Author Topic: More low-down torque for the 280??  (Read 6394 times)

Bandolero

  • Classic
  • **
  • Posts: 451
  • Location: Adelaide, South Australia
    • Ezycoat Dog Dryers
More low-down torque for the 280??
« on: 29 December 2007, 04:23 PM »
I heard something interesting on the weekend.
I was told you can get more low-down torque on the 280 by advancing the intake cam by 2 teeth.
This will make the power band come in at lower revs.
The downside is you use a little more fuel and increase emissions as well.
Has anyone done this to their 280?
Russell Bond - (Adelaide, South Australia)
1978 450SEL 6.9 .... #5166 .... 12/78 (Sold.) www.ezycoat.com.au

Big_Richard

  • Guest
Re: More low-down torque for the 280??
« Reply #1 on: 30 December 2007, 03:49 AM »
.
« Last Edit: 19 January 2013, 02:53 AM by Major Tom 6.9 »

SELfor50

  • Vintage
  • ***
  • Posts: 932
  • I Cook Brakes
  • Location: Canberra, Australia
Re: More low-down torque for the 280??
« Reply #2 on: 30 December 2007, 04:48 AM »
do the 280's have DOHC???
"Man who come first, wins race." -Unknown

-= 1978 - 450 SEL [Euro] =-  Locked
-= 1976 - 450 SE 6.9 #2 =-  New Heart

Bandolero

  • Classic
  • **
  • Posts: 451
  • Location: Adelaide, South Australia
    • Ezycoat Dog Dryers
Re: More low-down torque for the 280??
« Reply #3 on: 30 December 2007, 04:52 AM »
Yep.... ;D
Russell Bond - (Adelaide, South Australia)
1978 450SEL 6.9 .... #5166 .... 12/78 (Sold.) www.ezycoat.com.au

13B

  • Vintage
  • ***
  • Posts: 871
  • Location: Bonerland - I like big butts and I cannot lie!
Re: More low-down torque for the 280??
« Reply #4 on: 30 December 2007, 04:58 AM »
It will also increase timing overlap (look it up) resulting in a very lumpy idle (think of those wankel engine cars I work on with that brap brap brap idle - thats because those engines have up to 150 degrees of intake/exhaust overlap). 

Not to sure about your low end torque though...  those sorts of mods as applied to a US V8 engie or a wankel engine results in more top-end power at the expense of low end power, torque and driveability.

This chart shows a lightly modified 13B with only 10 degrees overlap and it makes about 115 RWHP and the torque is pretty flat, it starts low, peaks around mid rpm (4000) and drops off thereafter:



This chart shows a highly modified 13B "Bridge Port" race engine with 150 degrees of overlap.  It makes 170RWHP but see how the torque is "flat" at the higher revs and peters right off at low revs:

450SEL 6.9 #5440 = V MB 690 , 450SE # 43094 = 02010 H , 190E/turbo # 31548 = AOH 68K

SELfor50

  • Vintage
  • ***
  • Posts: 932
  • I Cook Brakes
  • Location: Canberra, Australia
Re: More low-down torque for the 280??
« Reply #5 on: 30 December 2007, 05:01 AM »
Why didn't the Kraut's not be so stingy and put DOHC's in the 117's then??!!??!! ???

Not fair...   :'(
"Man who come first, wins race." -Unknown

-= 1978 - 450 SEL [Euro] =-  Locked
-= 1976 - 450 SE 6.9 #2 =-  New Heart

s class

  • W116 Addict
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,171
  • I'll keep the 116's, the rest can go
  • Location: Squeezing 3 W116's into a double garage
Re: More low-down torque for the 280??
« Reply #6 on: 30 December 2007, 10:45 AM »
do the 280's have DOHC???

indeedy and the M110 is a fine piece of machinery. 

Anyone keen to develop variable inlet cam timing?

'76 6.9 Euro, '78 6.9 AMG, '80 280SE, '74 350SE, '82 500SEL euro full hydro, '83 500SEL euro full hydro , '81 500SL

Big_Richard

  • Guest
Re: More low-down torque for the 280??
« Reply #7 on: 30 December 2007, 01:28 PM »
.
« Last Edit: 19 January 2013, 02:53 AM by Major Tom 6.9 »

oscar

  • W116 Addict
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,043
  • Location: Riverina, NSW, AUSTRALIA
Re: More low-down torque for the 280??
« Reply #8 on: 30 December 2007, 05:35 PM »
because it would of made the v8's even more massive.. Just take a look at the difference in size of the head on an m110 and its sohc father. its like double the width.

Also, have a look at the m119 at mercedesengines.net  Well i think it is but it'll give an idea of how much bigger the cam boxes are for quad cams. (or is the term dual dual overhead ??? )


It will also increase timing overlap (look it up) resulting in a very lumpy idle (think of those wankel engine cars I work on with that brap brap brap idle - thats because those engines have up to 150 degrees of intake/exhaust overlap).

My 280S gives a spit & fart kind of idle which reminds me of a dragster at idle, then it really comes to life when it's revved.  But I can't say the power is anything to write home about.  Yeah it's got a number of issues still to resolve but the above has got me thinking that the cam timing has to be put up the list.  I really have to get everything right first before experimenting with intake cam timing but it will be interesting to know how far mine is out and/or if a little adjustment makes a positive difference to the norm.




1973 350SE, my first & fave

koan

  • W116 Addict
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,316
  • Location: Melbourne
Re: More low-down torque for the 280??
« Reply #9 on: 30 December 2007, 11:20 PM »

Not to sure about your low end torque though...  those sorts of mods as applied to a US V8 engie or a wankel engine results in more top-end power at the expense of low end power, torque and driveability.


Agree, I would have thought going the other way, retarding the cam would do more for the low end.

Years ago I read something about replacing camshafts, it said if you can't get the timing right on, lean towards retard for this reason.

koan
Boogity, Boogity, Boogity, Amen!

Andrew280SEL

  • Vintage
  • ***
  • Posts: 954
  • I like white ;-)
  • Location: Tasmania, Australia
Re: More low-down torque for the 280??
« Reply #10 on: 01 January 2008, 01:39 AM »
Well this is very interesting...for lazy cruising purposes, more low down torque for the M110 isn't a bad thing...

Although I'm not sure I will ever go to the trouble of doing so, because it's fun getting all that power from the higher rev range when it makes that truly glorious sound ;D
'79 280SEL- 560,000 Kms
'73 350SE- getting an AMG facelift
'79 450SEL 6.9

Des

  • Vintage
  • ***
  • Posts: 923
  • Location: Australia
Re: More low-down torque for the 280??
« Reply #11 on: 02 January 2008, 06:51 PM »
Although I'm not sure I will ever go to the trouble of doing so, because it's fun getting all that power from the higher rev range when it makes that truly glorious sound ;D

I agree, once you get up above 80 and the M110 really comes alive and starts to roar, well mine does, it has this deafening loud BUURRRRRRR to it, I've looked under it and the exaust seems brand new so maybe it has some sort of extrators or better flow through system fitted.

1977 W123 230 
1977 W116 280S *new*
1980 W123 250
VW Beetle "Oval Window"
VW Golf Mk1
Volvo 240GL
Volvo 740GLE

WGB

  • W116 Addict
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,280
  • And on the eighth day he made the 116
  • Location: Perth - Western Australia
Re: More low-down torque for the 280??
« Reply #12 on: 02 January 2008, 09:35 PM »
The M110 motor has always been my yardstick to how Mercedes Motors should sound.

Bill

Andrew280SEL

  • Vintage
  • ***
  • Posts: 954
  • I like white ;-)
  • Location: Tasmania, Australia
Re: More low-down torque for the 280??
« Reply #13 on: 02 January 2008, 10:59 PM »


I agree, once you get up above 80 and the M110 really comes alive and starts to roar, well mine does, it has this deafening loud BUURRRRRRR to it, I've looked under it and the exaust seems brand new so maybe it has some sort of extrators or better flow through system fitted.


It's probably quite possible you have something different installed, 'cos I can't say mine is deafening in volume at that speed. But the sound is fantastic that's for sure. Although once I have the engine going past 4000-5000 RPM it starts to get loud - but this is a good thing, because of the sound. ;D
'79 280SEL- 560,000 Kms
'73 350SE- getting an AMG facelift
'79 450SEL 6.9

OzBenzHead

  • Vintage
  • ***
  • Posts: 721
  • Location: Northern NSW, Australia
Re: More low-down torque for the 280??
« Reply #14 on: 03 January 2008, 02:15 AM »
I just love the sound of my M110.   It sounds like a well-calibrated and well-oiled industrial sewing machine; it idles very smoothly (noticeably smoother than two friends' W124 300Es with far fewer Ks on their clocks) and winds up respectably enough.   Once it reaches about 85 km/h (no tacho - yet - in Boris) it takes on another life and pulls away from any vehicle I want behind me; it eats hills, chews them up, and spits them out like they were the slightest inclines.

A friend who owns a 5-litre V8 WB Holden ute was gobsmacked when he took Boris for a drive; his old WB (running on gas and petrol) was utterly gutless by comparison, though both cars had similar Ks on the clock (300,000).

That said, a tad more low-down torque would be nice to have - but not at the expense of the current smooth idle and utterly reliable instant start-up every time.

Anyone know what the specs were for the AMGed M110 (I think it came only in the W123)?