are you trying to get the entire 63 lineup!!! if so your almost there

 

If you feel the need to adopt a young male from the US for humanitarian or tax purposes, please let me know.

Really.

 

Congrats, another M156 and a BS at that!

 

Maverick,
I had a question about Aussie CLK BS's and shot you a PM but your inbox is full, just fyi.

Thanks

 

Just deleted a bootload of messages, feel free to try again.

 

You sir, are a scholar and a gentleman when it comes to your taste in cars. Very nice stable and nicely modded all.

Josh

 

Congrats!

 

Wow! You really got a great family of 63 with different characters and "car-sonality"!

 

Nice!!

Wow are you like an australian pablo escobar!!??

 

+1

 

Something else to consider.

These blowers will be putting load on the trans every time you drive the car, unlike those using nitrous. Which to the MB owners that spray seems to be a track only or rare occasion otherwise.

Fingers crossed that Weistec can come through with the TCU and related hardware.

 

According to xtra power, their car has been running the supercharger since May 2010 and has done 15,000km estimated driving with the supercharger with no incident. Dont know how spirited the driving was though.

There is zero modification of the transmission and the ECU reprogramming is done by them and inserted into the car by way of a entirely new ECU

 

Is there any proof of this or just a claim?

Must be another low boost kit.

 

I dunno - an aftermarket blower company called xrta power just makes me think of something on special with a big sign at the end cap of pepboys next to a wicked flame job steering wheel

 

I think that's what we should all be focusing on. Does a low boost blower really outweigh headers and a tune that make close to the same power yet keep the M156 Na - the way it SHOULD BE ??? I don't think so. I guarantee this thing will be a nightmare on a road course. For a CL63, yeah, sweet. But for those of us who like performance in all situations, real world, I think it's gonna be a failure.

 

I agree with you. These blowers will better serve the heavier models than what is currently offered for the C and soon the E. I've seen it posted before but it's worth saying again, the M156 and of course big brother M159s are some of the worlds greatest engines. That is in as delivered NA form.

Yes this would have been the sickest 4V V8 TT motor that ever existed if we didn't have another fuel crisis. It was originally intended to be as reflected in it's narrower than typical 80 degree vee angle. You can also see it in the exhaust ports (think equalization) and again the need for compactness in the cylinder head above the guides. Below the guides they aren't far off a F1 head as far as port angles and shape & contour. This engine would benefit greatly from solid lifters and longer valves. Such a niche market I doubt anyone would spend the time or $ though.

With that being said, let's think about this logically.

We have an 11.3:1 port fuel injected engine with hypereuctectic cast pistons (how thick are the ringlands? You don't want to know) being fed by a small displacement twin screw supercharger. Even at low boost, with intercooling, everything about that particular combination says heat or in the case of the pistons (TT versions from AMG were going to have forged internals) potential mechanical failure.

With low boost we can expect 4-6psi, I'm sure some would try 7-8psi with meth (good luck) on an otherwise stock motor--that's based on the static CR, PFI, size of blower, and what's been stated by the manufacturer so far. On an otherwise stock car that's going to be (with tune) 450-480rwhp (octane and dyno dependant) and as much if not more torque due to the high CR and small supercharger. You're just never going to see 480-500rwtq across the board NA as you will with this blower, and with this trans, that's scary.

As you also stated those gains can be had N/A for a fraction of the price with products already proven to be driveline friendly. Sticking NA you have none of the potential durability or longevity issues of a supercharger (heat, excessive torque, load & wear on crank snout, pistons, trans fluid temp increase--I would say a trans cooler would have to be mandatory with any kit).

NA you won't hurt the trans because you simply don't make the torque.

The blower's near instantaneous full boost and low rpm torque boost would make it more popular with S, CLS, CL, SL owners as you said, however the downside is they are heavier still and more weight = more load on the driveline.

Now if you have mega bucks and rebuild the bottom end, upgrade the fuel system, go with standalone or piggyback engine management, you still have the trans torque limiters holding you back--and if you didn't you're going to need a larger supercharger anyway. A 380CI engine that revs to 7000rpm with heads like this needs a 2.8L or larger blower period. Again though, the converter won't hold the torque because it only has 3 clutches in it.

I think the NA contingent is just getting started with these things. Guys like Dads, dodger, mthis, Petro, Propain etc are just beginning to uncover what their cars are capable of.

I would love to see Dads car once it's sorted run at MIR in this kind of air with his cams.

Anyway, I wish everyone the best but we're going to need to see a lot of first's for these kits to succeed. Many of them seem impossible and have been for some time (4+ years now) like cracking a 722.9 TCU. 4 tools in the world can, all are MB property, and even then, who has a RAM map for it?

There's obviously a reason MB and AMG reworked the trans as significantly as they have to pair them with the M157 and it's optional 663lb/ft (IIRC?), as it sits the 722.9 wasn't built for power adder type torque and there's nothing we can do about it.

I say enjoy them for what they are, which is one of the 3 greatest production NA V8s in the world. At least IMHO.

 

RStevens63,

I have been thinking about a lot of what you have been saying. A lot of good info. The tuning of the transmission is very important as pressures need to be increased in order to hold it together with higher loads. You can stack clutches all day long but without more pressure it does not do much. But the ones that have failed with nitrous it occurred to me that the way the ecu calculates load or torque is via air mass and rpm. With nitrous there was a lot of power added that is essentially unmetered air. I do not see how the ecu would be able to calculate the additional load. This compared to a supercharger which would be drawing the air through the air mass sensors which would be metered and calculated. Also you last post about the bottom end holding up under the load of the supercharger and heat seems strange when it seems to do well with the nitrous. Long term who knows. But I cannot imagine up to 6-7 lbs that this would be a problem. Also high ve engines such as this love boost. Low boost amounts can have real gains compared to say a 2v chevy with a poor combustion chamber. Look at the Ferraris with 4lbs can gain quite a bit.
You are right about if people want to make 600+rwhp and torque to match and go to the drag strip and run a every weekend and cut good 60" that the trans pressures will have to be increased. Probably the stator will eventually fail also. Not many stock transmissions will handle this. Even a stock nag1 fails at this level with increased pressures unless it is a twin turbo version.

 

Concerns about heat, durability of the transmission and pistons/rings, and fuel supply are very legitimate concerns. I think they all can be addressed, but at what cost? I certainly think the trans issues will need to be addressed over time.

The idea that a 2.3L supercharger is not enough volume to efficiently feed a 6.2L engine properly is ridiculous. Several larger engines have used the 2.3L Eaton TVS superchargers with great results (see the link for an example. That is a 428cu engine spinning to 7000 rpm).

http://www.planetlsx.com/vehicles/Pl...Z06_Update/156

That being said, I would have rather seen this system use a Eaton TVS unit (like the one in the link) rather than a true twin screw. I really like the results I have seen from the TVS units. On the other hand, there have been many that have had great results with twin screws, so hopefully this kit will work out well. It would be great to see some FI C63 breaking records at the track.

 

You make a very good point. If the engine held up so well with nitrous, there is no reason to believe it wouldn’t hold up reasonable well with low boost. The only additional concern would be the added heat.

 

Rather than jumping ahead with valid concerns, lets first let the system be released and see what the manufacturers have come up with. Not to discount things said in the thread, but anything is possible, especially when money is no object.

I just sense alot of pessimism in regards to FI applications in the thread when details haven't even been released. The same issues crop up anytime an aftermarket FI kit is released for just about every application.

Was this car designed for FI? No. Can it handle the added heat/stress/wear from an FI application? Who knows.

 

You need to spend time away from the Chevy boards, look at what the 03/04 Cobra guys with relatively tiny 281 CI engines have done testing 2.3L TS vs 2.4, 2.6, 2.8, 3.0, and even 4.0L TSs. Flat out a 2.3L supercharger is too small for anything less than a base kit on this car as the Terminator faithful have found out testing on their own cars.

 

No it can't, I've explained why over and over and no one not even the manufacturers are contending the points made.

Forget pessimism, it's called reality, who's cracked the TCU? No one and that's the way MB is keeping it. Others have spent between 6 figured and over $1M pioneering FI for the M156s, where are they now?

 

No, we're talking about a dozen nitrous passes vs near full boost everytime you turn the key, two different worlds.

 

What matters is how the TCU calculates torque, which is in newton meters in the valvebody TCU itself. Basically the fact that Keith's car ran with spray negates the bolt portion of your statement. He handled extra fuel with a wet kit, with a supercharger it will take an upgraded fuel system, rebuilt bottom end, etc to make the kind of power and torque Dads did on a 160 shot.

I've actually addressed this multiple times already, nitrous is not the same as a positive displacement blower. You only stress the bottom end with spray when you hit the button which is rarely if ever vs getting into boost with a small twin screw which operates any time the car is moving.

When was the last time someone put the stress of a 2.3L TS on a 11.3:1 PFI engine with cast pistons? Hasn't been done, as it's far beyond what any other production motor with the same specs and components has endured.

Based on what? Again you've never seen a motor with this much compression and cast pistons get blown.

Our chambers are significantly better than any chevy head, all 4 valves due to central plug location are significantly less prone to detonation than 2 valves by design as well.

Ok, say this kit makes 80rwhp and 100rwtq with tuning on 6psi (just throwing it out there), that's still enough to toast the trans unless they modify software and hardware. Turning it up past that point requires new internals, etc etc $$$$.

If we had DI or piezo elect inj. and forged pistons there would be less of an issue with the bottom end, however we do not.

Redesigned billet stator fins have already been tested and failed with 722.9 converters.

It's not just line pressure but clutch pack application rate, volume fill, etc that need to be modified to accomodate the output. So again even if someone hacks the TCU software, who has a RAM map? So no one would even know what tables or values to change.

There are so many factual issues that need to be worked through to make this possible, as others that have tried and given up have said, it's just not cost effective and the trans/converter make it impossible at this point.

 

This doesn't necessarily make things easier. The e92 335 has DI and in the 3 years I owned that car, no manufacturer (Dinan included) offered a solution for getting more fuel into the motor to support larger turbo's and boost. Many aftermarket options were thrown around in those 3-4 years (upgrading OEM turbos, aftermarket single turbo kit, aftermarket twin turbo kits....) but there never was a solution. I don't recall if the issue was due to software or the actual DI or a combination of both.

Many piggybacks, and a few ECU flashes do and did exist for the DME. Additionally, DI does have its disadvantages. Are you familiar with the # of BMW 135/335/535 high pressure fuel pump failures? Not to mention their issues with carbon buildup? Injectors/plugs? These issues plagued not just modified cars running higher boost but completely stock cars that never were flashed or ran a piggyback.

My 335 (brand new 2008) sat at the dealership for 4 weeks because they couldn't determine what was causing the long cranks/stalling/rough idle.

Carbon buildup, changing injectors/plugs, low pressure fuel sensor, a DME upgrade and finally after swapping the HPFP the problem went away. The car was almost lemoned by BMWNA except for the fact that the car had 28k miles on it. In VA the law states 24 mos or 25k miles if I recall correctly and I was just over that.