M104 Twin Turbo Conversion - What would be required?

[NISFAN]

I beg to differ..your comment flies in the face of many proven installations some twenty years old !!!

TurboTechnics engineered the kit as if it was a factory option..
The location of the additional injector(s) is key to proper fuel distribution.

If it was a poor method then you would not produce the reliable power that the TT install affords..

"Reliable' because there are still many original Hughes installs on your roads...

I'm sure there are slide rules and cross ply tyres still being used today

Read my earlier post, regarding 80's technology.

No one does it that way any more. But if you want to go the 80's way and twin turbo (at great expense) an engine for a minimal power increase, be my guest

In my mind you either do it properly, or buy a newer more powerful engine like a C43 and stick that in. Much cheaper.

 

[nick.ged]

Here’s my little league opinion, bear in mind I only built mine myself, so shouldn’t really have one…

romans signature cars (the claimed mega power ones) have standalone engine management for spark and fuel, and he told me when I brought my megasquirt kit from him that he mods the chamber in the head and the pistons to achieve 8.XX:1 comp ratio, and said he used std rods!

His fuel delivery system didn’t seem to be adequate to supply enough for 650 bhp, but what do I know…

he also changes engines 'occasionally'.

A lot of his claims may well be for marketing, as his living is selling big turbos and gismos for people to strap to their mercs and other cars.

Having said all that he has done customers cars with std internals and 3xx bhp, and it is well documented that the know-alls car makes 350 bhp.

The TT supplied intercooler will put a ceiling of around 400 bhp on the build anyway.

You must grasp that the 103 has a lower comp ratio, around 9:1 and the 104 has a higher ratio and known head gasket weakness compared to the 103.

in order to get the desired comp ratio, Huges converted cars had mods to the rods on the 103 and mods to the rods and the pistons on the 104.

Taken together, this means a good condition 103 will easily run at 7 -10 psi, a 104 may not like it so much.

The extra injector (104) or injectors (103) will work, and work well for installations around 3xx hp. Not sure they would be ok for more, but … who knows.

 

[maggot]

Afternoon everyone.

It has got to that time when I would seriously start to consider a Twin Turbo conversion for my E320 Coupe - I know we have a member with a Turbo Technics kit.

My steering is now sorted and brakes and suspension are well into the planning stage, so these things will be done.

As I know we have a few past and present TT owners, what I am seeking is advice on getting a TT kit fitted.
Not so much on who could do it, but what else would need to be done to the engine to get it fitted and working correctly.

My VERY basic knowledge assumes it's not a straight forward bolt-on system, and I have heard an extra injector is required.
So, aside from bolting on the system and remapping, what else has to be done to the M104 engine?

Are there any modern advancements which would be recommended/esstential to consider?

Ultimately what could any extras cost, the purchase of the kit notwithstanding?

You see my main thought/fear is a full engine rebuild would be required.
My engine itself is in close-to-perfect condition (a seal is currently being replaced due to a small oil leak), with 118,000 miles on the clock.

If it's potentially several thousand pounds over and above the kit purchase price, then it's a simple no-go

Any advice, pointers, snippets of knowledge, persuasion, desuasion or technical information are most welcome

This thread will help decide my course of action....

Many thanks in advance,
Darren

I'm breaking a car that would have nearly everything you need... http://www.mbclub.co.uk/forums/clas...6015-breaking-w124-3-6-twin-turbo-saloon.html

Although I would probably advise against doing it in the first place . Whilst not a "kit" as such, the expensive items, Motec Ecu, turbos ,rods, pistons and all the lines, pumps etc are all there and could be put into a different car.

 

[mattc]

Re-reading this thread made me wish Mark Ely was still with us

 

[aka$h]

Darren, just got your message, send me an email: [email protected]

 

[RBYCC]

I'm sure there are slide rules and cross ply tyres still being used today

Read my earlier post, regarding 80's technology.
No one does it that way any more. But if you want to go the 80's way and twin turbo (at great expense) an engine for a minimal power increase, be my guest

I read it and it's obvious you aren't that familiar with the engine management on the M103 and both M104 variants...
They are 80's technology and I wouldn't say that doubling the power with 80's technology is minimal..
Easy to do it your way with major engine management changes, much harder to make reliable power with what you have

The extra injector(s) are located above the throttle body and below the air valve assembly on the M103..
There is no problem with an uneven mix...only have to read the plugs and see they all are the same color...

In my mind you either do it properly, or buy a newer more powerful engine like a C43 and stick that in. Much cheaper.

What is proper to you ????

A C43 is not a match for my M103-12V TurboTechnics build. The TT is at least a second+ faster to 60MPH and more so in the quarter mile...
I run faster then NA 5.4 AMG vehicles...

Some prefer period builds and fully realize the limits of an older platform...

I only own Mercs and some are fast, others are faster and others much, much faster....

As far as cross ply tires, I used to run a DB6 Vantage spec with Avon Turbospeed cross plys in SVRA events...ran faster then with radials as they better matched the 1960's suspension...

 

[RBYCC]

Many of the original ones have lasted well, the ones fitted afterwards have not!

I think a lot of it is "engineers" thinking they can better the Hughes technology... another major part of it is starting with engines, fuel systems etc that are 100-150K miles worn.

I know a guy who bought his brand new from Hughes, has over 200K miles now and all he has done is have the turbo's refurbished recently as they got a bit noisy... every other part of it is totally original.

Jay

Agree completely with you..
The TurboTechnics kit commisioned by Hughes was a very well engineered design...
The only short fall was the piggy back fuel control which wasn't up to par with what Mosselman used.
The additional injectors are brilliant and lend to a modern additional injector controller mapped via software...

Of all the kits that were sold in 2007 from Hughes stock, very few were installed successfully...

Ed A.

 

[NISFAN]

I read it and it's obvious you aren't that familiar with the engine management on the M103 and both M104 variants...
They are 80's technology and I wouldn't say that doubling the power with 80's technology is minimal..
Easy to do it your way with major engine management changes, much harder to make reliable power with what you have

The extra injector(s) are located above the throttle body and below the air valve assembly on the M103..
There is no problem with an uneven mix...only have to read the plugs and see they all are the same color...



What is proper to you ????

A C43 is not a match for my M103-12V TurboTechnics build. The TT is at least a second+ faster to 60MPH and more so in the quarter mile...
I run faster then NA 5.4 AMG vehicles...

Some prefer period builds and fully realize the limits of an older platform...

I only own Mercs and some are fast, others are faster and others much, much faster....

As far as cross ply tires, I used to run a DB6 Vantage spec with Avon Turbospeed cross plys in SVRA events...ran faster then with radials as they better matched the 1960's suspension...

OK, Mercedes have never pushed the envelope when it comes to specific power output, so to claim a doubling of power when installing a turbo system is no great claim in MB world. In the 80's MB were making 5.6 liter V8's producing less power than BMW would squeeze out of a 3.5 straight six.

The conversion you talk about would have been considered 'fine' in it's day. Time has moved on, expectations are higher.....admittedly I talk for myself, but can't see why anyone would spend a significant amount of money for an antiquated way of doing something, when it is not that more complicated to do it properly.

I haven't got M103 /M104 experience, but have with 80's VAG engines, where piggy back injectors were used, or cold start enrichment programs fooled to add the extra fuel. Ignition advance was crudely adjusted to suit. Result? Poor lag which was often blamed as 'Turbo lag', and general non optimised performance.

Does the conversion have complex water temp/air temp/knock sensor/boost pressure/TPS,etc, etc Fuel and ignition map compensation that a reliable turbo system requires? I am thinking that is a No answer.

If the OP wants a TT just to say I have a TT M103, then fine, but if he wants extra useable reliable power that TT gives, then the 'old' method just won't cut it.

 

[d w124]

Quite a few around, I don't particularly enjoy seeing ANY car with half a million miles on them. They stink

Nissan`s maybe but I`ve seen and even been on a couple of high mileage mercs and NO,they don`t stink

 

[RBYCC]

OK, Mercedes have never pushed the envelope when it comes to specific power output, so to claim a doubling of power when installing a turbo system is no great claim in MB world. In the 80's MB were making 5.6 liter V8's producing less power than BMW would squeeze out of a 3.5 straight six.

Doubling of power on a M103-12V is no great claim ???
Doubling power on any engine is a great accomplishment...

The conversion you talk about would have been considered 'fine' in it's day. Time has moved on, expectations are higher.....admittedly I talk for myself, but can't see why anyone would spend a significant amount of money for an antiquated way of doing something, when it is not that more complicated to do it properly.

My guess is that you are a young man who hasn't the full understaning of many things..not a problem as hopefully as you mature you'll get the point of "value"
Let's look at the money you pour into a Nissan or the below mentioned VAG...
At the end of the day you may be very fast with megasquirt and air bag suspension..
But all the money invested is lost as the car only has value to young men who can't afford to purchase it at anywhere near your investment cost.
You have returned less then zero on your investment...
Consider period Mercs or BMW's especially those done by certain aftermarket tuners...
Build them to period accuracy and you have a fast vehicle that has value...
Two antiquated ( in your mind ) 80's AMG Hammers went under the Hammer at B-J in Scottsdale in a bad early 2011 economy at $45K +..
How many VAG's or especially Nissan's ever are even sold at an collector's auction where the buyer's have real money to spend ?

Do it less complicated your way on a platform that was inexpensive when new and you end up by going fast and ultimately having nothing to show for it...
With period performance Mercedes you have a different class of buyer who will pay for the right car and at the right money.
Difference between a marque enthusiast/collector and a young man who doesn't understand money...

I haven't got M103 /M104 experience, but have with 80's VAG engines, where piggy back injectors were used, or cold start enrichment programs fooled to add the extra fuel. Ignition advance was crudely adjusted to suit. Result? Poor lag which was often blamed as 'Turbo lag', and general non optimised performance.

Cold start enrichment has nothing to do with a turbo install...it's no more then a psuedo "choke".
Can't adjust ignition other then by the R16 resistor on USA spec cars and the setting plug on Global builds..remember the M103 used an EZL which had fixed values built in..
Turbo lag...none at all..incredible design with TurboTechnics using Garrett T2's and Mosselamn with KKK's..
Small twin turbos = no lag, spool begins a bit below 2000RPM...

Does the conversion have complex water temp/air temp/knock sensor/boost pressure/TPS,etc, etc Fuel and ignition map compensation that a reliable turbo system requires? I am thinking that is a No answer.

Why must you make an install so complicated when proper engineers in the eighties did it so relatively simple and succeeded with performance and reliability ?????

No it is much more simplistic, not needing all the items you describe required by young men who build high boost hand grenades...
If you don't need it then why have it...and as Jay pointed out does 150K +++ miles establish reliability ????

You're much too much myopic in your willingness to understand that things can be done more then one way with equal success !!!

If the OP wants a TT just to say I have a TT M103, then fine, but if he wants extra useable reliable power that TT gives, then the 'old' method just won't cut it.

You are wrong again, a pattern with you..
You admit you don't have knowledge of the cars but you act as an expert..
This is not a Jap car or a VW that you seem to be conversant about...
0-60 in 5 seconds or under and low 13/108+ rpm trap speed is not slow for a very reliable, docile street car with 80's technology...

Let's agree to disagree..I'll stand by my antiquated Mercs and when I sell them I will return my value, you continue to impress young boys with your high tech builds that come apart under pressure in spite of the high tech sensors and engine management and ride scraping the ground with stretched tires....

Keep it simple....and follow the success of those engineers who knew what they were doing many years ago...

 

[Farmergeddon]

Intersting thread as I am looking in the future to add my "loft living" M90
supercharger to my M104 3.6.

My only contribution to this thread due to having restricted knowledge of the technical side is firstly to not have the desire to do it on the cheap or ask "how much will this cost?". Set yourself a budget you can afford and a contigency fund then make your plans around that. If it doesnt then allow a TT setup then be happy and settle for the next step down.

Do your build in stages. If you need a rebuild then get that done and running properly first. If you are then adding standalone then get that wired in and running well for fuel and spark. Just make sure that everything you do has the forward scope for your desired upgrade but at each stage get it running properly. It may end up taking longer and a few more £'s but at least you can each time take a step backward if something you do doesnt work as you will know exactly what is causing it ie the new thing you added/changed (similar to a system restore on a PC).

Good luck with this project. I will be following it with a keen eye

Kris

 

[Eddie01]

Re-reading this thread made me wish Mark Ely was still with us

Funny you should say this, Mark was my best mate and we converted more than a few Honda's to run boost, some unopened stock engines and others re-sleeved forged units. I remember when he purchased his TT kit and he was deciding which engine to use and what management, all came down to expectations and how much was going to be budgeted for the build. He kept it simple in terms of power, the twin T2's would be exchanged for something slightly larger, not for the additional power but efficiency, make similar power but at lower boost with head room and cooler inlet temperatures. This decision allows more scope in the needs of engine management, split second was investigated and the mapping capabilities assessed, as it would be running cooler with more efficient use of the boost then split second looked very capable and was easier to integrate into the cars loom, the other option was DTA stand alone, which was a cheap ECU to purchase but the additional loom and sensors required soon made this overkill for the power goals and would loose most of the cars mapped features, such as cold start, idle, compensation etc.
Regarding static compression ratio, as long as you have total control over the ignition map you can make very good use of the higher CR (within reason), pre-ignition and detonation can be controlled, understanding flame front and controlling burn is achievable with the correct management, the older style affordable "management" system available back in the 80's would automatically mean CR would have to be dropped to build in head room for pre-ignition and detonation control, usually leading to lag and poor burn. Integrating old and new technology has been done to death, I've seen so many 20+ years old open deck aluminium 1.6 and 1.8 (100+K) Honda engines reliably make well over 400bhp and with forged internals make 1000+bhp, can be done if approached in the right way.

 

[PhilJ]

Reliable is arguable. Most old Kjets struggle to run properly at 150k miles without throwing 6 psi at it. You can’t underestimate the importance of decent management in a boosted car until you’ve melted a few engines first hand. Although things can be done simply there is no safeguard, far too many add ons needed to be able to monitor the system properly and no ability to factor in for variables.

The TT engineers did well with what they have to work with at the time, but I for one do not think K-Jet and boost is a great combination and whichever way you look at it, using a piggy back ecu on the top of a standard system is a crude way of doing things. If you were to get hold of any of the engineers who designed the kit for advice on what they would do now, I very much doubt they would do the same again given todays advances in aftermarket management.

For the cost of getting a custom loom with ECU and rolling road setting up vs. the old piggyback ecu/kjet and a setup. To me, and many other people who have experience in other marques of any car where people tune them regularly (which the Mercedes world is far from) it seems a backwards way of doing things with such better options available. It’s one thing if its fitted and you want to make it work, but given the choice to start from scratch it isn’t the logical thing to do. Nor cost effective really…

Realistically the old TT kits are £1500-2000’s worth nowadays? If you were to be patient and bought parts slowly when they came up on forums or ebay you could easily get your turbos, ecu, loom, sensors etc new for half of the above. Leaving the remaining for custom oil/water lines, an oil cooler and a decent intercooler that would actually work to full effect, unlike the Mosselman or TT options. Not to mention proper sized downpipes and exhausts and change.

A decent EFI setup will allow you to map for differences in air temperature, different octane fuels, knock sensing, different boost levels can be mapped properly and all sorts of usefull toys like constant monitoring of your engine, its temperature, air fuel mix and what it is generally doing all round. Not too mention all sorts of horrible modern features like antilag, launch control, traction, boost limiting lower rpms, variable geomerty turbo's etc etc.

The T2s are old technology, remember only half the engine is feeding each one, spool would be no different to an equally matched single turbo on a manifold of equal flow. With today’s advances in turbo technology, lag could be significantly reduced without sacrificing bigger boost levels, top end and EGT’s like with the T2s. The cold start he was talking about is mosselman type installs using the 5th and 7th injector to give more fuel when boost is sensed. All TT did was what they’d been doing to the Kjet VWs and Fords for many years previously. By the time Merc came to the party, those VWs and Fords were already running proper EFI. Nisfans point is if you think your turbo spools well now, get some proper management on it and see how they spool after.

I’ve driven and owned a fair few variants of TT Merc’s and they all had their on and off days, some days it was the 5 second car, some days it was a 7 second car. Great fun when on form but they were all a bit stroppy, not starting after long drives, blowing metering head diagrams (even after super gluing them in like you’re supposed to). Random misfires and not to mention the throttle and boost control was never great.

Just because Hughes commissioned it, doesn’t mean its all that great. It worked and did what it was designed for - very low boost, it’s very limited with next to no options for improvement. The difference in a custom modern kit done properly and the off the shelf 80s TT kit with Kjet would be huge, not only in power and torque but in its delivery and driveability. Well worth the marginal extra cost.

I can’t see how keeping an old system which struggles to work consistently will keep more value in the car than with a properly done updated modern EFI system, but unfortunately it seems most of these collectors don’t drive their cars in anger. Otherwise AMG suspension which smashes bumpers and skirts on the floor wouldn’t be acceptable, and upgrading that to a lovely modern monotube design and ratings to match would be.

A TT isn’t a hammer, a hammer is one of 30 odd with a complete conversion and other upgrades, done by a company which made it huge. A TT was a stock car with a kit bolted on done by a Mercedes dealership.

I don’t know Nisfan, but coming from a background other than Mercedes where management is a vital part of making good reliable power and monitoring it - it is easy to see why a lot of people would not skimp on this part. Just like how most of us wouldn’t put on a chinese ebay turbo on our cars.

It’s also disappointing to see a decent point put across by someone, only to see it reduced to digs about age, with irrelevant comments towards end vehicle value and attempted stereotypes. Ironic the comments though, especially when as stated above most old AMG suspension’d car’s scrape the ground when driven hard, and most Kjet diaphragms blow out under a hint of boost.

Anyway I thought this thread was about making a Mercedes fast?

To the OP, since you're starting with a 320e, send it to a tuner for a new aftermarket ecu and loom. Then send it to an exhaust fab place with 2 new turbos, plumb the turbos in with a new intercooler. Get it setup, done... Easy really.

 

[nick.ged]

.
It’s [...] disappointing to see a decent point put across by someone, only to see it reduced to digs about age, with irrelevant comments towards end vehicle value and attempted stereotypes. Ironic the comments though, especially when as stated above most old AMG suspension’d car’s scrape the ground when driven hard, and most Kjet diaphragms blow out under a hint of boost.

this statement ^^ is sooooooooooo true,

unfortunatly, its been this way for ages, seems most merc guys are predisposed to believing old, out of date rubbish, spouted by an old, out of date, supposed knowall.

 

[NISFAN]

Hey PhilJ

I was going to write a reply along those lines, but couldn't be bothered. Well said

...and thank you Nick

 

[mercboiuk]

I haven't been around properly for a couple of weeks, so I've been a bit quiet here.

This thread is giving me alot to think about, which is exactly what I wished it do.
I have contacted a couple of members about my potential transformation, plus spoken to a few local people about any TT concersion. I also recently contacted Mosselman for advice.
My Indy have also since said that, while they could the work, they don't feel comfortable commiting to it as it could prove an unquantifable amount of man hours to get it working correctly.
They have, however, been useful with potential local contacts and I shall be enquiring with a local engineering firm.

So not too much progress right now.
I wish to learn everything I can before committing, so please keep all your extremely useful information coming. Whether it's conflicting or not, it certainly all helps!

Many further thanks.
Darren

 

[nick.ged]

mercboiuk, it is unfortunate that u posted this now, i was working just outside dunston hall, on the sub station extention, all last year, and would have gladly helped you out, as the lodgings i was in were very boring, but i did play golf nearly every nite, still crp thou, lol

nick

 

[mercboiuk]

A mere 25 minutes from my home!
Sod's law, I guess.

As for golf, it's an interesting sport - I bet you're still better than me

Darren