Kid Dynamite

iTrader: (1)

Hello Community ,

my C63 AMG P30 Setup are follow :


EC V5 Tune with rev limiter 7500 rpm
(Very happy with that - downshifts are INSANE & make the 335i guys envious )
MBH Headers with 200 Cells
ROW Airboxes (Stock @ European)
K&N Filters
SLS Valve Buckets
SLS Valve Springs
SLS Spark Plugs
Mobil 1 5W50 Oil
(0w40 and 5w30 tested with MANY autobahn top speed runs +190 mph - 5w50 is best for oil temps)


Whats the next step for little more HP ?


I was thinking about a Agency Power Catback to get more HP with open exhaust valves


Whats your suggestion ?


PS : This summer i will keep you up to date with some top speed runs / races

chrisridebike8

Sounds like you are done unless you want to spend like $8,000 on heads/cams or more on a blower. Also, why 5w50? Our cars were engineered for 0w40 or 5w40.

Kid Dynamite

iTrader: (1)

I dont want start another oil disscusion


Ive used 5w50 in many cars before and its just the best oil for me.

Kriston

You have already tackled your main power gain upgrades.

This is the part where you have to decide whether you want to push further or stay as you are and just enjoy the car.

The next few upgrades are costly and may not yield much more power / dollar but, there are gains to be had on the M156 NA still.

1.) Ported / Polished and Decked heads will net you a few ex HP.
2.) Throttle bodies may also net you unto 10 WHP.
3.) Not necessarily a HP gain but 2 piece rotors are a great way to shed some lbs if you are not already using them. Less Rotational mass = faster acceleration and breaking. This is almost always overlooked when I see builds done.
4.) Smaller / lighter wheels and tires. Again this will aid with lessening your rotating mass.
5.) Carbon Drive Shaft - You gain a few HP by going with a lighter drive shaft. Again may not be the best cost / HP upgrade, but these are realistically your next steps should you want to keep the car NA.

I have decided to challenge myself and decided to build a good all round NA car. Supercharges will gain you loads more power. However, i feel longevity for the motor is best suited for NA applications.

rentzington

Like Kriston said you already did the big upgrades unless you go SC

agency catback will give some increase and likely smooth out the sound .

If the goal is to reduce times in races I'd follow the weight reduction suggestion, you have a P30 so that should already give you the 2piece rotors but theres also good aftermarket options there.

avery.whss

How about putting the power down?

Get rid of that sloppy OEM Diff...You won't regret it.

as for exhaust just get something custom made..i paid half the price and got a way nicer sound, basically sounds like stock but 10x louder, where i found the other exhaust systems kind of dulled out the stock sound instead of making it louder or changed it completely

then maybe get a custom tune too

Kid Dynamite

iTrader: (1)

Thanks Community for your suggestions / help


If i decide to pay a Agency Power Catback ill dyno before vs after



Regards from Germany

Alex

KillaC63

An interesting note regarding oil weight. When the Gen II Ford GT was released the recommended oil weight was 5w-20 a common weight for Ford engines at the time. Upon further testing it was found that the 20 weight oil allowed the tappets to be compressed too easily and too far resulting in reduced actual camshaft lift and duration. Ford then changed their recommendation to 5w-50 and the engines began seeing correct camshaft lift and duration and all was well at the blue oval camp.

As far as a mod recommendation I would suggest the carbon fiber ram air inlets available from MHP, Boca Designs official U.S. distributor. With LT headers and a tune already in place gains are quoted at .15-.2 seconds and 1.5-2mph in the 1/4 mile. I have them on my C63 and am sure they helped get me to the 500rw club.

Diabolis

Seeing as you've alredy got headers, ariboxes and a tune, the next big jump would be forced induction. With a naturally aspirated motor, you're now looking at pouring lots of money into it to get only a marginal performance increase.

Where you are completley wrong is the "0w40 and 5w30 tested with MANY autobahn top speed runs +190 mph - 5w50 is best for oil temps" - it is actually the WORST. Yes, you read a lower oil temperature at the at the oil return line which is where the sensor is, but that's because the xW50 doesn't flow nearly as easliy and doesn't remove as much heat as the lower viscosity oils. The internal engine bits that rely on the oil for cooling (not just lubrication) are now actually running even HOTTER because you are taking less heat away from them. With a xW50 oil you gain film shear strength, but always at the sacrifice of cooling ability.

I don't want to get in another oil discussion either, but I thought I'd just point out the error in your reasoning. It's your car and you can run whatever oil you like. All I am saying is that appearances can sometimes be deciving.

Diabolis

That is a true story, but... that's going from a hot 20 to 50 weight oil, which is a huge difference. And, the the tappets compressing too early as a result of the low oil viscosity is a design flaw in the Ford GT motor, whereas the M156 isn't flawed to begin with (OK, at least not form a performance perspective - IMHO they shouldn't have used flat tappets, but that's for longevity purposes if the car is not driven frequently, not performance). Seeing as the "small three" all build crude engines that are thirty years behind in terms of technology, they don't have to worry about oil flow rates through very small passages like the Germans do, so even a drastic change in oil viscosity like that is unlikely to damage the tractor-grade motors they put in their cars.

As for the CF airboxes, they are just eye candy. The OEM airboxes are already perfectly designed for optimizing airflow and already capable of supplying more air than the engine can possibly use at WOT.

KillaC63

You'll note that the M157, M177, M178 all use roller followers vs cam on bucket (M156), just like those archaic domestic motors and yes modular builders that knew what they were doing opened up oil passages in the cylinder heads.

I didn't say airboxes, I said ram air inlets. Two different parts and two different stories. Also I disagree about the OEM airboxes. E60 M5 V10 airfilters are 2x as large and the M156 inlets themselves are a choke point, both engines will move around 675cfm at redline, this is why the SLS M159 inlets look nothing like the M156, not to mention the completely redesigned single runner intake manifold.

Diabolis

Yes they do - I wasn't referring to the cam lifters. It's just that a German 5.5L liter forced-induction engine now puts out close to 700 hp in OEM trim in a station wagon, whereas the Ford GT managed 500 with ten times the reliability headeaches that the Germans have. Let's not argue about American muscle vs. German precision. No argument about the roller followers though - they are indeed a better solution for the application.

Bu11$h!t. I am afraid you are wrong regarding the 625 CFM - Weistec CNC ported and polished heads for the M156 allow for *almost* 400 CFM on the intake, which is enough even for forced induction applications on that engine. Where did you get that 675 CFM number? Besides, what does the E60 M10 airbox size have to do with the price of tea in China? Or for that matter the SLS, which puts out 620+ hp on the SLS BS?

If the amount of air the engine can use under WOT is well under 400 CFM, it makes absolutey no difference whether your aribox, air filter, RAM air intake or turbo-super-hyper charger can flow 401 CFM or 4,0001 CFM. It's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

If you think the inlets are a choke point, you can do a simple test: remove the airboxes althogether, duct tape on a couple of 3" wide $2 corrugated plastic tubes or rubber hoses directly to the MAFs, and route them to the front of the grille in front of the rad. Make a couple of WOT runs on a strip and see how much you gain.

KillaC63

So now you think comparing a 5.4L PFI engine designed in the late 1980s with a 2.3L supercharger (determining factor in how much HP a supercharged motor can make is size of the blower) to a 5.5L DI Twin Turbo engine designed in 2009? You do realize the Ford GT block is a legit 2000HP design, and the world's fastest standing mile car is a Ford GT using that boat anchor 5.4L? John M. has made 2400HP+ with a 4.6L Ford 4.6 4v using stock block and heads with twins. As much as I'd love to see someone use a m156 or M159 in a race car and go ***** out there's nothing you can say about what's been done with the mod motors so far. Even the GT500s had legit 1000HP longblocks. The M157s have an open deck and cast pistons, which would you rather have from a design perspective?

What do you have to say about the new 540HP (stock or what a M156 makes ECU tuned) 5.2L flat plane crank Ford V8 going in the Shelby GT350? Just another piece of American garbage right? LOL. They are all great engines, I respect them for what they are, sorry we can't all agree as far as this goes.


I said 675cfm and ask any engine builder worth their salt. It's a calculation based on engine size, cylinder head flow, intake manifold design, camshaft specs, max engine rpm, etc. You can even find online calculators that will get you fairly close to actual numbers if you have the correct raw data. I'm well aware of what ported M156 heads flow 410+/330+cfm @ .500" but stock cams don't come close to .500" lift. Even with LT headers a M156 would be lucky to move 700cfm at 7000rpm NA. Apparently you believe the amount of air an engine can move is based solely on cylinder head flow?

The S85 E60 M5 V10 reference was to show that a NA motor built by a European automaker that makes notoriously solid inlets and intakes, that moves a similar amount of air uses a much larger set of filters than the M156 does. Less displacement, more rpm, and the entire motor moves a similar amount of air. The SLS BS engine has shorter intake runners, different cam specs, and a legit 7950rpm redline, not sure why you brought it up but it's by far my favorite V8 of all time.

???? You lost me here bud. I think at some point sooner than later you're going to want to delete that response. A ported M156 cylinder head (one head, there are two on a V8) flows that amount of air 410+cfm/330+cfm but again you can't simply add cylinder head flow together to get a total amount of air the entire engine is capable of moving.

They are but one choke point, as is the intake manifold, as are the throttle body's built into the bottom of the manifold vs conventionally placed as in the SLS, as are the 1mm smaller exhaust valves than found in the SLS, as is the smaller exhaust port than found in the SLS, as are the exhaust manifolds and 2.5" diameter exhaust, as are the stock camshafts.

I think the SLS design demonstrates that the Germans know where TBs should have gone and that since the M156 only uses its short runners at wide open throttle (never the long runners even at low rpm) that the single runner intake manifold gains significant power without losing any low end torque.

Ihopaz

You are exactly correct for exhaust! I see how much these cat back systems cost and just think what a waste of money on some of these. I understand that some people may need or just have to have one, that's fine but for most people they are just pissing their money away!

My car with a second cat delete and a resonator delete and some trick piping sounds very loud when in s, s plus or m mode and civilized in comfort mode. And if I told people it was all had for less than $350 and is done all in stainless they would sh*t themselves! Of course it does have some extra power.

ab0bab0i

Supercharger.

Diabolis

Wow... hold on a sec here. First of all, let's not confuse about what a production car with a specific engine reliably puts out day in and day out vs. what a tuned and souped up version that uses the same engine BLOCK may be able to withstand for half-dozen drag strip runs before you have to rebuild it. Those are two very different things. Back in the 80s the 1500cc F1 turbo engines were set up to deliver 1,400-1,600 hp for qualifying. They would only last one lap before falling apart, but they did put out 100 hp per cc.

While the modular, Lego block approach that some American engine builders have taken certainly has its advantages when it comes to hot-rodding, it is that very same philosophy that unfortunately prevents them from thinking outside to box because everythign has to fit on that Lego block scale. How may American cars - no, forget about the cars - how many American engine manufacturers do you see in any of the top motorsport categories? F1? Le Mans prototypes (not the boggo C5 'vettes)? WRC? None. Not even one. Please don't bother mentioning Indycar or NASCAR - cast iron pusrods that were carbureted until two years ago doesn't qualify for leading edge.

Ahd finally, it is you that might want to rethik your statment about "you can't simply add cylinder head flow together to get a total amount of air the entire engine is capable of moving". Lat time I checked, all four-stroke piston based engines had to have a cylinder head in palce, and all of the air being delivered to said engine had to go thorugh that (or those) cylinder head(s) - so again, if a head can flow 400 cfm, how does an air intake that can deliver 650 cfm differ from an air intake that delivers 401 cfm for that particular application (keeping in mind that the M156 also has separate air boxes, air filters and snorkels to the front)? The OP never asked "what is the maximum I can get out of the M156 engine block if I rip the entire engine apart, stroke it to 8L, build custom high-lift cams, run 80lbs injectors and build a custom two-spark head after I throw $80K at it? He asked what is the next step he can reasonably take to get a good-bang-for-your-buck mod, and the answer was NONE because he has already implemented all of the good bang-for-the-buck mods, and any other significant power gains would necessarily come with a heftly price tag.

So - your hot-rodding engine knowledge aside - and I do admit you certainly appear to know what you're are talking about in the area of engine building - how does a CF "ram-air" system going to give this young lad more power than what he already has? At the end of the day, it's still a naturally aspirated M156 engine with the OEM heads which can only flow so much air, and the Euro OEM "air delivery system" - in this case two Euro airboxes - can already supply more air than the engine is that particualr configuration can use at WOT? Even if you forget for a second that there is a lot more to building a proper airbox than simply flow rates (all of them, at least on high-end Euro cars, are now built as resonant systems not unlike a loudspeaker), how is a RAM air system going to help him when all that said RAM air system can deliver is that same 1 atmosphere at sea level as can his Euro filters, and BOTH of which can deliver more air flow (cfm) than his particual engine can use?

KillaC63

Last I spoke with John he had 168 1/4 mile passes without pulling the engine or making any changes at all. You'd be lucky to find a car on this site with that many 1/4 mile runs and none are in the 6s@220+mph.

Indy running pushrods, did I blackout for 3 decades?

You do realize the 5.0L TT V8 used by Koenigsegg in all of their super and hyper cars is a reworked Ford 4.6L?

You're trying to change the scope of the argument away from the M156 not biting.

You're trying to walk back you earlier comment about volumetric efficiency of an engine. You're still wrong. First when you flow a head it makes a large amount of difference what you have hanging off the intake and exhaust ports. Are you simply using clay on the intake side to make a venturi into the port or the actual intake manifold in use on the vehicle? On the exhaust side, clay again, an OEM exhaust manifold or an aftermarket header design. To answer your question an intake manifold that flows 650cfm vs one that flows 401cfm is going to be a lot less restrictive overall and the engine will make significantly more HP and TQ--based on the assumption the heads flow what I stated M156 heads would.

The rest of your argument "8L, twin plugs per cylinder (would do nothing power wise, only thing you can do to fuel delivery to improve on the M156 would be to use DI or piezo electric injectors combined with a higher compression ratio), etc" is again off-topic. There are in fact bolt-ons, such as the ram air CF inlets I suggested which have been track and dyno proven to drop .15-.2 seconds in ET and gain 1.5-2mph in the 1/4 mile by several C63s with a tune and LT headers in place to remove the exhaust cork.

The answer to this question is very simple. Because the ram air inlets are more efficient than the OEM airboxes both in terms of the volume and velocity of air they flow into the airboxes. The heads also outflow the OEM airboxes and inlets, which has been proven by those who gained HP and TQ and ran quicker and faster with the ram air inlets vs stock. Engines are just big air pumps, the less restrictive you make them the more efficient they are (that means more fuel efficient at part throttle) and more HP and TQ while your foot is buried in the floor. I have never seen any factual data showing the ROW airboxes can knock .15-2 seconds off a 1/4 mile ET nor gain 1.5-2mph as the CF ram air inlets have. While slightly more efficient due to their full venturi rear air pickup design the gains are clearly not on par with the ram air inlets.

Diabolis

Again, way too much information, most of which is completely off-topic.

I have no idea who John is, how many 1/4 mile passes he has made, what car/engine he has or for that matter what color underwear he was wearing at the time. I suspect you're still talking about someone with a built engine putting out a gazillion hp, but unfortunately it is irrlevant for the topic at hand.

The pushrod comment was in reference to NASCAR. Indycar has been all over the place with their engine suppliers, but I suspect you knew that. In 1996 when the series started (not three decades ago), the engines were all leftovers from the CART era, switching to methanol-powered Oldsmobile and Nissan 4.0L V8s in 1997 that were producing about 700 hp. They have never run 4L V8s in F1, but the naturally-aspirated 3L V8s & V10s were putting out 900+ hp. The Chevys used in Indycar in 2002 & 2003 were rebadged Cosworths (ironically owned by Ford at the time) but couldn't compete with the Hondas and Toyotas. From 2005 until 2012, the only engine manufacturer was Honda (which in turn were mostly made by Ilmor) and IIRC the only period during which were no engine failures in Indycar. Or - perhaps you are thinking about CART, but I am not going to jump on you for trivial hair-splitting. I respect your opinion about American muscle car engines and I certainly concede that they may be easier to work with from an engine-builder perspective, in no smal part due to the modular approach, but my own experience has been that for a street-car motor with an equivalent displacement, the Eurpeans have been able to consistently get an extra 20% power than their American counterparts. The American engines may be alot easier to service, mod and tinker with, and they are a hell of a lot cheaper than the German counterparts so they are indeed a better value, but IMHO just not the ultimate in terms of power-per-litre-of-displacement.

As for me "trying to walk back [on my] earlier comment about volumetric efficiency of an engine", please do me a favour, re-read my earlier posts and show me where I mentioned volumetric efficiency or anything of the sort. You brought up engine building and calculations about what an engine block with various cams, heads, runner lengths, exhaust ports and what not is capable of flowing, not me. I never mentioned modifying the engine - I was talking about the OPs question about the next best-bang-for-your-buck mod that he can put on his car. You suggested CF intakes, and I only said that they likely won't help him seeing as he already has the Euro airboxes, which can already flow more than the specific combination of all of his other varous existing engine bits. I was talking about the ability of his particular engine, with his heads, cams, port lenghts, tune, headers and "Hand assembled by this mechanic" plaque be able to produce more hp by a bolt-on mod. I really don't know how or why you got the impression that I was bringing volumetric efficiency into it. As an analogy, the OP was asking about a shovel vs. an axe questioin, and you brought up a whole arsenal of excavators, coring drills, tunnel-boring machines and dynamite. As I said earlier, you certianly seem to know about engine building, and your knowledge and input would indeed be greatly appreciated and extremely valuable if, say, a race car engine builder was trying to squeeze out 4 more hp out of a specific motor on which he could only modify three specific things in order to still remain within the class spec, but in this case neither the OPs question nor my earlier replies called for or got into volumetric efficiency or for that matter venturis, which is another "black art" that you and I can discuss over several beverages.

Ihopaz

RESPECT