my06C280

Tru! Great Thread.. You got lots of nice mods there and it's cool that you DIY. Your car looks great! I'm new here and recently inherited the wife's C280 since I had to trade in my Titan for an SUV for her and our 6 mo old twins.

I'm serously bored of this car as I think it needs a little more umph.. Coming from a V8 to a V6 sux and it handles horrible IMO.
My first mod will be Wheels and suspension, Next would be Stock AMG Brakes. I have a quesion on your brakes.. Were those bolt on? The calipers to be more specific.

TruTaing

Ah... If it handles worse than your titan.... Id be a bit scared :P

Most of your questions can be answered via the search feature on the forums. It really helps to keep the forum easier to search and less cluttered with repeated questions. That being said, C32 front calipers and rotors are a direct bolt on, you just have to make sure what wheels you have will clear the brakes.

my06C280

I meant to say the handling isn't as what I would expect form a car. Compared to my Titan? The C handles better of course..

Man.. that's the 2nd time I've gotten my hand slapped for I guess a repeat question. Mahh badd guys.. I guess it's useless for me to post and I should just search threads??

TruTaing

Glyn,

Your questions of the crank pulley are very similar to mine when I first read about it, but this is definitely a discussion that I can see get out of hand quickly (from reading through other threads about this product). Id like to keep this thread more based on whats happened and will happen to my car, but I would still love to see the discussion on the AMS crank pulley applied NA m112.

I suggest we create another thread to discuss it as opposed to going on a big tangent from this thread
Lets Discuss here.

Glyn M Ruck

Sure Tru - should I delete this & start a new thread?

Glyn M Ruck

I have deleted my questions & comments regarding the AMS crank pulley and started a new thread at Tru's request. This gladly done to accommodate a good friend who wants to keep his thread relevant

TruTaing

Thanks Glyn, I edited my post w/ a link to the new thread.

Mu9enx

ugggh, i'm so jealous john hahaha. man i wish i had 1/2 as many mods as you!

TruTaing

I bet if ya started listing your mods, you'd have more than ya realized Thats what I did one day. Then compared it to my entire "wish list" of mods and realized that I was doing pretty good, but needed to knock off a few big ones here and there.. so I started knockin em off slowly.

Anywhoo, Ive had my car since summer of 05... when'd you get yours?

Edit:

Just wanted to say that my car is running exceptionally well right now

I drove for about two hours yesterday. Traveled about 75 miles (Bellevue, Lynnwood, Shoreline, UVilliage, Bell town, Lynwood). I averaged 39 mph with about 40% city and 60% highway time while being nice on the throttle and I averaged 25.3 mpg and there was plenty of traffic and plenty of stop and go traffic!

AMS Performance

Hello Tru,

How much did you avg before? Good to hear all is well.

TruTaing

In the past, I know I wouldnt have averaged this kinda number w/ 40% of my time spent stuck in stop/go traffic in the city. Dont quote me here, but......

Having paid more attention to my driving and fuel efficiency, I have noticed a few things:

If I have a lot of highway driving (90% of my time on the highway), my mileage does not change much from what I previously had. I would average between 25 and 28 mpg on the high way just cruising and I still get that now.

If I have equal time on the highway and stop/go traffic, I tend to average better mileage. I use to get around 21-22 mpg in this kind of situation. Now, I am seeing better mileage around 23-24 depending on my driving style.

If I have lots more city driving (90% of my time in stop/go), I have been returning better mileage. I use to get 18-19 mpg, but now, I haven't seen any numbers under 20 mpg. That 10% of highway time has helped a lot to increase my average, but this is definitely an improvement over my past fuel efficiency.

I guess these results make some sense. I imagine the lighter pulley is much more efficient when the RPMs have to change in wide ranges in comparison to the heavier stock crank pulley. Additionally, the pulley wouldn't offer much of an improvement upon fuel economy during steady highway driving because the pulley is already rotating...

Im gonna give it s'more time and watch my fuel mileage carefully. Light snow in the area has resulted in tons of traffic... (kinda ridiculous), but its helped me come to the above conclusions. More reports later.

As of now, all the pulleys are still on the car and the belt still looks good

AMS Performance

Tru,

Glad to hear you are happy with the results . Every car reacts differently to the crank pulley, Some gain more in the city, others on the highway, just depends on the car and also the driving style of the driver.

In your case it does make sense since a lot of the energy used is during accelerating the car from a stand still, and since you have more torque now it requires less throttle input hence less fuel hence improved efficiency.

Thx & enjoy

~AMS~

Glyn M Ruck

I would not expect much change at constant RPM. Once the pulley is up to speed it takes nothing to maintain that pulley speed. Constantly varying conditions should be where there might be measureable benefit.

AMS Performance

Well not exactly,

You can still have a lighter load at constant rpm which means lower rpms at any given speed hence less fuel is consumed especially in an auto. So there are other factors as well, But again it varies. From our testing the V8s actually get a decent boost on the hwy via the crank pulley, typically on the order of about 2mpg as well as the same in the city. Just depends on the car really, some react more to it than others.

FrankW

Glym is actualy right on this. it's like 19" wheels of same size but different weight. once the car gets moving the energy needed to keep the wheels spinning at the same speed is not any different. same goes for crank pulley in this case.

Glyn M Ruck

Correct - once you've overcome the inertia of the heavier component - maintenance of speed becomes a zero sum game.

TruTaing

Tonights Numbers:

50 miles traveled. 50/50 highway/city split. Averaging 35mph. Plenty of red light time in the city and slow moving traffic on the highway and a couple "brisk" sprints from a few red lights. 23.0 mpg!

Quick question: Does anyone know if the valve covers from an 04 c320 (or any m112) for that matter would fit an 01 c320?

I ask because, I noticed my recirculating valve covers leaking slightly a while back... Now, its to the point where I think its a bit much and I would have to reseal the covers again (which is a pain in the ___). While I was looking for potential solutions, I came across a set of 04 c320 valve covers which DID NOT have the recirculating valve covers, but they DID appear to have all of the proper PCV push-on nozzles. This would be a permanent fix to my recirculating valve covers EVER leaking because of having to use sealant as opposed to a gasket.

So if you guys know if valve covers from a 04 c320 would fit on an 01 c320, please share Additionally, if anyone knows if the intake manifolds are interchangeable, that would be nice to know also

Glyn M Ruck

This is the sort of driving that might show some differences. I'm not going to go into the reasons that you can't really check fuel consumption in this way with any kind of statistical confidence when looking for small savings or this thread will become another 5 pages long

TruTaing

Glyn, PM me. Since I've got the pulley on my car and can collect "some data" from my car about its fuel economy, I would be glad to make such a thread... If its possible at all, but then again, I realized that I dont have my baseline numbers without the pulley either... :\

Glyn M Ruck

Tru - no base line makes this futile - don't worry. Wind (direction & force), driving style, tyre pressures, lightly binding brakes, inlet air temperature etc. etc. etc. all have huge effects. I ran tests with our AA a number of years ago on a fleet of 10 cars on a perfectly calibrated Schenk eddy current, rolling road Dyno on friction modified engine oil. We were looking for savings in the 2 to 7% range with >90% confidence & finally achieved 7% saving over 10 Kms from a cold start & 2% fully warmed up. We had to lock the servos on the dyno. Weld braces all over the dyno bed to get noise out of our signals. Fix the throttle positions on the cars. Push back pads in the calipers so they did not touch the discs. Control inlet air temperature with a cooling tower on the roof. etc etc etc & confirm in an altitude compensated dyno room. The test took a year running at 6 in the morning, 2 in the afternoon & 10 at night to achieve proper results.

1 to 2 degrees change in inlet air temperature will cause a float in results in excess of the saving you are trying to prove. So take my advice & forget it. It's a minefield. OK I was looking for results that could stand the scrutiny of opposition oil companies.

It's not worth the effort. That's why no one bothers to try & drive the European cycle any longer. OEMs place their cars on computer controlled dynos in controled conditions & let the computer drive the vehicle & monitor all parameters.

BTW - Sasol's Sastech has some of the few altitude compensated dyno facilities in the world. Most F1 engines come here for testing.

Anyone who tries to tell you that a pulley is giving a reliable 2% fuel saving & has not applied this level of rigor to testing is talking BS.

UK-C200

Glyn - thanks for the excellent description of what it takes to do accurate, repeatable consumption testing. I was involved in a long duration fuel consumption project at university as a lab slave. When I ducked out, they were still not able to get results within 10% of the deviation. Obviously not the same scale, scope, nor quality of equipment that you got to play with, but still about $2m worth of kit.

I'm still curious about the impact of a lightweight pulley. I do the math, and I can't make it add up.

Glyn M Ruck

Hi UKC - good to see you on the forum again - Yeah - and my description is skimming the surface. I got repeatability down to about 0.2% & that was 3 months of work on the equipment. Not allowing cars out on the road on their skimmed dyno tyres etc. which meant changing wheels all the time while conditioning & deconditioning the engines with friction modified & non friction modified oil. Keeping the control vehicle under strict lock & key so no one could touch it - A real SOB but I was determined to do as well as Schenk maintained was possible. We started with a water brake blueprinted by Atlas Aircraft Corp - NO GOOD. Your 10% is no surprise.

Yeah - this pulley - well I'm trying to be fair - nuff said!

Mu9enx

dang, glyn, your wisdom and expertise are definitely appreciated, even by a young buck like me! thanks

Glyn M Ruck

Yeah Mu - I've had the pleasure of working with young, bright engineers all over the world and for the last 14 years, mainly in Asia. I love the Asian peoples, intelligent, competent, great work ethic etc - also fabulous cultures & food.

Mu9enx

*ahem*asianwomeeeen*ahem*