Mercedes goes to twin turbo V8 for 63 AMG's - Specs

Printable View

03-01-2010, 11:51 AM
Sticky

Mercedes goes to twin turbo V8 for 63 AMG's - Specs

Going to be kind of boring now with everyone basically having a twin turbo V8. The interesting part is that it has 544 hp and an optional power pack for 571. However, the torque jumps almost 100 pound-feet with the power pack from 544 to 660! :o Engine is also down in size to 5.5 liters:

Quote:

We're here in Affalterbach, Germany this morning for a Mercedes-Benz AMG tech day ahead of the Geneva Motor Show, and while we have yet to get a tour of the facilities, we already have some news – the 2011 S63 AMG will receive the company's all-new 5.5-liter bi-turbo V8 engine, as well as the SpeedShift MCT seven-speed gearbox already on offer in the E63 and SL63.

Even though it's down on displacement compared to the outgoing 6.2-liter engine, the M 157 generates more power (544 horsepower in 'standard' mode, 571 with the optional performance package) and more torque (586 pound-feet or 660 lb-ft. with the optional performance pack). And despite the change in engine size, the big sedan's S63 moniker will remain.

MB chairman of the board Volker Mornhinweg has also confirmed to Autoblog that the U.S. market will indeed receive start-stop technology despite the fact that its efficiency gains aren't really recognized by the EPA's fuel economy testing methodology. Even so, the user-defeatable fuel-saving measure ought to pay dividends in city traffic, which is important because cities like Los Angeles and New York are prominent AMG markets.

Despite offering an embarrassment of performance, the S63 will also cut fuel consumption by an astonishing 25 percent, thanks in part to clever programming of its SpeedShift gearbox and a driver-selectable 'Controlled Efficiency' program, an eco-mode that, among other things, instructs the transmission to always start in second gear, shift up as quickly as possible, and remain in higher gears whenever possible. In addition, the Intelligent Generator Management System employed on the E63 is also used to funnel kinetic energy back into the battery, and there is a new generation of cylinder deactivation technology at work as well. All-in, the still-massive motor will turn in an impressive 23.5 miles-per U.S. gallon on the EU cycle and Morninweg pledges that the car will skirt U.S. gas guzzler taxes.

The 'standard' S63 will run to a governed 155 mile-per-hour top end, while the performance package model has been let out to 186 mph. The new car is slated to go on sale in the second half of the year, and the 5.5-liter engine is expected to supplant the 6.2-liter in other AMG offerings over the next several years. We'll see the new engine tomorrow in person at the Geneva Motor Show, where it will reside in the engine bay of a special S63 showcar. The showcar (above) pays tribute to an early AMG-powered 300 SEL that won its class and finished second overall at the 1971 24-hour race in Spa-Francorchamps.

Pictures:

http://www.60-130.com/images/imported/2010/03/6.jpg

http://www.60-130.com/images/imported/2010/03/7.jpg

http://www.60-130.com/images/imported/2010/03/8.jpg

http://www.60-130.com/images/imported/2010/03/9.jpg

http://www.60-130.com/images/imported/2010/03/10.jpg

http://www.60-130.com/images/imported/2010/03/11.jpg
03-01-2010, 01:16 PM
GT3

Im seriously considering adding this or the new M5 to the stable. Need a "family" car...
Thanks for the info.
03-01-2010, 06:19 PM
MHP LLC

Sad that we can make the same amount of power with a tune or tune/header N/A M156. They should've TT'd the 6.2 as originally planned. Sure there is lots of potential left on the table via FI/TTs, it just doesn't take much skill to get it out of the motor.
03-01-2010, 11:00 PM
JonMartin

Can't wait to see what the C63's will do.

My buddy just bought a 2010 E63. He said it handles awesome and it felt fast when rode in it. To bad the interior sucks my ball sack. Its def not an interior in a $100k car smh. They need to fix that asap.
03-02-2010, 12:23 AM
Sticky

Quote:

Originally Posted by MHP LLC

Sad that we can make the same amount of power with a tune or tune/header N/A M156. They should've TT'd the 6.2 as originally planned. Sure there is lots of potential left on the table via FI/TTs, it just doesn't take much skill to get it out of the motor.

You raise a good point but eventually the aspects that require skill and hold back an NA motor will be holding this thing back once more boost simply can't be dialed in... displacement, heads, valvetrain, cams, tuning, etc.
03-02-2010, 12:24 AM
Sticky

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonMartin

Can't wait to see what the C63's will do.

My buddy just bought a 2010 E63. He said it handles awesome and it felt fast when rode in it. To bad the interior sucks my ball sack. Its def not an interior in a $100k car smh. They need to fix that asap.

The E class it not really a 100k car, it is car that can be had in the low 40's but the interior is not up to par. It is not terrible either though.
03-02-2010, 12:33 AM
JonMartin

Ya but at least in the M5 you can get the full leather dash and alcantara headliner to feel more luxurious then the standard 5 series. The E63 sells for over $100k with options and for that kinda of cake it should feel different then a base model $49k E350. The front seats and steering wheel is the only real difference not enough if you ask me and if they really didn't want to make it feel like a $100k car then they shouldn't charge that much. Even the LSD is optional wtf?
03-02-2010, 12:38 AM
Sticky

Ya, a lot of stuff optional that should be standard but Porsche does that. However, Mercedes is not Porsche and an E Class is not a GT3.

100k? Not worth the money, not even close. I would never pay more than the 70's for a reworked E class with the 63 motor.
03-02-2010, 12:51 AM
MHP LLC

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sticky

You raise a good point but eventually the aspects that require skill and hold back an NA motor will be holding this thing back once more boost simply can't be dialed in... displacement, heads, valvetrain, cams, tuning, etc.

Limiting factor for a N/A motor are the cylinder heads, limiting factor for a FI motor is the size of the blower/turbo(s) being used. All it will take is a swap to larger snails and the motor can remain intact and still make crazy power (as long as the bottom end holds).

Not sure why it took so long for the 600/65s to catch on to this fact but there will be some 1000+whp V12s running around shortly now that there are entities fitting larger turbos to those as well.

No question you can't beat FI for ultimate power, I'm just sad to see AMG give up (much like BMW/M) on N/A motors. I realize it's an emissions/fuel econ concession, but as an enthusiast it makes me sad.
03-02-2010, 12:52 AM
MHP LLC

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sticky

The E class it not really a 100k car, it is car that can be had in the low 40's but the interior is not up to par. It is not terrible either though.

I thought about picking up a 212 E63 until I saw one in person. The nail in the coffin was sitting in the car itself...Ugh.
03-02-2010, 12:54 AM
Sticky

Quote:

Originally Posted by MHP LLC

Limiting factor for a N/A motor are the cylinder heads, limiting factor for a FI motor is the size of the blower/turbo(s) being used. All it will take is a swap to larger snails and the motor can remain intact and still make crazy power (as long as the bottom end holds).

Not sure why it took so long for the 600/65s to catch on to this fact but there will be some 1000+whp V12s running around shortly now that there are entities fitting larger turbos to those as well.

No question you can't beat FI for ultimate power, I'm just sad to see AMG give up (much like BMW/M) on N/A motors. I realize it's an emissions/fuel econ concession, but as an enthusiast it makes me sad.

Makes me extremely sad as well and we are losing something special and unique. Going to be quite boring with everyone having a twin turbo V8 and just trying to fit the biggest turbos on there.

Heads and the valvetrain are a limiting factor on FI as well, it just is often not looked at until far later down the line as it is just like you said, far easier to add more boost or bigger turbos.

Oh well, the days of variety and different approaches seem to be dwindling. Luckily Porsche and Ferrari are still pushing high revving, NA motors... for now.
03-02-2010, 03:22 AM
JonMartin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sticky

Ya, a lot of stuff optional that should be standard but Porsche does that. However, Mercedes is not Porsche and an E Class is not a GT3.

100k? Not worth the money, not even close. I would never pay more than the 70's for a reworked E class with the 63 motor.

Exactly
03-04-2010, 05:17 AM
MHP LLC

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sticky

Makes me extremely sad as well and we are losing something special and unique. Going to be quite boring with everyone having a twin turbo V8 and just trying to fit the biggest turbos on there.

Agreed, just boring. There are 1000HP Evo's running around, who cares...

Quote:

Heads and the valvetrain are a limiting factor on FI as well, it just is often not looked at until far later down the line as it is just like you said, far easier to add more boost or bigger turbos.

VT may be as far as max rpm but turbos don't need rpm to make sick power. On Joe Cermini's TT Ford GT (TT and hardware by Stage 6, motor by us) we netted 150rwhp from H/C at 1400rwhp (not a paltry amount but considering the power level not huge either) then larger snails got him over 1650rw. Also there's John Mihovetz/Accufab making 2300HP from a twin 72mm 4.6L 4v...It's all about the turbo(s)

Quote:

Oh well, the days of variety and different approaches seem to be dwindling. Luckily Porsche and Ferrari are still pushing high revving, NA motors... for now.

Hell yes, the 405rwhp SAE 997.2 GT3 dyno posted on this forum gives me great hope. I still have to redyno with both v3 and v4 (ALMS GT2 Cup File with PASM/TC and Variocam map patches via PM) DMEs in my 997.1 GT3. Put down 366rwhp SAE stock on 93 (1:1) DJ, hoping for 390rw+ with v4.
03-04-2010, 05:36 AM
Sticky

Is there any room to get anything out of the the 3.8 GT3? Pretty much maxed displacement wise. Maybe rev it a little higher?

Turbos don't need high RPM but is there an advantage to higher rpm? Broader powerband perhaps or does does the torque drop off too fast (that would probably be dependent on the size of turbo though, right?)

Who is making the 2300 hp exactly? I got to look that up, Accufab....
03-04-2010, 11:40 AM
GT3

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sticky

Is there any room to get anything out of the the 3.8 GT3? Pretty much maxed displacement wise. Maybe rev it a little higher?

There is room. Well, there should be at least the same amount of room, maybe a bit more, than the 997.1 GT3 has.... 30-40 whp or so with full exhaust w/ 100 cell cats, software and filter. Filter wont give much, but I plan to put in the dual intake box the 997.2 GT3 RS has.
I hear from Akrapovic that the same Akrapovic GT3 race system that showed 16+ HP/ 17+ TQ on the 997.1 GT3, showed 22+ HP/23+ TQ on the 997.2 GT3 during testing; we'll see what it really shows once I install mine.
03-04-2010, 07:40 PM
MHP LLC

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sticky

Is there any room to get anything out of the the 3.8 GT3? Pretty much maxed displacement wise. Maybe rev it a little higher?

We only bump 100rpm even in race files. Yes there are gains to be had but not with typical Porsche crap tuning (if it costs $1500 it's junk). We work with a PME and therefore have access to the latest and greatest map tricks and files direct from Stuttgart. We netted 24rwhp (with HOT motor) on a DJ SAE with a 2010 Cayman S, ECU tuning alone. Pretty sporty for a 3.4L.

I expect that when I redyno my GT3 with v4 (race gas) DME it will show a 28-32rwhp SAE gain on a DJ (1:1) based on the other cup cars that we support running 997 GT3s and the same files. Even our v3 DMEs have the Variocam/PASM/TC patches, though they are tuned for pump gas.

None of the race teams we work with (ALMS GT2, Koni Challenge, Michelin Supercup) are using the 997.2 yet but based on what I've seen of the stock file and what we can do with the 3.6s, I'd expect a legit 35-40rw SAE on 100 octane (v4/ECU tuning alone).

The files are somewhat hot from the factory, just don't expect someone like GIAC to get any legit power out of them.

Quote:

Turbos don't need high RPM but is there an advantage to higher rpm? Broader powerband perhaps or does does the torque drop off too fast (that would probably be dependent on the size of turbo though, right?)

Having a longer powerband is never a bad thing, which is one of the reasons a 4v is superior to a 2v all else equal, however you can also accomodate/compensate by using numerically lower gearing (turbo's love load).
Turbos also work well with 4Vs because of the increased exhaust velocity, allowing a larger mass of air to pass through the snails making for quicker spooling.

Nothing kills more motors faster than excessive rpm (especially when FI since it's not necessary), other than detonation/preignition.

Quote:

Who is making the 2300 hp exactly? I got to look that up, Accufab....

John Mihovetz, he's the current NHRA class record holder IIRC. www.accufabracing.com he's into the mid to low 6s at 220+ mph at 2400lbs.
He's easily the most knowledgeable FI engine builder/fabricator I've ever met (no offense to anyone, just stating a fact, he oozes proven knowlege). They are located in Ontario, CA.
03-04-2010, 07:50 PM
MHP LLC

Race support:

We provide software remapping for multiple sanctioned racing teams such as ALMS GT2 teams (997 GT3), a Michelin Supercup Team (997 GT3), 3 Koni Challenge Teams (997 GT3/2010 Cayman S), 2 Ferrari F430 Challenge teams, and a Bullrun LP640.

http://www.60-130.com/images/imported/2010/03/285.jpg

http://www.60-130.com/images/imported/2010/03/286.jpg

http://www.60-130.com/images/imported/2010/03/287.jpg

http://www.60-130.com/images/imported/2010/03/288.jpg

http://www.60-130.com/images/imported/2010/03/289.jpg

http://www.60-130.com/images/imported/2010/03/290.jpg

http://www.60-130.com/images/imported/2010/03/291.jpg

http://www.60-130.com/images/imported/2010/03/292.jpg

Cartec Dyno with Windtunnel (fans capable of blowing 180mph where all our software is tested):

http://www.60-130.com/images/imported/2010/03/293.jpg

http://www.60-130.com/images/imported/2010/03/294.jpg
03-05-2010, 10:56 AM
Sticky

Pictures added.
03-06-2010, 09:27 AM
Sticky

Another:

http://www.60-130.com/images/imported/2010/03/318.jpg
03-07-2010, 01:31 AM
MHP LLC

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sticky

Another:

http://www.60-130.com/images/imported/2010/03/318.jpg

Heatsoak. :laughing-rofl:
03-08-2010, 12:20 AM
jongsi

is that a MaHa u guys have!!! havent herd of cartec. rolers and platform look just like the Maha. is it good??

Quote:

Originally Posted by MHP LLC

Race support:

We provide software remapping for multiple sanctioned racing teams such as ALMS GT2 teams (997 GT3), a Michelin Supercup Team (997 GT3), 3 Koni Challenge Teams (997 GT3/2010 Cayman S), 2 Ferrari F430 Challenge teams, and a Bullrun LP640.

Cartec Dyno with Windtunnel (fans capable of blowing 180mph where all our software is tested):

http://www.60-130.com/images/imported/2010/03/293.jpg

http://www.60-130.com/images/imported/2010/03/294.jpg
03-08-2010, 01:19 AM
MHP LLC

Cartec=Top of the line Maha, the same dyno OEMs use to test emissions on. The fans are just if not more important than the dyno itself. Having realistic airflow/load up to 180mph is priceless.

Thanks!
06-05-2011, 06:16 PM
JonsC63AMG

Looks promising. Too bad the reliability is going to suck. Especially modded on those turbo V8s.
06-05-2011, 06:18 PM
Sticky

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonsC63AMG

Looks promising. Too bad the reliability is going to suck. Especially modded on those turbo V8s.

You have no way of knowing that at this point.
06-05-2011, 07:11 PM
JonsC63AMG

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sticky

You have no way of knowing that at this point.

Well look at the FI Benzs and Bmws.
06-05-2011, 07:20 PM
Sticky

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonsC63AMG

Well look at the FI Benzs and Bmws.

You are basing this motor on other motors that do not apply to it?

Which FI Benzes and BMW's?

I think the jury is still out on this motor. If we are making sweeping generalizations I can point out reliable FI Benzes and BMW's although I do not think they in any way apply.
06-06-2011, 10:55 AM
JonsC63AMG

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sticky

You are basing this motor on other motors that do not apply to it?

Which FI Benzes and BMW's?

I think the jury is still out on this motor. If we are making sweeping generalizations I can point out reliable FI Benzes and BMW's although I do not think they in any way apply.

For example the n54 motors. When guys boost the shit out of it you run into all kinds of trouble. Also the 55 komp motors which have a long list of TSB. Bottom line is NA reliability surpasses a FI. Anyway time will tell on the new motors.
06-06-2011, 06:38 PM
Sticky

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonsC63AMG

For example the n54 motors. When guys boost the $#@! out of it you run into all kinds of trouble. Also the 55 komp motors which have a long list of TSB. Bottom line is NA reliability surpasses a FI. Anyway time will tell on the new motors.

They don't run into trouble with the boost, it's the fuel pump from direct injection.

BMW and Mercedes have a ton of boosted Diesels, no problems. Mercedes had the E55K's, good motors. They have the new turbo 4 cylinder, working fine.

NA is usually better but all these new motors will be FI. I think we need to wait and see how these new motors behave, you can't judge them all based on the N54.
06-07-2011, 12:52 AM
Sorena

the 3 liter straight 6 diesel from Benz never stops working, i know an E320 cdi in Europe with 500000 KM and never caused problems for the owner.
06-07-2011, 01:24 AM
leo985i

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonsC63AMG

For example the n54 motors. When guys boost the shit out of it you run into all kinds of trouble. Also the 55 komp motors which have a long list of TSB. Bottom line is NA reliability surpasses a FI. Anyway time will tell on the new motors.

The n54 is really not a bad motor, it's amazingly strong, people that keep them stock have the same problems if not worse than peeps with bolt-ons. These engines can run crazy amounts of power overstock reliably for many thousands of miles. Mr. 5 over at Shivpost has over 100,000miles he tracks his car like crazy too, it's impressive how strong its still running, it wouldn't surprise me if he can go over 200,000 miles without something major happing to his engine. It's the components that suck dick, the fueling system, DI (carbon build-up).