:bowdown::bowdown::bowdown::bowdown::bowdown:

 

what a ugly car ^^ Well, if only we could figure out the fuel management setup...

 

The air intake sux, but I like the turbo idea for max power.
Blowers react much faster, but the turbo when properly selected and set up can help generate power easier than a roots blower.

Overall it looks like a clean set up! Steve, I think you should go that route, the M 111 engine is VERY strong and can take the power no sweat.....

Only thing I see besides the shaky air filter is the need for some serious heat shielding around the turbine (hot) end of the turbocharger.....

 

that one looks to be have some kind of ceramic coating on it... do to its "shiney/glossy" look.... this looks like the way to go..but I woudnt do it with a t3/t4..too much lag, do it with a GT28 or something in those lines and you will be boosting no probl. at 2k

 

A uk firm twin turbo'ed a v6 long ago.

 

Later this year I want to buy my wife a new car and then the idea of the turbo can be done. I can take my time and take off the M45 and go from there. I agree the T3/T4 is to big and there are better options to go. One idea is that when the OEM airbox, bypass vlave and M45 are removed there is plenty of room to install a centrifugal blower. Maybe a Votech V-5 F trim. It would only require mounting brackets and the bypass set up to work with the OEM package.

I am looking at what this guy did and asking why he never upgraded the camshafts. Does this not blow the camshaft theory out of the water or am I missing something here. The turbo does not rob power to make power and that in itself is a very hard argument to overcome. As Buellwinkle said it requires the turbo and a custom header but I wonder how the best way is to approcah the conversion and how the EMS/ECU would react to no M45 or the OEM byapss being used. Input please.

This idea would be a lot cheaper and much more cost affective than all of this expensive bolt on mods that do not give the return of bhp/lbs vrs a turbo. Tubos brand new on Ebay are much cheaper than a new M45 or a new M62. I am really going to jump in this and ask some turbo installers wht ehy think. OJ you are right about the turbo beimng ceramic coated and Bruce is also right about the placement of the turbo but from what I have seen turbos are mounted in stock turbo cars at the same place with no big reduction in power.

From what I can gather it takes about 35hp to spin the M45 to make approx. 10 psi at around 16K rpms. This would mean just replacing the M45 would free up that bhp with a trubo that is the same output as the M45. Dick, Bruce,430,Buellwinkle????????????? I am serious everyone and would really appreciate. Snogard was right about having a unique car and my thoughts are why continue to modify a cars engine that in current form will never allow to the engine to perform at its max potential.

Avery, Looks like I can sell you the Supersprint header after all!!!!!!

 

The T3/T4 TC is not too large of a choice for the car. The T3/T4 comes in a huge number of sizes and can be spec'd for almost any application.

The GT series of turbo's are nice but last time I looked (and it has been awhile) the GT series turbo's were ~twice the price of the T3/T4. Get a properly sized T3/T4 with the ball bearing option vs. the thurst bearing and you will spool as soon or sooner than the GT28.

You just have to run some calculations and look at the compressor maps to properly size a turbo. It is all about keeping it in the middle - go too big and it will take too long to spool. Go too small and you will redline the turbo.

 

It's not true that a tubocharger is free power,it is driven with the exhaust, and that gives you back pressure. Higher back pressure has a cost on engine performance, but just how much is VERY hard to determine.

In any event, turbo's are very good for peak power, but they have the dredded "turbo lag" problem. How bad the lag is depends on how the system is designed, sometimes not bad at all, but the reaction time will not be as "crisp" as with a blower. With the power you develop it may not matter to you though...

 

In any event, turbo's are very good for peak power, but they have the dredded "turbo lag" problem. How bad the lag is depends on how the system is designed, sometimes not bad at all, but the reaction time will not be as "crisp" as with a blower. With the power you develop it may not matter to you though...

You certainly won't have the response of a positive displacement SC where boost is pretty much instant.

On the other hand a properly sized turbo will pretty much have no lag and be linear in power delivery. The huge rush in acceleration that many attribute to turbo's is due to turbo lag...waiting for the turbo, waiting for the turbo, waiting for the turbo, the turbo is here - the result is a sudden rush of acceleration due to the boost kicking in.

 

The sales rep I talked to verifeis what 430 said. The T3 T4 turbo he recommrned for my car is the right size of turbo for a 2.3L and will have have very little turbo lag. Problem is boys that I have been told that the long anticpated TVS blowers by Eaton are most likley only going to be the 2 largest models. The Vette use the new TVS 2300 blower I think. So there goes the updated Eaton blower. What about a centrifugal bower vice the turbo???????????????????????????????

 

A centrifugal "blower" and the turbocharger are the same thing with different drives. The centrifugal blower is limited by the drive belts just as the roots type blower is. I think it was McCulloch (sp?) that put the centrifugal superchargers on Studebaker’s R-3 engines many years ago. The damn things were bloody fast in their day, VERY fast, but it takes time, and rpm's for that style supercharger to make any real pressure.
There is a minimum speed required on the impeller to generate the force required to start and get any pressure, but once it starts to work the pressure builds very quickly for small increases in rpm’s. (if that makes any sense.)
We have a lot of centrifugal pumps and blowers around here where I work, and their useful operating range is small, air works differently than water, but the principal is the same, once they start pumping don’t get in the way……..

 

I am not a fan of a centrifugal SC's. You lose the instant response of a positive displacement SC yet they are not as efficient as a turbo charger. You kind of get the worst of both worlds.

 

sounds promising... you guys quoting figures at the wheels or crank? 300hp at the wheels would be impressive for this car... would be around the 360hp mark at the crank! prob be able to pull a mid to high 12 second 1/4 mile time....

 

With the 5 speed tranny these cars have, you're looking at the same output as an SLK 32. When mine was dyno'd it put out 300 hp at the rear wheels.

Yes, to say the least, that would be impressive for a 230K.

 

Guys with the 00-04 SLk 230's have basscially the same 5 speed tranny as the 32. My idea is 300bhp and not 300rwhp. Why psuh the car to that limit BUT the T3 T4 turbo the sales rep was talking to me about is good for 25psi and 500rwhp!!!!!! Nice to know when you have that boost controller right there. We all bitch and moan about the little 2.3L but dammit the EVO with its 2.L can handle 400rwhp. I know this means after market pistons, valves, and the like but as this thread shows the M111 can handle 310bhp and 325lbs. That will make me much happier than this nickle and dime BS.

 

Guys with the 00-04 SLK 230's have basically the same 5 speed tranny as the 32.

You are absolutely right, the only difference is the computer programming….

 

Squires Turbo Systems - Turbocharged Innovation!

Replace rear muffler with one of these, run pipe to intake ...vvrrroommm

Bazzle

 

Well, your talking alot of work/money/time here mate....

 

There was a great article that one of the Mustang Mags did. They took a Mustang Cobra threw it on the dyno, then they dyno'd the same car with a Whipple Charger, a Vortech SC, and a Turbocharger system. It was very interesting to compare the dyno graphs to each other.

 

Link or it did not happen

 

Hey everyone, I know this shit is ages old but I believe this guy had other problems with his car, one of them being his mistake of keeping the diverter valve (supercharger solenoid) in the system. Of course it will dump off all the boost when 11.5 psi is exceeded. It's how MB programmed the ECU to "protect the engine", but if there is no diverter valve in the system, the ECU can't dump anything. "Limp mode" is nothing more than the ECU dumping boost. It changes nothing else. If the valve is rendered inoperable, the ECU sets a hard code and continues on with normal fuel/spark maps. I have verified this in many hours of data logs. One could (as I am doing currently) leave the valve connected electrically under the hood and leave it out of the system mechanically. It'll still set a hard code, but the car WILL compensate for boost without the valve in place. No reduced fuel, no pulled timing. The valve is isolated from the rest of the system.

There's also other conditions that need to be met for the car to dump boost.
1. RPM needs to be over 3700. (It seems 3700 and 5700 are MB's favorite limiter RPMs)
2. The car MUST be in top gear (5th or 6th depending on transmission, and I have no clue about autos) All others gears will boost ABOVE 13 psi without boost dump.
3. The engine load must be at 100%
4. MAF must exceed 813 CFM
5. MAP must exceed 11.5 psi.

Even after all of this the ECU may have dumped boost, but the spark fuel maps remain operable. All TPS signal inputs and outputs remain untouched also.

Also, I'm having some trouble believing some of this information he provided. He claimed a BMW tuner developed a device that "altered" the MAF output? Yeah, that's called a MAF clamp and costs literally 10 cents to install. They wanted to clamp the MAF voltage to stop the ECU from limiting boost by stopping MAF voltage at 3.7-ish volts. Little did he know, this wouldn't have worked. Siemens ECUs also read MAP and that would need to be clamped too at somewhere around 3.2v, but that's beside the point. If the diverter valve was left out of the system, the only thing he would have had is a CEL for boost solenoid malfunction.

Lastly, with this guy claiming "many years of modified sports car experience" how did he not know to just install a pre-facelift fuel rail and fuel filter along with a VAG FPR to increase fuel pressure? Seems weak. Just as weak as his claims of talking to AMG/MERC and Carlsson (which he misspelled as "Carlson") to attest to the durability of the engine. AMG never used a M111 in ANYTHING, the only closest thing being the M106 in the 190E and that;s ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.

I however can tell you this pistons are hypereutectic aluminum of 8.8:1 compression ratio, the factory connecting rods are fractured cap cast iron in an I-beam shape and the crankshaft is nodular iron. WRXs, 1J and 2J Supras and many others use hyper-e pistons from the factory and can withstand some boost as long as fuel requirements are met. I think our little M111 is capable of around 350 HP safely.

Also, Crower will not manufacture a forged rod for us after I sent them a stock piece. Too bad.