Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 90

Thread: <<< AMS Crankshaft Pulley Installed >>>

  1. #51
    C55 Charter Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    40°-55'-44" N / 73°-24'-07" W [on LI]
    Posts
    1,116
    Originally posted by RacerXofFL
    I have owned a c280 for 6 years now. I have bossted it over 400hp, I have blown 4 (or was it 5?) auto trannys in it.

    It is now a 5speed, not may of these out there....

    It will be stand alone soon, 2 reasons. ....
    Well there ya go. ...It's the "do it right the 1st time" idea and all that... The dude who did my engine swap built his own turbo specific motor using various parts from the MB part bin from the C280 and C36 for his hi boost C36 -- and of course, wouldn't have considered anything -but- stand-alone from the beginning. Then again, he knows what he's doing with MBs unlike any other I've ever met. He uses a Motec. Only complaint he ever uttered was finding head gaskets to handle the boost.

    Unlike what I gather of you if somewhat contradictory, he's a complete anti-hater of MBs. He loves them. He makes a living at them as a main and side job, much to benefit of me and coolcarskic43 (now ProjectC55). A grown up with kids but still a lust for hopped-up NA and especially boosted MBs and Porsches that he's always turning a wrench on ... and never ever is one to have a need to be mean and disrespectful. Now there's a man that I would what want to know what he has to say about this and would listen to his seasoned, measured, and sound advise instead of inconsistent & contradictory rantings and flamings I come to read here...

  2. #52
    C55 Charter Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    40°-55'-44" N / 73°-24'-07" W [on LI]
    Posts
    1,116
    Originally posted by AirPost
    He has an E55 AMG in which he installed the pulley and did a dyno test so....
    the after dyno would be for the E55
    ...
    ...which will be perfect for a some of us! Looking forward to it.

  3. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    347
    TOUCHè c55 and Nitrobalance!!!


    RacerX, why the bitterness?

    COME ON EVERYONE, GIVE HIM SOME SUGAR!!! Give him a hug!!
    If you don\'t do it properly, don\'t waste our time!!

    The C280

    1995 C280
    1987 MK2 GTi 1800 8v

  4. #54
    Tuner/Vendor
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    93
    RacerX is actually not that bad of a guy, just comes across as a 'hardass' online
    /now i'm going to get flamed for this

    He's pretty critical when you work with him on projects because he wants to see things work to their fullest... Not trying to make excuses for him, just giving you insight into his 'logic'...

    I'm still eager to see the numbers on these pullies... Would definantly be nice to lighten up the rotating mass of those cranks...
    www.Turbobenz.com
    1987 MB 190E - Project M104 (For Sale)
    2005 Subaru WRX - The Daily
    Shop car -
    1996 MB C280 - 5 speed/3.27 LSD/3.2L M104 swap

  5. #55
    And I'll make people bust their asses to learn a lesson like when I made Blind pull his 190e 2.6 motor on jack stands.

    Then when we swapped mine I pulled the trans and the front half and he was like "why did you make me do all that work"

    I'm only bitter BC I see no logic in his numbers.
    He put out a "teaser" months ago.
    My mother know's dynoing an auto is useless.
    When I boosted my c280 I was 19 years old and doing it right would have been nice, but truth be told I paid someone, now I'm doing it all over at much higher expense myself so I know its done right the first time.

    I staged power train.
    I am staging fuel/electronics.
    Lastly boosting.

    I'm just thinking that I have money, I want to give him said money, so I can help prove or disprove his claims so all of YOU can make informed decisions.

    Flame me all you want.

    Don

  6. #56
    OG Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,058
    >>I can help prove or disprove his claims so all of YOU can make informed decisions.<<

    Independent test are great for everyone. If the item is good, it gives the manufacturer credibility. If there is a problem, then it can point those out too. Also, since he has a manual tranny his car should be perfect for the dyno test.
    1999 C230 Kompressor

  7. #57
    well, i better start saving for this, but really want to see the dyno's on a c280 before i spend the money.
    1999 C280 Black
    50/35/20 tint
    painted trim

  8. #58
    C55 Charter Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    40°-55'-44" N / 73°-24'-07" W [on LI]
    Posts
    1,116
    Great news. I'm looking forward to the long-term reliability confirmation too, and hearing from you as the months go on, that the belts aren't being eaten and that there's no affect on the crank seals and bearings. Someone's always got to be 1st, whether all turns out 100% or some issues crop up and the product is revised/tweeked to correct it, right?

    edit: btw, what altitude are you at and what temperature was the dyno taken at? Also, were the runs taken on the same dyno hook-up; i.e. same day with close to the same temp and humidity?

  9. #59
    C55 Charter Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    40°-55'-44" N / 73°-24'-07" W [on LI]
    Posts
    1,116
    Thanx for that. Ya, I brought up the altitude and temperature question because there's a lot of disparity between my and Carl's 5.4L measurements and yours.

    p.s. Carl's recently put in Kleeman cams, Kleeman Headers, and custom exhaust on his C43/55, so me thinks he'll be very interested in this. He should be putting down sick numbers. Now we need him to do Jeff's intake and manifold modz ... look-out!

  10. #60
    C55 Charter Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    40°-55'-44" N / 73°-24'-07" W [on LI]
    Posts
    1,116
    Kewl, that explains it. Yep, sounds about right. I peaked @ 306 rw hp and about 325 rw ft-lb @ close to sea level.

  11. #61
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,069
    those are good results omey!!! congratualtions on basically finishing the m113 pully!
    i should have dynoed my 280 after (being now) my lightweight flywheel to see the gain over stock for reducing the mass on the m104 crank, i took out 8+kg and can confirm like you say the best gain is through the low to mid range torque :-)
    i wana v8 tho! those are some impressive numbers
    -Logan-

  12. #62
    Originally posted by c55m8o
    edit: btw, what altitude are you at and what temperature was the dyno taken at? Also, were the runs taken on the same dyno hook-up; i.e. same day with close to the same temp and humidity?

    Yes, same question, when was the base pull made.

    Did you do "3 dealer hours" worth of work swapping back to stock, then switching back to new pulley?

    The results look great, if they were same day pulls, and if you say the m104 has a larger weight reduction I think I'll be really happy with my decsion to be first in line

  13. #63
    Originally posted by c280nz
    i should have dynoed my 280 after (being now) my lightweight flywheel to see the gain over stock for reducing the mass on the m104 crank, i took out 8+kg and can confirm like you say the best gain is through the low to mid range torque :-)
    I've been meaning to ask you, did you add the 3 segments?

    Do you have a cad file of your flywheel, I need to make one myself. With a little modification.

    Thanks,
    Don


    P.S. How bout we both dyno and see how the flywheel stacks up against the swap?

    Bet your real close, I need a new ecu to add fuel, I'm leaned out.

  14. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    347
    Nice, now M104!
    If you don\'t do it properly, don\'t waste our time!!

    The C280

    1995 C280
    1987 MK2 GTi 1800 8v

  15. #65
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,069
    i dont understand how that works omey, and are interested in the reason why, as i may learn something-
    so why is there a difference between spinning mass on either end of the crank? i would have thought since there all solid joined there would be similar results to be had - please explain
    -sorry for taking this sortof off topic i guess???
    -Logan-

  16. #66
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,069
    i just had a look around and alot of peoples views seem to be that they show similar yeilds, weither you take weight off the crank pully or the flywheel, you still taking it directly off the crank.
    im just confused now.

    what gear/ road speed was that dyno graph done at?, it only says rpm and not road speed

    im impressed that you are including the harmonic dampner on the pulley tho, this seems a must and without it pully changes are not reccomended,
    did you have to tune the dampening to a certain engine rpm?
    -Logan-

  17. #67
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    347
    Hey omey, i was thinking about this pully idea, and then the thought cropped up. I donno how to put this into words, but i'm gonna try.

    Say you're at a standstill. you then accelerate with a fairly firm foot on the accelerator, but not flat (say enough for the engine to reach 4000rpm before shifting into second gear). Then at 4000rpm, the gearbox shifts to 2nd gear, and hence, hou carry on accelerating.

    Now, when your engine is spinning at 4000rpm, it has a certain inertia. Now, when your gearbox shifts into second gear, the drivetrain is basically pulling the engine down to lower rpm, and hence applying a resistant force to this inertia of the crank.

    Now, since the aluminium crank pulley has less mass, it has less inertia, therefore the entire crank has less inertia.

    Now, surely if you change the mass of the crank, the transmission won't shift as smoothly as it did before as the gearbox is tuned for a specific 'crank mass'. In other words, the gearbox clutches and pressure settings are tuned for that crank mass?

    Did you notice a change in the smoothness of the shift after you fitted the pulley in your E55?
    If you don\'t do it properly, don\'t waste our time!!

    The C280

    1995 C280
    1987 MK2 GTi 1800 8v

  18. #68
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    347
    Originally posted by omeyhomey
    actually shifting is smoother now b/c the engine can be bogged down more freeling and shifts are slightly quicker it seems but other all it wasn't enough of a difference to really advertise it as such. But you will noticed improve shifting as well. Also the tranny does not need to downshift as much in certain situations (like going up a hill where you used to have to downshift, now b/c of more torque it stays in the higher gear). Great question, hope that helps
    Thanks omey, sounds like i'm gonna get one. Just waiting for dyno results from the M104 (and especially RacereX's dyno, as he has a manual) and your findings after driving it for a while.

    What do you mean by 'the engine can be bogged down more'?
    If you don\'t do it properly, don\'t waste our time!!

    The C280

    1995 C280
    1987 MK2 GTi 1800 8v

  19. #69
    due to the lack of rotating mass. If you were to rev to 6K and turn your key off it might take 3 seconds for your motor to stop turning. Mine would take 4 by example. My weight has more inertia to keep it moving. We could have the same engine, oil and everything, but you saved how may Kg on you flywheel...

    Don

  20. #70
    Why would I do that: when ever I shutdown a coil due to a few reasons, you can hot cycle the ecu without the engine ever coming to a stop and you will get your coil back.

    Why my car has done it, bad harness, bad coil, and a cracked plug... Im cursed. All 3 have happened to me, and many other ppl with the harness... hence the sliced up fingers today, was splitting harnesses to make Blind and myself new harnesses for standalones.

    cheers!

  21. #71
    your awsome omey. i am getting a summer job so i should be able to afford it, cant wait to see dynos for c280 or some other small v6.
    1999 C280 Black
    50/35/20 tint
    painted trim

  22. #72
    Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    4,927
    wat happended to the m113 one
    BAN HIS ASS!!
    744 C36 AMG- carlsson
    040 C43- way to many modifications
    744 CLK55- even more mods
    CLS55 IWC edition
    744 CLK500 Rocket Bunny widebody

  23. #73
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norcal
    Posts
    2,864
    M111 M111 M111
    white 97' C230 (sold)
    white 94' C280 (sold)
    white 98' C43 (sold)
    Tektite 03' E55 (sold)
    Black 86' Porsche 951 (sold)
    Black 98' C43 (sold)
    Emerald Black 97' C36 (current)
    Black 04' E55 (wife's current)

  24. #74
    C55 Charter Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    40°-55'-44" N / 73°-24'-07" W [on LI]
    Posts
    1,116
    Originally posted by omeyhomey
    Hey guys,
    Good news. C43 pulley ahead of schedule. Should be here by end of may hopefully. Just wanted to keep you C43 guys in the loop for those of you interested in making some power. hope that helps. ttyl
    Now I'm confused. I thought the E55 pulley was the same as the C43 pulley (same M113 engine and ancillaries) and, as the focus of this thread starts, that is done.

  25. #75
    Correct me if im wrong:

    It is installed on his car, and being tested before sale. He dosent want to sell a pice that is going to split in 2.

    He is going to have them in production any day now.

    Stage 2 of this thread is the M104 he should have an engineering sample for himself soon, and I am first in line for retail.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •