Eric, you are focusing on one specific are (power output) where MB was looking at many other variables. Their intent was not necessarily to have the "new" engine make more power per liter than the previous generation. OKfine, it's "flawed" in that power delivery slipped, but it met MB's design goals at the time. I consider flawed to translate into failures, and by that definition, the M113 is no more flawed than the M119.
That is exactly my point, and why the very existence of the M113 riles me. MB, a company that usually set it's goals very high, obviously set them much lower on this one. That is what is so sad to me.
Also, if you use a 20% correction factor, our 400's would be making ~300hp at the crank, and my 500 would be ~350hp at the crank. I just find those numbers a little too optimistic.
My 400E's performance at the track, hauling over 3800 pounds and lugging 2.24 gears, makes a VERY convincing argument that it IS in fact making at least 300 hp! That Volvo S60 R that I repeatedly spanked makes over 300 hp and 325 ft #s of tq, is lighter, has better gearing, and has a SIX SPEED AUTO TRANS! (Video of one of our races is in the "Mercedes-Volvo Crew" video posted in my drag racing thread.)
I'm not even sure 18% is conservative enough (could be more like 16% or 15%) but I still use 18% as a happy medium.
P.S. Note to GSXR -- I always used the 18% number because that's what I got from Carl Genberg when I was dyno-testing my nitrous-oxide system vs. stock vs. his tests. I used that number to be consistent with his calculations. Elevation and such was close enough between him and me that it didn't warrant those adjustments. I agree though -- 16% my well be a more accurate number, but I think the 16-18% range is just about right.
OK, let's take that 2000 S430: 210.9 divided by .82 = 257.2 hp. 210.9 divided by .80 = 263.6 hp. Now this is an engine that was rated at 275 hp, using a trans that was touted as needing less power to drive than our own trans does. Now let's try the C43: 241.3 divided by .82 = 294.3 hp. 241.3 divided by .80 = 301.625 hp! Pretty darn close to their 302 hp rating! Now either 20% is the more accurate driveline loss number (which is why it is so widely used) or MB and AMG were flat out lying about the power that their engines actually produced!
You guys also have to remember that the power that it takes to actually drive a trans doesn't go up all that much even if the engine in front of it makes a lot more power (as is the case with N2O usage). That would explain why on a more powerful application, 18% may be the number to use, because in these instances the trans is taking only a little more power to drive it, while the engine is making a lot more power. This leads to the driveline loss percentage changing because the trans is now robbing less of the engine's power, as viewed as a percentage. You can't just take ONE driveline loss number and say that it applies to ALL engines, ALL transmissions, ALL cars, ALL applications and ALL situations.
On a side note, I don't trust those C43 dyno numbers, check out the RPM for peak torque. Something ain't right there. Unless you can view the complete dyno graph (which we can't - the links on that page take you to the wrong page), you can't verify that the dyno pull went low enough to capture the actual torque peak.
Now that you mention that, I seem to remember that on both the C36 and the C43, AMG modified their intake manifolds, doing away with the flapper valves, taking away their "active" feature, to improve top end power at the expense of low end torque. That would explain the low torque production, and the high RPM torque peak as well. And didn't the C43 also have hotter cams? That would also hurt low RPM torque production, and move the torque peak higher. Let's also don't forget that Roger just posted here in this thread on the previous page that his C43 is very rev happy, which is admittedly not how regular 4.3s behave. One can conclude from that that AMG did indeed move the powerband higher, which is pretty much what you would expect them to do. So that high torque peak should come as no surprise. That hp peak of 6230 RPM is also proof that AMG moved the powerband higher.
I seriously doubt that dyno shop started that run at over 5,000 RPM. ALL of the other Benz dyno runs save for one (the E63 run, which is also a high strung engine), reflect much broader powerbands than that.
Well, like you said, by your judgements in both technology and output, the M103 was very definitely flawed as compared to its predecessor twincam, fourtwo-valve, higher-revving M110 predecessor. By the mid-1980s, there were PLENTY of twincam engines out there, yet MB made the decision to revert/return to a single-cam, two-valve design.
I have avoided being drug into your M103/M110/M104 observations because it's an obvious ploy to rile and incite me because you know how much I love my two M103 cars. That's how and why I even missed that you called the M110 a 4 valve engine! (Shame, shame Uncle Gerry!) It's just another diversion from the overwhelming fact that the M113 was already outdated the day it was released. If you want to start a new thread on the various I6s, I'll engage you there. (Please post a link.)
Of course, MB also stuck with recirculating-ball steering far longer than most all of its competitors, who have been using rack and pinion steering for decades. R&P provides far better steering preciseness and feel as compared to recirculating ball. So I guess the steering on our E500Es is also quite flawed (as compared to all major competitors) by your measure too, Eric.
This is an invalid argument. Another one that is just grasping at straws, diverting attention away from the fact that I am right on the M119 vs. M113 argument. This is also how threads end up off topic. Recirculating-ball steering systems are more durable than rack and pinion steering systems are. This is why trucks didn't get R&Ps until decades after most cars received them, and why really big trucks STILL don't have them. Now please don't argue with me on this one. Again, I am speaking as someone who used to run his own 600+ vehicle dismantling and recycling yard. We sold LOTS of R&Ps, we didn't sell HARDLY ANY recirculating-ball steering boxes. (Even in heavily abused trucks, they generally don't wear out!) This is also why replacement "racks" have always been readily available at your average local corner auto parts store while replacement steering boxes and/or steering gears are not and never have been available there. I am GLAD that MB didn't switch to R&Ps until they absolutely had to. (And once MB did make the switch to R&P steering, they never went back to an older design.)
There is nothing wrong with the M113 and its 3-valve design. It's not my preference to the M119, but I certainly wouldn't reject a car on the fact that it had one. I'd venture to say that 95% of all owners of these motors either have never known they were a 3-valve design, nor did/do they care. All they care about is that it has adequate power, it goes when and where they want it to, it's easy on the gas, and it doesn't break down. Your multiple layers of technicalities are .... well ..... pretty much side arguments to split hairs at this point.
You two are the ones splitting hairs and missing the big picture. You guys don't need me to tell you that sites like this are geared towards enthusiasts. Taken in that light, it's not so hard to believe that a member on such a site would view these engines from an enthusiast's point of view. Viewed from that perspective, the M119 wins and the M113 loses. So we do agree that the M119 is superior in the ways that matter to us enthusiasts, so what's with all of this other stuff?
Did you not start this thread to discuss and compare the two engines? That is what I've been doing. Please don't spend so much time focusing on what you feel is my "flawed" choice of words. It's just schematics.
Regards, Eric
