I should have clarified, I meant engines and transmissions not so much diffs and clutches, no doubt the General has had a bunch of weak diffs and clutches over the years. Most of the manual trannys in their performance offerings are T56s which can hold a ton of power even stock, and their automatic trannys are renowned for doing the same. Plus there's actually aftermarket options that work for trannys and converters but that's already been covered.

I guess it depends on what you're asking of the driveline. I would agree that a tract day with the session lengths you talk about would likely be more detrimental to a driveline than 1/4 mile passes, but then again, how many 1/4 mile passes are we talking about? If at a rental and the owner is dumping the clutch at high rpm launching on sticky tires while powershifting and has made 50 passes then I'm not sure which situation would be harder on the driveline.

There are so many more corvettes than BS's running around especially on track, how many BSs were made 350?, that I don't think you could really make for an accurate comparison. If AMG made as many BS's as Chevy did corvettes we would have undoubtedly seen a failure of something by now. It may not have been the fault of the car, some owners just flagrantly beat on their cars--which isn't fair to any brand but again favors the much smaller build numbers of the BS.

Admittedly it's been a while but the last OT session I watched had at least 5 vettes in it and not surprisingly no MBs. Could it have something to do with chevy parts ( clutches and diffs) being dirt cheap by comparison? I'm sure that factors into it as well.

JMHO and sweet looking BS, love the red ones.

 

John
you raise a good point. Does one race a marque that the parts are dirt cheap (GM) if you break, or MB who's parts are astronomical but don't break.
Since the sales numbers favor GM, there will be more GM racers. This argument cannot be won on the internet. FWIW,there are several CLK DTM's (predecessor to BS) with over 30,000 km (18,000 miles) with no drivetrain, motor issues.

All the doubter are going to be surprised when the blower hits the market.
The MB transmission is stout, even though the factory built in a torque limit of somewhere around 700NM you can increase this to over a 1000NM by increasing the line pressure so the computer doesn't read any slip. Just like most mods one would do to any auto tranny. Rumors are there will be some more information in the next few weeks.

 

o really?

 

You're right, it can't be won, it's 6 of one half a dozen of another CLK DTMs were rare cars as well correct?

I'm curious as to how you can increase line pressure without the TCU knowing? I'm guessing this has to do with machining the valvebody but how does the TCU just not sense the extra 300nm? Then again, what are you going to do about the TCU torque limiters? Unless you can remap the TCU software the TCU won't allow excessive torque to be made anyway, at least that's my understanding of it.

There are also problems associated with increasing line pressure such as short shifting and poor part throttle drivability.

Definitely looking forward to more info Thanks.

 

You tell the ecu it's only 700Nm. That's all I can say.

 

[QUOTE=Jim Brady;4472590]Well you've got my attention. I would think one of the main variables a TCU would keep tabs on would be line pressure.

700nm= 516lb/ft I'm assuming that's a crank rating, that's just a few more lb/ft than some of the higher tuned otherwise stock 63s are making. With headers and tuning some are seeing 555lb/ft. So that number seems a bit odd?

1000nm= 737lb/ft again assuming a crankshaft rating, that's an additional 221lb/ft over stock or a 42% increase in torque vs the claimed stock limiter. That's a lot for just line pressure, and this still leaves the converter situation on the table.

Dunno, it kind of sounds too good to be true. Hope I'm wrong.

 

If a TCU can't be directly tuned because it's encrypted and no one in the aftermarket has reverse-engineered the proper "keys" yet - why can't it be indirectly tuned via a "black box" - similar to how the Juice Box works for BMW ECUs, and how MTM tunes 2010+ S4s?

Couldn't the same approach be taken with a transmission?

 

Good question. IMO I don't think so because the CANBUS tuners that are out there intercept data flow before it gets to the ECU. Now placing that same intercept between the ECU and TCU is it possible? I would think the interupted signal would wreak havoc between the ECU and TCU since they constantly communicate. ?

 

I wonder what would happen if a tuner would give the TCU to one of those groups that hack gaming consoles? Done in a week?

 

Getting the TCU is the problem guys. It's buried in the transmission and epoxied in place. You literally have to crack the transmission case and tear it apart JUST to get to it.

 

"Getting the TCU is the problem guys. It's buried in the transmission and epoxied in place. You literally have to crack the transmission case and tear it apart JUST to get to it."

This is not true. The control unit is on top of the valve body. It can not be opened though. There really is no opening it and having it work again.
Also some one earlier was talking about line pressure. The transmission does not have any pressure sensors. The values are calculated. It would not have any idea that you raise the pressure. Other than adaptations for the targeted shift values. The question is what will happen when the values reach limits. On the earlier transmission the tcu does not send any faults unless there is slipping or gear implausibility. I have not seen anything to indicate otherwise in this transmission. I raised the shift solenoid pressures the other day a little and saw adaptations change to counter. I am going to raise modulator pressure next week to see what happens. It will just be a matter of trial and error. The shift solenoid pressure should only effect the speed at which the shift valves move over to begin a shift. The modulator pressure is the fill pressure on the clutches. Higher pressure should speed up the shifts and make them firmer. It is just a matter of what ill effects there are from doing this.

 

very nice fitting

 

wow buddy you hit the nail on the HEAD

MSRP $14,999.00 LOL

 

Well it looks like in order to avoid the TCU torque limiters, and based on the parts list posted on their website copy and pasted below, that they are simply going to stay well under the tq limit. The base kit doesn't even come with a fuel system, as such I'll be suprised if you can run LTs without maxing the fuel system.

From Weistec's website, notice they call it a 6.3L engine on the main page:

So basically as most surmised this will be a kit for those living in CA that own limo companies and need an emissions legal bump in HP and TQ (especially for heavier models) but unlike the BMW superchargers for the S65 not geared toward the performance enthusiast--at least the base kit.

 

From what I have been told they are focusing on the CARB legal level 1 kit for the release of the system. I do not see changing fuel injectors as being a big deal for more fuel flow.

 

Who spends tens of thousands of dollars to add a supercharger to an already stout AMG powerplant, and isn't a "performance enthusiast?"

This kit appears to be geared toward the performance enthusiast who wishes to maintain emissions compliance and still benefit from improved output over stock levels.

As for LTs... I'd expect someone could run this kit along with LTs. They (the client, and/or Weistec) might not be able to optimize the car's ECU tune for max output, but there still would be tangental benefits like lower boost pressures for the same level of output, and reduced heat in the engine bay.

 

There are people who spend more on their seats on this forum that this blower kit costs. Based on the parts list the power output is not going to break any records, meaning existing mods for vehicles that tend to be modified more frequently such as C/E class 63s are still going to reign supreme. Now as far as heavier models like the CL/S/SL 63s this kit will provide a solid boost in HP and much needed TQ. Basically it's as good as it's going to get for those cars because no one else makes parts for them.
If you can make the same or more power N/A for less than half the price any performance enthusiast isn't going to spend more than a minute debating.

Yes that's what I said, those looking for emissions compliance and a quiet bump in HP/TQ. Again though, look at the specs on the kit, there is nothing enthusiast related. This kit is being targeted toward the masses of M156 owners that want to do a single mod and be done with it, which is to say the majority of 63 owners. It's not an enthusiast kit like ESS or Gintani's superchargers for the S65, not by a long shot. The kit is what it is, meaning it's not meant to work with additional mods--this is obvious based on the emissions compliant tune they are certifying.

What's the point if you can't take advantage of the hardware's increased HP/TQ output? Lowering boost from 6psi to 4.5psi? Not much loss in IATs there. That twin screw will make heat running at 4psi or 14psi.

 

I don't think anyone's questioning that you don't need larger injectors for the base kit because again they are focusing on an emissions legal one stop kit that's not pushing the envelope on the performance front. At the same time they are not leaving room for other modifications which was my point.

Do you know the flow rating of the injectors in a M156?

 

I do not know what the flow rating is on a stock injector. But most likely in the 450cc range. Mercedes has always put about the minimum injector size for idle quality and emissions. My point was that swapping in larger injectors in the future or for a non CARB setup would not be a problem. Either while installing it originally or in for upgrades in the future.

 

I hear what you're saying. I just wanted to add that headers can lower boost pressure, but on some applications the boost may only drop 1/2 psi and it may not drop at all.

I have been told before by Kenne Bell that adding long tubes to an otherwise stock L99 (like an LS3) that has one of their 2.8L twin screws on it, probably won't lower boost.

I'm pointing this out because even when the 5th gen Camaro SS came out and the blowers were being released a lot of people would think boost would drop 1-2 psi at low boost levels (5-8 psi) and in my experience my boost dropped just under 1/2 psi at redline.

That's due to the already very free flowing Camaro SS 2 1/2" catback. And their stock manifolds are relatively free flowing for their design -- with respect to well-designed LT's.

Similarly, the C63 has an efficient catback and their stock manifolds are also free flowing for their design. They do help full power M156 engines make 518 hp.

So, here, I wouldn't expect LT's to drop boost more than 1psi. And like RStevens said above, adding headers may increase the fuelu demand and with no new injectors, that could be a problem. Plus, now that we're boosting the M156 we will soon find out about any potential issues with the stock fuel pump.

Voltage is another concern. Kenne Bell doesn't recommend exceeding 8psi when voltage drops below a certain level and even when I had their blower installed I would see my voltage drop below that level (I don't rememeber the exact number). So I asked Kenne Bell and they said it shouldnt be a big concern because the car will pull timing if voltage drops too low.

Well, let me tell you, in the summer in hot climates, with the AC on full blast and the radio, etc., my voltage was below that pre-specified number quite often, and if Kenne Bell was correct, that my car's ECU would adjust and pull timing, my car was not advancing ignition as much and as consistently as I would have liked.

Also, LT's increased the heat in my engine bay. It was very noticeable.

Just offering my experiences because when a car wasn't designed for boost, there can be a number of little issues that are not commonly advertised or discussed.

And, as I've mentioned before in this thread, anyone that gets this blower, you should really think about gettting a vented hood.

 

Great post.



I think in this application this product is for someone with deep pockets who wants to say "I did it when they said I couldnt"

Well see though how much boost and what can be gained with this and beyond this application without blowing up the tranny.

I look at a guy like Mike (Dodger) and I would follow his lead with his mods and be more than satisfied with my times, rather than get into something like this.

 

^^

 

Took some photos of the TCU on Saturday when whipplem104 and I were hanging out.

Top:


Bottom:

 

And why may I ask is the TCU out?

 

This is a unit from another car. I have a few that were customer pay that I have replaced before Mercedes started calling back cores. I tore this one apart completely to trace everything down. I hopefully will be able to do some testing with increasing modulator pressure this week.