Yea the only thing holding us back from doing that the day the customer was in was not having couplers for the MAF on hand.

That's a similar set up we have on the Crossfire and we saw +8RWHP and +12RWTQ. Basically its the same exact set up, but the MAF is near the TB.

 

Yeah man. See, since it's the same engine, perhaps i have similar gains too.

 

I wouldn't count on it, the factory desgin is damn efficient, as already noted. 8 rwhp is a bit optimistic for a CLK, a crossfire maybe, given the crossfire uses a more restrictive airbox design.

 

Very valid point I forgot to mention. Just swapping to a C320 box with stock filters and tubes nets 5RWHP.

Oh well, there are a lot of people that spend money on their car for looks and personal preference, without any performance gain, and that's perfectly ok in my book. If you only add to a car if it makes it perform better you get bored.

 

You have a good point, but when driving, you can definitely feel the difference. I've experimented with all sorts of combinations such as:

- stock air box with OEM filter
- stock air box with K&N filter (i felt no difference)
- short ram air intake setup
- and the current setup (which i actually notice)

though it might not give "that much" horsepower or torque as far as accurate numbers are concerned, the car definitely feels stronger and picks up faster.

 

Here's something I thought was pretty good and probably functions well since it gets air rammed in from behind the grill.

This one is from VRP.

Obviously ours would be one intake tube and not dual. To make this work on our cars I think we would just have to bore out the snorkel hole that our air box connects to.

 

Problem with that is the turbulence in the MAF when the two pipes meet.

If you stick with one just in the grille you sacrifice a lot of filter volume.

Believe me we've tried on this motor, single intake with a large filter is the best way to go if you're gonna change it at all.

 

Good find meng

 

Also, in search of added power, I decided to try and increase airflow through the MAF. So first I removed the MAF screen, the car wouldn't even idle, car would just die. So much for that idea, figured the screen was there to deal with turbulance, had no idea it played such a key role even with the car idling in park.

If you compare the M112 MAF to the M113 MAF, the outer diamater is identical, but the inner volume is larger on the M113. So I tried a M113 MAF body both with a M113 sensor and a M112 sensor. The CLK idles and drives, but the larger MAF caused problems with the transmission shifting gears, at times it wouldn't shift out of gear or shift into neutral from drive. Resetting the ECU or TCU didn't really solve the problem, seems the electronic transmission is tied to more than just the TCU. Went back to the M112 MAF and the transmission went back to normal.

I wasn't able to get the car to shift correctly with the M113 MAF, so I couldn't dyno the two MAF's on the CLK.

Just a FYI to save others from the frustration.