PeterA90

Not a bad way to spend 15 grand lol

brad65ford

Can't keep this out of my mind, I know everyone is saying the reason it low on torque is because of the overhead 4 valves when we compare the 6.4 liters and fine so be it, even though it makes the same hp lol.. Ok so then why does the gen 2 coyote motor could make similar power FBO as the m156 fbo and its only a 5.0 liters (not even talking 18 and up with direct injection), even just about the same torque as well? Just want to know what is such old tech in these m156 motors that don't make them more powerful then? Is the intake / TB setup that restrictive?

deadlyvt

It’s just too old of an engine design should probably just stick to the dodge or buy a coyote

brad65ford

All joking aside, wishing merc created one last na v8 a little latter on to take advantage of newer tech and materials. No more NA any more 🙁

skratch77

Here is my car with second cat delete, remus exh,plasma ignition coils, carbonio airboxes and oe tuning.

This is also un corrected

Makes 460whp at 7k and revs to 7500 rpm and only losses a few whp.

brad65ford

Awesome power bro! Now if we can just increase torque you'd be chilling like a villain. Torque under 400 for a 6.2l imo isn't impressive IMO. Regardless that's some serious hp for not having lt's. Wondering what it would be corrected.

skratch77

Alot of people cheat on the dyno. Even the one you posted is a 1.03 CF so multiply the numbers by .97 for uncorrected numbers

I can show you higher numbers just need to hit the dyno in hotter weather and do a pull on a cold car.

brad65ford

All I'm saying is the torque is low on these m152 in comparison to newer na v8's and wondering why. Wondering if its all in the plastic intakes of these newer motors with different runners.

Rick X Joaquim

That proves those Americans v8 are no joke. They get better gas mileage too.
i certainly feel the m156 lacks that low end for every day driving specially on comfort mode, keep down shifting

skratch77

I have a bunch of happy dyno files I'll post for you.

440rwt 500whp

brad65ford

Torque is what got me on the new 6.4L 392, its so fun to drive for what it is. So needs to be in a smaller car for sure. Agree the m156 just doesn't feel like it has much torque downstairs but sure does shine upstairs. Now I know why people slap on roots style blowers, best of both worlds.

G_Money

I'm thinking maybe you should have bought a 55k car if you want a torque monster heh

PeterA90

The tuned m156 makes more power under the curve than the srt. Look at the first two dyno graphs on the first page.

My car with headers tune and rows made 480whp and 440wtq. The reason the charger has more tq stock is because the exhaust isn’t as choked from the factory.

Drive a properly tuned c63 with headers and you’ll never go back lol

brad65ford

There are more dyno's graphs out there showing bearly 400 or under 400 for torque for the m156 with and without headers and tunes on 93. Be it may yours did that amount this just not a common. Unless all these m156 are so far different in spec's when made from one another something doesn't' make sense. Hell, give a look at the guy that just didn't MBH headers and bearly made any more hp/torque and spend time with EC remotely tuning this tune. It's way more likely to see under 400 torque for these motors which is what I'm trying to say and doesn't make sense especially for the size of the motor. Again not saying yours and a few others don't make that amount of torque, its more of questions as to why do they all not achieve this amount and be more consistent? To many are in the lower category of under 400 lb of torque, which is more of an average. Yours is exceptional.

BLKROKT

Do you just want to argue? Sorry, I’m just not following this - really any of your posts - at all. What’s the point here again? Big engine, perceived low torque, is that it. Go compare the engine specs. Done. I mean, you can make these comparison endlessly. Google is great for this. Try “engine design”. Seriously.

brad65ford

Actually I hate arguing. I just wanted to know what makes our motors have less torque than other similar motors. Just wondering if these M156 have less tech than new motors

skratch77

here you go bro, with fi headers and race cats etc

BLKROKT

The M156 is a 12yr old engine design. Of course there’s more, newer and better tech on new motors that makes them more efficient in both consuming energy and disbursing power. That’s just how things work. But torque and power delivery are governed by the engine architecture, intake and exhaust efficiency, tune, fuel delivery and a hundred other things. And then peak hp/tq is a narrow way to look at anything but glory pulls - what’s the area under the curve as someone mentioned above, which is arguably more important. What are you comparing and why? You can’t possibly keep going around in circles like this when you haven’t even side-by-side compared all of those specs, and that’s where your answer is.

And then offset all of the above by the other requirements governed in totally different ways by each manufacturer and their engineers, marketers and finance people - things like cost efficiency and margin, fuel efficiency and drivability and durability and and and the list goes on. Everything is a compromise.

My last dyno was 480whp/446wtq. That’s not a big gap, like 7%.

Yes, newer tech and a hundred compromises one way or another are probably the reason that similarly sized engine produce about as much power and more torque than a 12yr old M156. Modify the M156 with modern tech and efficiency improvements and you close that gap a bit. Shocker. Again, what’s the point.

skratch77

Just imagine what amg could do if the epa wasn't so strick.

A new version of the m156 with direct injection, higher compression and beefier exh manifolds.

BLKROKT

Exactly

brad65ford

110% percent guys, Sounds like you two love the na sounds as much as i do. Mind you I've had two 4.0l Merc's under my belt already. Sad to say these m156 aren't going to get much progression regarding performance parts in the future. Its a shame.

brad65ford

BLKROKT, what I was trying to find out was if there was something specific to our m156 that is an older tech that could be limiting some performance down low. That is all I was after. Yes 12 years old is old in today eyes, its impressive still.

Rick X Joaquim

I think the powertrain loss is greater on the m156.

i mean stock non pp dyno around 360-370 hp while the newer camaro rated at 455 dyno around 400 hp

PeterA90

Its hard to make progress on a motor that’s maxed out from factory. For instance, the intake side is perfect. The factory heads out flow nascar heads (you can shave them if you go forced induction). The crank and rod are forged on non-p31 cars. The bottle neck is the manifolds and as seen wakes up the car once opened.

There’s plenty of c63’s in the 850hp range on 3.0 liter blowers and making over 900nm of torque unopened motor and stock internals. Check international autohaus instagram. They are in Australia. They build some of the fastest amg’s.

The only thing I would like to see is a company to bring out a nice set of cams with before and after dyno’s and not have them cost an arm and a leg. The stock cams like the stock manifolds are another Achilles heel...

AMG6.3

OP if 392 has higher TQ numbers early in power band is due to the rear end gear ratio in the Dodge is higher than vs the MB this more TQ.