Valid points about Roots, but we are not talking about Roots.

Kenne Belle blower is twin-screw.

It does not matter anyway, because there is no room to mount anything on the side or bottom of the engine.

The only way to add FI is to replace intake manifold with blower built into it.

 

rflow I agree 100%, Who will buy a (guess) $15K supercharger kit for a 70 hp gain? If you want 70 more HP you can get it for $600 and less than 3 hours to install.


To properly supercharge the 63 will take at least $35K to produce 650hp. Do it right, from the start.

The 63 is truly a work of art in its naturally aspirated form, the induction system is fantastic, with dual throttle bodies and dual variable length runners and don't forget the variable cam timing. It was intended to be a large displacement high reving engine with a smooth power band, and it is.

 

Nope, that is your opinion and thank you for sharing it.

Obviously, I disagree.

 

Lower the compression and up the boost to make 100+ WHP from the S/C and I would definitely spend $15k-$20k

 

Ok, you got it!

This will be Stage II.

 

Depends on how much R&D Vadim and Co. are willing to eat. This is why it's so cheap to put a blower on a (insert big three model designation), VS a MB anything. There just isn't the same market. I'd be happy with a reliable 600 WHP from a 55 that didn't take NOS and 30K. Screw the 63, there are lots more 55K cars out there (for now), and more mod friendly.

 

When you say for now, you are probably right, however, the "63" engines are the future, and thats where it is, I think! I am a fan for forced induction, and Vadim is doing it right by going the SC route, but the cost is a lot more than going to a turbo, IMHO! Power for a turbo is free to a point, the bottom end on an "63" engine is there, you just need more mid range HP and TQ, more than the "63" engines are producing now. If you took a "55" engine (NA) and a "63" engine, there would be no competition, the "63" would win hands down, again cubes win. To make the "63" more competitive, mid range TQ is what it needs IMHO. This is where the street racing is all about, low and mid-range, I have the low end, just wishing for mid-range! Save the twisties and the top end for the track! I love my E63, just wish it had more mid-range power than what it does, that's where the turbo comes in, considering you have the space. You can get only so much traction on the bottom end before you melt the tires, the top end is pointless (unless you want to shoot for 150+), all we have is the mid-range, and thats where we need it! Plumbing would be hard, but turbo's is the way to go to achieve the mid-range goal without too much on the bottom end!

To make it clear, mid-range to me is between 2000-5000.

 

Umm,correct me if I'm wrong.But my E55 made 516ft/lbs at 2000rpm.My 63 makes half that at the same rpm so how does the 63 have more

 

I think he said 55 engine in N/A form vs 63 in N/A form. I.E. minus thy super charger.

 

Ahh,that would make perfect sense then,a 3v engine vs. a 4v engine.Gotcha

 

IMO...It's too bad that AMG went ahead and decided to make their own engine from scratch. As cool as the high revving 6.2l V8 is, I would have MUCH rather seen AMG work their magic on a 550 engine. Just imagine if they increased the capacity and supercharged...or even better...turbo charged it. If they were able to add 200hp to the old 500 engine, they could have probably gotten 600hp out of the 550 engine, plus ridiculous tq numbers. Too bad...

 

intersting... in future 6.2 will get supercharger or turbos... i heard that AMG wasn't very happy with this engine as they axpected more from it ... did anyone heard of new SLR ? I heard that new one will be made by Mercedes AMG, and the top of the line model will have 1000 HP... sorry for speaking out of topic...

 

My guess, it is more about their own branding than anything else.

Twin turbo rumors for 6.2L are floating around, but I just do not see where they are going to put them into current W211 chassis. It is possible that W212 engine compartment will be designed to allow extra clearance. My guess is 2010 before it hits US.

 

Any new update Vadim? Just trying to keep up on the news. I will be very interested. I am trying to pick up a S63 very soon.

 

The owner of E63 that was going to be our prototype car, had a change of circumstances and can not go ahead with a project.

I need 63 owner who will be interested in being the prototype car.

 

What's the catch?

 

If you bring it with you to MIR you can use mine!!!!

 

Just as an FYI, I do have a 07 E63 and would be interested in the supercharger. But what about the warranty?

 

Hasta la vista, baby! MB will undoubtedly deny any warranty work on your engine, transmission and drive line if they see a turbo plumbed into your engine bay. Something about cause and effect.

 

It's left in the smoke of the melting tires.

 

That's true, someone with a lot of cash (or *****) needs to step up and get this done. If so, they will burn through gas and tires at the drop of the pedal to WOT.

 

Vadim:

I am interested but with some caveats because I would only do it if its done the right way - which is very hard. I have done a custom twin screw before and that is definitely the right choice for this big engine (don't even think about a centrifigal or turbo with this size engine). 700+ whp (dyno) is very realistic and would be worth $10-15K grand (my estimate of end cost in volume with pistons, supercharger, manifold and tune). Install is probably another 2-3K. Yes, expensive but so is the car.

So, here is what I want to see and why:

1) You have to get low comp pistons made or else the project isn't worth it. At 11:1, you have no breathing room. Sure, you can try to stay safe by limiting boost to 3-4 pounds, but even then you will have to detune the engine (to make the a/f pig rich to avoid blowing the engine). Maybe you get 70, maybe not; but I promise you the detuning required will kill gas mileage and your torque curve will look bad. And you may blow a few engines before you get it right - a very expensive R&D project. In any event, with this compression and a supercharger, the car will not perform the way it was intended to across the entire curve. Low comp pistons will add a couple grand to the project but the benefits in terms of range of tune and ability to really use the supercharger in the range it was intended will far outweigh the cost. I would go with 9.5:1 - that should allow 10-12 pounds and get you to 600-700whp (a very rough off the cuff estimate) with very little risk, and at 9.5 you still have a very responsive efficient engine. Below 9.5 you probably want a custom cam grind and that gets $$$$$.

2) You have to get a custom tune for this because you need more fuel in at a minimum. Maybe the motec will automatically compensate, but I wouldn't want to bet on that.

3) As others have noted, you want to do an intercooler (although may not be needed with modest boost; hard to say with such a high comp engine what would happen without it). Under my high boost scenario, an IC is an absolute must. Autorotor makes a very nice air-water IC in tubes that can (and should) be integrated into the intake manifold. The tubes are relatively cheap (the custom manifold, maybe not so cheap).

4) To make a good size twin screw fit, you are going to need a custom manifold and place the twin screw in the V. The manifold will be the hardest part in my opinion.

Some additional comments:

1) I think most of us who paid 100K for our car are going to want this done absolutely right. A $10K spend to get a couple hundred more HP is a good trade if its safe, tested, and corners are not cut. So don't cut corners, and do it the way I suggest.

2) Kenne Belle is great but unless they are going to provide the whole package (manifold, pistons, and tune), I would go straight to autorotor and get your superchargers. You get more options (sizes and bypass options) vs. KB, but more importantly KB is just going to mark up on top of your markup (or the other way around) and make the project unnecessarily expensive. KB gets their sc from autorotor as I recall, so should you unless KB is providing some really serious value add. Otherwise, your cost is going to skyrocket.

3) If you insist on going without low comp pistons, don't bother with a twin screw. If you look at the psi x efficiency charts, you will see that in the low psi range, there is not that much difference between a twin screw vs. the cheaper eaton supercharger. Might as well go cheap if you are going cheap!

4) At the power I am contemplating, a quaife ATB is pretty important and unfortunately not included on the car. Might want to set up a joint buy program or offer a discount through them. Just an idea.

 

I don't wanna sound like an azz, you make good points....but why should he trust you ? What r your credentials ?

 

Wonder what compression the C63 is using? Doesn't sound like it, but if they detuned er using lower compression we could swipe the pistons out of one of them. Still would have AMG pistons matched to an AMG block.

Just 2 cents from the guy who 1st swiped the SLR cams and pi$$ed off the boys in Deutschland.

Edit** Just checked...it's 11.3 to 1, bummer.

 

He should not trust - he should verify! There are well known equations governing the relationship between boost, compression ratio, a/f ratio, type of fuel, and temperature. They are complex, an I know KB will have them and run them. If anyone wants them, I am happy to post and let someone else work through. I am just suggesting prudence; that before undertaking such a project, running the numbers is pretty darned important. My advice comes from experience, having done it the wrong way the first time and the right way the second. I have also seen a lot of failed forced induction projects most of which happened because the tuner failed to run the numbers before buying the equipment.

Jeff