-
Hi Guest !
Welcome to the 500Eboard forum.
Since its founding in late 2008, 500Eboard has become the leading resource on the Internet for all things related to the Mercedes-Benz 500E and E500. In recent years, we have also expanded to include the 400E and E420 models, which are directly related to the 500E/E500.
We invite you to browse and take advantage of the information and resources here on the site. If you find helpful information, please register for full membership, and you'll find even more resources available. Feel free to ask questions, and make liberal use of the "Search" function to find answers.
We hope you will become an active contributor to the community!
Sincerely,
500Eboard Management
Details on Brabus "6.5" M119 engine
- Thread starter gsxr
- Start date
LOL, I'm not sure what $55K buys at Brabus these days. Probably little more than a granite veneer interior wood package for a Smart car...
On a more serious note: For reasons none of us seem to fully understand, the return on investment in getting any subjectively meaningful performance increase without destroying the refinement many of us treasure, and / or the long-term reliability that their cost makes an economic necessity, is simply dismal.
The output performance relative to displacement on the USA version/emission controlled MB vehicles underwent a massive upturn around the time of the 1986 model year. Not surprisingly, this coincided with the European authorities adopting American/Californian emission requirements largely intact, along with the widespread availability of premium unleaded gasoline. European energy prices made it unfeasible to use 5L V8's to obtain the same output that they were used to having with 3L sixes. Before that time, there was a notable disparity in the outputs of MB's European offerings relative to the USA offerings, and a great disparity between the relative outputs to displacement between MB and some of the other more sporting European manufacturers. A notable example that I am familiar with is that of the Porsche 928 vis a vis MBs V8s of their times. Porsche's 4.5 L single cam V-8 with Bosch K–jet fuel injection delivered about 240 hp in European trim and about 220 in USA / Kalifornia trim. MB's architecturally similar engine offered 180 in US trim and 220 in European trim. By 1990, the MB and Porsche V8s were once again architecturally similar, and the output difference between each of them, and between their European tuned counterparts had all but completely vanished, with any given variant of these engines now having between 315 and 330 hp. An argument could be made that Porsche also knew how to build an engine, yet this was the best they could do, too?
Blast into the present: Much is made about modern "engine management" being responsible for the current high outputs and efficiencies. It no doubt plays a part, but only a small part. The processor aided engine management revolution of the late '80s/early '90s had already picked all of the low hanging fruit.
What we are seeing now is an entire other revolution, made possible by computer aided engine management, but much more so by modern computer aided DESIGN:
Friction is diminished at every possibility, with even piston rings being so thin and sharp that you could almost shave with them. Connecting rods are laterally located at the small ends, with each of those ends continually made smaller as yet another computer process figures out that precisely small size X can be used as long as it is precisely .24787mm to the left of center, because that's the point at which the peak combustion pressure actually occurs. Oh, and if the alloy gets altered by the addition of .0141% of boron, then the expansion rate difference between the pin and the piston will be controlled well enough that some extra clearance can be added, and the oil supply can be diminished, allowing less energy loss in the oil pump. Oh yes, the oil pump? It's variable displacement, barely any oil flows through it at a low engine load. Never mind even the various piston and cylinder wall coatings used today. Used to be one had to knock a piston into a block with a hammer and a piece of wood. Leave a modern engine headless and upside down long enough with the connecting rod unfastened from the crankshaft, and the pistons may fall out.
Those combustion chambers and piston tops may look pretty much the same to you and me, but they are not. They are precisely shaped so that the fuel air mixture is homogenous and mixed, or unmixed and striated, as required, detonation being prevented despite a very high compression ratio, and advancing of the ignition timing to a point where the peak cylinder pressure occurring just as the greatest leverage point of crankshaft angle is available to take advantage of it.
Direct fuel injection is using about 20,000 PSI to nearly vaporize fuel into the combustion chamber, this small pocket of rich, and therefore easy to ignite fuel mixture now being swirled at exactly the right instant into the widely opened and precisely indexed electrode gap, the position of its ground electrode being precisely located by the exact threading of the cylinder head during manufacture, and by the spark plug manufacturer fitting the spark plug with an exact individually selected thickness of crush washer, because he had calculated exactly where it was going to wind up as it is precisely torqued into the cylinder head. ( better have a perfect torque wrench, and not be afraid to use it, Mr. modern technician...)
Newer "engine management" now helps with high hanging fruit like this: A stop light engine shut off function allows the engine to be the slightest bit dirtier (with higher advertised power) at full load, because government test cycles the world over have idle times in them. The starter isn't as burdened as much as you may think, because the engine computer "knows" exactly where each crank throw and piston is, so at restart time, just as it engages the starter, it fires a plug and injector on a cylinder that was in descent on a power stroke as it switched off the engine.
Some of the dimensions in the descriptions above I have "made up" as illustration examples, but not out of "thin air" They are exactly the kind of things that are designed into modern engines, and they cannot be added into, or onto an engine that had its design largely finalized in the mid '80s...
Last edited:
Bean counters will ALWAYS limit what the engineers TRULY want to do with the engines/cars. Which is probably why prototype cars are so much more kick ass powered, than their production grade counterparts.
Even though the Mercedes was already astronomically high priced compared to other cars, the accountants say no to plenty, in order to keep the production to profit ratio as high as possible. This is the reason maybe .001% of production cars come with cnc ported heads. (Factory production race cars, such as camaro COPO, mustang cobrajet, etc, are the only few that I know of).
I am an engine machinist, trained by some of the best engine builders and cylinder head gurus in the American performance industry. Shake your head at "American," all you want, but they are building LS small blocks revving to 11,000 rpm, making over 1,000 rpm. Obviously these engines are on the "ragged edge," of performance, and only a few hundred more feet past the finish line of the drag strip, they might blow up with the force of an atomic bomb, but the point is simple:
Where there is production, there is compromise. The speed shop's job, is to re-gain whatever may be the compromise. One thing mentioned earlier, was the funky split header design. This was the best option for the current shoe-horn situation the engineers had to overcome. With inertia wave tuning, they would have much more likely rather a form of long tube headers, but without the room, or the extended labor/manufacturing, they compromised. (But why don't these bolt on upgrades improve the design? Because the car has been optimized, with these less-than ideal conditions, with tuning and timing. It is a situation of making the best of the situation. Read "Scientific Design of Intake and Exhaust Systems" if you want incredibly in depth case studies, and real world testing and development of formulas, etc.)
Klink, I also must note that you have a very sensational style of describing the black magic the engineers go through. You're in the right direction in some cases, wrong in the other.
1.) Friction is absolutely the worst enemy of engines. The less friction, the easier the engine is able to complete it's cycles, the more power it makes. Here you are correct!
2.) The offset of pistons in connecting rods, does NOT make more horsepower, instead, it is a function of limiting the piston slap of a cold started engine. I dont remember off the top of my head if it's on the thrust major or minor, but it's there only for "feel good" of your engine not sounding like its falling apart before it warms up. Worst is with forged pistons, as they expand between .005"-.007" aka MILES! (I'm not going to translate to MM because I dont want to have to x everything by 25.4 and divide etc.) The pin in the center of the piston is best, as it has the most leverage against the connecting rod, although not much of a difference, every horsepower found adds up to a large pile of extra horsepower!
3.) Clearance is also something that is debatable. Either for longevity, or for performance. You can only have one or the other. One of my instructors always said "Too loose of clearance, only you will know. Too tight of clearance, everyone else will know too!"
The tighter the clearances, the higher compression, the better the effect of oiling, the better cylinder filling from piston draw, etc. But too tight and you risk seizing things up... When a valve gets stuck, things can go very very wrong... Especially at 6,000RPM and a piston speed of around 5000fps!
4.) Engine management is probably one of the bigger culprits of the performance, but it would be most effected in areas that it would have a hard time keeping up, such as higher RPM.
Here's a couple that weren't mentioned:
Heads Cams and Intakes) Does anyone have specs? Valve size only tells me as an engine builder, where the port "should" end up, to support the capabilities of the valve. The intake is an extension of the port, so same rules apply.
It would be really nice to see a spread sheet or chart of some sort, comparing the various M119's across the board. From the valve size, the port X Y cross sectional areas, length of port from valve to gasket, and the same for the intakes. Along with cam specs and timing events. And flowbench charts. Am I asking too much from you car collectors?
As I said before, the short block's primary job is to hold together whatever punishment the heads deal out. So the POWER is hidden in the H/C/I. If all the cars were using tiny cams, it's an easy response: better matched cams, etc.
I suddenly feel as if I have been tricked into continuing this conversation! Hahaha, you bastards!
And as a final comment for tonight: Although engineers spend insane amounts of money, I must refer to American NASA for my example:
Millions of dollars spent researching a PEN that would work in space. Russia simply brought pencils. More money spent researching, is not always the best solution.
And a PS past the final comment:
The spark plugs being indexed from factory, although incredibly convenient, only account for around 1% power gain. I always make a fixture for customers, with the thread pitch of their cylinder head, and as the spark plugs are indexed, I'll then bring them to the little plate, and mark where "#3 lands," for all 8, so they can quickly and easily grab plugs that are semi-indexed already.
Even though the Mercedes was already astronomically high priced compared to other cars, the accountants say no to plenty, in order to keep the production to profit ratio as high as possible. This is the reason maybe .001% of production cars come with cnc ported heads. (Factory production race cars, such as camaro COPO, mustang cobrajet, etc, are the only few that I know of).
I am an engine machinist, trained by some of the best engine builders and cylinder head gurus in the American performance industry. Shake your head at "American," all you want, but they are building LS small blocks revving to 11,000 rpm, making over 1,000 rpm. Obviously these engines are on the "ragged edge," of performance, and only a few hundred more feet past the finish line of the drag strip, they might blow up with the force of an atomic bomb, but the point is simple:
Where there is production, there is compromise. The speed shop's job, is to re-gain whatever may be the compromise. One thing mentioned earlier, was the funky split header design. This was the best option for the current shoe-horn situation the engineers had to overcome. With inertia wave tuning, they would have much more likely rather a form of long tube headers, but without the room, or the extended labor/manufacturing, they compromised. (But why don't these bolt on upgrades improve the design? Because the car has been optimized, with these less-than ideal conditions, with tuning and timing. It is a situation of making the best of the situation. Read "Scientific Design of Intake and Exhaust Systems" if you want incredibly in depth case studies, and real world testing and development of formulas, etc.)
Klink, I also must note that you have a very sensational style of describing the black magic the engineers go through. You're in the right direction in some cases, wrong in the other.
1.) Friction is absolutely the worst enemy of engines. The less friction, the easier the engine is able to complete it's cycles, the more power it makes. Here you are correct!
2.) The offset of pistons in connecting rods, does NOT make more horsepower, instead, it is a function of limiting the piston slap of a cold started engine. I dont remember off the top of my head if it's on the thrust major or minor, but it's there only for "feel good" of your engine not sounding like its falling apart before it warms up. Worst is with forged pistons, as they expand between .005"-.007" aka MILES! (I'm not going to translate to MM because I dont want to have to x everything by 25.4 and divide etc.) The pin in the center of the piston is best, as it has the most leverage against the connecting rod, although not much of a difference, every horsepower found adds up to a large pile of extra horsepower!
3.) Clearance is also something that is debatable. Either for longevity, or for performance. You can only have one or the other. One of my instructors always said "Too loose of clearance, only you will know. Too tight of clearance, everyone else will know too!"
The tighter the clearances, the higher compression, the better the effect of oiling, the better cylinder filling from piston draw, etc. But too tight and you risk seizing things up... When a valve gets stuck, things can go very very wrong... Especially at 6,000RPM and a piston speed of around 5000fps!
4.) Engine management is probably one of the bigger culprits of the performance, but it would be most effected in areas that it would have a hard time keeping up, such as higher RPM.
Here's a couple that weren't mentioned:
Heads Cams and Intakes) Does anyone have specs? Valve size only tells me as an engine builder, where the port "should" end up, to support the capabilities of the valve. The intake is an extension of the port, so same rules apply.
It would be really nice to see a spread sheet or chart of some sort, comparing the various M119's across the board. From the valve size, the port X Y cross sectional areas, length of port from valve to gasket, and the same for the intakes. Along with cam specs and timing events. And flowbench charts. Am I asking too much from you car collectors?
As I said before, the short block's primary job is to hold together whatever punishment the heads deal out. So the POWER is hidden in the H/C/I. If all the cars were using tiny cams, it's an easy response: better matched cams, etc.
I suddenly feel as if I have been tricked into continuing this conversation! Hahaha, you bastards!
And as a final comment for tonight: Although engineers spend insane amounts of money, I must refer to American NASA for my example:
Millions of dollars spent researching a PEN that would work in space. Russia simply brought pencils. More money spent researching, is not always the best solution.
And a PS past the final comment:
The spark plugs being indexed from factory, although incredibly convenient, only account for around 1% power gain. I always make a fixture for customers, with the thread pitch of their cylinder head, and as the spark plugs are indexed, I'll then bring them to the little plate, and mark where "#3 lands," for all 8, so they can quickly and easily grab plugs that are semi-indexed already.
Last edited:
How is there more potential from turboing the 3.5 vs turboing the 4.2/5.0/6.0/6.5 v8?
I have nothing to contribute about the engine stuff. But you know way you want a pen and not a pencil in outer space?
Well graphite is highly conductive and you really dont want that floating around in the in your space craft, if goes in to the electronics it might start a fire. And also breathing in small particles of graphite dust cant be good for the body.
And Nasa did spend some money but stopped because of the cost. Some time later Fisher did it with private funds. Both Soviet and NASA bought the pen.
Last edited:
Google turbobandit for easy examples of power to either of the benz straight six motors.
This 3.5 engine last made 400 hp at the wheels and it ran out of injectors. It is a 3.2 m104 with a C36 AMG crank. At that time, It was running zero intercooler and only meth injection to cool down the intake. It has twin gt28rs turbos. We have the engine installed into a test mule 93 coupe. We are getting a proper front mount air to air intercooler fitted at a shop. The downpipes on there are quite small for this power level so there is more to be had there as well. I am hoping to get a no option euro w124 to install it into so I don't have to rip out the AC and deal with the cluttered engine bay.
The thing is with the m103/m104 S6 is that you more room in the engine bay and its much easier to fit turbos or superchargers. Most people go the turbo route because TB's manifolds are done so they dont have to make that.
A buddy of mine has a m104 2.8Liter with TB manifold and intake. Dont know what turbo he has. But it has around 400whp.
For oil I use Castrol
What motor did Brabus get the dipstick from?
It's all out there for you man. You just have to dig. There are not different head and port configurations- just late and early being the divide with intake valve size. You are thinking of this like building an LS engine, it's a different field. Think of it more like your options are for a buick straight 8.
I think someone here mentioned ~1500 500e's were imported and I suspect maybe ~5-600 remain on the roads today. That leaves a pretty small market for developing parts.
If you want flat out more power- do what MB did when they went racing. Eliminate the cam advance, reduce weight of crank, cams, and all valve train... Short intake.
Michael
Last edited by a moderator:
Your first point that I quoted got me because it is a fact that seems to be so underappreciated everywhere. It's always, "Why didn't they do this, that, and the other?" And I am always thinking to myself, occasionally out loud, "Because the damn thing had to sell for less than $4 million!" I am also frequently thinking, "They had to figure out exactly what the governments required first, and then they were able to get around to thinking about what was possible at a cost you could afford, while still having it be good enough that you may still want to actually afford it. You as a customer are at best only third on the list of priorities that must be satisfied."
The second point that I quoted struck me because it is the best explanation I have ever seen describing what you and people like you are endeavoring to do. The obvious is often the most difficult thing to see, and that statement struck me as profound. I'm dead serious about this, I am not yanking your chain! I loved that statement.
On "magic", your point is well taken, and as I kind of pointed out, I wasn't trying to be exact. Also, that was a "mass-market" rant, intending to speak to everyone, mere "collectors" included, not only engine experts, one of which I clearly am not. It was perhaps my expression of frustration against the never ending comparisons of engines designed recently to engines designed nearly 30 years ago where people say "Wow, this new Thingummy 5liter special does 1000 hp per liter, and that (insert the engine, and by extension its owners that you wish to deride here) POS only made 50HP per liter! It's endless, comes from everywhere, affects all makes and all enthusiasts, and it is tiresome. It is always pointed out by the one making the statement in a way that conveys "Look how smart I am! I noticed this!", when in fact it is a great big "No shit, Sherlock! The entire rest of the world noticed it too, as well they should, because it is a state of affairs completely to be expected as industrial progress is made!"
Once again, I would like to point out that I am not accusing Doomer of this kind of superficiality, but we have all suffered it enough through discussions like this that some of us are a little tweaky about it. Making us, or at least probably me, the "exception that proves the rule"...
I was trying to point out that what goes on now is a design system that is deep and complex, and that it's results can seem to border on magic. Good grief, I hate how much that sounds like something Al Gore said once....
I didn't go there, but I'm sure the kind of thing I was talking about goes well into modern manifold and port design, etc. I'm sure that nowadays if a tiny change in the radius of an intake tube, or the addition of some degree of taper, or a change of diameter by .25 mm has a disproportionately beneficial influence, then these factors are now incorporated in the final design, at least to the level at which they could be accommodated given all of the other necessary compromises. This kind of thing simply wasn't possible to even know about, much less do reliably and repeatedly in the recent past.
On the last point I quoted, LOL
But, I guess that worked both ways ...
Last edited:
A side note about engine management:
There has been repeated mention that our "old" LH injection system is somehow a major roadblock to unleashing the hidden power of the M119. I do not believe this is correct. First, the LH system was incredibly advanced for its time, and I think many people just assume it must be bad because it's old. Second, the fancy next-gen ME system obtained... zero additional power. On a stock, normally-aspirated M119, I don't believe there would be any significant power gains from installing the latest engine management systems. My guess, maybe 10% gain at most, and that would likely be running the ragged edge of detonation from advanced ignition timing. Lots of cost & effort with questionable return, and very likely a side effect of losing the factory traction control, cruise control, etc. With forced induction, it would be a different story... aftermarket ECU would be much more useful in that scenario, but we're talking normally aspirated here.
That said: As discussed in the Coyote motor thread (you DID all read that by now, right?)... the newest engine management computers with mondo processing power allow much more aggressive / creative design, particularly with cam timing. The Coyote is using a huge amount of variable cam advance/retard on both intake and exhaust, with very aggressive cam profiles (the engineer stated it was right at the edge of valve loft). By comparison, the M119 system has fixed cam advance on intake only, with relatively mild cams. The Coyote setup allows the best of both worlds. As mentioned in that thread, Mercedes is obtaining similar power per displacement on their normally-aspirated motors today, compared to the same years of Coyote motor.
BTW, ccrelan is correct. The inline 6-cyl engines are more popular for forced induction mods because there is lots of space under the hood for the turbos/blowers and plumbing. There is almost zero space on the V8 models. The Finns have been getting 500-600hp from a 3.0L Mercedes diesel for years (OM603/OM606 engines), usually with stock long blocks and 40-60psi of boost. They also give up air conditioning and replace the AC condenser with ginormous intercoolers, something else most US residents are not willing to do, unless they live near the Canadian border...
There has been repeated mention that our "old" LH injection system is somehow a major roadblock to unleashing the hidden power of the M119. I do not believe this is correct. First, the LH system was incredibly advanced for its time, and I think many people just assume it must be bad because it's old. Second, the fancy next-gen ME system obtained... zero additional power. On a stock, normally-aspirated M119, I don't believe there would be any significant power gains from installing the latest engine management systems. My guess, maybe 10% gain at most, and that would likely be running the ragged edge of detonation from advanced ignition timing. Lots of cost & effort with questionable return, and very likely a side effect of losing the factory traction control, cruise control, etc. With forced induction, it would be a different story... aftermarket ECU would be much more useful in that scenario, but we're talking normally aspirated here.
That said: As discussed in the Coyote motor thread (you DID all read that by now, right?)... the newest engine management computers with mondo processing power allow much more aggressive / creative design, particularly with cam timing. The Coyote is using a huge amount of variable cam advance/retard on both intake and exhaust, with very aggressive cam profiles (the engineer stated it was right at the edge of valve loft). By comparison, the M119 system has fixed cam advance on intake only, with relatively mild cams. The Coyote setup allows the best of both worlds. As mentioned in that thread, Mercedes is obtaining similar power per displacement on their normally-aspirated motors today, compared to the same years of Coyote motor.
BTW, ccrelan is correct. The inline 6-cyl engines are more popular for forced induction mods because there is lots of space under the hood for the turbos/blowers and plumbing. There is almost zero space on the V8 models. The Finns have been getting 500-600hp from a 3.0L Mercedes diesel for years (OM603/OM606 engines), usually with stock long blocks and 40-60psi of boost. They also give up air conditioning and replace the AC condenser with ginormous intercoolers, something else most US residents are not willing to do, unless they live near the Canadian border...
I think Dave you are right- our LH-SFI is actually a good thing. Look at how the tunners have managed more power with the older LH 2.4 systems. The stumbling is nobody has invested the reverse engineering time and money into making it work. Newer systems, you have to do it once. Ours, the EZL is seperate- so you get to do chip learning/modification twice as often.
Remember if it's a benz or a new ford Coyote, EMISSIONS and FUEL consumption are trump cars which all abide by. AMG too.
Mild cams on the M119? Yea that's an understatement! what are the AMG 6.0 liter cams were A-cups for sure @9mm. But I bet you'll see a big plateu in flowing and need significantly more lift to get increased flow. To make the M119 head take 12mm lift- you will need to remove all the guides, mill the spring pockets deeper, new guides, mill/grind for clearance, plus go buy some 5k cams. Throw in a grand for parts and a few for the valve job, milling etc- another 1-2 for porting. Your pushing up to 10k pretty quick. Then you will need a intake which flows better. ITB will probably set you back 1-4k plus lots of time. Relocate MAF/Throttle actuator etc etc. No kits, it's time or $$.
All of this will require remapping fuel and ignition curves to take advantage of it.
Michael
Remember if it's a benz or a new ford Coyote, EMISSIONS and FUEL consumption are trump cars which all abide by. AMG too.
Mild cams on the M119? Yea that's an understatement! what are the AMG 6.0 liter cams were A-cups for sure @9mm. But I bet you'll see a big plateu in flowing and need significantly more lift to get increased flow. To make the M119 head take 12mm lift- you will need to remove all the guides, mill the spring pockets deeper, new guides, mill/grind for clearance, plus go buy some 5k cams. Throw in a grand for parts and a few for the valve job, milling etc- another 1-2 for porting. Your pushing up to 10k pretty quick. Then you will need a intake which flows better. ITB will probably set you back 1-4k plus lots of time. Relocate MAF/Throttle actuator etc etc. No kits, it's time or $$.
All of this will require remapping fuel and ignition curves to take advantage of it.
Michael
That's the nice thing about DOHC / four valve hemispherical chambers, with center plug. You don't need to get too crazy on the cam profile to achieve good airflow. For massive flow, the mods you describe are probably needed... and bloody expensive. 32 valves, seats, guides, springs, lifters, etc and that's before the labor for porting/polishing 32 holes. $$$$$$$!!
Yep a 4 valve @ 0.350 flows about like a big valve 2 valve @ ~0.650.
I think anyone with a 5.0 liter should drive a 6.0 or 6.5. They would be very happy with them except drag racing some of the Amercan stuff @ stop lights. At speeds above 100 mph, they'd have the advantage with lower frontal area.
Michael
I think anyone with a 5.0 liter should drive a 6.0 or 6.5. They would be very happy with them except drag racing some of the Amercan stuff @ stop lights. At speeds above 100 mph, they'd have the advantage with lower frontal area.
Michael
I'm trying to understand the point of this thread. My first take is someone coming here to throw rocks at the M119 engine and anyone who owns one. My second take is if you are a collector you're an idiot because you could be collecting a car that has more power and goes faster. My third take is I am here to brag about my knowledge of engines and you collectors are ignorant. Great I get it. If I wanted a race car I would buy a race car. I've owned lots of muscle cars and I loved and enjoyed every one of them. I've built stroker motors that would pull a house, but they served a completely different purpose in my automotive experience and at that particular stage in my life. Speed and hp are fun and I love them both, but it is not the only thing. Honestly, unless you're going to track a car what good is a 1000 hp? I guess I could go through tires quicker and have more speeding tickets, but honestly what is the point except to increase the size of one's preverbal ball sack?
Yes, I admit it, my 500E is a garage queen and I have a hell of a lot of money invested it and it is not as fast as chevy small blocks I have owned. For this particular car I am a collector. I get the same joy and pride of ownership in my mere 322 hp 500E as I did with my 600 hp corvette. Actually may be a little more so with the 500E and it's wimpy 5l. I never in a million years thought I would ever absolutely cherish and adore a four door sedan! With all of its quirks and ungodly expensive maintenance and repairs I am hooked on these cars. Would I add hp to if it were as easy and inexpensive as the chevy small block bolt ons? Of course I would, but I am resigned to fact that it is not possible, but that does not diminish my love for the car in the least and it doesn't make those that love these cars any less of an auto enthusiast as the guy that owns a 1000hp beast.
I will say this thread is very interesting and educational, but I think it would be just as entertaining and educational without throwing rocks. So, please carry on but you don't have to insult my "collector" ownership to make your point.
Yes, I admit it, my 500E is a garage queen and I have a hell of a lot of money invested it and it is not as fast as chevy small blocks I have owned. For this particular car I am a collector. I get the same joy and pride of ownership in my mere 322 hp 500E as I did with my 600 hp corvette. Actually may be a little more so with the 500E and it's wimpy 5l. I never in a million years thought I would ever absolutely cherish and adore a four door sedan! With all of its quirks and ungodly expensive maintenance and repairs I am hooked on these cars. Would I add hp to if it were as easy and inexpensive as the chevy small block bolt ons? Of course I would, but I am resigned to fact that it is not possible, but that does not diminish my love for the car in the least and it doesn't make those that love these cars any less of an auto enthusiast as the guy that owns a 1000hp beast.
I will say this thread is very interesting and educational, but I think it would be just as entertaining and educational without throwing rocks. So, please carry on but you don't have to insult my "collector" ownership to make your point.
I only got involved because the Brabus, in my opinion, although an incredible machine, is still an underperformer vs the $$$$$ it cost. Then the discussion was steered into the direction of WHY it is the way it is, and WHO was okay with it, and obviously those who weren't (myself, and a couple of quiet users PM's as well, one of which you all adore).
I am simply an engine builder, who builds race engines, and ridiculous street engines, who was shocked at the performance offered by a highly respectable tuner. It simply boggles my mind. Then again, as it has been mentioned a few times, the cost of EVERYTHING is more expensive, because the MB crowd enjoys the penile extension of saying "I paid $$$$$$ for ______" Hell, my wife is the same way. She brags that it costs her $1,500 to do her freaking brakes, while I just shake my head at the lunacy of it all.
I am, however, a rabid horsepower junkie. I have always been attracted to the MB, and there is no more handsome a car, than the 500E. It is James Bond in a Tuxedo. Not too flashy, but damned good looking, while being deceptively dangerous. The cubic inches, mixed with the cylinder design, allow for incredible potential. My whole argument position, is the disappointment that it was "performance while being refined," and not "rocket ship terrifying." The Zonda's engine is an example of pushing the AMG engines to tolerable limits. With 396" or 6.5L, the V8 would not be very far behind the 444" or 7.3L.
I guess that's just the difference of what $50,000 will get you, based on the make/model.
I am simply an engine builder, who builds race engines, and ridiculous street engines, who was shocked at the performance offered by a highly respectable tuner. It simply boggles my mind. Then again, as it has been mentioned a few times, the cost of EVERYTHING is more expensive, because the MB crowd enjoys the penile extension of saying "I paid $$$$$$ for ______" Hell, my wife is the same way. She brags that it costs her $1,500 to do her freaking brakes, while I just shake my head at the lunacy of it all.
I am, however, a rabid horsepower junkie. I have always been attracted to the MB, and there is no more handsome a car, than the 500E. It is James Bond in a Tuxedo. Not too flashy, but damned good looking, while being deceptively dangerous. The cubic inches, mixed with the cylinder design, allow for incredible potential. My whole argument position, is the disappointment that it was "performance while being refined," and not "rocket ship terrifying." The Zonda's engine is an example of pushing the AMG engines to tolerable limits. With 396" or 6.5L, the V8 would not be very far behind the 444" or 7.3L.
I guess that's just the difference of what $50,000 will get you, based on the make/model.
And let's not forget what Pagani and AMG do for/with each other. Doomer's Point is well taken though on output per dollar. It has always been dismal, and probably always will be...
LOL, don't let the Doomette hear you calling her brakes "penile extensions" Just sayin'...
Your perceptions are completely understandable as viewed through the lens as to how you describe yourself. I've seen this many many times over the years.
I think you'd also find that "performance" on other non-US marques is also quite expensive. Check out the BMW, Audi and other worlds. I mean, noted BMW tuners such as Dinan and Alpina aren't exactly cheap either.
Viewed from the perspective and experience of someone who deals with American cars (muscle, performance, etc.) indeed your view is going to be "WTFreakingH ?!?" It's difficult (at first) for someone steeped in US cars and philosophy and way of doing things to "get" German cars and how they do things.
Have you ever driven a [stock 315HP] 500E?
Have you ever driven on the autobahn in Germany?
Those are two requisite experiences I'd recommend you have, before making more of the statements along the lines of what you have. I grew up around US muscle cars and some of my best friends were (and still are) big-time Ford/Chevy/Mopar gear-heads. I'm talking 427 Fords and 428 Cobra Jets and 289s and vanilla built 350s and 400s and 327s, and 440s and 318s and slant sixes and all that crap.
It's a completely different world / philosophy / outlook / design concept and you just can't compare it to what the Germans do.
Joking aside ... you seem to be a bit of a fish out water here. You've said your piece ... we "get" it ... time to move on to the next topic.
Doomers are similar to Obama "Birthers," but applied to the 500E world. i.e. those who doubt the overall design pattern and feel that the M119 is far too tame, believing that it should be making 150+ HP per liter.
Is it time to lower the Doom'?
I think you'd also find that "performance" on other non-US marques is also quite expensive. Check out the BMW, Audi and other worlds. I mean, noted BMW tuners such as Dinan and Alpina aren't exactly cheap either.
Viewed from the perspective and experience of someone who deals with American cars (muscle, performance, etc.) indeed your view is going to be "WTFreakingH ?!?" It's difficult (at first) for someone steeped in US cars and philosophy and way of doing things to "get" German cars and how they do things.
Have you ever driven a [stock 315HP] 500E?
Have you ever driven on the autobahn in Germany?
Those are two requisite experiences I'd recommend you have, before making more of the statements along the lines of what you have. I grew up around US muscle cars and some of my best friends were (and still are) big-time Ford/Chevy/Mopar gear-heads. I'm talking 427 Fords and 428 Cobra Jets and 289s and vanilla built 350s and 400s and 327s, and 440s and 318s and slant sixes and all that crap.
It's a completely different world / philosophy / outlook / design concept and you just can't compare it to what the Germans do.
Joking aside ... you seem to be a bit of a fish out water here. You've said your piece ... we "get" it ... time to move on to the next topic.
We have a new concept on this site: the Doomer.
Doomers are similar to Obama "Birthers," but applied to the 500E world. i.e. those who doubt the overall design pattern and feel that the M119 is far too tame, believing that it should be making 150+ HP per liter.
Is it time to lower the Doom'?
AMG gave the 7.3 engine to Pagani for the Zonda...
I think the point people have been making here (for this, Klink's treatise stands out in my mind), is that in the mid 90s, MB engines -- even performance AMG engines like the 7.3 for the SL and Zonda -- were comfortably under 100hp / liter of displacement. Note that the 7.3L engine is nowhere near 700hp -- in SL or Zonda figment.
Fast forward 10 years, and the AMG performance engines are comfortably over that threshold, but only owing to forced induction. The laws of physics generally prohibit 100hp per liter in a naturally aspirated engine, without compromises to reliability primarily, driving characteristics secondarily. The BMW S54 engine in the E46 M3 is standout in that regard, being a naturally aspirated engine reliably having over 100hp per liter -- but that's only at the highest rev ranges. It lacks a bit off the line, hence the need for "launch control" to get the revs up. Again, Klink's analysis generally explains why this was possible in 2005, but not in 1995. Even the 7.3L AMG engine to which you point needed to be reworked for reliability between its initial launch in 1995 and its return in '98 or '99 (I forget when, wiki it).
So to expect a 550hp 500E (or a 650hp Brabus or Renntech version), in the mid-90s, simply because of the displacement, makes no sense. None. Zero. Unless it's force fed -- turbo, supercharger, or nitrous. But again, please do take the point -- all of this is a circle jerk that's been covered 8 ways from Sunday, numerous times on this board, which is why people here seem to have so much "patience" for it now.
maw
I think the point people have been making here (for this, Klink's treatise stands out in my mind), is that in the mid 90s, MB engines -- even performance AMG engines like the 7.3 for the SL and Zonda -- were comfortably under 100hp / liter of displacement. Note that the 7.3L engine is nowhere near 700hp -- in SL or Zonda figment.
Fast forward 10 years, and the AMG performance engines are comfortably over that threshold, but only owing to forced induction. The laws of physics generally prohibit 100hp per liter in a naturally aspirated engine, without compromises to reliability primarily, driving characteristics secondarily. The BMW S54 engine in the E46 M3 is standout in that regard, being a naturally aspirated engine reliably having over 100hp per liter -- but that's only at the highest rev ranges. It lacks a bit off the line, hence the need for "launch control" to get the revs up. Again, Klink's analysis generally explains why this was possible in 2005, but not in 1995. Even the 7.3L AMG engine to which you point needed to be reworked for reliability between its initial launch in 1995 and its return in '98 or '99 (I forget when, wiki it).
So to expect a 550hp 500E (or a 650hp Brabus or Renntech version), in the mid-90s, simply because of the displacement, makes no sense. None. Zero. Unless it's force fed -- turbo, supercharger, or nitrous. But again, please do take the point -- all of this is a circle jerk that's been covered 8 ways from Sunday, numerous times on this board, which is why people here seem to have so much "patience" for it now.
maw
Good points all around. Here's some more pot stirring:
1) Are you saying the Brabus is an underperformer based on the claimed power output (450hp/489tq), or based on the acceleration numbers? The engine power is pretty decent IMO, although I agree the acceleration data was definitely sub-par for that particular test. Or, are you just hung up on the $50k cost for the full package (remember, the wheels/tires were likely $10k, the brakes $10k, etc - it wasn't a $50k motor).
2) Making lots of power and putting it in a chassis that can't handle it is mostly a waste of time and money, and can be downright dangerous. I've seen plenty of 600hp paint shakers at the dragstrip which are plenty fast for a 1/4 mile in a straight line, but don't ask them to turn a corner, or stop, or have functional climate control, or nice stereo, etc. The Brabus will go, turn, stop, and oh yeah it can manage close to 200mph on the autobahn. It's a fully engineered package, not just a motor. Yes, that level of performance is a yawner today, but what other cars, from any manufacturer, back in 1997 were in the same league for a similar cost? Anyone? Bueller? 200mph sedans are a pretty small market segment.
3) The M120 7.3L (AMG, Brabus) and 7.4L (RENNtech) was usually rated around 525-575hp depending on the modification level. One was rated 585hp (Car & Driver, March 1997 and August 1998). I only heard of a single, custom RENNtech 7.4L that was over 600hp but I can't find the info on it... think it was somewhere in the 600-610hp range, it was a one-off custom in an R129, IIRC? Pagani seems to have access to the magic pixie dust to extract even more power from the M120.
1) Are you saying the Brabus is an underperformer based on the claimed power output (450hp/489tq), or based on the acceleration numbers? The engine power is pretty decent IMO, although I agree the acceleration data was definitely sub-par for that particular test. Or, are you just hung up on the $50k cost for the full package (remember, the wheels/tires were likely $10k, the brakes $10k, etc - it wasn't a $50k motor).
2) Making lots of power and putting it in a chassis that can't handle it is mostly a waste of time and money, and can be downright dangerous. I've seen plenty of 600hp paint shakers at the dragstrip which are plenty fast for a 1/4 mile in a straight line, but don't ask them to turn a corner, or stop, or have functional climate control, or nice stereo, etc. The Brabus will go, turn, stop, and oh yeah it can manage close to 200mph on the autobahn. It's a fully engineered package, not just a motor. Yes, that level of performance is a yawner today, but what other cars, from any manufacturer, back in 1997 were in the same league for a similar cost? Anyone? Bueller? 200mph sedans are a pretty small market segment.
3) The M120 7.3L (AMG, Brabus) and 7.4L (RENNtech) was usually rated around 525-575hp depending on the modification level. One was rated 585hp (Car & Driver, March 1997 and August 1998). I only heard of a single, custom RENNtech 7.4L that was over 600hp but I can't find the info on it... think it was somewhere in the 600-610hp range, it was a one-off custom in an R129, IIRC? Pagani seems to have access to the magic pixie dust to extract even more power from the M120.
I vote "no, don't lower the Doom" He does like, and "gets" the E5E, and in fairness, I and others keep roping him right back into the conversation. It's not like he gratuitously keeps coming back to taunt us in some completely unhinged and trollish manner...
I agree. For a guy like me, recognizing trolling and unhinged-ness is like recognizing what is p0rn and what is art. 'You know it when you see it'. Hell, I wrote the book on unhinged trolling.I vote "no, don't lower the Doom" He does like, and "gets" the E5E, and in fairness, I and others keep roping him right back into the conversation. It's not like he gratuitously keeps coming back to taunt us in some completely unhinged and trollish manner...
We're not up to those levels.
Responses, 1) I'm simply hung up on the HP/$, and only continue to respond, when people are like "why are you continuing?" lol. Not saying the Brabus is an under achiever by any means OTHER than it's HP/$...
2) I put a 650 horsepower 418 windsor in a 1982 mustang GT, with stock suspension, that thing was hilariously terrifying. I could do a burnout at 80miles per hour.
Engines are air pumps, nothing magical about them. The tricks to getting them the way they are, are NOT told correctly by magazines and most forums. The people who practice the black magic, need to keep their jobs
And to finally respond to the "coyote" thread, it took almost 100 posts before it was mentioned. And then another 30 or so to be re-mentioned. The "thousands of hours on the dyno," is in reference to developing a complete new engine from the ground up, or how to make their copycat work LOL. As I stated, it's the tuner's job to find the compromises, and that is not in thousands of hours, unless you're on a nascar team.
Seriously though, we can post on this thread until the forum breaks, or we could just talk STRAIGHT UP M119 performance in a new thread?
2) I put a 650 horsepower 418 windsor in a 1982 mustang GT, with stock suspension, that thing was hilariously terrifying. I could do a burnout at 80miles per hour.
Engines are air pumps, nothing magical about them. The tricks to getting them the way they are, are NOT told correctly by magazines and most forums. The people who practice the black magic, need to keep their jobs
And to finally respond to the "coyote" thread, it took almost 100 posts before it was mentioned. And then another 30 or so to be re-mentioned. The "thousands of hours on the dyno," is in reference to developing a complete new engine from the ground up, or how to make their copycat work LOL. As I stated, it's the tuner's job to find the compromises, and that is not in thousands of hours, unless you're on a nascar team.
Seriously though, we can post on this thread until the forum breaks, or we could just talk STRAIGHT UP M119 performance in a new thread?
We have an AMG and Tuner Cars sub-forum, or you could start a new Performance thread in the M119 Engine sub-forum.
Have you also considered posting over at the Benzworld.org or PeachParts MB forums? Both of them have specific, performance-oriented threads that are "stickys" in various sections and lots of folks with money to pursue those performance passions in the "right" way.
Have you also considered posting over at the Benzworld.org or PeachParts MB forums? Both of them have specific, performance-oriented threads that are "stickys" in various sections and lots of folks with money to pursue those performance passions in the "right" way.
I posted what looks to be a clean '93 400E yesterday with under 60k on the odo. It's a lot cheaper than a $60k car loan. You might spend the rest looking for room in the engine bay for twin "hair dryers" and associated plumbing though, not to mention developing a brain to make it all work. But hey, it's only the bank's money.
Cheers,
maw
Good points all around. Here's some more pot stirring:
1) Are you saying the Brabus is an underperformer based on the claimed power output (450hp/489tq), or based on the acceleration numbers? The engine power is pretty decent IMO, although I agree the acceleration data was definitely sub-par for that particular test. Or, are you just hung up on the $50k cost for the full package (remember, the wheels/tires were likely $10k, the brakes $10k, etc - it wasn't a $50k motor).
2) Making lots of power and putting it in a chassis that can't handle it is mostly a waste of time and money, and can be downright dangerous. I've seen plenty of 600hp paint shakers at the dragstrip which are plenty fast for a 1/4 mile in a straight line, but don't ask them to turn a corner, or stop, or have functional climate control, or nice stereo, etc. The Brabus will go, turn, stop, and oh yeah it can manage close to 200mph on the autobahn. It's a fully engineered package, not just a motor. Yes, that level of performance is a yawner today, but what other cars, from any manufacturer, back in 1997 were in the same league for a similar cost? Anyone? Bueller? 200mph sedans are a pretty small market segment.
3) The M120 7.3L (AMG, Brabus) and 7.4L (RENNtech) was usually rated around 525-575hp depending on the modification level. One was rated 585hp (Car & Driver, March 1997 and August 1998). I only heard of a single, custom RENNtech 7.4L that was over 600hp but I can't find the info on it... think it was somewhere in the 600-610hp range, it was a one-off custom in an R129, IIRC? Pagani seems to have access to the magic pixie dust to extract even more power from the M120.
The Pagani Huayra engine is based on the M275/285 turbo V12s. It is most notable in that it carries its own designation of M158, and is used in no other vehicle, MB, Maybach, or AMG. It is the M158. It is mentioned in a hushed and revered tone whenever one attends any kind of AMG centered training. They are seriously proud of it in a quiet manner...
Last edited:
You can get a good used 5.0L M119 (1993-1995 vintage, with LH injection) for around $1000 nowadays. How about you pick one up and report what you're able to get out of it on the dyno after tweaking, and what the cost would be to duplicate it?Not saying the Brabus is an under achiever by any means OTHER than it's HP/$ ... Engines are air pumps, nothing magical about them. The tricks to getting them the way they are, are NOT told correctly by magazines and most forums. The people who practice the black magic, need to keep their jobs
Gerry, I was thinking we should move most of these posts into a separate thread, but still in the M119 engine subforum. I'm on the fence though, a chunk of the discussion is still related to the Brabus. Thoughts?
Do what you need to on this, Mr. Moderator !!You can get a good used 5.0L M119 (1993-1995 vintage, with LH injection) for around $1000 nowadays. How about you pick one up and report what you're able to get out of it on the dyno after tweaking, and what the cost would be to duplicate it?
Gerry, I was thinking we should move most of these posts into a separate thread, but still in the M119 engine subforum. I'm on the fence though, a chunk of the discussion is still related to the Brabus. Thoughts?
The Pagani Huayra engine is based on the M275/285 turbo V12s. It is most notable in that it carries its own designation, and is used in no other vehicle, MB, Maybach, or AMG. It is the M158. It is mentioned in a hushed and revered tone whenever one attends any kind of AMG centered training. They are seriously proud of it in a quiet manner...
They should be proud of the sound alone. For that, and the Zonda. You know how I feel about those M120's, Klink...
maw
Responses, 1) I'm simply hung up on the HP/$, and only continue to respond, when people are like "why are you continuing?" lol. Not saying the Brabus is an under achiever by any means OTHER than it's HP/$...
2) I put a 650 horsepower 418 windsor in a 1982 mustang GT, with stock suspension, that thing was hilariously terrifying. I could do a burnout at 80miles per hour.
Engines are air pumps, nothing magical about them. The tricks to getting them the way they are, are NOT told correctly by magazines and most forums. The people who practice the black magic, need to keep their jobs
And to finally respond to the "coyote" thread, it took almost 100 posts before it was mentioned. And then another 30 or so to be re-mentioned. The "thousands of hours on the dyno," is in reference to developing a complete new engine from the ground up, or how to make their copycat work LOL. As I stated, it's the tuner's job to find the compromises, and that is not in thousands of hours, unless you're on a nascar team.
Seriously though, we can post on this thread until the forum breaks, or we could just talk STRAIGHT UP M119 performance in a new thread?
I have great respect for any one with great mechanical abilities. I've built a few engines and restored cars, but I do not consider myself and engine builder or a mechanic for that matter. I generally end up doing everything at least twice, it takes me three times as long and I usually break four unrelated items in the process. I am a civil engineer and can make your shit go down hill and even up hill if it needs to, but I am all thumbs as a mechanic.
There are some very, very qualified people on this forum whom I envy their mechanical abilities, knowledge and greatly appreciate their patience with my constant questions.
Does it count if I intended it as a yoink?
When anyone talks American V8 stuff and qoutes numbers, I think they need to watch Jay Leno's video on the 6.3. Discussion in part on how the MB does advertised speeds out of the box- reliably.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct-KlbvGXgo
[youtube]Ct-KlbvGXgo[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct-KlbvGXgo
[youtube]Ct-KlbvGXgo[/youtube]
