Comparision between the m156 (6.2L) to a 392(6.4L)
#26
Not a bad way to spend 15 grand lol
#27
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?
Last edited by brad65ford; 07-30-2019 at 01:50 PM.
The following users liked this post:
Bryan6.3 (07-31-2019)
#29
#30
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.
This is also un corrected
Makes 460whp at 7k and revs to 7500 rpm and only losses a few whp.
#31
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.
#32
I can show you higher numbers just need to hit the dyno in hotter weather and do a pull on a cold car.
#33
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.
#35
#36
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.
#37
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,796
Likes: 148
From: 'Merica
'04 E55 (Gone but not forgotten), '13 C63 P31 (RIP), another '13 C63 PP
I'm thinking maybe you should have bought a 55k car if you want a torque monster heh
#38
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
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
#39
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.
#40
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,068
Likes: 2,849
From: Los Angeles
2012 P31 C63 Coupe Trackrat, 2019 GLE63S Coupe Beast
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.
Last edited by BLKROKT; 07-31-2019 at 01:14 PM.
#42
Last edited by skratch77; 07-31-2019 at 01:25 PM.
#43
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,068
Likes: 2,849
From: Los Angeles
2012 P31 C63 Coupe Trackrat, 2019 GLE63S Coupe Beast
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.
Last edited by BLKROKT; 07-31-2019 at 01:53 PM.
#44
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. You can’t possibly keep going around in circles like this when you haven’t even side-by-side compared all of those specs. My last dyno I think I was 480whp/465wtq. That’s not a big gap.
Again, what’s the point.
Again, what’s the point.
A new version of the m156 with direct injection, higher compression and beefier exh manifolds.
#45
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,068
Likes: 2,849
From: Los Angeles
2012 P31 C63 Coupe Trackrat, 2019 GLE63S Coupe Beast
#46
#47
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.
#48
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.
i mean stock non pp dyno around 360-370 hp while the newer camaro rated at 455 dyno around 400 hp
#49
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...