Looking at E55 Supercharger to replace SLK32 charger...
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 84
Likes: 1
From: Wollongong, sydney Australia
R170 99SLK230 + SLK32
Looking at E55 Supercharger to replace SLK32 charger...
I'll caveat this with the title....
DREAMER....
I've had a look at RobertAMG's post re the 3.7L.
but wanted to dumb it down a little and conserve some of the AMG hand built status of my SLK32 block*.
....I was trying to work out how to avoid the total rebuild approach and simply go for 24-25psi via the 2.3L V8 IHI Supercharger and make it all slightly more efficient (TBA) at a pressure ratio of 2.5 than the current 1.6L job.
Also, given Rob's dilemas around the longer charger butting up against the firewall, I'm thinking of taking the throttle vertical into a hood+filter>scoop (which of course would mean sacrificing a spare hood).
Alongside this and making use of the available space - Robs redesigned "red mani tanks" lead me towards the SLR saddle tank cooling root to pull off more heat.
Of course to top it off - a few extra pulley changes would be needed to run the extra belt.
But all in all.....doable....
I'm also thikning you could stage the upgrade by kicking off quite low at 16-17psi and keep everything stock and later do cooling+fuel etc. and pulley up to the stratosphere.
Interest appreciated.
* some say - sure the only difference just is - that its hand built twice...
DREAMER....
I've had a look at RobertAMG's post re the 3.7L.
but wanted to dumb it down a little and conserve some of the AMG hand built status of my SLK32 block*.
....I was trying to work out how to avoid the total rebuild approach and simply go for 24-25psi via the 2.3L V8 IHI Supercharger and make it all slightly more efficient (TBA) at a pressure ratio of 2.5 than the current 1.6L job.
Also, given Rob's dilemas around the longer charger butting up against the firewall, I'm thinking of taking the throttle vertical into a hood+filter>scoop (which of course would mean sacrificing a spare hood).
Alongside this and making use of the available space - Robs redesigned "red mani tanks" lead me towards the SLR saddle tank cooling root to pull off more heat.
Of course to top it off - a few extra pulley changes would be needed to run the extra belt.
But all in all.....doable....
I'm also thikning you could stage the upgrade by kicking off quite low at 16-17psi and keep everything stock and later do cooling+fuel etc. and pulley up to the stratosphere.
Interest appreciated.
* some say - sure the only difference just is - that its hand built twice...
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
From: Sweden
SLK32 AMG
I'll caveat this with the title....
DREAMER....
I've had a look at RobertAMG's post re the 3.7L.
but wanted to dumb it down a little and conserve some of the AMG hand built status of my SLK32 block*.
....I was trying to work out how to avoid the total rebuild approach and simply go for 24-25psi via the 2.3L V8 IHI Supercharger and make it all slightly more efficient (TBA) at a pressure ratio of 2.5 than the current 1.6L job.
Also, given Rob's dilemas around the longer charger butting up against the firewall, I'm thinking of taking the throttle vertical into a hood+filter>scoop (which of course would mean sacrificing a spare hood).
Alongside this and making use of the available space - Robs redesigned "red mani tanks" lead me towards the SLR saddle tank cooling root to pull off more heat.
Of course to top it off - a few extra pulley changes would be needed to run the extra belt.
But all in all.....doable....
I'm also thikning you could stage the upgrade by kicking off quite low at 16-17psi and keep everything stock and later do cooling+fuel etc. and pulley up to the stratosphere.
Interest appreciated.
* some say - sure the only difference just is - that its hand built twice...
DREAMER....
I've had a look at RobertAMG's post re the 3.7L.
but wanted to dumb it down a little and conserve some of the AMG hand built status of my SLK32 block*.
....I was trying to work out how to avoid the total rebuild approach and simply go for 24-25psi via the 2.3L V8 IHI Supercharger and make it all slightly more efficient (TBA) at a pressure ratio of 2.5 than the current 1.6L job.
Also, given Rob's dilemas around the longer charger butting up against the firewall, I'm thinking of taking the throttle vertical into a hood+filter>scoop (which of course would mean sacrificing a spare hood).
Alongside this and making use of the available space - Robs redesigned "red mani tanks" lead me towards the SLR saddle tank cooling root to pull off more heat.
Of course to top it off - a few extra pulley changes would be needed to run the extra belt.
But all in all.....doable....
I'm also thikning you could stage the upgrade by kicking off quite low at 16-17psi and keep everything stock and later do cooling+fuel etc. and pulley up to the stratosphere.
Interest appreciated.
* some say - sure the only difference just is - that its hand built twice...
The IAT is about 140 f after a race. I have split cooling.
Do you think that we can lower the IAT with a bigger S/C
Last edited by Guran; Nov 7, 2013 at 05:19 PM.
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 84
Likes: 1
From: Wollongong, sydney Australia
R170 99SLK230 + SLK32
my immediate answer to this is ....wow!....26psi and only 140F.
That's some serious cooling!
I'm still trying to decypher the isentropic curves for each to determine what, (if any) the gain is.
What's your dyno whp?
What injectors are you running and what's your AFR at WOT?
That's some serious cooling!
I'm still trying to decypher the isentropic curves for each to determine what, (if any) the gain is.
What's your dyno whp?
What injectors are you running and what's your AFR at WOT?
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
From: Sweden
SLK32 AMG
my immediate answer to this is ....wow!....26psi and only 140F.
That's some serious cooling!
I'm still trying to decypher the isentropic curves for each to determine what, (if any) the gain is.
What's your dyno whp?
What injectors are you running and what's your AFR at WOT?
That's some serious cooling!
I'm still trying to decypher the isentropic curves for each to determine what, (if any) the gain is.
What's your dyno whp?
What injectors are you running and what's your AFR at WOT?
Injectors - 665 cc/55.1 psi/at 90 % duty cycle
AFR - i will check with my tuner. 11.7
http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/g...ps1a936bf7.jpg
Last edited by Guran; Nov 8, 2013 at 08:20 PM.
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
From: Sweden
SLK32 AMG
No
My Crank Pulley is pure aluminum. No extra weight.
And correctly balanced. 186 mm.
The engine is balanced internal.
You dont need this extra balance.
Its for V8 engine from 1954
And i have a 64.7 s/c Pulley.
Needwings Plenum.
Kleemann Cams
VRP Headers
No cats
SL55 AMG Fuel pump
CAI = homemade
And the AFR is 11.7. at WOT. Safe Tuning. I have talked to my Tuner.
And there is some hp we can get there
And of course :
I have a Autronic SM4:a thats controll the fuel
My Crank Pulley is pure aluminum. No extra weight.
And correctly balanced. 186 mm.
The engine is balanced internal.
You dont need this extra balance.
Its for V8 engine from 1954
And i have a 64.7 s/c Pulley.
Needwings Plenum.
Kleemann Cams
VRP Headers
No cats
SL55 AMG Fuel pump
CAI = homemade
And the AFR is 11.7. at WOT. Safe Tuning. I have talked to my Tuner.
And there is some hp we can get there
And of course :
I have a Autronic SM4:a thats controll the fuel
Last edited by Guran; Nov 9, 2013 at 10:57 AM.
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 84
Likes: 1
From: Wollongong, sydney Australia
R170 99SLK230 + SLK32
cool - major boost!
I've had a look at the two supercharger gearings.
I've often read about the 2.3L lysholm doing 23,000rpm.
Well that's partly correct - half of it is - on stock pulleys SL55 of 155/91mm and at 6200rpm x 2 internal gears of 1.35 x 1.66 = 23,813 - that's for the 3 lobe rotor.
What I've termed the "cavity" rotor, is ony doing 3/5ths of that = 14,288rpm.
Suprisingly what I've worked out (apologies to those who already knew)
The 1.6L is doing similar speeds.
In stock format - 155/74m pulleys @6,200rpm the cavity rotor is the pulley driven rotor is doing 12,986rpm and the 3 lobe rotor is doing 5/3rds of that = 21,644rpm.
Of course in Guran's case for a 185/65mm = 17,646/29,410 rpm.
Although it is purely a relative term - that's some serious rpm!
The other thing I'm still trying to work out is the relative differences in the dimensions. I suspect the 2 compressors use the same rotors - but the 1.6L rotors are cut shorter to suit the shorter V6 blocks.
(If anyone has some info on this, much appreciated)
I currently working on the assumption the LYS2300 isentorpic chart floating around the web refers to pulley'd rpm and some sort of base m3/min - either STP or NTP.
What I was hoping for was.....
Coming at it from another angle - Well I've never pulled one apart - but measuring the cases, the 1.6L casing on my car is 220mm and if you look at the attached dimensional comparison, compliments of RobertAMG, and scale up by pixles - the 2.3L is 278mm or 26% longer.
Someone with an actual measurement appreciated.
So I guess you can say - work in progress....but some interesting revelations just the same (against other things I've read out there).
PS - also note the teflon coated rotor is on different sides for each application.
I've often read about the 2.3L lysholm doing 23,000rpm.
Well that's partly correct - half of it is - on stock pulleys SL55 of 155/91mm and at 6200rpm x 2 internal gears of 1.35 x 1.66 = 23,813 - that's for the 3 lobe rotor.
What I've termed the "cavity" rotor, is ony doing 3/5ths of that = 14,288rpm.
Suprisingly what I've worked out (apologies to those who already knew)
The 1.6L is doing similar speeds.
In stock format - 155/74m pulleys @6,200rpm the cavity rotor is the pulley driven rotor is doing 12,986rpm and the 3 lobe rotor is doing 5/3rds of that = 21,644rpm.
Of course in Guran's case for a 185/65mm = 17,646/29,410 rpm.
Although it is purely a relative term - that's some serious rpm!
The other thing I'm still trying to work out is the relative differences in the dimensions. I suspect the 2 compressors use the same rotors - but the 1.6L rotors are cut shorter to suit the shorter V6 blocks.
(If anyone has some info on this, much appreciated)
I currently working on the assumption the LYS2300 isentorpic chart floating around the web refers to pulley'd rpm and some sort of base m3/min - either STP or NTP.
If you drive the 1.6L at 10,000rpm, the cavity rotor is turning at 10,000rpm - its directly driven by the pulley drive.
Now the LYS1600 doesnt directly have rpm on it. I'm only infering it is the line that goes through ~16m3/min (564cfm) at PR1.0 which at 10,000rpm = 1.6L/rev. Alterntate/additional information appreciated.
If you drive the 2.3L at 10,000rpm, based on the chart and extrapolating down to Pressure ratio of 1.0 you get 22.5m3/min or 794cfm or....2.25L/pulley rev at 100% Volumetric Eff..That's the deisgn specified volumetric capacity.
However, the "cavity" rotor is actually turning at 13,544. If you actually divide it by the cavity rotor's rpm - this points to 22,500Litres/min at 13,544 rpm or, 1.66L/rev of the rotor.
hmmm....this is only 4% more than the 1.6L unit.
...not exactly what I was looking for. If the rotors are the same profile (assumption only) then the 2.3L rotors must be about 4% longer.Now the LYS1600 doesnt directly have rpm on it. I'm only infering it is the line that goes through ~16m3/min (564cfm) at PR1.0 which at 10,000rpm = 1.6L/rev. Alterntate/additional information appreciated.
If you drive the 2.3L at 10,000rpm, based on the chart and extrapolating down to Pressure ratio of 1.0 you get 22.5m3/min or 794cfm or....2.25L/pulley rev at 100% Volumetric Eff..That's the deisgn specified volumetric capacity.
However, the "cavity" rotor is actually turning at 13,544. If you actually divide it by the cavity rotor's rpm - this points to 22,500Litres/min at 13,544 rpm or, 1.66L/rev of the rotor.
hmmm....this is only 4% more than the 1.6L unit.
What I was hoping for was.....
Coming at it from another angle - Well I've never pulled one apart - but measuring the cases, the 1.6L casing on my car is 220mm and if you look at the attached dimensional comparison, compliments of RobertAMG, and scale up by pixles - the 2.3L is 278mm or 26% longer.
Someone with an actual measurement appreciated.
So I guess you can say - work in progress....but some interesting revelations just the same (against other things I've read out there).
PS - also note the teflon coated rotor is on different sides for each application.
Last edited by Billy22Bob; Nov 9, 2013 at 11:29 PM.
Trending Topics
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
New Electric Mercedes-AMG GT 4-Door Coupe Unveiled: 10 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
6 Mercedes Models That Did NOT Age Well (But Are Somehow Still Cool)
Verdad Gallardo
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
