SUPERCHARGED m156, 63 amg !!!!
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 122
Likes: 2
From: Houston, TX
2009 C63
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.
Why would we be talking about something more than a base kit? Weren’t we just talking about all the problems the trans will have with the additional torque?
Member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
From: DC
10 C63
I understand the reasons why DI is becoming so popular with everybody complaining about gas mileage/fuel efficiency but I don't think the aftermarket has caught up in regards to successfully offering reliable/cost effective solutions for the technology
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 122
Likes: 2
From: Houston, TX
2009 C63
Super Member
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
E63
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.
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.
DI is certainly not a cure all as you've pointed out, even Porsche had sooting issues prior, but in this department it gives BMW owners a leg up, as do the factory forged pistons.
Thanks
Super Member
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
E63
You are talking about very high boost applications. The M156 is a high compression NA motor. Without new forged internals, no one will be looking for a high boost setup. The 2.3L will be perfectly acceptable for a low boost M156 application. The CTS-Vs are making very good power with a 1.9L TVS.
Why would we be talking about something more than a base kit? Weren’t we just talking about all the problems the trans will have with the additional torque?
Why would we be talking about something more than a base kit? Weren’t we just talking about all the problems the trans will have with the additional torque?
I've posted the same comments about this being a base blower kit and that that's all the size of this supercharger is adequate for so we agree there.
Point being for someone looking to go ***** out, after swapping internals, doing fuel system, figuring out trans/converter, they are still left with the need to upgrade to a larger supercharger.
They could have just used a 2.8L spun it slower and had lower discharge temps even on the base kit though.
No comparison to a 1.9L TVS in the CTS-V, you can turn the boost up past 15psi easily with an otherwise stock car. Not so with a M156 (I know it's a high C/R NA motor I've posted that 20x in this thread alone
). We are talking about problems facing any owner that wants to apply FI to a m156 in both base and advanced platforms, or at least I thought we were. This includes the trans, converter, and a whole bunch of additional items if someone wants to push it harder.
Thanks
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 122
Likes: 2
From: Houston, TX
2009 C63
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 $$$$.
If we had DI or piezo elect inj. and forged pistons there would be less of an issue with the bottom end, however we do not.
Redesigned billet stator fins have already been tested and failed with 722.9 converters.
It's not just line pressure but clutch pack application rate, volume fill, etc that need to be modified to accomodate the output. So again even if someone hacks the TCU software, who has a RAM map? So no one would even know what tables or values to change.
There are so many factual issues that need to be worked through to make this possible, as others that have tried and given up have said, it's just not cost effective and the trans/converter make it impossible at this point.
I've actually addressed this multiple times already, nitrous is not the same as a positive displacement blower. You only stress the bottom end with spray when you hit the button which is rarely if ever vs getting into boost with a small twin screw which operates any time the car is moving.
When was the last time someone put the stress of a 2.3L TS on a 11.3:1 PFI engine with cast pistons? Hasn't been done, as it's far beyond what any other production motor with the same specs and components has endured.
Based on what? Again you've never seen a motor with this much compression and cast pistons get blown.
Our chambers are significantly better than any chevy head, all 4 valves due to central plug location are significantly less prone to detonation than 2 valves by design as well.
Ok, say this kit makes 80rwhp and 100rwtq with tuning on 6psi (just throwing it out there), that's still enough to toast the trans unless they modify software and hardware. Turning it up past that point requires new internals, etc etc $$$$.
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.
The LS7 specs are close to the M156 with 11:1 compression ratio and cast pistons, and it handles low boots FI very well.
As far the M156 having durability issues with low boost FI, your argument should be considers null and void. Now problems that may occur with the transmission, that is an entirely different story.
Last edited by TexasEngineer; Jan 11, 2011 at 05:58 PM.
Super Member
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
E63
There is a lot of garbage in this post. Yes the supercharger is always operating, but not always a full boost. Do you think you are at full boost when idling or at part throttle cruising around? No. That is just not the case. By the way, it is not the boost (pressure into the intake) that kills the kills the bottoms end (unless you are talking about predetonation – a tuning issue). It is the horsepower that kills the bottom end. It doesn’t matter where the horsepower comes from, boost, nitrous, or high compression. If the given horsepower of an engine exceeds the specification/rating of its components, it will fail.
Did I say boost at idle? No. Even at 1/2 throttle this blower will be making boost, and of course at WOT. The largest difference being that nitrous isn't sprayed all the time a blower is engaged, not even close.
Boost is a measurement of backpressure or restriction, boost is a measurement, it doesn't physically do anything. Engine 1 can have 20psi, while engine 2 has 40psi, however both can be moving the same mass of air through the motor. Boost means nothing in reality except when measured on the same motor.
It's the IAT temps created by a blower combined with high static compression in a PFI application that are the issues we're dealing with.
Again, driveline components are measured in TQ and rpm not HP. HP is simply a mathematical function of torque. If the torque exceeds the mechanical strength of the parts it will fail.
Notice I had to correct every statement you just posted?
The LS7 specs are close to the M156 with 11:1 compression ratio and cast pistons, and it handles low boots FI very well.
Also most LS7 blowers are centrifugals not Pos displacement, huge difference in the amount of stress they place on the internals and drivelilne, HUGE.
As far the M156 having durability issues with low boost FI, your argument should be considers null and void. Now problems that may occur with the transmission, that is an entirely different story.
Last edited by RStevens63; Jan 11, 2011 at 06:24 PM.
Super Member
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
E63
You are really reaching now. This AMG designed and hand built engine is just tough enough to handle hard hitting nitrous runs that have been done, but not tough enough to withstand a low boost application???? Really? That’s your argument? I expected better. I mean come on, nearly every lowly Camaro, Gen1 CTS-V, Corvette, and every other LSX car out there has Magnusson supercharger bolted up with no problems what so ever. They are mass produced engines with cast pistons. Even the new CTS-V has cast pistons, and it is handling plenty of boost. D you really think a low boost application to the M156 will destroy it?
Please read my posts, I mean actually read them. Have you had a M156 apart, have you seen the ringlands, ring package? Then don't comment. CTS-V pistons may be cast but they were still made for boost, M156s were not.
I didn't say low boost was going to hurt the motor, I said it's not setup for boost period. If going higher XXX was going to need to be replaced and you agree.
Ultimately however this stock bottom end will only take so much abuse from a pos displacement blower.
Hand built means nothing, are the pistons cast by hand, rods, rod bolts? Of course not, who cares if it's screwed together by man or machine that has zero bearing on this discussion.
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
10 Most Reliable Mercedes-Benz Models You Can Buy Used
Verdad Gallardo
Super Member
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
E63
Nope, we're all patiently waiting for an update to be posted.
I know they weren't planning (supposedly) on releasing any info yet, but since the ship has sailed anyway you'd think they'd be on the ball about it.
Anyway, all we can do is be patient and wait.
I know they weren't planning (supposedly) on releasing any info yet, but since the ship has sailed anyway you'd think they'd be on the ball about it.
Anyway, all we can do is be patient and wait.
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 122
Likes: 2
From: Houston, TX
2009 C63
Really, highlight the garbage please
Did I say boost at idle? No. Even at 1/2 throttle this blower will be making boost, and of course at WOT. The largest difference being that nitrous isn't sprayed all the time a blower is engaged, not even close.
Boost is a measurement of backpressure or restriction, boost is a measurement, it doesn't physically do anything. Engine 1 can have 20psi, while engine 2 has 40psi, however both can be moving the same mass of air through the motor. Boost means nothing in reality except when measured on the same motor.
It's the IAT temps created by a blower combined with high static compression in a PFI application that are the issues we're dealing with.
Again, driveline components are measured in TQ and rpm not HP. HP is simply a mathematical function of torque. If the torque exceeds the mechanical strength of the parts it will fail.
Notice I had to correct every statement you just posted?
You are forgetting about the trans, and converter issues. Also as far as very well goes, I don't think so. You have very little gasket seating area between bores on an LS7 block, which is exactly why Chevy switched to the LS9 6.2L for the ZR1 and CTS-V and soon to be Z28. Aside from that bores move under boost (in higher boost apps), causing ring issues and the poor gasket sealing can cause coolant to leak into the cylinder causing hydralock.
Also most LS7 blowers are centrifugals not Pos displacement, huge difference in the amount of stress they place on the internals and drivelilne, HUGE.
I think you need to do a lot more homework before making a post like this, right back at you with the garbage comment.
Did I say boost at idle? No. Even at 1/2 throttle this blower will be making boost, and of course at WOT. The largest difference being that nitrous isn't sprayed all the time a blower is engaged, not even close.
Boost is a measurement of backpressure or restriction, boost is a measurement, it doesn't physically do anything. Engine 1 can have 20psi, while engine 2 has 40psi, however both can be moving the same mass of air through the motor. Boost means nothing in reality except when measured on the same motor.
It's the IAT temps created by a blower combined with high static compression in a PFI application that are the issues we're dealing with.
Again, driveline components are measured in TQ and rpm not HP. HP is simply a mathematical function of torque. If the torque exceeds the mechanical strength of the parts it will fail.
Notice I had to correct every statement you just posted?
You are forgetting about the trans, and converter issues. Also as far as very well goes, I don't think so. You have very little gasket seating area between bores on an LS7 block, which is exactly why Chevy switched to the LS9 6.2L for the ZR1 and CTS-V and soon to be Z28. Aside from that bores move under boost (in higher boost apps), causing ring issues and the poor gasket sealing can cause coolant to leak into the cylinder causing hydralock.
Also most LS7 blowers are centrifugals not Pos displacement, huge difference in the amount of stress they place on the internals and drivelilne, HUGE.
I think you need to do a lot more homework before making a post like this, right back at you with the garbage comment.
In dynamic system, there is much more to mechanical part failure than just torque. Velocity (speed) of the rotating massing is very important as it relates to dynamic force. If engines were static torque would be all that mattered. This is why engine and some drive train components are rated in horsepower typically (specially in an industrial setting). However many drive line components(trans, diff, and axel) are ratted in torque. This is for a few reason. 1 there are a lower number of dynamic forces involved (typically only one in one direction i.e. rotational) 2 They typically have a speed/rpm limit ratting (this in essence is a HP ratting). Think about it. You could have a car with a transmission that has a torque rating higher than the torque output of the engine, but if you take the engine up to the redline at a standstill and drop the clutch in firs gear, you can definitely break the trans mission. Why is this? The short answer is dynamic forces vastly increase stresses. If you would like, I can recommend some engineering textbooks to read up on.
I NEVER said the trans would not be a problem. I specifically stated that it may very well be. They moved away from the LS7 for ease of manufacturing reasons, and they are moving to smaller displacement engines across the board. The next LS will be 5.5L. None of the low boot LS7s I have seen have suffer this problem. There are many high boost LS7s with forge internals that have had not had any problems with block rigidity. Also, the M156 has a closed deck block, so this should be much less of a concern.
The Magnusson TVS positive displacement blower has been successful so far on the LS7.
I think I have a done a decent job on my homework. The weakest link in the M156 is the cast pistons, and cast piston seem to hold up decently in low to mild boost applications. Other N/A MB engine hold up well to aftermarket FI setups. Are we to believe the AMG engineers designed the M156 with lower safety factors than the MB engineers do for there more pedestrian engines?
Notice how I just corrected every statement you posted? Man, we must be idiots if we are both being corrected all the time.
Last edited by TexasEngineer; Jan 11, 2011 at 08:20 PM.
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 122
Likes: 2
From: Houston, TX
2009 C63
I imagine that we will be waiting for these results for a while. Kind of like the MHP and Kleeman cams. They have been talked about for a long time. The MHP cams were installed in DadsC63's car not too long ago, but still I have seen no results.
Super Member
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
E63
Ok, you are trying to do an engineering lesson. Let me try to straighten you out.
In dynamic system, there is much more to mechanical part failure than just torque. Velocity (speed) of the rotating massing is very important as it relates to dynamic force. If engines were static torque would be all that mattered. This is why engine and some drive train components are rated in horsepower typically (specially in an industrial setting). However many drive line components(trans, diff, and axel) are ratted in torque. This is for a few reason. 1 there are a lower number of dynamic forces involved (typically only one in one direction i.e. rotational) 2 They typically have a speed/rpm limit ratting (this in essence is a HP ratting). Think about it. You could have a car with a transmission that has a torque rating higher than the torque output of the engine, but if you take the engine up to the redline at a standstill and drop the clutch in firs gear, you can definitely break the trans mission. Why is this? The short answer is dynamic forces vastly increase stresses. If you would like, I can recommend some engineering textbooks to read up on.
In dynamic system, there is much more to mechanical part failure than just torque. Velocity (speed) of the rotating massing is very important as it relates to dynamic force. If engines were static torque would be all that mattered. This is why engine and some drive train components are rated in horsepower typically (specially in an industrial setting). However many drive line components(trans, diff, and axel) are ratted in torque. This is for a few reason. 1 there are a lower number of dynamic forces involved (typically only one in one direction i.e. rotational) 2 They typically have a speed/rpm limit ratting (this in essence is a HP ratting). Think about it. You could have a car with a transmission that has a torque rating higher than the torque output of the engine, but if you take the engine up to the redline at a standstill and drop the clutch in firs gear, you can definitely break the trans mission. Why is this? The short answer is dynamic forces vastly increase stresses. If you would like, I can recommend some engineering textbooks to read up on.
It's called mechanical torque multiplication and can occur in the trans, diff, clutch, etc. LOL, no thanks on the books. The most talented engine builders I've ever met had nothing higher than a high school diploma, experience is King in this business, and half the computerized engineering/design programs for cylinder heads will tell you the wrong places to port a head. There's more to it than text books, always has been, always will be.
[
I NEVER said the trans would not be a problem. I specifically stated that it may very well be. They moved away from the LS7 for ease of manufacturing reasons, and they are moving to smaller displacement engines across the board. The next LS will be 5.5L. None of the low boot LS7s I have seen have suffer this problem. There are many high boost LS7s with forge internals that have had not had any problems with block rigidity. Also, the M156 has a closed deck block, so this should be much less of a concern.
Seen it before in big bore modular Fords as well, same issues, same problems. It's not a one off ordeal.
I know the CI of the next LS motor, it has no bearing on this discussion whatsoever.
LS7 is a poor comparison to the M156 because the block of the M156 was designed for FI from the get go, LS7 not at all. No question the M156 block can take all the boost in the world, the OEM pistons, rods, rod bolts, rings, not so much.
The Magnusson TVS positive displacement blower has been successful so far on the LS7.
I think I have a done a decent job on my homework. The weakest link in the M156 is the cast pistons, and cast piston seem to hold up decently in low to mild boost applications. Other N/A MB engine hold up well to aftermarket FI setups. Are we to believe the AMG engineers designed the M156 with lower safety factors than the MB engineers do for there more pedestrian engines?
The M156 shares no parts with any other MB motor ever, so your comment is really irrelevant based on that alone.
Again as I've told you multiple times, I don't expect the pistons to become an issue until higher boost, which AGAIN means rebuilding the bottom end, fuel system, trans/converter solution, etc the whole shebang. Why are you still trying to argue this? No one is debating it.
Notice how I just corrected every statement you posted? Man, we must be idiots if we are both being corrected all the time.
edit: can you please post in standard font and sizing?
Last edited by RStevens63; Jan 11, 2011 at 09:09 PM.
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
From: Colorado
coupe
lsx motors suffer from the heads lifting during high boost applications. The warhawk lsx block fixed that issue. You wont see lsx motor running over 15 psi on the street, boost is a measure of restriction of Air not that amount flowing into the motor. Hop onto ls1tech in the forced induction section if you want to learn more, I was the owner of a 00 t/a with a single 70mm turbo running 7.5 psi of boost. The whole motor was stock internals besides the 6.0 truck heads to lower the compression (bigger CC) not ported. I put down 535rwhp and 545rwtq on them. The 2v engine did not have any issues flowing the air, and I know they were not build with FI in mind. But lsx motor do suffer from ringland issues when not tuned correctly ( I remember piston 7 being the issue mostly) but that was due to inaquate cooling at the rear of the block. Most lsx motors can go over 600rwhp, but then you are flirting with disaster with non-forged internals.
Anyhow. you need to stop comparing lsx motor to MB motor, they vary alot and should not be grouped together
Anyhow. you need to stop comparing lsx motor to MB motor, they vary alot and should not be grouped together
Last edited by Mx_AMG; Jan 11, 2011 at 09:20 PM. Reason: edit
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 122
Likes: 2
From: Houston, TX
2009 C63
It's called mechanical torque multiplication and can occur in the trans, diff, clutch, etc. LOL, no thanks on the books. The most talented engine builders I've ever met had nothing higher than a high school diploma, experience is King in this business, and half the computerized engineering/design programs for cylinder heads will tell you the wrong places to port a head. There's more to it than text books, always has been, always will be.
No, they moved away from the LS7 for the reasons I stated above with boost. More gasket sealing area and meat around bores.
Seen it before in big bore modular Fords as well, same issues, same problems. It's not a one off ordeal.
I know the CI of the next LS motor, it has no bearing on this discussion whatsoever.
LS7 is a poor comparison to the M156 because the block of the M156 was designed for FI from the get go, LS7 not at all. No question the M156 block can take all the boost in the world, the OEM pistons, rods, rod bolts, rings, not so much.
Define successful? It's the stock blower on the LS9, sure it can make 700rw on race gas in that application but 2.8L TS's can make upwards of 800rw on pump gas. 2.3L is small for a 6.2L engine for anything other than low boost or an otherwise stock motor. How many chevy or ford guys do you see swapping to a standard size blower to get more power? Take a GT500 for instance (4v, PFI, closed deck block much better comparison than a LS7) swap on a 2.8L Mammoth KB and bam 750rw without any other changes save a tune. Never happen in a million years with a 2.3L.
You've admittedly never seen a M156 cast piston, or the rest of the inside of a M156 so please explain how you deduced that? I'll ask again, what's the ringland thickness of a M156 piston?
The M156 shares no parts with any other MB motor ever, so your comment is really irrelevant based on that alone.
Again as I've told you multiple times, I don't expect the pistons to become an issue until higher boost, which AGAIN means rebuilding the bottom end, fuel system, trans/converter solution, etc the whole shebang. Why are you still trying to argue this? No one is debating it.
No I didn't notice that at all sorry. You need to expand your horizons beyond Chevy's.
edit: can you please post in standard font and sizing?
No, they moved away from the LS7 for the reasons I stated above with boost. More gasket sealing area and meat around bores.
Seen it before in big bore modular Fords as well, same issues, same problems. It's not a one off ordeal.
I know the CI of the next LS motor, it has no bearing on this discussion whatsoever.
LS7 is a poor comparison to the M156 because the block of the M156 was designed for FI from the get go, LS7 not at all. No question the M156 block can take all the boost in the world, the OEM pistons, rods, rod bolts, rings, not so much.
Define successful? It's the stock blower on the LS9, sure it can make 700rw on race gas in that application but 2.8L TS's can make upwards of 800rw on pump gas. 2.3L is small for a 6.2L engine for anything other than low boost or an otherwise stock motor. How many chevy or ford guys do you see swapping to a standard size blower to get more power? Take a GT500 for instance (4v, PFI, closed deck block much better comparison than a LS7) swap on a 2.8L Mammoth KB and bam 750rw without any other changes save a tune. Never happen in a million years with a 2.3L.
You've admittedly never seen a M156 cast piston, or the rest of the inside of a M156 so please explain how you deduced that? I'll ask again, what's the ringland thickness of a M156 piston?
The M156 shares no parts with any other MB motor ever, so your comment is really irrelevant based on that alone.
Again as I've told you multiple times, I don't expect the pistons to become an issue until higher boost, which AGAIN means rebuilding the bottom end, fuel system, trans/converter solution, etc the whole shebang. Why are you still trying to argue this? No one is debating it.
No I didn't notice that at all sorry. You need to expand your horizons beyond Chevy's.
edit: can you please post in standard font and sizing?
Are you going t sit there and tell me, the AMG designed the pistons of the M156 to a lower stander than other cast pistons out there in MB engines. The MB engines and the M156 do not share anything in common other than they are both under the MB company and therefore, thinking logically and a German would do, would both design to the same minimum standard. If anything the AMG motor would designed to a higher standard. I don’t care if you have seen it. The fact that you have looked at it doesn’t mean you have done a stress test or analysis on it. From what you have posted here, I don’t believe you would even understand those processes.
Define successful? It is the same thing I have been talking about the whole time. A low boost bolt-on application for NA engine. 600 RWHP on a very, very mild and streetable LS7 setup is successful in my mind. I think many here would like 600RWHP with bolt-on equipment.
You really think you are smarter than you are. Good, you have yourself fooled. I am sure you have been playing around with engines for a long time right? You must have picked up quite a bit of experience building, but you seem to have no clue on the fundamental principles of engineering, design, and theory that are used to conceive and build the thing you have been tinkering with your whole life. There is always more to it than text books, but you will never really fully understand the subject unless you start with the text books and not the other way around. To say that text books are irrelevant is to stay 1 that you cannot learn from those who came before you and 2 just wholeheartedly stupid.
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 122
Likes: 2
From: Houston, TX
2009 C63
lsx motors suffer from the heads lifting during high boost applications. The warhawk lsx block fixed that issue. You wont see lsx motor running over 15 psi on the street, boost is a measure of restriction of Air not that amount flowing into the motor. Hop onto ls1tech in the forced induction section if you want to learn more, I was the owner of a 00 t/a with a single 70mm turbo running 7.5 psi of boost. The whole motor was stock internals besides the 6.0 truck heads to lower the compression (bigger CC) not ported. I put down 535rwhp and 545rwtq on them. The 2v engine did not have any issues flowing the air, and I know they were not build with FI in mind. But lsx motor do suffer from ringland issues when not tuned correctly ( I remember piston 7 being the issue mostly) but that was due to inaquate cooling at the rear of the block. Most lsx motors can go over 600rwhp, but then you are flirting with disaster with non-forged internals.
Anyhow. you need to stop comparing lsx motor to MB motor, they vary alot and should not be grouped together
Anyhow. you need to stop comparing lsx motor to MB motor, they vary alot and should not be grouped together
So you are saying because the two engines are dissimilar would should never compare the two to draw logical conclusions? What other applications are out there that we have examples of that we should compare it to? Should we just not discuss or compare at all. I thought this forum was all about technical discussion. If you have a better comparison or point to make, I am all ears.
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
From: Colorado
coupe
Obviously the two engines are not the same. If anything the M156 block is much strong than an stock LS1 block and likely stronger than a LS7 block. My entire point(that I have to keep reiterating) is that low boost should not be a problem for the M156 engine in stock form, and that the product posted by the OP would likely be an acceptable bolt-on application with the trans, fuel, and heat being the biggest issues to deal with.
So you are saying because the two engines are dissimilar would should never compare the two to draw logical conclusions? What other applications are out there that we have examples of that we should compare it to? Should we just not discuss or compare at all. I thought this forum was all about technical discussion. If you have a better comparison or point to make, I am all ears.
So you are saying because the two engines are dissimilar would should never compare the two to draw logical conclusions? What other applications are out there that we have examples of that we should compare it to? Should we just not discuss or compare at all. I thought this forum was all about technical discussion. If you have a better comparison or point to make, I am all ears.
I was making a point to RS since they do not seem to get the difference. Your examples should more or less compare a 4v DOHC motor like the cobra instead of a 2v ohv valve motor. You can compare, to each their own.
Last edited by Mx_AMG; Jan 11, 2011 at 09:58 PM.
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 122
Likes: 2
From: Houston, TX
2009 C63
I am not doubting any info you have posted. I agree the m156 should not have any issues in low boost applications, most High compression motor will run low boost to keep from detenation and damaging the rotating assembly. But there are more factors then compression ratio, and boost to factor in.
I was making a point to RS since they do not seem to get the difference. Your examples should more or less compare a 4v DOHC motor like the cobra instead of a 2v ohv valve motor. You can compare, to each their own.
I was making a point to RS since they do not seem to get the difference. Your examples should more or less compare a 4v DOHC motor like the cobra instead of a 2v ohv valve motor. You can compare, to each their own.
Member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
pontiac firefly
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,974
Likes: 2
From: NY
See Sig
Its times like these when I wish an engineer from MB or AMG would show up and just lay a smack down on the know it alls..
Its fun to read though.. I personally wanna hear more about torque converters and how they work. They have always been a mystery to me.
Its fun to read though.. I personally wanna hear more about torque converters and how they work. They have always been a mystery to me.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,317
Likes: 3
From: Northport N.Y.
2013 f250 6.7 diesel
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,493
Likes: 3
MB
MBWorld > textbooks. 
Btw, I was just trying to say, MBWorld might actually be better than textbooks. Kind of a joke, but in some ways it's much better.
Love the technical discussion. Great input in this thread.
Btw, I was just trying to say, MBWorld might actually be better than textbooks. Kind of a joke, but in some ways it's much better. Love the technical discussion. Great input in this thread.
Last edited by SonnyakaPig; Jan 12, 2011 at 02:05 AM.
Super Member
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
E63
It was intended to be TT'd by AMG, but not this generation of M156.
