 instead of 3.45). But most of them switch to more aggressive ratio to compensate on the low end turbo lag.
Many of these cases there don't have extremee hp (such as 800+) to go for more relaxed rear-end.


I forgot where I read it before , there was a lot of good information on engine performance that discuss why smaller displacement could have maintain the torque curve for a longer period of time than the bigger displacement.
While bigger displacement have more at the beginning but it also dropping at higher rpm which why you see all AMG redlines are not so high compare to S2000 2.0L (240hp) and E36 M3 euro 3.0L (286hp)

PS: You can theorized all the stuff I posted. But I sat in one of my buddy car that only has rear-diff upgrade and it definitely pull faster. And reach the stop limiter (155 mph) faster too.


Regardz,

[c55m8o]

hold your opinion until you see it calculated out though (I'm tell'n ya, get CatTest2000 ;) )... I'd say after seeing the runs, you shouldn't underestimate the impact such a drop-off in torque @ high RPM can have, and how that works against raising the rear-end gear ratio, too much. Hey, I was a =die-hard= advocate of converting my rear to 3.45:1 ; that is, was, but not with this engine's torque rolling off as it does @ high rpm .

yes, CarTest2000 also says 3.07 is pretty much the optimal rear. What I was saying was it also proves out that going longer (to 2.82:1) would be better with that engine then going to shorter gearing (to 3.45:1).

BTW, raising the gear ratio is not all upside ; there's trade-off there too, since the shift occurs a few mph sooner in each gear when you have shorter gears; (I hope I can explain this right) ... for the few mph difference between where it shifts with the shorter gears, compared to where it used to shift with the longer stock gears, acceleration is actually =lower= because you have less torque multiplication working for you, as you're in the next higher gear. Less "F", same "m", less "a". So that actually takes more time to get through that few mph range, then with the stock gears. Of course, for all the rest of the mph range in that gear, acceleration is quicker with the shorter gears. However it's important to realize there's some given back through the RPM range, so it's not all up-side.

This is also why I say going to shorter gears should be accompanied with a raise in the redline as well (which of course is easier said than [safely] done). [ Please read my analysis on this subject here ... ] (http://www.amg-owners-club.org/board/en/wbb2/thread.php?threadid=2454#post13733)

If this is done, there is no trade-off, as
a) you have more pull in each gear @ the tire's contact patch from the shorter gears...
b) since you have a higher redline, you can now pull longer (to a higher RPM) then you did before, and you will not have to shift out of the gear sooner because of the shorter gear.

I'm really not sure if this is clear enough. If you read my analysis on this, it should be clearer. Also, please read my reply to ironchefc43 just under the one I'm linking to, regarding the gains if you raise the redline to accompany the shorter gears.

[coolcarlskic43]

Originally posted by J Irwan
sorry about the taller vr shorter gears...

I was mixed about that and I realized that I after I re-read my post. :)


Now about hp vs torque just so you know...
HP is derived from rpm x torque.. (I don't remember the formula but that is the general concept).

Just looking at your statement if rear-end affect torque (making it higher at rear wheel) it will also increase the rearwheel hp.


Regardz, The engine TQ is multiplied by the differential to spin the rear wheels at a certain revolution.Then you have to apply a formula based on all of that.

I strongly dissagree about the fact that having 4.11 gears in the rear of my E36 M3 will show an increase in rear wheel hp as opposed to having a 3.23 diff on the car.The ex. you gave about the C5 and the E46 M3 does not equate to the E46 M3 putting down similar or more hp to the wheels than the C5 because of the diff.No offense but that does not make sense,if that's what you are saying.

Alot has to do with the characteristics of the motor and weight + rear axle ratio of the two vehicles .

The two vehicles are very close when it comes to rwhp 270-280(M3) vs rwhp 295(Corvette).This is not because of the differential.How they run against each other off of the dyno can be attributed to weight,engine character,and gearing. They are also close in rwhp.

[c55m8o]

BTW, J, I still wish to come to some clarity on the subject... ;) I think I put my finger on the whole back and forth. I finally realize we still continue to use the same terminology, but are talking about slightly different things when we say rw hp (or rw torque) ... I'll annotate this with a visual aid <grin>.

So, please note my HP/Torque graph I posted in the middle of this thread ... actually, I'll post it here...
http://images10.fotki.com/v194/photos/2/296054/2283186/c55_dyno-vi.gif
(btw, this is the stock E55 chip program. DYNORUN.001 done with the mod'ed E55 program peaked @ 306hp, but I don't have it graphed like this.)

So to understand, I'll ask, how is it the HP & Torque graphs when the car is in third, is measured and rendered to the same values @ the same RPM as when the car is in fourth? I know that this graph represents hp (& calculated torque) to the rear wheels, not crank. (any why I'm saying "dynos normalize", to =remove= gearing from the equation).

I also know though, you're saying "hp to the wheel is greater the shorter the rear" ... well yes, but I guess I'd like to call that linear force @ the tire's contact patch, not rwhp. But isn't it true that's also the case the lower the tranni gear? i.e. more force @ the tire's contact patch in 3rd vs. 4th, and 2nd vs. 3rd, and 1st vs 2nd?

So what I'm trying to understand, is it you are saying that the graph above is =not= a rear wheel hp and rear wheel torque graph? What is it then / what would you name it? I don't think that's the case. And I know it's not "crank" hp & torque. So what I'm having trouble with is, if that graph shows rwhp, how can we call what you're saying -- that =includes= gearing in the equation and any resulting graph if it were to be graphed -- rwhp too? (actually, CarTest2000 does have a particular name for that, but that's on my laptop and I'm not up for going to get it, plug it in and turn in on to see @ the moment... ;) ).

Therefore, perhaps, wouldn't it be better to call the force being applied the the tire's contact patch that is a result of including gearing in the equation which you keep using, =effective= HP and =effective= torque? ... it is the =effective= torque applied to the tires' contact patch, as a result of torque multiplication when taking gearing into account as well.

So I finally get to the point, that I guess it all boils down to is it generally accepted to call it rwhp, and include gearing? I personally, thought it was not ; that rwhp is the engine crank torque, passed through the drive-train and tires, and the rotating torque at a speed (a.k.a. HP) is measured, and normalized to remove gearing ; and if gearing was included, it should be called something else (i.e. effective rwhp).

thoughts?

[c55m8o]

Originally posted by J Irwan
HP is derived from rpm x torque.. (I don't remember the formula but that is the general concept).

Just looking at your statement if rear-end affect torque (making it higher at rear wheel) it will also increase the rearwheel hp.
The linear relationship is :

HP = (Torque * RPM) / 5252

HP is said to be derived from Torque. I think the scientific way to look at it is (and I might be wrong, sorry if so), engines produce torque, not power ; once the output of the engine's torque is applied to an eternal device and coupled to something that produces motion, that is said to be power.

somewhat confusing is , chassis dynos measure HP and calculate Torque.

I believe engine dynos measure Torque, and calculate HP tho.

[coolcarlskic43]

Originally posted by J Irwan






Paragraph 1.
Also On E36 M3 F/I only a few people who gone extreme hp will opt for taller gear (2.82 instead of 3.45). But most of them switch to more aggressive ratio to compensate on the low end turbo lag.
Many of these cases there don't have extremee hp (such as 800+) to go for more relaxed rear-end.

Paragraph 2.
I forgot where I read it before , there was a lot of good information on engine performance that discuss why smaller displacement could have maintain the torque curve for a longer period of time than the bigger displacement.
While bigger displacement have more at the beginning but it also dropping at higher rpm which why you see all AMG redlines are not so high compare to S2000 2.0L (240hp) and E36 M3 euro 3.0L (286hp)

Paragraph 3.
PS: You can theorized all the stuff I posted. But I sat in one of my buddy car that only has rear-diff upgrade and it definitely pull faster. And reach the stop limiter (155 mph) faster too.


Regardz, I disagree with you on paragraph 1.READ:http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=137214&highlight=3.38+diff The guy CRISTIAN makes some very good pts.


I disagree with you on paragraph 2.

This is not true of all bigger displacement motors.Alot of it has to do with the way the bigger displacement motors internals are designed(head,#of valves,crankshaft esign,rods) The new AMG 6.3L V8 will rev beyond 7000 rpm's and make 503hp and 465ftlbs of TQ.Most of the TQ(369) will be available from 2k up.I guarantee you they will not put a radically shorter gear ratio in the car especially because it has so much TQ down low.This is the advantage of bigger displacement plus the fact that the motor now will be a 4 valve per cylinder V8 vs the old 3 valve per cylinder V8. It will be capable of making more hp at higher rev's because it can now breathe better.I guarantee you this will have nothing to do with the diff gearing also providing more hp but will kind of decrease the TQ compared to the older M311 S/C E55 engine.Also think of the new 10 cyl 5.0L M5 motor.Bigger displacement,multi valve head,more hp,more TQ but less than the AMG 6.3L because as MB always does,They go with bigger displacement.


I agree with you on paragraph 3.

The shorter gearing you will get faster acceleration(N/A) but it does not mean it's because of an increase in HP to the wheels.It also means that you run out of usable pwr quicker over the whole rpm range and bang! here comes the next gear shift just to pick back up the power and get back into the sweet spot.This also negates some of the usable power when you are driving a turbocharged vehicle. Finally ,as the speeds get higher there will be no more advantage for the shorter geared car.

P.S. the 2003-2005 CLK's have 2.82 rears not 3.07 which you mentioned above.

[coolcarlskic43]

Steve,please PM me or send me your tel# via MBworld and also email! Thanx! Here I thought I'd help out!:D http://www.mbworld.org/forums/private.php?do=newpm&userid=13079

[c55m8o]

Originally posted by coolcarlskic43
Steve,please PM me or send me your tel# via MBworld and also email! Thanx! Here I thought I'd help out!:D I'm hurt that I was deleted out of your cellphone... :p # was sent.
(that link formatted to my account was pretty kewl)

[J Irwan]

Originally posted by c55m8o
hold your opinion until you see it calculated out though (I'm tell'n ya, get CatTest2000 ;) )... I'd say after seeing the runs, you shouldn't underestimate the impact such a drop-off in torque @ high RPM can have, and how that works against raising the rear-end gear ratio, too much. Hey, I was a =die-hard= advocate of converting my rear to 3.45:1 ; that is, was, but not with this engine's torque rolling off as it does @ high rpm .

yes, CarTest2000 also says 3.07 is pretty much the optimal rear. What I was saying was it also proves out that going longer (to 2.82:1) would be better with that engine then going to shorter gearing (to 3.45:1).

BTW, raising the gear ratio is not all upside ; there's trade-off there too, since the shift occurs a few mph sooner in each gear when you have shorter gears; (I hope I can explain this right) ... for the few mph difference between where it shifts with the shorter gears, compared to where it used to shift with the longer stock gears, acceleration is actually =lower= because you have less torque multiplication working for you, as you're in the next higher gear. Less "F", same "m", less "a". So that actually takes more time to get through that few mph range, then with the stock gears. Of course, for all the rest of the mph range in that gear, acceleration is quicker with the shorter gears. However it's important to realize there's some given back through the RPM range, so it's not all up-side.

This is also why I say going to shorter gears should be accompanied with a raise in the redline as well (which of course is easier said than [safely] done). [ Please read my analysis on this subject here ... ] (http://www.amg-owners-club.org/board/en/wbb2/thread.php?threadid=2454#post13733)

If this is done, there is no trade-off, as
a) you have more pull in each gear @ the tire's contact patch from the shorter gears...
b) since you have a higher redline, you can now pull longer (to a higher RPM) then you did before, and you will not have to shift out of the gear sooner because of the shorter gear.

I'm really not sure if this is clear enough. If you read my analysis on this, it should be clearer. Also, please read my reply to ironchefc43 just under the one I'm linking to, regarding the gains if you raise the redline to accompany the shorter gears.


Yes I agree threre is threshold , you cannot just pick random shorter gear. you have to calculated to determine which is optimal for.

then again what is optimal for all around is not the same for optimal performance.

Since optimal performance doesn't always conform to better MPG.

;)


PS: I don't see why that thread contracdic with I am saying.
Especially going from 3.07 to 3.45 is not that extreme.
When you go much shorter gear you will most likely need to increase the read line since the sweep rpm spot shift higher now. So you want to be able to use the usable power through out the entire rpm in which now is higher (hence need to raise rpm limit).

Regardz,


Regardz,

[J Irwan]

Originally posted by coolcarlskic43
The engine TQ is multiplied by the differential to spin the rear wheels at a certain revolution.Then you have to apply a formula based on all of that.

I strongly dissagree about the fact that having 4.11 gears in the rear of my E36 M3 will show an increase in rear wheel hp as opposed to having a 3.23 diff on the car.The ex. you gave about the C5 and the E46 M3 does not equate to the E46 M3 putting down similar or more hp to the wheels than the C5 because of the diff.No offense but that does not make sense,if that's what you are saying.

Alot has to do with the characteristics of the motor and weight + rear axle ratio of the two vehicles .

The two vehicles are very close when it comes to rwhp 270-280(M3) vs rwhp 295(Corvette).This is not because of the differential.How they run against each other off of the dyno can be attributed to weight,engine character,and gearing. They are also close in rwhp.


Lets talk apple to apple

On this example E46 M3 using 4.11 vs 3.23 diff
4.11 will produce more rearwheel hp number.


I am getting tired saying smething over and over again.
If you can't agree too bad. I'd suggest to do more reading.


Regardz,

[J Irwan]

Originally posted by c55m8o
BTW, J, I still wish to come to some clarity on the subject... ;) I think I put my finger on the whole back and forth. I finally realize we still continue to use the same terminology, but are talking about slightly different things when we say rw hp (or rw torque) ... I'll annotate this with a visual aid <grin>.

So, please note my HP/Torque graph I posted in the middle of this thread ... actually, I'll post it here...
http://images10.fotki.com/v194/photos/2/296054/2283186/c55_dyno-vi.gif
(btw, this is the stock E55 chip program. DYNORUN.001 done with the mod'ed E55 program peaked @ 306hp, but I don't have it graphed like this.)

So to understand, I'll ask, how is it the HP & Torque graphs when the car is in third, is measured and rendered to the same values @ the same RPM as when the car is in fourth? I know that this graph represents hp (& calculated torque) to the rear wheels, not crank. (any why I'm saying "dynos normalize", to =remove= gearing from the equation).

I also know though, you're saying "hp to the wheel is greater the shorter the rear" ... well yes, but I guess I'd like to call that linear force @ the tire's contact patch, not rwhp. But isn't it true that's also the case the lower the tranni gear? i.e. more force @ the tire's contact patch in 3rd vs. 4th, and 2nd vs. 3rd, and 1st vs 2nd?

So what I'm trying to understand, is it you are saying that the graph above is =not= a rear wheel hp and rear wheel torque graph? What is it then / what would you name it? I don't think that's the case. And I know it's not "crank" hp & torque. So what I'm having trouble with is, if that graph shows rwhp, how can we call what you're saying -- that =includes= gearing in the equation and any resulting graph if it were to be graphed -- rwhp too? (actually, CarTest2000 does have a particular name for that, but that's on my laptop and I'm not up for going to get it, plug it in and turn in on to see @ the moment... ;) ).

Therefore, perhaps, wouldn't it be better to call the force being applied the the tire's contact patch that is a result of including gearing in the equation which you keep using, =effective= HP and =effective= torque? ... it is the =effective= torque applied to the tires' contact patch, as a result of torque multiplication when taking gearing into account as well.

So I finally get to the point, that I guess it all boils down to is it generally accepted to call it rwhp, and include gearing? I personally, thought it was not ; that rwhp is the engine crank torque, passed through the drive-train and tires, and the rotating torque at a speed (a.k.a. HP) is measured, and normalized to remove gearing ; and if gearing was included, it should be called something else (i.e. effective rwhp).

thoughts?


All I was pointing out the relation of higher rear diff on C43 vs E55 E210. Which why attribute to different reading.


If you want to prove me wrong try the same car dyno with different rear-diff gear ratio and you will see what I am trying to say.


When it comes down to dyno using stock gearing sure this applies:

quote:
So I finally get to the point, that I guess it all boils down to is it generally accepted to call it rwhp, and include gearing? I personally, thought it was not ; that rwhp is the engine crank torque, passed through the drive-train and tires, and the rotating torque at a speed (a.k.a. HP) is measured, and normalized to remove gearing ; and if gearing was included, it should be called something else (i.e. effective rwhp).

But when the gearing changes is in the equation that when you see increase in rearwheel hp.

If you think about it, dyno doesn't know whether the geariing has been changed from 2.82 to 3.07 for example. (all it jobs is measuring rotational force either applying brake horse power or vise versa).
All it knows when it measure the rotational force is now greater (as a result of the new gearing).

As I mentioned before upgrading the rear-end diff is not a hack job. Its need to be calculated properly.
If you see some aftermarket company offer it for a specfic ratio, its there for a reason (they probably already done back to back calculation and R&D to select particular ratio, otherwise if it is too high you might just getting better 0-60 time , but slower at 1/4 miles and slower at higher speed).




Regardz,

[c55m8o]

(yo ; ya gotta stop including the =whole= thread on the replies... that's just plain ridiculous! ...don't you agree? ...I'm hoping you aren't doing it on purpose to slam/dis the thread? and me? )


Originally posted by J Irwan
quote:
So I finally get to the point, that I guess it all boils down to is it generally accepted to call it rwhp, and include gearing? I personally, thought it was not ; that rwhp is the engine crank torque, passed through the drive-train and tires, and the rotating torque at a speed (a.k.a. HP) is measured, and normalized to remove gearing ; and if gearing was included, it should be called something else (i.e. effective rwhp).

But when the gearing changes is in the equation that when you see increase in rearwheel hp. Sorry? I'm not sure what you're saying (typos?) , but I'm sure it didn't answer/address my question.

Again, is it accepted practice to include torque multiplication offered thru gearing in rear-wheel hp measurements? ... operative word being "measurements" ; because I know it not to be the generally accepted practice. After all, then everyone would "measure" their HP in 3rd and get higher results, or 2nd and still higher, or 1st and still higher. (and we all know that's not the way it works )

And if you will, why did the dyno graph I posted produce the same values in 3rd gear as in 4th?

Remember, I am, and always have been, (as well as Carl) talking about the =MEASURED= HP a dyno returns... not =EFFECTIVE= RWHP that is a result of =BOTH= tranni and rear-end gearing. I reiterate what you are saying is not =measured= RWHP.

I agree now as I always have, =YES= shorter gears will produce more =EFFECTIVE= rwhp ; though that was never what I was talking about. I would have stated it earlier if I would have realized what you were talking about was different then what we were talking about. I will never agree that my car measure higher rwhp then you thought it should because it has 3.07 gears ; because gearing is automatically factored out in a dyno.

I will reiterate when a dyno =MEASURES= rwhp, it removes gearing from the values it returns, since it knows engine RPM and dyno drum rotation speed, so can calculate a normalization factor to remove torque multiplication from the measured value. The combination of tranni gear and rear diff gear and tire radius, which all factor into the amount of linear force produced @ a tire's contact patch, is a "black box", and gets reduced to one number. This one number is a single normalization coefficient (sic) that is "less then 1" -- the lower the tranni gear engaged in the tranni, the smaller the normalization value for that measurment sub-range -- and is multiplied to the raw physical (effective) rwhp measured, to remove all gearing and make the dyno interplolate the physical (effective) rwhp, and reduce it to as if it was a 1:1 gearing with a tire having a 1 foot radius ; thereby producing a measured rwhp.

I don't need to spend thousands of thousands of $$$ changing my rear-end to know that's how dyno measurements work.
...computerized dynos that is ; where drivetrain parameters are not entered and fixed into it, rather it is free to calculate the normalization factors ; if you measure a car on an older dyno, where you had to enter the drivetrain values and tire dimensions, then change the rear but you =don't= change the drivetrain values ... YES, it will measure a higer HP -- but that is ERRONEOUS, because the dyno was mis-configured with incorrect drivetrain values. [!]

[c55m8o]

Originally posted by J Irwan
If you think about it, dyno doesn't know whether the geariing has been changed from 2.82 to 3.07 for example. (all it jobs is measuring rotational force either applying brake horse power or vise versa).
All it knows when it measure the rotational force is now greater (as a result of the new gearing).
um, yes it does [!] ... I have thought about it -- and the guy who operates the dyno I last used has apparently thought about it because he told me this same thing wehn I was there that I posted in my last post, which he learned from the dyno manufacturer, reinforcing what I knew to be the case for quite some time -- and it =does= know the difference between 2.82 gearing and 3.07 gearing, because when you dyno a car it also knows the engine RPM right off your plugs or coil, and knows the final rotation speed of the rear wheel via the dyno's drum speed... (yes ... and the dyno normalizes the values using the ratio difference between drum RMP and engine RPM ... bla bla bla...)

Fine. Continue to believe what you will....more pwr2ya...

... I will continue to know putting a car on a dyno will not =measure= higher or lower rwhp generated by the engine with different (shorter or longer respectively) rear-end gear ratios, or if it's measured in 3rd or 4th or 2nd, which is basically the same thing on a larger gear-ratio scale.

...and I will continue to call what you call "rwhp", "effective rwhp".

...but if you do call a hp that includes gearing @ the wheels, "rwhp", what do you call rwhp a dyno measures?

[c55m8o]

Originally posted by J Irwan
As I mentioned before upgrading the rear-end diff is not a hack job. Its need to be calculated properly.
If you see some aftermarket company offer it for a specfic ratio, its there for a reason (they probably already done back to back calculation and R&D to select particular ratio, otherwise if it is too high you might just getting better 0-60 time , but slower at 1/4 miles and slower at higher speed). That is definitely something I will support. Happly, I'll again say CarTest2000 actually said the 3.07 was a better gearing for my car then 2.82 gears, after I entered the measured rwhp curve and it used that in its interpolations and calculations.

[J Irwan]

Originally posted by c55m8o
That is definitely something I will support. Happly, I'll again say CarTest2000 actually said the 3.07 was a better gearing for my car then 2.82 gears, after I entered the measured rwhp curve and it used that in its interpolations and calculations.


Off course.

Now try with 3.45 as 3.45 should be an upgrade to your car not the 2.82 :)


Regardz,

[c55m8o]

Originally posted by J Irwan
PS: I don't see why that thread contracdic with I am saying.
Especially going from 3.07 to 3.45 is not that extreme.
When you go much shorter gear you will most likely need to increase the read line since the sweep rpm spot shift higher now. So you want to be able to use the usable power through out the entire rpm in which now is higher (hence need to raise rpm limit).
That wasn't meant as any disagreement with what you were saying ... just an "FYI". I said "BTW, raising the gear ratio is not all upside ; there's trade-off there too, since the shift occurs a few mph sooner in each gear when you have shorter gears; (I hope I can explain this right) ... etc..."

[c55m8o]

Originally posted by J Irwan
Off course.

Now try with 3.45 as 3.45 should be an upgrade to your car not the 2.82 :)
LOL ... I did ... I did... =Trust= me, I =wanted= 3.45:1 gears. I don't have my laptop on again ; I have to make some screen captures and post them. I'll have a visual aid hopefully tomorrow of what CarTest2000 simulates and I'll post it here.

[coolcarlskic43]

Originally posted by c55m8o
(yo ; ya gotta stop including the =whole= thread on the replies... that's just plain ridiculous! ...don't you agree? ...I'm hoping you aren't doing it on purpose to slam/dis the thread? and me? )

Sorry? I'm not sure what you're saying (typos?) , but I'm sure it didn't answer/address my question.

Again, is it accepted practice to include torque multiplication offered thru gearing in rear-wheel hp measurements? ... operative word being "measurements" ; because I know it not to be the generally accepted practice. After all, then everyone would "measure" their HP in 3rd and get higher results, or 2nd and still higher, or 1st and still higher. (and we all know that's not the way it works )

And if you will, why did the dyno graph I posted produce the same values in 3rd gear as in 4th?

Remember, I am, and always have been, (as well as Carl) talking about the =MEASURED= HP a dyno returns... not =EFFECTIVE= RWHP that is a result of =BOTH= tranni and rear-end gearing. I reiterate what you are saying is not =measured= RWHP.

I agree now as I always have, =YES= shorter gears will produce more =EFFECTIVE= rwhp ; though that was never what I was talking about. I would have stated it earlier if I would have realized what you were talking about was different then what we were talking about. I will never agree that my car measure higher rwhp then you thought it should because it has 3.07 gears ; because gearing is automatically factored out in a dyno.

I will reiterate when a dyno =MEASURES= rwhp, it removes gearing from the values it returns, since it knows engine RPM and dyno drum rotation speed, so can calculate a normalization factor to remove torque multiplication from the measured value. The combination of tranni gear and rear diff gear and tire radius, which all factor into the amount of linear force produced @ a tire's contact patch, is a "black box", and gets reduced to one number. This one number is a single normalization coefficient (sic) that is "less then 1" -- the lower the tranni gear engaged in the tranni, the smaller the normalization value for that measurment sub-range -- and is multiplied to the raw physical (effective) rwhp measured, to remove all gearing and make the dyno interplolate the physical (effective) rwhp, and reduce it to as if it was a 1:1 gearing with a tire having a 1 foot radius ; thereby producing a measured rwhp.

I don't need to spend thousands of thousands of $$$ changing my rear-end to know that's how dyno measurements work.
...computerized dynos that is ; where drivetrain parameters are not entered and fixed into it, rather it is free to calculate the normalization factors ; if you measure a car on an older dyno, where you had to enter the drivetrain values and tire dimensions, then change the rear but you =don't= change the drivetrain values ... YES, it will measure a higer HP -- but that is ERRONEOUS, because the dyno was mis-configured with incorrect drivetrain values. [!] Steve I clearly understand what you're saying which has me understanding what he's trying to say which I can clearly see in my mind.Question? This is weird! If one were to put a 3.07 rear in a CLK430 vs it's 2.82,would it theortically do what J Irwin is trying to say?Interesting!Hence I understand the term "effective" RWHP.Which makes total sense.All I know is that with the stck E55 S/W in my car was putting down mid to high 280's rwhp just like an E55 which we know has a taller rear gear ratio.

Are the rear gear ratios taken into condideration prior to the car being placed on the dyno?I think I do remember George asking me what the diff gear ratio was.But he could have been just asking. I will call him this morning and ask him how this RWHP thing wrks according to the dyno.

I know you were'nt at ICS performance when we did our dyno runs but Marc(Tump) dynoed 238 RWHP in his C43,Curtis dynoed 234 RWHP in his C43 and Neal dynoed 225 RWHP in his CLK430.Weird for the CLK to only be down 9 RWHP from Curtis C43 when they advertise 302HP crank (C43) VS 275HP crank(CLK430).Interesting I thought.Am I going off on another tangent as well?
,Please let me know. Sorry about the several different questions.Hey after all you are the engineer so I have confidence you can handle it!:D

[coolcarlskic43]

Originally posted by J Irwan
Off course.

Now try with 3.45 as 3.45 should be an upgrade to your car not the 2.82 :)


Regardz, In the 1/4 mile yes!!!!Effective hp yes! Rwhp on the dyno?
Originally posted by J Irwan
Lets talk apple to apple

On this example E46 M3 using 4.11 vs 3.23 diff
4.11 will produce more rearwheel hp number.


I am getting tired saying smething over and over again.
If you can't agree too bad. I'd suggest to do more reading.


Regardz, Hate to sound brash man but I suggest you RELAX,CALM DOWN ,we'll find out. Jeez!

[c55m8o]

Originally posted by 714guy
Thanks, for the info. Just didn't know how i could get the flanges. 714guy, not sure if you'll read this thread and get this ... if so, I was @ the guys house who made those custom turbo headers for Jeff to talk to him about headers for my car ... I saw all the jigs and flanges he had on his wall for cars he's done, or has in stock for cars he does often, and I asked him if he had an extra C36 flange ... he didn't think so, but low and behold after a little bit of looking, he's got one. So, if you want/need it, I can put you in contact with the guy. lemme know.

[coolcarlskic43]

Originally posted by c55m8o
714guy, not sure if you'll read this thread and get this ... if so, I was @ the guys house who made those custom turbo headers for Jeff to talk to him about headers for my car ... I saw all the jigs and flanges he had on his wall for cars he's done, or has in stock for cars he does often, and I asked him if he had an extra C36 flange ... he didn't think so, but low and behold after a little bit of looking, he's got one. So, if you want/need it, I can put you in contact with the guy. lemme know. Steve there is a guy (JLee) on MBworld using headers and his 1/4 mile and trap times were still slower than mine unless I have the wrng guy.This guy spent alot of money.You know what my next mod is gonna be? CAMS,definitely!!!! ;)

[c55m8o]

Originally posted by coolcarlskic43
Steve there is a guy (JLee) on MBworld using headers and his 1/4 mile and trap times were still slower than mine unless I have the wrng guy.This guy spent alot of money.You know what my next mod is gonna be? CAMS,definitely!!!! ;) ...really! Jeff's been saying that to me too. So, which ones? Custom?

I dunno who makes a "hotter" NA cam. I think the one Kleemann sells is a F/I cam, so it has less overlap; I think we/d want a bit more for NA (though I don't have much knowledge on this one).

...so how much will that cost + time to install you think? (well ok, how much would time normally cost, for me, not you. ;) ) We =gotta= also get the manifold spacers Carl. (www.outlawengineering.com) ... I gotta remember to call them one of these days. I guess it would be good to install both @ the same time.

EDIT: I corrected the URL... no hyphen.

[c55m8o]

J Irwan, here's what I promised you -- hoped I'd have it the next day, but it's been a couple of weeks. Below are a series of screen captures displaying the analysis of how different rear differential gearing will affect performance done in CarTest2000...

To recap, my assertion was the 3.07 gearing was actually near optimal for the C55... and that going with shorter gears of 3.45 or higher was actually slower; that the benefits of "going shorter" ran out much sooner then you were saying. To use your terminology, it's "out of the sweet spot" sooner then you'd thought ... and that I had seriously wanted to do that very ring & pinion change to those very gears, but no longer did after seeing this.

So, on to the pretty pictures... First, the specifications used in all the simulations:

GENERAL/BUILT-IN SPECIFICATIONS:
http://images14.fotki.com/v225/photos/2/296054/2283186/c55_car_specs-vi.gif (http://public.fotki.com/m8o/kar_krazy/birth_of_my_c55_amg/c55_car_specs.html)
(Click Image then click 'Get Original Uploaded Photo' for Full Size)


CUSTOMIZATIONS:
http://images12.fotki.com/v216/photos/2/296054/2283186/c55_car_specsmodel_specific-vi.gif (http://public.fotki.com/m8o/kar_krazy/birth_of_my_c55_amg/c55_car_specsmodel.html)
(Click Image then click 'Get Original Uploaded Photo' for Full Size)


DRIVE POWER AND LOSS:
http://images12.fotki.com/v217/photos/2/296054/2283186/_car_specsdrive_power_and_loss-vi.gif (http://public.fotki.com/m8o/kar_krazy/birth_of_my_c55_amg/c55_car_specsdrive.html)
(Click Image then click 'Get Original Uploaded Photo' for Full Size)

Please notice there are no transmission losses. This is a "good thing" because I'm using actual measured values from the dyno, as noted in the "c55 car specs - model specific" image, with the selection "Custom Power Curve Use = Drive Wheels". The "transmission losses" values used for simulating an automatic transmission are probably the most difficult to estimate, and being able to remove them from the simulation will lead to more accurate results.



OPTIMAL GEARING - 0-60 mph :

Gear Ratio Finder - 0-60 mph : ...says 3.19 gears are optimal.
http://images14.fotki.com/v225/photos/2/296054/2283186/c55_gearratio_finder_060mph-vi.gif (http://public.fotki.com/m8o/kar_krazy/birth_of_my_c55_amg/c55_gearratio_finde.html)
(Click Image then click 'Get Original Uploaded Photo' for Full Size)


Gear Ratio Simulation Analysis - 0-60 mph : ...says going higher then about 3.33 reduces performance significantly, until you get near and over the 5.0:1 gear ratio range <yikes>. (I stopped the analysis and didn't go into such an infeasible gearing)
http://images14.fotki.com/v225/photos/2/296054/2283186/c55_final_drive_ratio_060mph-vi.gif (http://public.fotki.com/m8o/kar_krazy/birth_of_my_c55_amg/c55_final_drive.html)
(Click Image then click 'Get Original Uploaded Photo' for Full Size)



OPTIMAL GEARING - 1/4 mile :

Gear Ratio Finder - 1/4 mile : ...says 3.16 gears are optimal.
http://images20.fotki.com/v219/photos/2/296054/2283186/c55_final_drive_ratio_0_25mile-vi.gif (http://public.fotki.com/m8o/kar_krazy/birth_of_my_c55_amg/c55_gearratio_finde-1.html)
(Click Image then click 'Get Original Uploaded Photo' for Full Size)


Gear Ratio Simulation Analysis - 1/4 mile : ...again says the current 3.07 gears are near optimal. 3.26:1 is available for that pumpkin, and would be slightly better (worth it?) , but 3.45:1 or higher is slower, not faster.
http://images14.fotki.com/v219/photos/2/296054/2283186/c55_final_drive_ratio_0_25mile-vi.gif (http://public.fotki.com/m8o/kar_krazy/birth_of_my_c55_amg/c55_final_drive-1.html)
(Click Image then click 'Get Original Uploaded Photo' for Full Size)


...so J, I didn't mean to be argumentative just for the sake of it. I was basing my statements on legitimate analytical simulation, that calculates the force to the contact patch of the tires at every mph speed and engine rpm, in every gear, and takes into account linearly and geometrically increasing resistances and losses from many many sources.... and knowing the mass, can calculate the acceleration.

And J, dare I say, if I were to do this simulation with a different engine, having a torque curve biased to the higher rpm range, and redline at say, 7K or 8K, that we would indeed see better performance out of using much shorter gears then the M113 engine will benefit from.

[coolcarlskic43]

Originally posted by c55m8o
...really! Jeff's been saying that to me too. So, which ones? Custom?

I dunno who makes a "hotter" NA cam. I think the one Kleemann sells is a F/I cam, so it has less overlap; I think we/d want a bit more for NA (though I don't have much knowledge on this one).

...so how much will that cost + time to install you think? (well ok, how much would time normally cost, for me, not you. ;) ) We =gotta= also get the manifold spacers Carl. (www.outlaw-engineering.com) ... I gotta remember to call them one of these days. I guess it would be good to install both @ the same time. Jeff would perhaps charge us both the samething at this point but I'm only guessing.;)

I thought about going Kleeman but yes the overlapp is a concern.They claim their cam is also good for NA use but I'm not certain the overlapp will be enuff.

I'm sure there are German companies out there that produce them but we have to do the research.One German company that I know that makes them for BMW's and other German cars is Schrick.I have that in my M3.Nice mid range and topend especially with full header ,midpipe ,exhaust and SW upgrade.She will be next to run on the track.(M3)

[coolcarlskic43]

Originally posted by c55m8o

...so J, I didn't mean to be argumentative just for the sake of it. I was basing my statements on legitimate analytical simulation, that calculates the force to the contact patch of the tires at every mph speed and engine rpm, in every gear, and takes into account linearly and geometrically increasing resistances and losses from many many sources.... and knowing the mass, can calculate the acceleration.

And J, dare I say, if I were to do this simulation with a different engine, having a torque curve biased to the higher rpm range, and redline at say, 7K or 8K, that we would indeed see better performance out of using much shorter gears then the M113 engine will benefit from. Good stuff Steve, and I still did the 13.39 @102mph with the stck 3.07 diff,18" mono's and open diff.Would be nice if i had LSD.

Steve don't the 18" rims make my diff gears taller? I have 255-35-18's on the rear.I'm wondering if I should put the 17's back on for the track? Read this:http://www.mbworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=121083

[c55m8o]

Originally posted by coolcarlskic43
Steve don't the 18" rims make my diff gears taller? I have 255-35-18's on the rear.I'm wondering if I should put the 17's back on for the track? Read this:http://www.mbworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=121083 well, yes, a tad ... the goal of a "plus one" upsize is when you go from 17" rims to 18" rims, you also go wider, and from a profile of 45s to 40s or 40s to 35s (depending on front or rear) ; but the key being that the goal to a "plus one" upsize is the outer diameter [OD] of the tires are basically the same. The reality is the tire's new OD isn't the exact same.

Stock, our rear drive tires are 245x40-17 ; upsized one, as you say and as I have, it's 255x35-18. The 17" rim + tire's OD is 24.7" ; the 18" rim + tire's OD is 25". That's only a 1.3% difference; so that could equate to something like having a 3.03:1 rear but continuing to use the stock tire's OD, instead of a 3.07:1 rear with the upsized tires ... a bit longer, but pretty negligible. But then again, the graphs above say, slightly shorter is better then slightly longer; if only by a bit, but it's still better. So to gain every little bit, the 17" should help you out.

...If you use 255x30-18" tires, the OD is 24" ... I think that calculates out to as if the car was using 3.156:1 gearing...
;)

I get that from here:
http://www.miata.net/garage/tirecalcold.html

That tool is actually Javascript. You can save that page locally to your harddrive and open it up and use if, w/o having to go to the internet to use it.

[coolcarlskic43]

Originally posted by c55m8o
well, yes, a tad ... the goal of a "plus one" upsize is when you go from 17" rims to 18" rims, you also go wider, and from a profile of 45s to 40s or 40s to 35s (depending on front or rear) ; but the key being that the goal to a "plus one" upsize is the outer diameter [OD] of the tires are basically the same. The reality is the tire's new OD isn't the exact same.

Stock, our rear drive tires are 245x40-17 ; upsized one, as you say and as I have, it's 255x35-18. The 17" rim + tire's OD is 24.7" ; the 18" rim + tire's OD is 25". That's only a 1.3% difference; so that could equate to something like having a 3.03:1 rear but continuing to use the stock tire's OD, instead of a 3.07:1 rear with the upsized tires ... a bit longer, but pretty negligible. But then again, the graphs above say, slightly shorter is better then slightly longer; if only by a bit, but it's still better. So to gain every little bit, the 17" should help you out.

...If you use 255x30-18" tires, the OD is 24" ... I think that calculates out to as if the car was using 3.156:1 gearing...
;)

I get that from here:
http://www.miata.net/garage/tirecalcold.html

That tool is actually Javascript. You can save that page locally to your harddrive and open it up and use if, w/o having to go to the internet to use it. Steve your the man!

[Delta36]

That is an awesome conversion! Makes the 3.6 feel small...:(

[J Irwan]

Originally posted by c55m8o
J Irwan, here's what I promised you -- hoped I'd have it the next day, but it's been a couple of weeks. Below are a series of screen captures displaying the analysis of how different rear differential gearing will affect performance done in CarTest2000...




Pretty interesting stuff Steve...

Then again some of the calculation I found to be purely math..

Some of the little different like 17" to 18" might not be that significant in real life.

But this seems like a good tools to do some calculation before commiting on any mod...


Good stuff..




By the way Carl... 13.3x is a great number by any standard...you should be glad.


The first time I drove E55 (W210) and CLk55 (W208) I was like ...woah..
the torque and power seems bottomless :D
Damn dude...I know how you feel now :D


Regardz,

[thmsshaun]

:cool:

Is this the only real power mod to do to a C43. Have been looking at power mods In another thread

Cheap power for the C43. Is this really worth it?

Hmm Keep my eyes peeled you never know if a 55 motor will come along at the right money.:D

[sig425]

Im kinda bummed the HPS system has such mixed reviews. I was planning on getting one instead of trying a swap. I just sold my motorcycle so I have the cash now. Such bad press from that company is tough to over look. Guess I will just be forced to be happy with the car as it sits.

[coolcarlskic43]

Originally posted by sig425
Im kinda bummed the HPS system has such mixed reviews. I was planning on getting one instead of trying a swap. I just sold my motorcycle so I have the cash now. Such bad press from that company is tough to over look. Guess I will just be forced to be happy with the car as it sits. You can always upgrade with camshafts,headers,headwork,valvesprings,you name it!