-
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
M119 Inlet Manifold- Real Serious Modifications or Ditch it completely for an 8 x T/B custom set-up
- Thread starter HOFF
- Start date
I think if you look at the MB specs, the valves are pretty much 3-angle from the factory.
It is pretty common practice to back cut the valves. You blue dye the valves and get the contact pattern and start a bit lower. I've done them with a file and the valve chucked in the drill press before. You can taper the valve from the contact pattern all the way back to the valve stem. This is "tulip valve". Pretty easy on a sunn valve grinder... Heck even my KOHLER has these done=0) They need to have the contact toward the top any how which gives you the biggest effective diameter.
Michael
It is pretty common practice to back cut the valves. You blue dye the valves and get the contact pattern and start a bit lower. I've done them with a file and the valve chucked in the drill press before. You can taper the valve from the contact pattern all the way back to the valve stem. This is "tulip valve". Pretty easy on a sunn valve grinder... Heck even my KOHLER has these done=0) They need to have the contact toward the top any how which gives you the biggest effective diameter.
Michael
CNC porting sounds quite extreme, Multiangle valve seat/R-seat improve quite much and important to inlet valves is the back cut: http://johnmaherracing.com/tech-talk/3-angle-valve-job/
It can but the seat angle should match the head. I know this from running the big Pontiac round port motors. Nothing screws up flow on those heads like dong a multi angle valve job with a 45 seat. With a Chevy head the 45 seat angle is the way to go ( three angle 30/45/60) but that 45 seat angle really screws the flow up on a Pontiac head ( 15/30/45 for the 3 angle).
Not familiar with Volvos or Potiacs- but MB's utilize 3 angle valve jobs from the factory. They would be by american racing standards "blue printed" from the factory. The end-to end rod balance, piston weights etc. Most low rpm motors it is customary to do 30 degree valve jobs on the INTAKE. From my limited experience, it makes a noticeable difference- but not huge. Same for doing 6 angles instead of 3. It is noticeable as in maybe 3-5% when we did them on 4 and 6 cylinders.
M
M
Seat angles can matter a LOT with some heads and you have to under stand what that particular design likes or you may hurt yourself. And for references I shifted my 4.25 inch stroke 455 or 462 cubic inch Pontiac's at between 5500 and 7 K RPM depending on the cam heads and what I had in the bottom end so these were not lower RPM engines. Using a 45 degree seat angles on any factory Pontiac head decreases power noticeably.
From everything that has been said on the M-119 design it seems unusually fickle. All headers loosing hp as stated here is a good example as there is just no way on earth that will be true over those log manifolds with a proper tuned design. It's evident that this engine must be really fickle on this stuff in that so far we have not seen increases of at the least 15% over the factory log design manifolds.
Last edited:
http://www.w124performance.com/service/w124CD1/Program/Engine/119/05-2800.pdf
M119 valves, for me I can see just 45 degree angle for seat.
M119 valves, for me I can see just 45 degree angle for seat.
I just looked through all 62 photos and read the captions, and also read some of the full article (very long, lots of good info). You are correct, the Coyote engine is so similar to the M119, it isn't funny at all. Almost like they took an M119 engine and copied it, not that it was a bad thing, lol.
Impressive that Mercedes had many of these "new" innovations on the M119 over 25 years ago. Example - the 'poor man's direct injection' described in photo #49.
Some basic data is copied below:
2011 Coyote 5.0
92.2mm bore, 92.8mm stroke
150.7mm rod (1.62 rod/stroke ratio)
412 hp @ 6,500 rpm (82.4 HP/L)
390 lb-ft @ 4,250 rpm
2015 Coyote 5.0
435 hp @ 6,500 rpm (87 HP/L)
400 lb-ft @ 4,250 rpm
M119.974 5.0
96.5mm bore, 85.0mm stroke
149.0mm rod (1.75 rod/stroke ratio)
322 hp @ 5,600 rpm (64.4 HP/L)
347 lb-ft @ 3,900 rpm
342 hp @ 5,750 rpm (68.4 HP/L) - E50 AMG, M119.980
354 lb-ft @ 3,750 rpm - E50 AMG, M119.980
What got my attention was the caption of photo #3, below. There is nothing simple about engine design. The Coyote makes 82hp per liter not just from the intake manifold design, it's the whole package with everything tuned to work in harmony. You can't just expect to fiddle with one part of the M119 and magically extract another 15+hp per liter. Now if you redesign the intake, modify the heads, change the camshafts, replace the crank/rods/pistons with lighter weight components, and use completely different engine management... sure, it can be done, and Ford proved it with the Coyote. But the cost would be insane, and we're back to just getting a used M113 kompressor motor instead.
"Many thousands of dyno hours are required to develop a new engine, a process that continues 24 hours a day, typically six days per week."
More importantly from the Coyote team, "And that's only half the story, because the team didn't just focus on the intake ports ... it was designed as a system; to work with the intake manifold ... It was designed from the valve to the plenum, and not as separate pieces as is often the case because of the way things turn out."
Last edited:
Check out this tidbit from the Coyote article:
Interesting note #1: The Coyote engineers found that tubular headers were worth 6hp and 15tq vs iron manifolds, at twice the cost: Six. Horse. Power. On a 400hp engine, no less. Maybe AMG and Brabus weren't crazy for using iron manifolds after all?
Interesting note #2: The 2011 Coyote produces 82.4 hp/liter. The updated 2015 motor bumps this to 87 hp/liter. By comparison, the Mercedes normally-aspirated 32v motor used in the 2010 AMG E63 (M156 engine) produces 83.5 hp/liter, 518hp from 6.2L for the 2010 model. Ditto for torque numbers (about equal between early Coyote and M156, per liter).
Interesting note #3: The Coyote has HP/TQ peaks separated by 2250rpm. For comparison, the E50 AMG M119 is 2000rpm; the standard 5.0L M119 is 1700rpm. The AMG M156 separation is only 1600rpm.
EDIT: 2015 Coyote updates are outlined at this link.
Advantages to TiVCT [Twin independent Variable Cam Timing] are immense, and the Coyote would not come close to its impressively wide powerband, high peak power, and fuel economy without it. With TiVCT, the Coyote torque and horsepower peaks are separated by 2,250 rpm, whereas the Three-Valve 4.6 peaks are 1,750 rpm apart using variable cam timing on a single cam. The 4.6 Two-Valve peaks are but 1,200 rpm apart with fixed cam timing, and the venerable pushrod 5.0 H.O. peaks are separated by a mere 1,000 rpm.
While cam timing is locked into a base mode during some engine modes, namely start and WOT, the rest of the time the cam timing can be all over the map. The engine management computer runs numerous algorithms to determine where to position each cam independently of the others. ... Cam timing can be varied up to 50 crankshaft degrees, and the change made in just 0.2 second. The engineers have a field day with TiVCT, noting they can dial in more valve overlap than the raciest conventional cam or run minimal go-to-church valve timing. Adam explained ... "We almost valve loft - it's really close! We basically go to zero force over the nose, but it doesn't actually come unglued."
Certainly the end result is impressive. "Torque is almost 400 lb-ft out of 5.0 liters; no one else comes close. And it's these type of things that help - the intake runner lengths, the port volumes-because we could have gone with a super-short intake and sold out all the torque to go for peak power. It's those small details, the TiVCT, those are the things that let us get that kind of torque," Adam elaborated.
Interesting note #1: The Coyote engineers found that tubular headers were worth 6hp and 15tq vs iron manifolds, at twice the cost: Six. Horse. Power. On a 400hp engine, no less. Maybe AMG and Brabus weren't crazy for using iron manifolds after all?
Interesting note #2: The 2011 Coyote produces 82.4 hp/liter. The updated 2015 motor bumps this to 87 hp/liter. By comparison, the Mercedes normally-aspirated 32v motor used in the 2010 AMG E63 (M156 engine) produces 83.5 hp/liter, 518hp from 6.2L for the 2010 model. Ditto for torque numbers (about equal between early Coyote and M156, per liter).
Interesting note #3: The Coyote has HP/TQ peaks separated by 2250rpm. For comparison, the E50 AMG M119 is 2000rpm; the standard 5.0L M119 is 1700rpm. The AMG M156 separation is only 1600rpm.
EDIT: 2015 Coyote updates are outlined at this link.
Attachments
Last edited:
I've got to do some playing with flow software to get a better handle on the effects of the turning... but by introducing the TB @ center, the 2.8 liter is about 1/2 the normal size- but it only has to flow 1/2 the air to each side.
The place I'm starting with is:
www.profblairandassociates.com
Cool software modeling of engine.. not sure what the the true limitation is on these motors.
What do ppl want the torque peak to be ideally? 4000/4200/4500/4800??
M
The place I'm starting with is:
www.profblairandassociates.com
Cool software modeling of engine.. not sure what the the true limitation is on these motors.
What do ppl want the torque peak to be ideally? 4000/4200/4500/4800??
M
Dave, yea I guess the 928 gt was 5.4 liters. They did nothing other than a tune up and cam belts.
I think extrude honing was the rage in the 90s, but the m119 w a 40 mm diameter was about perfect for a 6.0. I think they need more of a taper, w velocity stacks. 5-7 degrees is what I'm thinking.
Maybe I can scan the engine bay and get a height w respect to the hood. Have to sweet talk the toy flings which are trained on the software. Leno featureed on his videos.
M
So looking at the 928 32 valve round port head:
Intake @0.400(and 0.450) =267 cfm
Exhaust @0.40 (0.45) =223 cfm
Previously posted was 119.960 180/150 cfm. So, I would say they are in need of some porting work unless the 970's are significant improvement over the 960's.
Hoff your assumption of VE=100% is pretty good with a 4 Valve head. I see Coyote exceeds 100% most of the time, but probably not by much since they don't give a number=0)
I pick these because the 10-10.5mm is most likely camshaft upgrade lift range. I think Dave said the big Renntech cam was 11mm?
Intake @0.400(and 0.450) =267 cfm
Exhaust @0.40 (0.45) =223 cfm
Previously posted was 119.960 180/150 cfm. So, I would say they are in need of some porting work unless the 970's are significant improvement over the 960's.
Hoff your assumption of VE=100% is pretty good with a 4 Valve head. I see Coyote exceeds 100% most of the time, but probably not by much since they don't give a number=0)
I pick these because the 10-10.5mm is most likely camshaft upgrade lift range. I think Dave said the big Renntech cam was 11mm?
What kind of flow bench? you cannot compare numbers directly without knowing what is the height of water. My M119 is measured with 25" here is the conversion map between different flow bench:
https://www.centuryperformance.com/forum/showthread.php/39-Cylinder-Head-Airflow-Conversion-Chart
Just letting you guys know this topic is still alive
I was talking to Martin Davis who is the executions Manager (not chopping heads off -hehe) at "Power Throttles Ltd" in the UK back towards the end of January
http://www.atpowerthrottles.com/beta/
They are working on developing an 8 x T/Body set up for the M119 in conjunction with their contact in Japan
Martin's comments in his last email to me-
Kim,
Thanks for your enquiry and apologies for the delay in response due to our high workload currently.
The M119 Project was originally a bespoke design for a customer, who never completed the validation process or provided adequate feedback.
Because of this the product has been unavailable for sale for the majority of the last two years.
However, we have recently revived the development with a partner based in Japan and are awaiting some parts sent from them to improve the baseline data.
The majority of the remaining issues centre around optimizing flow of the water passages in the head.
I believe that once we have received the new data from our partner, and have revised the design and sent a new product to them for their validation,
Then we will have an excellent product ready for commercial release, but I would not expect this to happen before March at the earliest,
I am also interested in the M117 engine, and wonder if you could provide a brief insight into the differences between the two,
Many Thanks,
Martin Davis,
Executions Manager
AT POWER THROTTLES LTD
9 Chestnut Drive,
Wymondham,
Norfolk,
NR18 9SB
Tel: +44 (0)1953 857800
Direct +44 (0)1953 857807
www.atpowerthrottles.com
So i will keep be keeping in contact with Martin and see what unfolds in the coming months
I was talking to Martin Davis who is the executions Manager (not chopping heads off -hehe) at "Power Throttles Ltd" in the UK back towards the end of January
http://www.atpowerthrottles.com/beta/
They are working on developing an 8 x T/Body set up for the M119 in conjunction with their contact in Japan
Martin's comments in his last email to me-
Kim,
Thanks for your enquiry and apologies for the delay in response due to our high workload currently.
The M119 Project was originally a bespoke design for a customer, who never completed the validation process or provided adequate feedback.
Because of this the product has been unavailable for sale for the majority of the last two years.
However, we have recently revived the development with a partner based in Japan and are awaiting some parts sent from them to improve the baseline data.
The majority of the remaining issues centre around optimizing flow of the water passages in the head.
I believe that once we have received the new data from our partner, and have revised the design and sent a new product to them for their validation,
Then we will have an excellent product ready for commercial release, but I would not expect this to happen before March at the earliest,
I am also interested in the M117 engine, and wonder if you could provide a brief insight into the differences between the two,
Many Thanks,
Martin Davis,
Executions Manager
AT POWER THROTTLES LTD
9 Chestnut Drive,
Wymondham,
Norfolk,
NR18 9SB
Tel: +44 (0)1953 857800
Direct +44 (0)1953 857807
www.atpowerthrottles.com
So i will keep be keeping in contact with Martin and see what unfolds in the coming months
Great to hear,
I have been writing and talking with him also. As an update, I have a set of used 119.97X heads to test.
FYI reviewing much of the above comments, I see back-cutting which while helpful- you don't see the gains with 4V as you do with 2V designs.
I'm getting my used heads cleaned Pressure tested/flatness checked. Then, they are off to the flow bench to understand better what low lying fruit are on the tree. I hope to get a baseline with manifold (thanks Jono!), then play with the heads a bit.
I believe all Pro-M's MAF calibrations are with the later style HFM Bosch sensors and no the earlier style we have. Calibration gives you points on a curve- still need to be able to get that into the LH computer chip.
FYI my friend's HD motorcycle. When the tuner started, was 62 hp and left ~90.5 hp.
All these games take time and $$. So don't expect to see it at the next meet.
Heck, I think I need tires again anyway=( And rear brake pads due to traction control.
Sincerely,
Michael
I have been writing and talking with him also. As an update, I have a set of used 119.97X heads to test.
FYI reviewing much of the above comments, I see back-cutting which while helpful- you don't see the gains with 4V as you do with 2V designs.
I'm getting my used heads cleaned Pressure tested/flatness checked. Then, they are off to the flow bench to understand better what low lying fruit are on the tree. I hope to get a baseline with manifold (thanks Jono!), then play with the heads a bit.
I believe all Pro-M's MAF calibrations are with the later style HFM Bosch sensors and no the earlier style we have. Calibration gives you points on a curve- still need to be able to get that into the LH computer chip.
FYI my friend's HD motorcycle. When the tuner started, was 62 hp and left ~90.5 hp.
All these games take time and $$. So don't expect to see it at the next meet.
Heck, I think I need tires again anyway=( And rear brake pads due to traction control.
Sincerely,
Michael
HOFF, I don't know what have you been talking with AT Power, but they have M119 45mm ITB kit from over a year ago... Here is an actual picture of it, posted on their facebook page on February 6th 2014, and info, as what they told me over a year ago..
The price for this kit is £3036.00 + VAT & Shipping, the kit is provided complete with:
'Shatfless' throttles, Adapters and flange plate, 360 deg swivel water outlets, Linkage Center Pull Spindle, Aluminium Fuel Rails, TPS Shaft and Adaptor.
The price for this kit is £3036.00 + VAT & Shipping, the kit is provided complete with:
'Shatfless' throttles, Adapters and flange plate, 360 deg swivel water outlets, Linkage Center Pull Spindle, Aluminium Fuel Rails, TPS Shaft and Adaptor.
He said they were building a custom order one for a client back then but the client bailed when is came time to cough up some cash (usual story)
So perhaps that was the custom prototype they designed back then? I gathered they were working on making the design street friendly in conjunction with their Japan contact?
I went off the idea anyway as you can see cost just gets way out of hand and it is not justifiable/logical unless you are doing all the work yourself and have access to fabricators/tuners etc and can do it on the cheap.
I have gone back and focused on the M117 engine with the newly released FrankenCIS ECU Kit and have since purchased that and learning all the tuning options etc. Mike at Dkubus has put literally thousands of hrs into the fine tuning of the M117 with this product and is getting great torque results. I have been studying/learning his tuning skills - being an ex AMG employee and racing background/high end fabrication for racing components he is very knowledgeable with mapping
So perhaps that was the custom prototype they designed back then? I gathered they were working on making the design street friendly in conjunction with their Japan contact?
I went off the idea anyway as you can see cost just gets way out of hand and it is not justifiable/logical unless you are doing all the work yourself and have access to fabricators/tuners etc and can do it on the cheap.
I have gone back and focused on the M117 engine with the newly released FrankenCIS ECU Kit and have since purchased that and learning all the tuning options etc. Mike at Dkubus has put literally thousands of hrs into the fine tuning of the M117 with this product and is getting great torque results. I have been studying/learning his tuning skills - being an ex AMG employee and racing background/high end fabrication for racing components he is very knowledgeable with mapping
I see AT Power Throttles in the UK have re-visited their custom 8 x ITB set up for a client in japan as they posted them back up on their facebook website in Dec with pics again
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=918916064828384&id=138688612851137
They did advise myself last year they were building a set for a Japan order
Wonder what M119 powered car they bolted bolted up to? Street or track
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=918916064828384&id=138688612851137
They did advise myself last year they were building a set for a Japan order
Wonder what M119 powered car they bolted bolted up to? Street or track
Attachments
That is Niibe's car in Japan. He got one of the last 2 crate motors direct from AMG in Germany back around 2005... complete long block, zero miles, for something crazy like $4k USD. I remember because I almost bought one, but at the time didn't know what else was needed (EZL? LH? etc) and was concerned I wouldn't be able to source the rest of the stuff required to make it work (and, the eBay pics were small, fuzzy, and nobody knew the seller was Mercedes). 
Anyway - if you poke around his Faceplant pics, you can see his highly-modified engine is now putting out 300kw to the wheels, or ~400hp. Depending on what powertrain loss you use, that translates into roughly 490hp at the crank. Not bad for a factory intake with those long "restrictive" runners, eh?
Anyway - if you poke around his Faceplant pics, you can see his highly-modified engine is now putting out 300kw to the wheels, or ~400hp. Depending on what powertrain loss you use, that translates into roughly 490hp at the crank. Not bad for a factory intake with those long "restrictive" runners, eh?
For sure that is Niibe's Chances are, if its totally insane and expensive, he has done it and done it right. They probably go well with his DLC coated valve train and pistons.
I also believe this is his blog. I don't know anyone else with a CFRP roof and louvers that look like that. Might want to get in touch with him. Super nice guy and his English is good.
http://mercedesbenznetcom.blog81.fc2.com/
I also believe this is his blog. I don't know anyone else with a CFRP roof and louvers that look like that. Might want to get in touch with him. Super nice guy and his English is good.
http://mercedesbenznetcom.blog81.fc2.com/
Attachments
Last edited:
we'll have a set of those here for the track rat as soon as ATPower is done making them..
What could be done, without changeing almost Everything? I did this cut to my lower manifold/plenum to see the shape of things.
To open up the Runners and polish the Surface inside, I Think is a good idea, also the plenum volume can be enlarged.
I made some messurements and found the limits to lower the bottom of the plenum non exists. If however the upper part of the
plenum is raised some 6mm, the space between the Runners where the rubber rings sit, it will be possible to add c:a 10mm
to the partition and make a larger plenum and also by that gain the distance TBA to bottom of the plenum wich is a bit narrow.
There is room enough to let the TBA to sit higher in the manifold, with alterations to the MAF/TBA Connection i.e.
not using the rubber sleave, the MAF will sitt upon the TBA and the assembly would not be any taller.
When I reacently was to visit the tuning shop and the "chip guy" programmer, he put forward the possibility to
enlarge the throttle body by turning it and making a new throttle disc and there may be 2mm to work with as it seem.
Considering the fact, 4.2-5.0- 6.0 and also 6.5 liters do breath through the same intake exept the different
runner dia, 4.2-5.0/6.0 and the HWA manifold Everything is oddly of the same size.
There will be more Pictures and explanation in due time...
To open up the Runners and polish the Surface inside, I Think is a good idea, also the plenum volume can be enlarged.
I made some messurements and found the limits to lower the bottom of the plenum non exists. If however the upper part of the
plenum is raised some 6mm, the space between the Runners where the rubber rings sit, it will be possible to add c:a 10mm
to the partition and make a larger plenum and also by that gain the distance TBA to bottom of the plenum wich is a bit narrow.
There is room enough to let the TBA to sit higher in the manifold, with alterations to the MAF/TBA Connection i.e.
not using the rubber sleave, the MAF will sitt upon the TBA and the assembly would not be any taller.
When I reacently was to visit the tuning shop and the "chip guy" programmer, he put forward the possibility to
enlarge the throttle body by turning it and making a new throttle disc and there may be 2mm to work with as it seem.
Considering the fact, 4.2-5.0- 6.0 and also 6.5 liters do breath through the same intake exept the different
runner dia, 4.2-5.0/6.0 and the HWA manifold Everything is oddly of the same size.
There will be more Pictures and explanation in due time...
Attachments
I think it could help if plenium volume can be increased. Some guy did this to M117 and results were good. This is link to benzword http://www.benzworld.org/forums/w126-s-se-sec-sel-sd/2786010-unleash-power-m117-968-16v-382hp.html.
Youre right Jouniu, that is my intention, in simple terms, by raising the TBA mating Surface i.e. the gasket flange, meaning the upper
part of the plenum. How? the "head room" for the TBA within the margin would allow the TBA to be raised ~ 10mm, that is possible
by cutting the four distance pieces wich make up the distance between the Runners, upper to lower, thats where the rubber sealing
rings sit.
By doing so, you will have some 15mm to add, thus enlarging the plenum quite a bit AND have more distance from the
butterfly valve to the plenum floor, that and the polishing/porting "down below" would probably make wonders, I Think.
More Pictures will come soon to show my thoughts...
part of the plenum. How? the "head room" for the TBA within the margin would allow the TBA to be raised ~ 10mm, that is possible
by cutting the four distance pieces wich make up the distance between the Runners, upper to lower, thats where the rubber sealing
rings sit.
By doing so, you will have some 15mm to add, thus enlarging the plenum quite a bit AND have more distance from the
butterfly valve to the plenum floor, that and the polishing/porting "down below" would probably make wonders, I Think.
More Pictures will come soon to show my thoughts...
Here are a few, it gives the estimate of the margin to play with. between Runners and the restraint bit, where the four screws
hold together the two pieces upper/lower, also what distance there is Before the TBA goes "into the roof" i.e. where it will
sit when the lower part/plenum is moved upwards. There will be, at least 15 maybe 20mm more to add to the bottom part.
All this was not initially why I opened the plenum, that was just to get a good look and also do the grinding/polishing so this
enlargement of the plenum, wich long ago was a topic, NIIBE for one, was talking about. Think it could not hurt the TBA sitting
higher,no problem as I am thinking of mating the MAF right on the TBA that will be without the rubber collar and that will compensate
for the added height of the assy and maintain roughly its original position to the aircleaner housing. You follow?
As I earlier was talking to the tuner/programmer, the big Q was IF the throttle dia would be too narrow, maybe so and if
there could be a last meassure and "bore the TBA" 1 or 2mm and make a new butterfly disc,,,,
hold together the two pieces upper/lower, also what distance there is Before the TBA goes "into the roof" i.e. where it will
sit when the lower part/plenum is moved upwards. There will be, at least 15 maybe 20mm more to add to the bottom part.
All this was not initially why I opened the plenum, that was just to get a good look and also do the grinding/polishing so this
enlargement of the plenum, wich long ago was a topic, NIIBE for one, was talking about. Think it could not hurt the TBA sitting
higher,no problem as I am thinking of mating the MAF right on the TBA that will be without the rubber collar and that will compensate
for the added height of the assy and maintain roughly its original position to the aircleaner housing. You follow?
As I earlier was talking to the tuner/programmer, the big Q was IF the throttle dia would be too narrow, maybe so and if
there could be a last meassure and "bore the TBA" 1 or 2mm and make a new butterfly disc,,,,
Attachments
Just want to point out that plenum volume and runner length are going to do different things a bit. Adding a spacer under the throttle body will increase plenum size a bit but I would say that you want to measure the plenum volume 1st. 1.5 times displacement is a generally good and accepted starting point. To big and you can get a bit lazy throttle response. Large plenums help top end in that the cylinder does not empty the plenum before it has a chance to recharge. So think about the RPM range and the volume of the plenum and the actual CFM flow you are theoretically getting. Throttle body size of course effects this a lot. But there is a balance and you want to keep velocity up as well. So to big and the air slows down and that is not good.
The spacer on the upper and lower halves at the runners are going to lenghten the runners which is going to change a few different things. Look at over length and I am betting that they are that long to hit the 2nd or 3rd wave resonance. You could actually rob power from the engine significantly by moving the runner length out of one of these frequencies.
Just food for thought.
The spacer on the upper and lower halves at the runners are going to lenghten the runners which is going to change a few different things. Look at over length and I am betting that they are that long to hit the 2nd or 3rd wave resonance. You could actually rob power from the engine significantly by moving the runner length out of one of these frequencies.
Just food for thought.
Yes, and the fact that it is the same "hardwear" for all capacities with the exeption of the Three different upper manifolda
namely, the 4.2, regular 5.0/E60 and we have the HWA manifold, came w the E50 and has 12% bigger runner area.
The plenum, TBA, air cleaner are all the same size:::
" Adding a spacer under the throttle body will increase plenum size a bit"
There will be NO spacer under the TBA, I did show that "gap"just
to explain how much room upwards there is for the TBA and the upper part of the lower Runners to be raised, in order to achieve
the enlarging of the lower part, or the plenum itself, see? I.E. the complete assembly, plenum together with the TBA as it is, This will
shorten the runner length some 10mm. We are talking 6liter here and there is no shortage of low end thrust and if this slightly does move
the powerband a bit higher up the revs, still it would be more usefull to have the extra breath and not run out of it.
If you do not create a totally new manifold there will be no use to go very "wild" in porting, caming, valvesize and so on.
I belive this porting, enlarging will be sufficient enough and make a needed part of a serious upgrading.
Do not forget the exhaust side of things, that will also be attended to BUT all this I am going through will follow the OEM
design, just altered as much as is possible within the boundarys i.e. they, AMG, BRABUS....could have done this, remember
AMG did make the new bigger upper manifold, they could have gone a bit more and constructed a new plenum also but
maybe at the time they were thinking, enough IS enough....
I am Confident this whole operation will take the 6liter well into 450hp,Ps and be in par with the 6.2 Carlson 6.5 (6.4) BRABUS
or even better, let's see about that.
Opening up this old topic, I completed recently the development of my own intake manifold for the supercharged M117 in my W123. The individual components are getting machined from big aluminum chunks and will be ready soon for assembly. In this case I put the large TB setup in favour over an itb setup since the TB is followed by a large plenum which received the air flow already "straightened" from the Intercooler and the reduced complexity. I think that the same layout for an NA application could work very well too. As long you convert to an efi system. A 119 version would be possible as well but then it make only sense to develop this once there is a market. Which I think is too small, also costs aren't that small either.
Small teaser, and don't wonder, the M117 has the asymmetric port spacing
Small teaser, and don't wonder, the M117 has the asymmetric port spacing
Attachments
Similar threads
Similar threads
