M119 WOT fuel enrichment questions

[400Eric]

It's past 4:00 AM so I'll have to get back to you guys later. I just wanted to thank you for your help and input. Dave, I E-mailed you just before I checked here so I didn't know about your new posts. I hope I don't cause any confusion. Mike, talk about your living coincidences! I just asked Dave in that same E-mail about the 5.0 brain possibility! Dave, could you share with us what you think about this here so others can see? Right now I'm getting 20MPG avg. in mixed driving (the traffic jams are the worst for MPG) but that's all I get out of my 88 and 89 M103 cars so I feel I'm doing alright. It's also what Car & Driver got out of their 93 400E in the 03/93 issue. Mike, I agree Dave is one of the sharpest guys around and told him so earlier in this thread and in that E-mail. (insert group hug here). We'll talk more later. Thanks again. Regards, Eric

[jhodg5ck]

Hmmmm.....722.6 transplant.. I've got the guy to build the .6 so it will handle over 700hp, the stand alone controller lined up.. Now I just need the time and $$$ to get the job done! .83 in 5th sure would open up some doors! Jonathan

[gsxr]

Eric, I have never tried to use a 5.0 LH module in a 4.2 engine. I do know that a 5.0 LH module on a 6.0 engine
works ok, but 20% of the power is missing. ;-) I have a feeling the 5.0 KH module either wouldn't work, or if it
did, the MPG could suffer (which isn't what you want to happen).

Jonathan, does the 722.6 have an overload protection switch, and gear position switch, same as the 722.3? The
124.036 CAN system needs both those inputs in order to function normally, even if there is a standalone controller
to make the 722.6 happy otherwise. Also, do you know if it will physically fit in a 124? That would be the ultimate
setup, with a 3.06 rear axle, the final drive in 5th would be 2.53, perfect for about 180mph with a 6.0L engine...

[jhodg5ck]

Yes, the .6 has both of those... are you sure it needs to OPS switch..? I've disabled that on some euro .3's whilst hunting down problems and it didn't make any difference in how the car ran...but granted that was a CISE system... I don't have dimensions on the .6, but I know people have made a gear vendors fit under a 126...take some re-shaping of the tunnel but if done w/ some care and primed/painted/insulated once done no one would be the wiser. Woo Hoo 180...!! I would Think w/ the right aero one could get a bit quicker seeing as the Hammer managed that w/ a 2.24 on a 1:1 final.. Jonathan

[omegabenz]

the Hammer managed that w/ a 2.24 on a 1:1 final.. Jonathan

at 187 mph, it was turning 5200 rpm. I think it ran out of horsepower...remember you need horsepower for top speed, and frontal area has a huge part in this. Maybe 10 cm^2 extra in the wrong place could require another 50-100 horsepower.

[jhodg5ck]

I had read AMG got 187 but I don't know if any of the magazines (@ least to my knowledge) got up that far..but you have better literature collection then I! But the frontal area/CD was why I was thinking body kit.. I know the Hammer was Quite slippery (.26??) esp for it's day..hell, that's still good even now! Drop the side view mirrors in favour of cameras while you're at it for just that little bit extra;-) Jonathan

[gsxr]

Jonathan, for top speed, you have to factor in the power curve, as well as the gearing, and tire size. The Hammer used
smaller tires, which changes the effetive gearing compared to a 500E. If you put the smaller tires on a 500E, the gears
would need to drop to about 2.70-2.65 to compensate for the tire size difference.

Anyway, a bone-stock 500E will pull to the 6400rpm redline and go about 162-164mph or so, despite being past the
power peak. Rumor is, that a strong 500E with 2.65 gears will still pull to the 6400rpm redline, at a top speed of about
172-174mph. Would it do the same with 2.47 gears? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. Several "tuner" cars with 6.0L
engines claimed top speeds of over 180mph, which would have required 2.47 (or taller!) gearing. There's a post on
the forum where I listed the specs for the E60, RENNtech E60, Brabus, and Carlsson. See data below.

All this top speed discussion is largely academic, since there's almost no place to legally explore those lmits in the USA....


AMG E60
displ. 5956 cc - 363 CI (+983 cc)
381 hp - 280 kW (+55 hp) @ 5500 rpm
580 Nm (+100 Nm) @ 3750 rpm
0 - 100 km 5.4 sec
250 km (limiter) (156mph)

Carlsson E60
displ. 6207 cc - 379 CI (+1234 cc)
425 hp - 313 kW (+99 hp) @ 5600 rpm
620 Nm (+140 Nm) @ 3700 rpm
0 - 100 km 5.4 sec
276 km/h (172mph)

Brabus E60
displ. 5956 cc - 363 CI (+983 cc)
408 hp - 300 kW (+82 hp) @ 5600 rpm
604 Nm (+124 Nm) @ 3800 rpm
0 - 100 km 5.3 sec
282 km/h (176mph)

RENNtech E60
displ. 6000 cc - 366 CI (+1027 cc)
440 hp - 326 kW (+114 hp) @ 6000 rpm
608 Nm (+128 Nm) @ 4500 rpm
0 - 100 km 4.4 sec
290 km/h (181mph)

[400Eric]

In the article that I'm sending to Dave (for him to post to his site so you all can see it), the Hammer in Car and Driver got 181.4 with 2.24 gearing and 215/45ZR-17s. Jonathan, I noticed your Hammer has 2.47s. Do you know if that was a running change or a previous owner swap or did you do it? Dave is right about top speed. It's hard to find a place these days to let these cars run free. Here I am talking about wanting 160 when I haven't even gone higher than 140 yet. My main focus is finding that extra 30 hp. for a quicker quarter mile time with a slightly higher top speed as a side benefit. The .6 would definitely be the best of all worlds and I can't wait for Jonathan to post the "how to" here when he is/you are done! It is sure not a trail I'm up for blazing. (I'll have to be a follower on that one!). Speaking of that 30 hp, since nobody will bless my purchase of a chip, how do I break it to Jim F? I already told him a month ago that I was going to buy his chip in about a week. Now I look like a flake. Regards, Flakey Eric

[400Eric]

BTW, since I've already done the headlight panel mod and exhaust work, I should already have gained about 15-20 hp right? which means I should only have about 10-15hp. to go right? Does anybody have any cheap 92 4.2 brains laying around? After reading the LH interchangability thread, I'm thinking a 92 140 4.2 brain will do as well. Thanks again for all this help/input guys. Regards Eric

[400Eric]

Personally I never want to own a car thats not a daily driver. There are plenty of cars in museums already, and DD doesn't mean anything its all about maintanence.

I agree whole heartedly but I have a 2.5 year old boy who is a cross between Bam Bam and Bart Simpson. Trust me, There isn't a 500E lover on this planet who would want this kid anywhere near any 500E. (Even a good 2 year old is still a 2 year old!) I have a 1 year old girl as well but she is an angel. Regards, Eric

[gsxr]

BTW, since I've already done the headlight panel mod and exhaust work, I should already have gained about 15-20 hp right? which means I should only have about 10-15hp. to go right? Does anybody have any cheap 92 4.2 brains laying around? After reading the LH interchangability thread, I'm thinking a 92 140 4.2 brain will do as well. Thanks again for all this help/input guys. Regards Eric

Eric, what exactly did you do on the exhaust side? And was the intake mod just the panel below the headlight?

About the LH modules: The 1992 models had WOT enrichment, which went away starting in 1993. The 1993-95 modules lost 7hp compared to the modules with (was 322hp, dropped to 315hp, on the 5.0L). However, the 4.2L engines gained power in 1993 due to an increase in compression ratio from 10:1 to 11:1. The 1992 models had 268hp, while 1993-up has 275hp. Adding the 1992 module will add additional power, boosting things to about 290hp. It's a shame that the 5.0L engines never got the compression ratio increase.

[omegabenz]

In the article that I'm sending to Dave (for him to post to his site so you all can see it), the Hammer in Car and Driver got 181.4 with 2.24 gearing and 215/45ZR-17s.

Eric, I think that one was the 5.6L DOHC engine, not the 6.0L engine. If you send the article to dave or I, we will post it in the section for that. Thx.

Jono, Hammer Cd was .25, but .26 is pretty close

Dave, nice summary!

[jhodg5ck]

Yea, the C&D article was a 5.6... As for the 2.47 in my car..this is as it came from AMG.. The diff's were what ever you wanted from their selection (2.24 up to 3.27 or there about). My SEL AMG is a 2.82 as is the customers Hammer w/ a 5.6 that's in the shop right now. I have a 93 E420 brain here as an aside :-P Also have an E60 brain but that's in the E60...... You should come out to Atlanta...85 will open up nicely for you from time to time...Was @ a gearing limited 160 in my 560 AMG a few weeks ago...that was Entertaining..esp. for the E46 M3 cab that was trying to keep up and for the 928 that I went by @ over 2X his speed :-P Good Times! Jonathan

[400Eric]

Eric, what exactly did you do on the exhaust side? And was the intake mod just the panel below the headlight?

About the LH modules: On the 5.0L engines, the 1992 models had WOT enrichment, which went away starting in 1993,
this lost 7hp (was 322hp, dropped to 315hp). However, the 4.2L engines gained power in 1993. I have no idea if the
4.2L has WOT enrichment on some years and not others, but the 1992 models had 268hp, while 1993-up has 275hp.
This is totally backwards compared to the 5.0L engine. I don't know if the 1992 module will add power or not, and it
will be very hard to tell unless you have a dragstrip nearby where you can do some very accurate testing.

BTW, I'll try to answer your email today, sorry for the delay!

This is going to sound totally cobb. The exhaust mod is the removal of the resonator and muffler replaced with a nice Y-pipe and 3" exhaust pipe all the way to the back. Stock cats. the odd thing is, this car has no pre-cats--- isn't it supposed to? Everthing looks stock-- there's even heat shielding on the pipes. Item two, yes, the headlight panels. As I said at the top of this thread, I suspect the increase in compression the 4.2 received for 93 masked the loss caused by the WOT fuel trimming. I've read that a 1 point rise in compression should net a 4% gain in power which should give us 279hp. So maybe the fuel trimming that cost the 5.0 7hp. cost the 4.2 4 hp? (More actually if you factor in the increased breathing we are adding now). You don't need to worry about the E-mail-- It's better we talk here so all can share in the info. Regards, Eric

[400Eric]

[quote=omegabenz;49164]Eric, I think that one was the 5.6L DOHC engine, not the 6.0L engine. If you send the article to dave or I, we will post it in the section for that. Thx.




The article is already on it's way to Dave along with another one on the Lotec M103 turbo and one more article to add to his existing Toluene info. The Hammer is definitely a 6.0(5956cc 363ci) C+D pubb. 12/87 American emissions legal. The Lotec was a German market car. Regards Eric