Bolt on performance exhaust for the 500e (testing waters)

[Jim]

BTW anyone have a STOCK 500E Dyno plots....

http://www.500eboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2447

Post 28, 23 and 17

and

http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/performance-paddock/78846-500e-dyno.html

by daveb12 who says for a 500E

"I just got back from Dyno Day at the local Ricer shop. Here are the results:

Run 11: Max Power = 253.00 Max Torque = 271.1
Run 13: Max Power = 255.30 Max Torque = 277.6

The dyno operator had a hard time keeping the car from downshifting. These runs start at about 4k RPM in 3rd gear.

He was a little surprised by the mighty 500E.

He suggested 22% loss. If my math is correct my stock 500E (K&N's) is making 326.92 at the crank. Sounds right?

<<>>

PSS. on a run where the car downshifted the dyno printed POWER = 292.7 and Torque of 363.8! "

There is an OEM chart somewhere but I cannot find it now...

Jim

 

[savmjv]

Stealth, factory tips please.

It turns out Oracio's car has had some exhaust mods and it displayed the drone for the 1200 miles back from Florida. I prefer being a stealthy guy when crusing the 'hood. When I saw this thread months ago, I wasn't interested...I may not have even had a car at the time. Times change and I now have interest, although little understanding of the technicals....and, most importantly, I have money burning a hole in my pocket!

 

[8899]

Factory dyno graph (courtesy of GSXR):

http://www.w124performance.com/images/M119/500E_factory_dyno_graph.jpg

 

[500AMM]

That looks great!
And very important points about choice of materials, welding, expansion and cracking issues.

I would like to get a custom exhaust for my SuperMerc, but since it is supercharged I'm not sure I should sign up on this. Just for reference regarding the muffler & tip appearance, I've enclosed some pics of the MAE exhaust muffler on my SuperMerc.

-a-

Supercharge?

The exhaust that's being built can support a supercharger lol..

Pm me details curious to see how a supercharger was shoved in the engine bay

Many thanks!
It looks like you know what you are talking about, that's good. You get an overview of the supercharger set-up in my car here:
http://www.500eboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2835
The set-up are kept in the same status since I bought the car back in October 2007. It is aging now so it's not the best finish on everything, but it works very well. The car has ran approx. 110kkm with it.

I am interested in a complete exhaust from the manifolds, race cats and whatever needed to get it as optimal as possible. I am also interested in headers if you continue into that. Regarding headers and space restrictions - what about replacing the oil filter housing with a remote unit? I am also pondering about replacing the Albrex supercharger with Rotrex or ASA, so I don't know the exact boost yet, but probably about the same as today, 5 Psi. So for those interested, the Albrex with bracket and pulleys may come for sale at some point.

OK, I PM my Email address to you and we can work from there.

Cheers
Arnt

 

[Maui]

I would like a little more throat sound at WOT.

I can't wait to see what you come up with regardless of tips.

 

[5thscaleracer]

Nice! A Rotex version even at 5psi will be a big improvement over that Albrex SC unit.

You should consider the upgrade when you get a chance.

That kit looks simple enough to replicate and possibly update to a rotex.

Anyway feel free to PM me...

Making the front half of the exhaust is simple once the car is fitted and jigged up.

 

[gsxr]

But realistically 5.0L and 6.0L 2.25" to a 3" vs 2.25" all the way back i would speculate 3-5% horsepower difference (positive direction)...

I'd be cautious with the speculation until you have dyno data before & after from your test mule(s). 3-5% power gain would be 10-16hp at the crank, or 8-14hp at the rear wheels. To date, I still have not seen anyone achieve those gains with dyno graphs as proof. Also, some people may not be willing to accept a 5% loss in torque in return for the top-end gains.

BTW anyone have a STOCK 500E Dyno plots... the car i am working with has a Golf ball hole in several sections of the muffler. So if i were to dyno this car the way it is with all the holes it would not properly represent the before and after gains.

Dyno graph of a 1993-94 engine, with stock LH and with 92 WOT LH, are at this thread... DynoJet dyno:
http://www.500eboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=545

 

[gsxr]

"I just got back from Dyno Day at the local Ricer shop. Here are the results:

Run 11: Max Power = 253.00 Max Torque = 271.1
Run 13: Max Power = 255.30 Max Torque = 277.6

He suggested 22% loss. If my math is correct my stock 500E (K&N's) is making 326.92 at the crank. Sounds right?

It depends on the dyno. I've found that almost all DynoJet dynos will be right around 18% loss. I think some people try to make themselves feel better about the low dyno readings (i.e., low 250's) by claiming the powertrain loss is higher. That may or may not be true... if it's a Mustang or some other brand dyno, it could be. There are a lot of other variables to consider (see link below).

The dyno operator had a hard time keeping the car from downshifting. These runs start at about 4k RPM in 3rd gear.

That is because the dyno operator did not know how to prep a W124 for the dyno. Full details are in this thread. If you don't do it right, it's practically a waste of time, IMO...
http://www.500eboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2452

 

[gerryvz]

I'd be cautious with the speculation until you have dyno data before & after from your test mule(s). 3-5% power gain would be 10-16hp at the crank, or 8-14hp at the rear wheels. To date, I still have not seen anyone achieve those gains with dyno graphs as proof. Also, some people may not be willing to accept a 5% loss in torque in return for the top-end gains.




Dyno graph of a 1993-94 engine, with stock LH and with 92 WOT LH, are at this thread... DynoJet dyno:
http://www.500eboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=545

+ 5 8 9


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[modzona]

Any progress?

 

[400Eric]

Yeah, with all of the encouragement and positive reinforcement he's been getting from everyone.......

Seriously, I, for one, have faith and confidence in him and this project.

 

[Klink]

Yeah, with all of the encouragement and positive reinforcement he's been getting from everyone.......

Don't forget, it is possible to disagree with someone and still value, even welcome their perspective.

 

[400Eric]

I hear you, I really do, I'm just only saying that those who have expressed their doubts should have waited till AFTER he was done.

 

[8899]

I hear you, I really do, I'm just only saying that those who have expressed their doubts should have waited till AFTER he was done.

Actually, I think that since this thread has over 160 posts indicates a high level of interest and support if a performance gain can be demonstrated. If this thread only had 10 posts, I would guess 5thscaleracer wouldn't have gone through the effort.

 

[gerryvz]

Don't forget, it is possible to disagree with someone and still value, even welcome their perspective.

The optics of this situation, unfortunately, are just not good. Many of us who have "been there, done that" and "been around the block" with .036 performance have either tried, or closely observed all of the various types of efforts to increase horsepower.

The bottom line, and GSXR will completely agree with me here .... in terms of PROVEN horsepower gains, with DYNO SHEETS to prove it, there have only been a few ways to do this. Nitrous-oxide, increasing displacement, super/turbocharging, 1992 LH module (very small but proven), and porting/polishing (very small).

Despite many tries, many folks (myself included) have tried to add performance through exhaust modifications, various types of chips, and so forth. Dyno sheets BEFORE and AFTER are the only way to prove performance differences/gains. No one has successfully created an exhaust system, of any type, that provides proven horsepower gains for the E500E. This is in contrast to the US-spec 5.6-liter M117 engines, which can pick up 25-30 HP through use of the factory Tri-Y headers and downpipes alone.

Unfortunately, in 11+ years of observation/ownership and trying, there is just no performance free lunch with the M119 as found in the .036. You have to pay to play....the lowest entry price is $2,500 for a nitrous-oxide system, and it goes up to $25K for a custom-made 6-liter motor (what Vaeth quoted me in Germany a few years back).

I am skeptical because I have "seen it all" in terms of these claims. Just because someone extracted some relatively easy HP and torque from an earlier, smog-choked 1980s model, does NOT mean they can extract same HP from the much better-designed & engineered .036.

Yes, I have been an extreme skeptic of this effort from the get-go. We are looking at a full nine months from the first post. Nothing. Dyno sheets before and after are going to prove everything. This thread has been going on for a long time, and the systems have yet to be created. The skeptic in me says they will never be created/produced in quantity (likely a few sets & prototypes is all) and that they will NOT provide measurable HP/torque gains. In the decreasingly likely case these exhaust systems ARE produced, is it worth $1,000 for zero HP gain, or <5 HP gain?

I would love nothing more than to be completely proven wrong. In this instance, I fear I am correct.

Cheers,
Gerry

 

[400Eric]

Actually, I think that since this thread has over 160 posts indicates a high level of interest and support if a performance gain can be demonstrated. If this thread only had 10 posts, I would guess 5thscaleracer wouldn't have gone through the effort.

Maybe I'm just overly sensitive.

Let's hope he is less so, or that the doubters only motivate him even more. (That's how it works with me.)

 

[400Eric]

The optics of this situation, unfortunately, are just not good. Many of us who have "been there, done that" and "been around the block" with .036 performance have either tried, or closely observed all of the various types of efforts to increase horsepower.

The bottom line, and GSXR will completely agree with me here .... in terms of PROVEN horsepower gains, with DYNO SHEETS to prove it, there have only been a few ways to do this. Nitrous-oxide, increasing displacement, super/turbocharging, 1992 LH module (very small but proven), and porting/polishing (very small).

Despite many tries, many folks (myself included) have tried to add performance through exhaust modifications, various types of chips, and so forth. Dyno sheets BEFORE and AFTER are the only way to prove performance differences/gains. No one has successfully created an exhaust system, of any type, that provides proven horsepower gains for the E500E. This is in contrast to the US-spec 5.6-liter M117 engines, which can pick up 25-30 HP through use of the factory Tri-Y headers and downpipes alone.

Unfortunately, in 11+ years of observation/ownership and trying, there is just no performance free lunch with the M119 as found in the .036. You have to pay to play....the lowest entry price is $2,500 for a nitrous-oxide system, and it goes up to $25K for a custom-made 6-liter motor (what Vaeth quoted me in Germany a few years back).

I am skeptical because I have "seen it all" in terms of these claims. Just because someone extracted some relatively easy HP and torque from an earlier, smog-choked 1980s model, does NOT mean they can extract same HP from the much better-designed & engineered .036.

Yes, I have been an extreme skeptic of this effort from the get-go. We are looking at a full nine months from the first post. Nothing. Dyno sheets before and after are going to prove everything. This thread has been going on for a long time, and the systems have yet to be created. The skeptic in me says they will never be created/produced in quantity (likely a few sets & prototypes is all) and that they will NOT provide measurable HP/torque gains. In the decreasingly likely case these exhaust systems ARE produced, is it worth $1,000 for zero HP gain, or <5 HP gain?

I would love nothing more than to be completely proven wrong. In this instance, I fear I am correct.

Cheers,
Gerry

There's a first time for everything. Here's hoping this is it.

I will admitt that it will be hard to get much gains while still saddeled with those positively tiny 50mm headpipes. That's the same exact size as the headpipes on my M103s! Lame! I do believe a full system will produce a decent gain if he follows my advice from earlier in this thread.

 

[clarkz71]

You have to remember the resources Mercedes had/has in R&D

When the M119 was designed, they went for maximum performance from 0 to redline
That's why one of the features was the variable valve timing, good torque down low & good peak power

And I can guarantee they tested many types of exhaust systems

Compare the 92 Camaro Z28 with a 5.0 small block with "Tuned Port Injection"
230 hp at 4400 rpm vs the 92 500E with 322 hp

Nearly 100 hp difference !

Like Gerry said, there's no low hanging fruit on these cars

 

[gsxr]

I would love nothing more than to be completely proven wrong.

I will admitt that it will be hard to get much gains while still saddeled with those positively tiny 50mm headpipes. That's the same exact size as the headpipes on my M103s! Lame! I do believe a full system will produce a decent gain if he follows my advice from earlier in this thread.

Eric seems to have issue with the size of his pipes. Don't worry pal, I have a bunch of emails in my spam folder that I can send you to help out with that!

Seriously, there is far more to exhaust engineering than pipe diameter. Larger is not always better and a particular size (say, 50mm) used on a different engine (say, M103) which happens to be smaller, does not automatically mean they are "wrong" for a different engine (say, M119) which is substantially larger displacement. In general, exhaust flow theory does support the notion that peak power could be increased (slightly, IMO) but it is very, very likely this would come at the expense of low-end and midrange torque. Last I checked, the E420 could not afford to lose any more bottom end as it's already not particularly stout down low. As Gerry said, there is usually no free lunch, and gains in peak numbers may come with losses elsewhere in the power band. Neeeeed dyno sheets to show what the big pipes do to the entire area under the curve!

 

[modzona]

Its not like 20-30hp more will revolutionize the feel and performance of the car. So personally I dont care at ALL about that. And at least we should not start to talk shit about a system that has not been made yet. We will see the results when he has it ready and judge then if this is something worth making. The guy seams to know what he is talking about so let him show us. He has not said a word about it will have xx hp and xx NM gain. He thinks some performance is possible to get out of it. So we will wait and see.

So if any performance is not coming from this. At least it will be some of the best SS sets for the m119 on the marked in terms of production quality and looks. If not the only complete set on the marked.
Too me thats more than enough to make me buy it . And it will be better than any local exhaust shop can make.
The 190E stuff looks fantastic.

And if you are out after performance gain that you really can feel. Go for turbo or SC setup. Or 6L. Stop being so negative about this.

 

[400Eric]

You have to remember the resources Mercedes had/has in R&D

When the M119 was designed, they went for maximum performance from 0 to redline
That's why one of the features was the variable valve timing, good torque down low & good peak power

And I can guarantee they tested many types of exhaust systems

Compare the 92 Camaro Z28 with a 5.0 small block with "Tuned Port Injection"
230 hp at 4400 rpm vs the 92 500E with 322 hp

Nearly 100 hp difference !

Like Gerry said, there's no low hanging fruit on these cars

Eric seems to have issue with the size of his pipes. Don't worry pal, I have a bunch of emails in my spam folder that I can send you to help out with that!

Seriously, there is far more to exhaust engineering than pipe diameter. Larger is not always better and a particular size (say, 50mm) used on a different engine (say, M103) which happens to be smaller, does not automatically mean they are "wrong" for a different engine (say, M119) which is substantially larger displacement. In general, exhaust flow theory does support the notion that peak power could be increased (slightly, IMO) but it is very, very likely this would come at the expense of low-end and midrange torque. Last I checked, the E420 could not afford to lose any more bottom end as it's already not particularly stout down low. As Gerry said, there is usually no free lunch, and gains in peak numbers may come with losses elsewhere in the power band. Neeeeed dyno sheets to show what the big pipes do to the entire area under the curve!

They made the M119's pipes 50mm to keep the gasses hot to keep the cats lit, it's as simple as that. That's why the Euro non-kat pipes are 55mm. I'm only taking mine up to 55mm, which is frankly still too small, so I'm not worried about losing anything under the curve.

Why don't we all just wait and see?

 

[gerryvz]

And if you are out after performance gain that you really can feel. Go for turbo or SC setup. Or 6L. Stop being so negative about this.

Uhhh....I sort of HAVE done this, being one of the very few folks who bought and installed a BergWerks nitrous-oxide system (and dyno-testing it and dragstrip-testing it BEFORE and AFTER) some 10 years ago......

Although the seller didn't make any claims as to power levels, he certainly inferred such. He used his experience with a totally different motor and setup, which offered easy extraction of additional HP, as the basis to INFER that he could to same with the M119.

It would be like me claiming that I can get 20-25 extra HP out of my US-spec M117 with easy bolt-on exhaust mods (which I can, I have the parts sitting in my attic right now), as the basis to claim that I can do great things with my .036 (which I can't ... I have a cat-back modified exhaust with high-performance components on my E500 right now !!). The .036 is a totally different animal than any 1980s engineered MB US-spec exhaust system, trust me.

All I'm saying is it's not possible to do what seems to be inferred in this thread. Negative or not, people should not believe ... nor provide any hard earned money to the purveyor ... until credible dyno numbers exist before and after. And I don't think that's going to happen -- my OPINION here.

 

[gsxr]

They made the M119's pipes 50mm to keep the gasses hot to keep the cats lit, it's as simple as that. That's why the Euro non-kat pipes are 55mm. I'm only taking mine up to 55mm, which is frankly still too small, so I'm not worried about losing anything under the curve.

You keep forgetting to mention that those larger pipes (at cat elimination) did nothing for my 5.0L at the track or on the dyno. Why, pray tell, would they do something on a smaller engine pushing less air through the pipes?

Why don't we all just wait and see?

We've been waiting and we WANT to see the results! Show me a system that gives +20 lb-ft across the entire powerband and I'll have my chequebook in hand.

 

[400Eric]

Dave, I don't "keep forgetting", it's just that there is another variable in that funky box that they have in place of the cats. What's it look like in there anyways?

 

[jouniu]

You have to remember the resources Mercedes had/has in R&D

When the M119 was designed, they went for maximum performance from 0 to redline
That's why one of the features was the variable valve timing, good torque down low & good peak power

And I can guarantee they tested many types of exhaust systems

Compare the 92 Camaro Z28 with a 5.0 small block with "Tuned Port Injection"
230 hp at 4400 rpm vs the 92 500E with 322 hp

Nearly 100 hp difference !

Like Gerry said, there's no low hanging fruit on these cars

I tend to disagree. M119 main problem is not in the exhaust side. It is the poor intake manifold with too small plenum. Cylinder head is good. But I have not seen here single trial to get rid off that poor plenum. or undersize throttle body. They are not low hanging fruits but all doable. Please take a look that another German V8/V10 engines and their intake systems and performance. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_S65)

 

[400Eric]

Or ANY modern engine for that matter. Yes, the plenum's miserably small. Some folks here have claimed they are addressing that too. I'm anxiously awaiting the results. In the meantime, we still have our measly 50mm headpipes that need to be addressed too.

 

[Maui]

It appears MB did a pretty good job of getting everything they could out of the existing system, but I am still holding out hope for a little more.

 

[clarkz71]

RE: intake/plenum

There's a lot of talented fabricators out there, in the 25 years the M119 has been
around, no one has been able to come up with a better one.........yet

Also, there's really no room to go higher, why do you think the air filter elements are off to the side

Hood clearance

 

[400Eric]

They will.

For many of those years it was believed that no one could improve on MB's work, so they didn't bother. We know better now.

 

[126v8]

Lets wait and see.There was this other member who was working on an intake,hope its still in the works .

 

[Klink]

For many of those years it was believed that no one could improve on MB's work, so they didn't bother. We know better now.

Absolutely true, and Ken just kindly shared the proof with us! http://www.ebay.com/itm/141404812465

 

[gsxr]

Dave, I don't "keep forgetting", it's just that there is another variable in that funky box that they have in place of the cats. What's it look like in there anyways?

It's a straight-through, perforated core with a small opening between the two pipes. Sort of a factory "X pipe"... oh boy, here we go!

About the intake. Sure, you can change the intake to increase flow, reduce tract length, all that jazz... which will boost top-end power, and absolutely destroy off-idle power & midrange. On a full race engine, especially for road course or oval track, that might be desirable. On the street, it would be a disaster. Like Clark said, the M119 has been out for 25 years and if there was a magic intake, someone would be selling it for thousands of dollars. The tuners (Brabus, etc) have managed to squeeze ~450hp through that "bad" intake manifold, I seriously doubt it's much restriction until somewhere north of 500hp...

 

[clarkz71]

 

[Glen]

I think the prevailing thought is that with modern technology someone should be able to figure out how to extract more power out of the M119. I mean really, the 4.7 liter M273 makes more power and equal torque...the 5.5 liter variant makes as much power as an M119 6.0. I doubt the newer heads are that much better than the M119, so the power must be in the intake/exhaust and fuel and ignition systems, right?

 

[clarkz71]

Well one significant difference is the intake design, the MAF & ETA is relocated to the back
of the manifold. I'm guessing for a taller manifold.

 

[gerryvz]

I think the prevailing thought is that with modern technology someone should be able to figure out how to extract more power out of the M119.

Modern technology is not necessarily a requirement; I'd say that time, money and expertise are more that would be required. This fella wants to sell these hot-rodded exhaust systems for $1,300-1,500.

I am skeptical that the amount of money that would be required to research and manufacture such an exhaust system worth its while (extracting more horsepower/torque) would require more to be charged for said exhaust systems. If they don't generate more power, then they are just, basically, bling. Which is fine, if that's what people want.

Dyno sheets will tell everything, in the end.

 

[gsxr]

I think the prevailing thought is that with modern technology someone should be able to figure out how to extract more power out of the M119. I mean really, the 4.7 liter M273 makes more power and equal torque...the 5.5 liter variant makes as much power as an M119 6.0. I doubt the newer heads are that much better than the M119, so the power must be in the intake/exhaust and fuel and ignition systems, right?

Most of the newer normally-aspirated engines that make more power per liter are generally doing it at higher RPM's than the M119's power peak of 5700. I think it's the newer engine management, and variable cam timing, allows more flexibility in the powerband... i.e., they can have more top-end due to aggressive cam timing AND increased RPM, without losing anything on the bottom end.

More recently, mfr's are finding that forced induction is the easier route to big numbers, without sacrificing low-end power or fuel economy. The more advanced engine management makes this possible, IMO. Could MB use a blower and the latest ECU's to get tons more power out of the M119? You bet. Can we do it in our garages? Not bloody likely.

The easiest route for the M119 would likely be aggressive cams (Hagmann / Dbilas) with porting and larger valves, and jacking up the rev limit. Spin the M119 to 7500rpm and I bet it would make some pretty impressive top-end numbers (the intake might become more of a restriction though... not sure.) Once again, the loss on the bottom end might not be worth it.

 

[jouniu]

I doubt there is need to go bigger valves, but sure 7000rpm rev limit will help if the system breaths. For low end, increasing compression ratio and not going crazy with cams help a lot. That means only premium fuel can then used but that is what we do anyway. Anyone knows more about this guy? http://www.benzworld.org/forums/r12...performance-modifications-11.html#post3346221
BMW individual TBs are quite low design, should fit under the hood, WIP on that. (in the picture testing adapter plate) But I am quite sure that just making new lower part to original intake manifold make difference that can be seen dyno, OEM plenum volume is ~1.8l, increasing it to ~5l can help a lot.

 

[KarlC]

I doubt there is need to go bigger valves, but sure 7000rpm rev limit will help if the system breaths. For low end, increasing compression ratio and not going crazy with cams help a lot. That means only premium fuel can then used but that is what we do anyway. Anyone knows more about this guy? http://www.benzworld.org/forums/r12...performance-modifications-11.html#post3346221
BMW individual TBs are quite low design, should fit under the hood, WIP on that. (in the picture testing adapter plate) But I am quite sure that just making new lower part to original intake manifold make difference that can be seen dyno, OEM plenum volume is ~1.8l, increasing it to ~5l can help a lot.

Well if Tim can get an extra 100hp by doing custom intake and headers, to 430 hp at 7000rpm, I'm sure someone on this board can.

 

[400Eric]

It's a straight-through, perforated core with a small opening between the two pipes. Sort of a factory "X pipe"... oh boy, here we go!

About the intake. Sure, you can change the intake to increase flow, reduce tract length, all that jazz... which will boost top-end power, and absolutely destroy off-idle power & midrange. On a full race engine, especially for road course or oval track, that might be desirable. On the street, it would be a disaster. Like Clark said, the M119 has been out for 25 years and if there was a magic intake, someone would be selling it for thousands of dollars. The tuners (Brabus, etc) have managed to squeeze ~450hp through that "bad" intake manifold, I seriously doubt it's much restriction until somewhere north of 500hp...

We aren't proposing shortening the runners. We don't want that! But that plenum does need to be bigger!

 

[400Eric]

I think the prevailing thought is that with modern technology someone should be able to figure out how to extract more power out of the M119. I mean really, the 4.7 liter M273 makes more power and equal torque...the 5.5 liter variant makes as much power as an M119 6.0. I doubt the newer heads are that much better than the M119, so the power must be in the intake/exhaust and fuel and ignition systems, right?

Absolutely! Just look at what the lowly knappy Ford truck 5.0 is making: 360hp and 380tq ! http://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/specifications/engine/
This is truck engine for crying out loud! You can be sure that the cam specs are even milder than those on our engines, so we know that we can make more power without touching those. This engine does NOT have direct injection either so no smoking gun there. This Ford engine also has a poorer bore to stroke ratio and a poorer rod length to stroke ratio as well. And no, unlike it's Mustang counterpart, it doesn't have headers either. Trust me on this: our M119s can and should be doing better. And they will!

 

[400Eric]

Most of the newer normally-aspirated engines that make more power per liter are generally doing it at higher RPM's than the M119's power peak of 5700. I think it's the newer engine management, and variable cam timing, allows more flexibility in the powerband... i.e., they can have more top-end due to aggressive cam timing AND increased RPM, without losing anything on the bottom end.

The 5.0 Ford truck engine peaks at 5500 RPM.
Yes, it has variable cam timing on both cams, and ours only have it on one, but it has other issues that negate that small advantage. In addition to the ones I already mentioned, another one is that it has to pass much tougher smog standards than our engines were built to pass. It's also rated to run on regular grade unleaded fuel!!! With a 15,300 GCWR!!! Can you even begin to imagine the overly conservative timing they have to run with these constrictions?!?

More recently, mfr's are finding that forced induction is the easier route to big numbers, without sacrificing low-end power or fuel economy.

That's why so many find success and happiness with turbo M103s! (And turbo Volvos!)

It's also why the optional upgrade to the Ford 5.0 is the "EcoBoost" turbo V6.

The easiest route for the M119 would likely be aggressive cams (Hagmann / Dbilas) with porting and larger valves, and jacking up the rev limit. Spin the M119 to 7500rpm and I bet it would make some pretty impressive top-end numbers (the intake might become more of a restriction though... not sure.) Once again, the loss on the bottom end might not be worth it.

Again, the Ford is a truck engine. Those truck cams are one reason it is down on power compared to the Mustang version, yet it still spanks ours by a decent margin. And you can be sure that, with a bore of only 3.63", compared to our bore of 3.80 inches, there's no room in the Ford's bore for valves that a very big. Don't believe me? My 4.2's bore of 3.62" is the reason why it has smaller intake valves than your 5.0 version does!

Somewhere here I have a bookmark on my old computer that is for an article that has an in depth engineering study of the "Coyote" engine, I'll try to find it.

 

[jouniu]

We aren't proposing shortening the runners. We don't want that! But that plenum does need to be bigger!

http://www.otavanterasmies.fi/kuvat/MB/mbsl500_imukotelo2.jpg This kind of exercises has been done, unfortunately I do not know results

 

[400Eric]

I can't find the article, so these will have to do for now:
http://www.mustangandfords.com/parts/m5lp-1003-2011-ford-mustang-gt-50-coyote-engine/viewall.html
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/12/28/deep-dive-fords-all-new-5-0-v8/

Regards,
Eric

 

[maw1124]

Most of the newer normally-aspirated engines that make more power per liter are generally doing it at higher RPM's than the M119's power peak of 5700. I think it's the newer engine management, and variable cam timing, allows more flexibility in the powerband... i.e., they can have more top-end due to aggressive cam timing AND increased RPM, without losing anything on the bottom end.

More recently, mfr's are finding that forced induction is the easier route to big numbers, without sacrificing low-end power or fuel economy. The more advanced engine management makes this possible, IMO. Could MB use a blower and the latest ECU's to get tons more power out of the M119? You bet. Can we do it in our garages? Not bloody likely.

I think this is all correct. My Audi Allroad 4.2 is an example of the first paragraph. Stock, it put out 295/295. With a simple tune, it puts out 352/312 and I have a larger freer flowing exhaust which definitely opened things up at the top end. The exhaust came first and the gain was noticeable, but the tune was ridiculous!! Changed the car from about 3000 to 6000 rpm. The thing just howls off like a scalded cat. And that's a 4.2L V8, chain driven, high compression engine, not very much unlike this one (11:1 v 10:1). But as Dave points out, you could go get a lot more out of software. Audi "tested" that engine in the Allroad before bringing it to the S4 in 340/302 form, so it was substantially detuned in the Allroad to begin with (again, all software -- cam timing, fuel delivery, intake, etc.). Bosch Motronic 7.1.1. And all hp, not very much tcq.

To point out the obvious, MB put a blower in one of "these" with the M113k... If you want more power out of a MB V8 with right now power, get one of those. And you can get more out of software there as well. And since the compression is lower (9:1) throwing more boost at it with different sized pulleys doesn't hurt it (or so goes the theory -- I won't be testing that one). The car has more power than needed.

Just my $.02. Let the science project continue.

maw

 

[Maui]

I can't find the article, so these will have to do for now:
http://www.mustangandfords.com/parts/m5lp-1003-2011-ford-mustang-gt-50-coyote-engine/viewall.html
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/12/28/deep-dive-fords-all-new-5-0-v8/

Regards,
Eric

I've felt that Ford used the M119 to create the Coyote engine or at least as a starting point. Variable valve timing is the key. I do agree that there has to be more in the M119 just waiting to get out. I like the thread with the TB porting. I have an extra one laying around so I might just have to give it a whirl.

 

[gsxr]

Anyone knows more about this guy? http://www.benzworld.org/forums/r12...performance-modifications-11.html#post3346221

You mean porting the ETA? I believe this was discussed elsewhere... so far, I don't think anyone else has been able to duplicate the claimed results... i.e., the ported ETA did not increase power.

But I am quite sure that just making new lower part to original intake manifold make difference that can be seen dyno, OEM plenum volume is ~1.8l, increasing it to ~5l can help a lot.

I'm sure Klink will chime in here, but messing with the airflow with the intake tract (plenum, ETA) could have negative side effects on the LH engine management. If you're going standalone, it may not matter. But with the LH/MAF setup, be careful. Remember these engines get unhappy with something as simple as enlarging (or removing) the airbox!!!

At the risk of repeating myself... the individual TB's will destroy low-end torque. Short stacks are great for top-end, like the Aussie did on this race engine, but on a street motor it would be awful:

I wonder how this intake mod worked out:

 

[gsxr]

I've felt that Ford used the M119 to create the Coyote engine or at least as a starting point. Variable valve timing is the key. I do agree that there has to be more in the M119 just waiting to get out. I like the thread with the TB porting. I have an extra one laying around so I might just have to give it a whirl.

I also think the VVT has a lot more effect than the "small advantage" Eric is giving it credit for. The 93-up M119 5.0 is already in the 330hp range with WOT enrichment.

Remember, MB extracted 342hp @ 5750rpm from the factory E50 M119 motor, up 150rpm from stock; along with boosting torque from 347 to 354 at 3750rpm... 150rpm lower than stock. It's unknown (?) if that was with or without WOT enrichment... if without, make that 355-360hp with enrichment. There, are y'all happy (Eric)? Mercedes already did it back in 1996! All you gotta do is port & polish the intake manifold and head ports, and add the AMG camshafts. For a mere $6-$10k, you can get that last 30hp!!

 

[400Eric]

I only said that having variable cam timing on BOTH cams is a small advantage over having it on just the intake alone. Read the articles. They are using their variable cam timing for all kinds of crazy purposes, like for passive EGR, so they don't have to have a EGR system.

Add AMG camshafts?!? Ford's making 360 with mild low end torque oriented truck cams! We shouldn't need any stinking cams!

I'm just saying that we can and should be doing better. MB was a little too conservative with the street version of our engine. Case in point: our positively puny 19 pound injectors. Show me another 300+ horse 8 cyl engine running injectors that small. I don't have time right now, plus we shouldn't get into this here in this thread, but after one of you peals this off into it's own thread, we'll talk about how you're not supposed to run your injectors at 100% duty cycle, yet that is damn near what MB is doing when they run 19# injectors on a 322hp V8. Here, go to Stan's site and bone up on this stuff, and we'll talk later.
http://users.erols.com/srweiss/tableifc.htm#BOSCH
http://users.erols.com/srweiss/tableifc.htm

 

[gsxr]

I'm just saying that we can and should be doing better. MB was a little too conservative with the street version of our engine.

It ain't never no mind, because MB made those decisions in the late 1980's, and we're stuck with them. If you can figure out a way to increase power substantially at a reasonable cost, you'd have people beating down your door with fists full of cash. Whining about what MB should have done 20 years ago isn't going to help us now...