Oh, excuse me. Apparently we have found an engine expert. Please let me know where I have gone astray.

I have no idea what is so difficult for you to understand. Displacement (bore and stroke) of a engine is not the sole or even the biggest determining factor in the weight of the engine. For example the LS6 (5.7L) weighs in at about the same as the LS7 (7.0L). Oh no, how could this be possible????? I must be on crack!!!!! Just in case you needed another mind blowing shocker, the 6.2L LS9 weighs more than the 7.0L LS7.

Again as I stated before, the new motors will be direct injection. This means that the heads will in all likelihood be larger to accommodate more equipment in them. Moving along, if AMG keep the same design and safety factors that they have for the 6.2 the block will have to be thicker and the rotating assembly will have to be stronger (possible thicker) to handle the additional stress of forced induction. Also, it will have the additions of two turbo chargers, oiling systems for the turbos, and intercoolers.

I would like to know what makes you think that 4.7L block will be anything other than a de-stroked and or smaller bore 5.5L TT block. Also, I would like to know what makes you think a 5.5L TT V8 will be lighter than a 6.2L NA V8. The M156 weighs 439lbs. The 55K V8 weighs 485lbs, and it is only single overhead cam. It is a fairly simple engine. Keep in mind this is dry weight and does not count the additional weight of the coolant for the intercoolers.

I will take my argument a step further. Because the new engines will have more torque available, the new transmissions will also be likely be heavier. Also, the new engines will likely run hotter being turbo charged, so the radiators may have to be increased in capacity.

Before you go spouting your mouth off, why don’t you back up your argument smart guy.

Oh, and thanks for the warm reception.

 

The are you on crack was a lil sarcastic that you think a 4.7 litre twin turbo will b heavier than a 6.2 litre n/a. dry or wet. And no I'm by no means an engine expert but I do have a BS from Michigan in Mech Eng and experience (rather limited) in automotive engineering. PS your welcome for the warm reception. And smart guy I am, because technically I am actually a genius tho I don't like to brag about it.

 

Dude, you just got owned and he did it in a pretty nice way.

 

If you say so

 

That was a great analysis with lots of cool facts, TexasEngineer! Thanks!

 

Well, very good points there. However, I think there are two comparisons here: 5.5TT vs. 6.2NA and the other 5.5TT vs. 4.7TT

In the first case, I'd venture a bet that the 5.5TT is lighter than the 6.2NA. My reasoning for this is not merely to do with displacement but more to do with what I'd assume to be their goal in developing these engines in the first place. (In terms of displacement alone, there should be only a few kilograms difference.) However, the 5.5TT was designed to very recently, using the newest technologies, materials and know-how. Most importantly, it is designed in an age where vehicle efficiency and weight are at a premium (have always been, but now ever more so). In its development of the new engines AMG (and MB) would have set themselves mpg and weight targets as well as those of power and torque. So, I would be very surprised if the new engine (incl. all the bits that go with it) weigh any more than the one it replaces. Same applies for the gearbox. I'm pretty sure they had looked into this as a complete package.

In the second case, it is hard to say. Again, simply in terms of the metal that's bored out (or not) it should be kilograms. The difficult thing is that while they were designed together (probably), their intended purposes are different. The 4.7 being more of a dd/cruising engine and the 5.5 being an AMG engine. So while one might say that the 5.5's pistons are larger (= heavier = heavier crank shaft, etc.) it's hard to know for certain if they hadn't gone for lighter pistons on the 5.5 with a design that may be considered too advance for 'normal' road use. The same goes for valve-train and other bits too.

I would say, however, that while the block itself may weigh roughly the same, the 5.5TT likely comes with heavier bits associated to it - things like the various coolers and such for its turbo system is likely to work harder than on the 4.7TT (= larger intercoolers, etc. = heavier package). It may well be these bits (i.e. heat in general) that prevent them from sticking the 5.5TT in the C-class.

Throwing away heat usually needs a lot of room/air. In a 'normal' C63 there is nowhere near as much scope as in an E, CLS, S or SL class. In the Black Series where they can widen the track significantly, however, they can add as many vents, ducts, openings and holes as they feel like. So there is probably substance in the new (OP) after all....

... Having said all that, I wonder what AMG can do if they put their minds to making the 4.7TT as light as possible...

 

I think the new 55tt engine used in CL class weighs about 450# so its heavier then m156 63 amg engine

 

Key figures at a glance: *

AMG 5.5-liter V8 biturbo engine
Displacement 5461 cc
Bore x stroke 98.0 x 90.5 mm
Compression ratio 10.0:1
Output 536 hp at 5500 rpm
563 hp) at 5500 rpm**
Max. torque 590 lb. ft. at 2000-4500 rpm
664 lb. ft. at 2500-3750 rpm** at 2500-3750 rpm*
Engine weight (dry) 450 lbs

* provisional figures; ** with AMG Performance package

Could not find anything on the 4.7 but unless it is an open deck design it will likely be about the same weight as the 6.2 dry and heavier if all the fluids are measured as well.

 

Howdy Texas Engineer & welcome to the forum; we're glad to have you!

You may encounter many youngins here who are "all hat and no cattle." In the meantime..... please stick around &

 

Swing-and-a-miss. And, in the words of a wise man, you can pay for school, but you can't buy class.

TexasEngineer, welcome to the forum. This place actually is very helpful - I have at least doubled my vehicular knowledge thanks to members here, and, as you can see, I keep coming back for more even though I sold my C63 (poor choice there).

 

+1 some people here have Large Displacment Egos and FI mouths BUT have lightweight brains. I come here to learn more about my car and hopefully share my experiences and what Ive learned. sometimes it gets difficult to get thru all the clutter

 

Wouldnt comparing the curb weight of the NA S63 and the FI S63 give an indication of the possible weight difference between the 2 engines?

 

I have also increased my vehicle knowledge exponentially. Glad to have you join the family.

 

If that is the case, I would assume they (MB and AMG) have made a bit of a blunder, surely. Is there anywhere that states the weight of the m156?

This is the closest I've found:

http://www.emercedesbenz.com/autos/m...ower-transfer/

So, in a non-SLS version, the M156 weighs: 205 + 0.6 +4 +0.5 = 210.1 kg = 462.22 lbs

If your figures of 450 lbs are correct, the 5.5TT is lighter by 12.22 lbs

However, I would love to see the actual numbers for the M156...

 

Official MB numbers:
Dry weight:
6.2 V8 at 199kg
5.5 V8TT at 204kg
Just 5kg difference for all those huge gains in torque....

 

Humm... weird how eMercedesbenz says the M159 is 205kg
I guess when they say the weight of an engine, it's kindda difficult to standardize on what to include and what not to...

 

Tex, your analogy to the old 55 Kompressor motor isn't as meaningful as a comparison to the M157, IMHO. It appears that the M157 and M156/M159 are nearly identical in dry weight.

Getting back to the original point raised - my expectation would be that the 4.7TT will have (already has?) a dry weight specification lighter than both the M157 and M156/M159. In practice, though, I would agree that weight savings will probably be slight. Every bit helps, though...

 

My comparison my comparison of the 55K and the 6.2 NA engines was to demonstrate to someone who didn’t understand that a smaller displacement FI motor could weight more than a larger displacement NA engine. While the weights of the M156, M157, and M159 are all close, they are not identical, and the M156 is the lightest by 11lbs. This was my whole point. Someone stated that they were anticipating weight saving in the front end of the car, and I wanted to show them that it was not going to happen.

If the dry weight of the 4.7 TT is in fact less than the M156, It would be minimal. It is going to be hard to lose over 11 lbs from the rotating assembly alone, especially when keeping in mind that you can gain weight when reducing the bore size. This minimal weight savings will be offset by the additional fluids needed and possible by the additional weight of the drive train. I would be surprised if it has the same transmission. My final point is, if all other things remain the same on the C63, the care will weigh more than it currently does now.

To x838nwy, yes the block and the rotating assembly are lighter in the M159, but I would venture a guess that the weight savings is offset by the large intake manifold, velocity stacks, and dry sump oiling system of the M159.

 

I don’t think people realize the HUGE potential of 4.7 tt motor. If this is true that motor can make our cars look is if it was tied to tree. I love turbo charged motors. And as for the 5.5 TT wow. I already see these cars getting into the 700 hp range very easily. I hear the M3 and M5 will also be going to turbo charged motors. So I don’t think this is BS as it only makes more since. You can go with a smaller motor that gets allot more power. I have to say I love our cars but the idea of the turbo on a V8 is just so crazy and I love it. what a Monster this will be

 

I'm no expert.. but I did stay at a holiday in express last night.. and.... well I have nothing to add really.. I'm just a jackass

 

Most likely true. As mentioned, it's hard to say what an 'engine weight' should include.

On a similar note, in an article on the development of the Audi RS5, one of the engineers in charge of the project mentioned that they did look into using a smaller F/I engine but when one takes into account all the bits that need to go with it, the 4.2 NA unit is actually lighter...

 

Thanks for the reply.

Let's look at the M157 (5.5TT) as the starting point. I don't know if it is, but I would suspect that the 4.7TT is the same basic architecture as the M157 but with less bore, stroke, or both. Displacement is only ~85% of the M157. The M157's dry weight is ~450 lbs, from the sources I've seen. A 4.7TT "M157-lite" could come in around 430 lbs or fewer... couldn't it?

 

You just did!! Now welcome to mensa.com

Setting aside the engine weight issue, the 4.7 TT will most certainly have less torque than the 5.5 TT and that is my concern. But as Mike (Hooley) pointed, FI engines are much easier to MOD than NA, so even if the new "C" is a 4.7 TT, the ability to mod, as we have all done to numerous FI Benzes C32, E55 etc etc is feasible and entirely cost effective. Someone, somewhere will figure out how to turn that 4.7 into a monster 550 HP + engine for a reasonable cost.

 

The weights will likely be similar enough to be negligible, but to me that's not the point. I know you can get big power from turbo engines especially with aftermarket kits, but I still don't like them that much. There is something about the simplicity and directness of a NA engine that I really admire. Seems to me that almost all of the "legendary" supercar engines were NA (Enzo, Carrera GT, All Lambos, McLaren F1, Pagani, etc.) with the only exceptions being the 911 Turbo and the Ferrari F40. Seriously, would you rather have the engine from the 458 Italia or the GTR? Yeah....me too. The only time engineers resort to FI is when they are forced to by either new racing rules or new governament regulations. Even Porsche used an NA engine in the Carrera GT, and they are the world experts in turbocharging for over 30 years. I had numerous issues with my BMW 335 engine (they still haven't figured out how to make a high pressure fuel pump for the direct injection system, and from what I've heard other manufacturers have the same issue). Add to that all the intercoolers, plumbing, valves, air-flow sensors, higher operating temps, etc. and it's just not a very elegant engineering solution. I'm sure FI is the wave of the future its unavoidable, but I'm gonna enjoy my good old fashioned big-block V8 until they pry it from my cold dead hands. Screw the environmental movement. Where do they think the electricity comes from for their Volts and Leafs? That's right, power stations that burn coal and oil. I'd rather burn my own oil, thank you very much. Long live the M156 baby!!

 

There is no need to brag. Your inkredibul grammar and inability to grasp simple mechanical concepts clearly brands you as genius.