alenpepic

I would love to open up a debate about the 2.3L being just as effective with the correct setup as the 2.9L. If you watch my video you will see what I mean. The owner has upped the boost since this video and who knows maybe 800? But this is easily the fastest C63 in SoCal

Phil1305

I'm doing a 2.9l on my car right now. But I disagree bigger displacement in a blower will always be better and not comparable. Not saying you can't make 2.3l make some power but there would be no need for 2.9l or 3.4l blowers if size didn't really matter.

Also i don't think people publicize their numbers on the 2.9 that often. Ill bet a standard 2.9 on 93 tune with no meth or nitrous puts down 650-680whp. That being said that what the bigger size gets you. Plus you'll also cut down on heat as you're not pushing the supercharger as hard to make the same or more power.

With a tvs I would say you are correct as I dont think you would need the displacement as a twin screw does to make power. Head to head a 2.9 will win vs a 2.3. Anc at how much extra supporting mods are you doing to tame the 2.3 heat etc.

roadtalontsi

The ess kit is better than the weistec by design, but it'll work just fine. and bigger is better. Do you want to push something beyond it's efficiency? that's why all the 205 C63 guys blow up their turbos. Tuners pushing them way too hard. Stock turbos fall on their face around 5,000rpm. I also wouldn't believe a dyno with an ET from actually getting some real world data.

Edition1c63

2.3 will make more torque sooner. You have to wind up the 2.9. I think the Magnuson Hammer might actually be the best of both worlds. Why wasn't this one considered out of curiosity?

catmandoob

Probably because Magnuson stopped production and can't find them. I've been searching for it myself and have emails out to AutoAnything which have it marked up $2k compared to Magnusons site. Also have email out to Magnuson to inquire if there is any chance of any more production.

So far looks like it's about as likely to find one as it is fairy dust.

EDIT: Confirmed, no reason to ever think of Magnuson Hammer anymore.

Thank you for contacting Magnuson Products.

Unfortunately, the Mercedes supercharger system has been discontinued quite some time ago and is not slated for return.

It is suggested to check eBay, message forums and other resources from time to time for an available kit.

Kind regards,



Kevin Woodruff

Field Sales Manager
Magnuson Products LLC.
1990 Knoll Drive, Building A
Ventura, CA 93003
Office - 1.805.642.8833 x 458

Direct - 1.805.918.5977

Cell - 1.848.240.4052

layzie12g

My E63 with the stage 2 pulley and 2.3 with MBH long tubes made 530 whp (Dyno Dynamics but corrected to read closer to Dunojet numbers) It ran 11.25 @ 126 mph.

The power was surprisingly low but I was happy with the trap speed. Before the supercharger, the car only made 430 wheel with the headers, row boxes, MBH headers and EC tune. A bone stock one made 405.

alenpepic

isn't the Maggie a roots style? I need a fact check tbh. but yeah any 2.3 will be very goodin this application because at 600whp you making good spool, I feel like a 2.9 is for a heavy hitter. but again how much power can you put through a 7g/mct so im like confused as to why the 2.9 becomes a popular choice if your gonna run like 600-630whp...

alenpepic

the process doesn't change from one platform to another, a 2.3 with a proper cooling/fueling/pulley setup will make way more then 530whp-- its all about the setup--- there is nothing stopping this c63 in this video from making close to 750whp-800whp besides tranny and engine which the owner has taken care of that problem, its all about the setup...

alenpepic

The ZR1 which probably all motor will make just as much as a c63 being that they are both 6.2's just with a lower compression uses the 2.3L but a roots style where as the wiestec I believe still uses the twin screw style as seen on the 2.9L. It gets interesting because through manual im seeing 800whp +with stacked pullies on these ZR1's. So idk how the 2.3 is not sufficient enough to cause just as big of storm as the 2.9L. Its just a example how how a 2.3L can be extremely effective. Can it be that pete is the only one to exploit the 2.3L to this level? I would have loved to get alex from Gintani here to discuss his claimed 800hp c63 he put together using a Maggie 2.3L, he could give us info on iat's and numbers.

Phil1305

Look at your heavy hitters now with 2.9 blowers. Theyre making 7-800whp on e85. The 2.9 is running out of steam fir them, so idk how you think you do that kind of power with a 2.3. I just don't see it.

Also, the roots style is so efficient that thats why you see zr1 running 1100whp with a 2650r and only about 8-900whp with the whipple. And im Pretty sure its a 2.9 whipple.

To be honest, I toyed with the idea of retro fitting a 2650r or a whipple 3.4l on my car once I'm bored with the weistec setup. I'd bet there's another 100hp to be picked up easily.

roadtalontsi

Lower compression makes a huge difference on the amount of boost you can run and how it can be used especially on pump fuel (real pump gas not e85). You are also comparing an engine with direct injection as well. Although it's a dinosaur pushrod motor with only 16 valves, DI i a game changer, also optimized camshafts for a supercharger vs optimized cams for n/a on the M156. You can inject fuel after the intake valve is closed and during the combustion process. Not really comparable. Let me also mentioned they flex fuel capability and maps in the ecu unlike ME9.7.

AshBNE

That is a lot of power, more than my stage 3 makes on 98. Is there any 1/4 mile info, be interesting to see ET and MPH in particular.

Altogether that thing is a menace. Might have just become a satin black convert.

alenpepic

no I was referring to a c6 zr1 which is not direct injection, I have a c6 z06 heads cam so I know exactly what we put down. my opinion is the fueling is not a problem in the c63 you just do exactly what we do on the c6 platform and change lines as needed, its really not the issue. and in terms of compression that would be something a engine builder could debate, especially in petes case he is full e85 now so that convo really doesn't belong to his car. A higher compression motor doesn't need much boost to be effective so there's another claim, it all comes down to the internals because you can run a decent amount of boost on a high compression motor. we had many guys with the p31's run 10+psi so theres that-- now with drop in pistons and better rods anything is possiable with the correct fuel--- and if ur aiming for 800+whp well even zr1 guys are going to run e85 and meth so idk how pump even gets into that convo.

alenpepic

he is making way more now then in that video I will have a update video soon, he runs it only in the 1/2 mile and hasn't ran it yet with the new setup-- he kept heat soaking at those events but he has solved the problem now

alenpepic

In terms of cams, you can run boost only and stock NA single cam on a ls as well and still put down wild numbers. You don't need boosted cams to make big numbers its just part of the game. in reference to your comment why don't you explain to us how well the coyote 2015 NA cams do, and it uses the same 4 cam setup like the c63 and is a high compression motor.

alenpepic

I can promise you that a 2.3 twin screw and roots is not going to be drastic difference the way your describing, displacement is displacement in simplistic terms.

deadlyvt

it is quite drastic actually...
the twin screw is more efficient in almost every way over a roots... shorter air travel path, quicker boost production, cooler charge temperature and less parasitic drive cost. They look similar but they do operate differently

Phil1305

I agree with the displacement being drastic, but not the fact twin screw is more efficient anymore. The new tvs 2650R is a hell of a design and makes more power with less heat than its whipple 2.9 counter part. Its one of the reasons alot of gm guys go with it over whipple or others. It can literally make 1100whp over whipples 8-900 whp.

deadlyvt

I’m confused... you say you don’t think the twin screw is more efficient anymore (which is just a design trait the it will inevitably be more efficient than a roots type blower). But than for evidence show that a smaller screw blower Tvs is better than the larger and less efficient roots type whipple?

edit didn’t realize the whipple are twin screw as well the TVS is a multi screw is it not?

Phil1305

twin screw was a more efficient design vs the 3 rotor roots style. That i agree with. But the new 4 rotor roots is really efficient for its size and the 2650 will beat out the 2.9 whipple majority of the time.

Here's a link comparing blowers for i think an lt4 zl1 and he literally says the whipple even though bigger makes a little less power. 950-1k fir the whipple and 1100-1400 for the 2650 variants.


Before the new designs of roots implemented in 07 ish i would agree on the twin screw. But not anymore. Honestly I'd like to see how a 2650r or a 3.4 whipple would fair on our cars. My weistec stage 3 is not finished yet, hopefully soon if I get some free time. But in the future I plan to mock a 2650 or 3.4 to my car and maybe do some test.

deadlyvt

Answer my own question just read up on the 2650 and yeah that’s crazy I had just assumed it was a twin screw. It is as you specified a roots. Amazing because I’ve seen them put on to replace larger twin screws and pick up a bit of power. Learned something new for the day 👍

roadtalontsi

I have no idea how 2015 mustangs do with stock cams. I don't care about mustangs, so i have no comment there lol. I'm not dismissing the fact that n/a cams cannot be used. btw my car has a supercharger on stock cams. Im stating that cam profile is going to be much different on a factory boosted vehicle vs one that wasn't intended to be boosted. You will never see 800whp on a c63 with a 2.3L blower without nitrous.

alenpepic

Ive been on the claim of the twin screw being better .He may be referring to iats which can be a good debate but in terms of overall power I do believe the twin screw will put down more power with the same displacement as the roots

Phil1305

watch the video I posted about the zl1 blower comparison.

I wouldve agreed until the redesign of the new 4 rotor eaton tvs roots blower. Im pretty sure the 2650r blower will outperform the whipple/twin screw 2.9l blower in almost all instances.

The new 4 rotor roots is so efficient. They even give rough hp estimates on the 4 blowers in the video and the twin screw is the lowest rated.

I would love to see R&D of a 2650r on an m156 to see how it compares to the whipple 2.9l. I'd bet we be impressed if not happy to see gains.

mr747

2.3 litre blower is best for street car
We went 10.5 at 134mph on stage 2 weistec
Another friend went 10.2 on CLK black at 138 on stage 2 but had cams and ported head ms109