Hehe, thanks for the info, as I said not an expert
Still, wouldn't spend all the money to twin turbo my c43, rather save and add a c63 next to it in my garage

 

Actually, what have been stating is that to make the same power as a n/a 5.5 the 3.6 only has to be boosted to around 4-6 psi. This will be extremely reliable. To make it make the same power as a supercharged 5.5 requires say 10-11 as solo36 has done. I make 311 whp at 9 psi with no reliability problems on a stock gasket. Also steel head gaskets or copper ones can be used.
The other thing that should be pointed out is that the supercharged m113 engine does have an inherent weak point. The rings are low tension for reduced friction by design. There are more than a few supercharged m113 motors that have failed. Another point is that the 3.6l motor is not the only m104. The small bore has more room for the headgasket and cylinder wall thickness. The m113 has floating cylinders which is a problem on many engines for high power applications.
But yes it is easier to get more power out of a big engine. If we all wanted easy then we would drive a ford or a chevy with a motown chevy small block with twin turbos making 1100-1500 hp. Or if Mercedes is in your blood go buy a 2003 e55k for less than 25,000.
I started this forum to share what I have done and offer it to others that would be interested. I am not stating that it is for everyone and the only way to extract power from a mercedes. It is a pretty good way of getting a lot more power out of the m104 platform and who knows were the limit will be. Maybe solo36, myself and others will find out. I personally am trying find the limits on a completely stock 3.2l. I think that the boost level has been tested thoroughly and I am working on intake and exhaust flow. I can run long and hard at 9psi with no failure.

 

I read all of your posts as I find them amusing...

You don't like FI, show no knowledge of FI, so why are you posting on a thread that concerns FI engines ?

Technically what does a larger plenum do for a normally aspirated engine ?

 

I agree, at the rate AMGs are depreciating today it just doesn't make financial sense to drop $10k+ into an older car when you can just sell your car and buy a much newer/lower mileage AMG thats been highly depreciated for not much more than your current value.

With that said, respect must definitely be given to a Turbo C36, that truly is an amazing platform and has amazing potential.

 

There are plenty of modded blown 3.8,4.1L V6 GN's ,5.0,5.8L FORD's,5.0,5.7L GM's that have easily put out over 1000whp easily that do and have run 6's in the 1/4 mile. Show me Supra's or Skylines that have done that with the frequency of the motors with bigger displ that I have listed.

You do talk from both sides of your mouth.

 

Not to mention all the Cummins and Detroit diesel V6 and V8 engines with a single turbo.

AMS reads too much and has no practical experience...
You would think a "tuner " as he is would have at least one showcase or test mule that has all the products that he has "designed" to show the world.

He's a clown who dodges any question on his engineering and design background.....

Doubtful he knows what a GN is...

 

Most don't, as a surprise to most at 26yrs that has been in my top ten since I've owned a license. If it wasn't for my old 91' 454SS pickup the GN would have been my first car!!There are two in my town and one in my building. So very underrated and unknown...

 

What's a GN ?

 

Grand National. Its a buick..... I'd like to say it was one of the first big time turbo cars, not sure what else was available those years. I think most are in garages at this point and alot of them are track regulars. One of history's fastest cars.

 

Ho, thanks I'll look up the net for history...i like stuff like that

what about the Lotus Omega back in the early 90's ?

 

I honestly think my girlfriend knows what a GN is and she hates my car lol. She is by no means a "car" person.

I don't know if that's as weird as ya'll think

so far as wanting one- I don't want one at all. So what if they can be made fast? So can any GM older GM or Ford. They, sort of like our AMGs, are really only particularly "cool" if you have a low miles pristine show example as a collector... Just my opinion.

 

Yes I know what a GN is, old friend had a modded GNX, the thing was an animal and was basically the original supra. Went like hell but man did that thing have no brakes haha, dangerous/scary/fun all at the same time.

We aren't talking about american cars here, we are comparing, 3.6L M104 vs. the M113 C43. Push both to the limits and C36 could put out more power b/c of its design & construction (cast iron block & etc). But i'm sure lots of insecure C43 owners will jump on that as they always do and say "no my C43 is the best ever blah blah, nothing can beat it, blah blah" in typical fashion. honestly, this thread isn't going anywhere if you want to go down that road (as every thread does in this section). Just let whipple finish off his thread and stop hijacking it.

keep up the good work whipple, should be interesting to see what you come up with!

 

First of all,what gives you this idea? Because the block is aluminum? The E55 compressor has an aluminum block. Come to think about it,so does BMW's 335i which has produced over 400whp by some owners.

Ahmads CLK55K ran 11.24 at over 120mph at MIR. So you tell me that does not equate to over 450whp?

Dude ,stop dreaming and stop theorizing because all you do is murder what little credibility you have. Come out with some decent material that could catch our attention that will solidify alot of the stuff you post for crying out loud. That is all we ask.

When you provide,(not in theory) a C36 motor to put out at least 500+hp with the STOCK head Gasket also please let us know. There are S/C M113 N/A motors doing this already with STOCK headgaskets and STOCK pistons. PS the same thing with my friends DINAN E39 M5 which has aluminum blk ,5.0L motor and runs high 11's in the 1/4 mile at over 120mph.

 

I am not sure why we have to have stock head gaskets. I run one currently but
why would this be a stipulation of performance tuning. Most heavily modified engines use other head gaskets. In fact I was looking at upgrading to a mls gasket which is the same as the m113 uses.
I am not sure which engine has more potential. But for less than the cost of a 5.5 I can buy a 3.2l m104, some custom pistons, rods, and a mls gasket. Or at least pretty close to the same price. I had thought of doing a m119 v8 swap a while back and am glad I did not. The gaskets alone to reseal that motor cost more than the whole engine from a salvage yard. I do think that 500hp can be done on a stock 3.2l motor with water/meth injection. But how long I do not know. I see no reason at this point with pistons, rods, and a mls gasket that over 600 ck/hp can be done without much trouble.
This debate is kind of silly though as none of us really know the answer.
How far can a stock m104 or m113 be pushed? I know that I would not buy a aftermarket tuned car with either for reliability. Even if it was from Renntech, Kleemann, or MKB.

 

Why?
A blown head gasket would not affect tuning?

I've seen it personnally is all I have to say,the blowing of headgasket problems on a C36f/i. Go back and ask your sources both of whom I've known personnally for about 5 years now!

You r nowhere near the level of perf they have been trying to attain. Or do you think you are? What happened to the
cost of intercooler plumbing not to mention purchasing or making an efficient intercooler? What happened to having to make an exh manifold that
won't crack? What happened to having to make a suitable intake manifold? The price of a supercharger or good brand turbo suitable for the hp level you want to attain? How about the downpipe and the rest of the exh? A working wastegate setup? A good Blowoff valve? What happened to having to buy a standalone ECU? Finding and paying someone to tune the car? Sorry my friend but this is what you would call economic compared to just dropping a 5.5 L motor (plug and play) into a C43 or even going with a S/C on a C43? I don't think so!

You'd be much farther ahead going F/I on a E36 3 series which there are proven kits available for ,for 10k and less vs what I'd have to do to reliable have 400 to 500 hp on a C36.

Or even like I said,just dropping in a bigger displ,5.0 or 5.5L motor in a C43 from what I've experienced.

 

All of the cost of adding boost and getting it tuned is going to be on a v8 also. I am not sure how to discuss this honestly. As I have pointed out, getting to the same power levels of a n/a 5.5 does not require any internal engine modifications. To go much above 400 hp does. The head gasket is not a problem until much higher numbers. I am no where near the power level that the two cars are at currently. I have been trying to run a stock motor on purpose as to find what can be done safely.
I have already made reliable power in the same levels as a 5.5 as pointed out several times in this post. A 3.6 does it at very low boost levels as pointed out in this thread.
My point about the cost of internal modifications was that for the cost of that 5.5l for a conversion I could build a m104 for high boost levels.

 

your point makes sense to me!

 

"Original Supra " .......I guess same same in your fantasy world

"Hijacking"???...

As a tuner , one would think that you know that the theory behind forced induction is applicable to any internal combustion engine.
Much can be learned from early installs regardless of what country of origin the engine is from.

I think the reason that "threads go down the blah-blah road" is when you get involved and provide little or nothing productive on the subject matter.

Perfect case in point you post with the caveat that you don't care ( know nothing) about forced injection....so what was your point

 

I wish that someone who claims to have a Merc I6 with 500HP-1000HP and turns 10K rpm ( yes many claims are out there ) would post real world performance figures.

I've posted my meager dyno chart which shows about 225rwp...but yet I can document 0-60 in the low to mid five seconds and with traction mid to high 13 quarters in the low 100's.

I would think even a 400rwp 124 would run low 4 second 60's and low to mid 12's and 115+....

The higher claims of mega power would be in the high 10's at 125+...

So why not back up claims ??????

 

I have made no such claims of extreme power other than to say that I think the potential is there for much more than I am currently running. I can not do anything about running at the drag strip until next season as the track is closed for the winter. Besides there is more to a car being fast than the 0-60 times and quarter. For instance the 65 amg cars do not do 0-60 any faster than the 600tt. Why? No traction. I have tried several times to data log a 0-60 run with my transmission ecu, which would be very accurate. I have so far only been able to get a really crappy 6.0. The reason is that in first I can not get a decent launch. I run through second gear though in about 2.4 seconds which tops at 60 mph. So if I could get a decent run through first then 5.0 and under is very doable. I have not run my car at the track since I lived in Denver. At that time I was running a stock cis-e 3.0 m104 and had a horrible set up. My best run was at 15.1 with a 2.5 60ft and I spun the tires going into 2nd. For reference my friend had a supercharged 5.0 mustang that ran in the mid 13's at 112. Check out times at 5000+ feet and see. I hope to get some decent numbers at the track this year when it opens, but to say that I am not backing my claims is incorrect. I have posted my dyno charts that are consistent with the amount of power that I should be running, given what I am doing. I only rev to 6000 rpm due to my fuel pump is not capable of going any higher at this time. I really do not see what the criticism is. All the comment that have been made about this from others have been unfounded and by people that have had no experience with this. rbycc, I know that you have your system, and it is nice, but what experience do you have with going for high power or with what I am doing. Can you or anyone say definitively that what I have said is wrong in any way. I have been very careful to be detailed about what I am doing and not lead people astray. I will go back to the dyno when I am done with the current project to see gains if any. Then after my exhaust is done to document that. When the track opens this spring I will go there and get some runs in and be happy to share.
I agree that low 13's to high 12's should be what the car runs. And I will post them either way. Until then I am simply sharing what I am doing and will answer any questions. It is not perfect but a work in progress and again not for everybody.

 

Here let me break it down for you:

1. 5.5L install vs 3.6L f/I

cost 5.5l motor + swap 4 to 6k depending on where motor is purchased
cost 3.6L S/C I would say the same or more money(probably more) and from what I've seen,with the 3.6L motor,they love to blow head gaskets.
Also alot of customizing needed with a little more HP to 400+hp + problems and expensive. No Thanx!

2. M113 S/C vs C36 supercharged/turbocharged info above

M113 N/A S/C cars have been making almost 400+whp to 500whp with success and reliabilty which have all been proven. Kit + tuniing cost 4.5k to 15k.

Please give us some proven data on the blown C36's for the 100th time.

Show us the data,show us the $$$$$.

 

Please accept my apologies as I wasn't refering to you....
Everything you have posted on all the forums has been very tangible and realistic...

My comments were towards others who make claims that are beyond belief...

To me the I6 Mercs begin to run into "the rule of diminishing returns"
Beyond a certain power output you will have chassis problems that will prevent power getting to the ground...that's if the transmission stays together !

I'm old school in the sense of building reliability along with power...
Whether it's a race or a street engine...
Costs too much to build a hand grenade

 

I agree that there is a problem with getting the power to the ground. But the rear suspension is identical to w202, w210, w129, etc., until the w211, w230, and newer big car chassis. The transmission is actually tougher than you would imagine. I never did kill my original 722.3, although it was close at 150,000 miles. I have been thinking a lot about what the drive line can handle. I think that the center u-joint is probably the weakest point. Then the half shafts.
I agree that there have been some pretty amazing claims of power on some other threads, but until I try I have no real reason to claim bs. I do know that the early m104 and the m103 have some pretty robust parts in them. The rods and crank are the same as the 3.2l m104, but the pistons on the m104 are a little less beefy. Mainly the skirts are smaller. Ring lands and such are the same. I also do not believe that any inline mercedes 6 can handle more than 7500 rpm sustained. Mainly there is no reason as they stop making any more power much lower.

 

this thread is great!

how about-

buy a C43 for 6k or so with 100k (cheaper than just the swap parts needed to go 5.5 probably)

buy a used HPS Gen I (my experience=<$3500 including my intercooler bits, upgraded over HPS spec fueling, split second MAF tuning not the "clamp", and 2 hrs of dyno time) $3500

it's lasted 6k miles no real problems other than my blower bypass breaking (or whatever went down) which is a $30 part on ebay.



My favorite part of the whole argument is that the C36 in question, the 5.5 m113 swap and the HPS gen I cars all are fairly competitive.

Bringing other non-w202 examples into it is silly... It's obvious many other cars can be modded to go faster cheaper, but not with the timeless style, class and surprise of a w202.


edit- yeah i paid a lot more than 6k for my car

 

+1+1+1 Especially the transmissions in the C36.I believe Ralston has gone thru TWO transmissions. Jeffrey actually put the 5 speed tranny in his from a M113 car because of the 5th gear and because of it's strenghth compared to the 4 speed.