PDA

View Full Version : RENNtech performance upgrades for W124, current & former



gsxr
05-10-2011, 09:40 AM
Here are some PDF files of RENNtech's product offerings over the years. The older docs have more information than the newer ones, as demand likely tapered off as the 124 chassis aged. I have no idea on current pricing or availability, these are just posted for reference. I expect that many items are no longer available:

1998 catalog:
http://www.w124performance.com/docs/mb/ ... 4_1998.pdf (http://www.w124performance.com/docs/mb/W124/RENNtech_W124_1998.pdf)

2004 catalog:
http://www.w124performance.com/docs/mb/ ... 4_2004.pdf (http://www.w124performance.com/docs/mb/W124/RENNtech_W124_2004.pdf)

2006 catalog:
http://www.w124performance.com/docs/mb/ ... 4_2006.pdf (http://www.w124performance.com/docs/mb/W124/RENNtech_W124_2006.pdf)

RENNtech transmission fluid cooler kit:
http://www.w124performance.com/images/M119/RENNTech_trans_cooler/


RENNtech no longer has any information on their website showing details for W124 upgrades. That Stage 3 setup with 440hp/440tq is enough to positively make me drool and mutter incoherently. Their '98 catalog said the Stage 3 ENGINE package was tested by C&D, not necessarily in a 500E chassis. I think it was tested in an R129 - here's a link to the article on their website:
http://renntechmercedes.com/www/sites/d ... nd0294.pdf (http://renntechmercedes.com/www/sites/default/files/articles/content/cnd0294.pdf)

Note the R129 was lightened enough (-400 lbs!) to possibly weigh less than an .036 chassis. In that trim it ran 13.0 @ 111mph, 0-100 in 10.8, 0-130 in 18.5, all with 2.47 LSD. Those times would drop a few tenths with lower gears (2.65/2.82). The 111mph trap speed is a good indicator that the car was likely producing approx 440hp as claimed.


:apl: :drool5:

zman
05-11-2011, 09:20 PM
My God, although what I am about to say may be blasphemous and cosidered high end butchery, with those outrageous kit prices that were asking, despite the fact that the horsepower per dollar ratio is not worth mentioning, I would rather throw in a 7.0 litre out of a current Z06 vette or a 4 cam Ford crate motor with a standalone system which are both light and produce north of 500 horse..sure it wouldn't play nice with the ASR, etc..but for almost 50 G's...gouging at its finest I'd say.

However, for what it is, I love the 119 motor even with its humble 326 ponies. :thumbsdown:

gerryvz
05-11-2011, 09:52 PM
Uploading the PDF documents into the site archives just to provide another, alternative source for them.

Cheers,
Gerry

szvook
05-12-2011, 03:42 AM
So would it be safe to use the original transmission without any tweaks to handle the additional torque? Their list of mods does not mention any transmission work, but their catalog did offer transmission upgrades.

I have half of the mods in my car done already to handle the upgrade and the only items left are the engine work itself, 100 cell cats and the Brabus suspension - which at least will not cost too much for me to buy and have it installed. I really need to start saving up, cause yes...at "least" 420hp on tap is just what I would love to have in my 500E.

gerryvz
05-12-2011, 08:49 AM
I believe the stock transmission can easily handle the power well into the 400HP range. The RENNtech mods may well be in terms of shifting behavior and characteristics rather than beefing things up to handle the power of a 6.0.

My tranny has certainly never had any issues with regard to the ~420 crank HP provided (at least in short bursts) by my BergWerks N20 kit, and that includes PLENTY of burnouts. The flex discs tend (and are designed) to take the brunt of abuse.

Cheers,
Gerry

gsxr
05-12-2011, 09:28 AM
+1 with Gerry. A good, stock tranny can deal with increased power quite well, particularly if it's serviced on schedule, even better if you use good synthetic ATF like Red Line. The RENNtech mods will affect shift quality and/or add FGS valvebody. There is a mod which adds extra clutch packs, adding more durability for high-power applications, and this would be recommended for any 6L upgrade due to the significantly increased low-end torque.

Any increased power (6L, NOS, etc) would be a strain on an older / tired transmission, though. If the trans is original and has >150kmi, it's already on borrowed time, and upping the power level is only going to hasten its demise. My 500E is in that mode right now... reverse is a bit slower to engage than it should be, and I think it's the original trans at 170k. I have to pull it for a re-seal anyway so I'll try popping in new reverse clutches (behind the main pump, IIRC) and see how much more time that buys me before a $$$$ rebuild.

If anyone is looking for trans work in the northeast, remotemark just had a shop there do a full rebuild of his E500 trans, including new engine mounts and some other odds & ends, for - IIRC - $2500 total out the door, parts & labor. This was from an old-time experienced MB tech who knows the 722.3 inside & out. Probably worth checking into if you live in that area....

:beerchug:

szvook
05-12-2011, 09:51 PM
Good to know. I've also ran this by my crew and the consensuses point to the need for extra clutch packs is based on how much additional power is actually attained, if only 50-60hp are gained, no need for extra clutch packs. FWIW, I had my transmission fully rebuild from end-to-end when I got the FGS valve body installed to make sure the FGS mod was not going to affect the transmission. Prior to swapping the valve body, my transmission guru (who bleeds transmission fluid for over 30 years going back to Germany) took the car out and said the transmission felt good enough to swap the valve body as is, but for longevity and security resulting from the mod, a rebuild should be done. I had the money and decided to do the rebuild and leave only the extra clutch packs to be done when I get ready for the 6.0L conversion.

The job was done with a fine-tooth-comb and the car was set-up with firmer shifting, which Wolfgang made just a tad firmer then stock. Cost of admission was $2,200. The car feels just perfect and then some.
I'm just dream-surfing of a 6.0L with a permanent FGS pushing close to 440hp... :drool5: Gonna take all the docs and specs to Ralph and see what kind of power range is truly available and what's B.S.

Many thanks.

szvook
05-14-2011, 08:54 PM
Well, I was able to grab lunch at R.B Tech and went over the docs and their claims. The claimed 440hp can be attained and the listed items/work in stage 3 can all be done. The claimed smooth idle is not quite true especially with changing to the performance camshafts, the idle will be somewhat floppy and the exhaust note at idle will be raised.

The 4.4 seconds 0-60 is realistic. Now just need the $... :e500launch:

Christian_K
05-15-2011, 09:20 AM
I don't know if 4.4 Seconds can be reached.... i doubt it.
A 6.5L Brabus with also 440HP but much more Torque makes it in 5.4 Seconds to 100kph (62mph).... 4.4 Seconds is unrealistic with the stock gearing.

195910
05-15-2011, 03:28 PM
I don't know if 4.4 Seconds can be reached.... i doubt it.
A 6.5L Brabus with also 440HP but much more Torque makes it in 5.4 Seconds to 100kph (62mph).... 4.4 Seconds is unrealistic with the stock gearing.

AFAIK the 4.4 sec claims was with the 6-speed manual transmission conversion as well (i.e blue renntech 6.0)

as for the 6.5L, it can definitely do a 5 second 0-100km/h. The amount of torque is just unreal !!

Christian_K
05-15-2011, 04:21 PM
as for the 6.5L, it can definitely do a 5 second 0-100km/h. The amount of torque is just unreal !!
I believe you with the torque... already like 80NM feels like the car has a 100hp more or so (comparison of E420 -> E500), i don't want to know how brutal that 6.5L feels.
My Data from 0-100kph was from Brabus Homepage were they recently listed that fully rebuilt 500E 6.5L. They have the 2.65:1 rear axle ratio in it and claimed IIRC 5.4 or 5.3 Seconds from real 0-100kph (not speedo read!).

So for 4.4 Seconds with an 4-Speed automatic gearbox, i think rather 600HP+ would be needed in the W124. Just look at E63AMG, it makes 4.5 0-100kph but has way over 500HP and over 630NM of Torque + a super-fast 7 Speed Automatic gearbox.

gsxr
05-16-2011, 10:29 AM
4.4 is very optimistic and would require perfect conditions with zero wheelspin, i.e. drag radials at the dragstrip, at sea level. Upper 4's is more realistic, but again requires no wheelspin. If ASR engages it will slow the time 0.2-0.3 seconds, or worse if it engages a second time after the initial launch.

:burnout:

195910
05-16-2011, 12:01 PM
I believe you with the torque... already like 80NM feels like the car has a 100hp more or so (comparison of E420 -> E500), i don't want to know how brutal that 6.5L feels.
My Data from 0-100kph was from Brabus Homepage were they recently listed that fully rebuilt 500E 6.5L. They have the 2.65:1 rear axle ratio in it and claimed IIRC 5.4 or 5.3 Seconds from real 0-100kph (not speedo read!).

So for 4.4 Seconds with an 4-Speed automatic gearbox, i think rather 600HP+ would be needed in the W124. Just look at E63AMG, it makes 4.5 0-100kph but has way over 500HP and over 630NM of Torque + a super-fast 7 Speed Automatic gearbox.

I think the figures on the Brabus website are more of a general 6.5L figure. I have the old Brabus brochure and it states the 500E 6.0 Has a 0-100km/h in 5.2sec. So a 6.5L can't be the same.

I'll say this about the E63 M156: 630NM at 5500rpm and a very narrow torque curve. and 514PS at about 7000rpm. Not really how a Mercedes should be.

My M273 motor does 530NM from 2800-4800RPM flat torque curve and 388PS at 5900RPM. It is super smooth and too quiet (stock is boring, waiting for rest of BRABUS B8 components)

Same Block is now with Bi-turbo on the new 63 AMG: 800NM and 580PS !!! Now thats Mercedes.

Christian_K
05-16-2011, 12:17 PM
have the old Brabus brochure and it states the 500E 6.0 Has a 0-100km/h in 5.2sec. So a 6.5L can't be the same.
Well then it really seems they specified it wrong either, or the early claims were tooo optimistic (Brabus in the past 20 years is well know for that ;-) )


I'll say this about the E63 M156: 630NM at 5500rpm and a very narrow torque curve. and 514PS at about 7000rpm. Not really how a Mercedes should be.
Well a E63AMG with M156 is still a brutal beast. You can f*** a Ferrai 360Modena with it and a 500E or even your E500 is like a little Diesel compared to it.
Trust me, a friend of mine test driven it and there are many Videos on youtube where they duell a 500E against it... Already 2 Seconds after start the E63 is like 3 car-lengths gone.
So i wouldn't say its slow or whatever. I also think a E65 Brabus W124 has no chance against it. Alone because of the 7 Speed gearbox, etc.



Same Block is now with Bi-turbo on the new 63 AMG: 800NM and 580PS !!! Now thats Mercedes.
Hehe, i know... still have that one saying of the US AMG-Spokesperson from that one Interview in mind...As he said to "why turbos?" with "Torque is King....:" ;-)

gsxr
05-16-2011, 02:54 PM
My God ... I would rather throw in a 7.0 litre out of a current Z06 vette or a 4 cam Ford crate motor with a standalone system which are both light and produce north of 500 horse..sure it wouldn't play nice with the ASR, etc..but for almost 50 G's...gouging at its finest I'd say.
Well, here's twelve reasons why you might not want to do that... or, why the RENNtech motor costs what it does, lol:

http://www.0-60mag.com/news/2011/01/car ... ette-fail/ (http://www.0-60mag.com/news/2011/01/cars-a-collection-of-corvette-fail/)

:seesaw:

195910
05-16-2011, 07:37 PM
Well a E63AMG with M156 is still a brutal beast. You can f*** a Ferrai 360Modena with it and a 500E or even your E500 is like a little Diesel compared to it.
Trust me, a friend of mine test driven it and there are many Videos on youtube where they duell a 500E against it... Already 2 Seconds after start the E63 is like 3 car-lengths gone.
So i wouldn't say its slow or whatever. I also think a E65 Brabus W124 has no chance against it. Alone because of the 7 Speed gearbox, etc.


Little Diesel ??!!

I can do 0-100km/h in 5.2 Sec and 1/4 mile in 13.3 Sec, and thats in completely stock form with 7G Tronic and tall 2.47 final drive.
Its an Autobahn cruiser much like what the intended use of the 500E was.

After the tuning work it will be 4.7-4.8 Sec , 12.7-12.8 1/4 mile and top speed of 295-300KM/H....torque value is near 600NM though this is flat torque curve.
Thats 0.2-0.3 slower than an E63 on the 1/4. which also has 7G tronic but with shorter 2.82 final drive, higher Cd value, at least 70kg heavier.

I am Not saying it will be as fast as an E63; but would you pay 12,000 euro extra, 2000 euro front brake disc+pads, 1400 euro front bumper, and high price engine and body parts that are all 2 weeks special order....just for two car lengths in front ? a race that might never even happen.

2phast
05-16-2011, 07:53 PM
Well, here's twelve reasons why you might not want to do that... or, why the RENNtech motor costs what it does, lol:

http://www.0-60mag.com/news/2011/01/car ... ette-fail/ (http://www.0-60mag.com/news/2011/01/cars-a-collection-of-corvette-fail/)

:seesaw:

Having owned and raced a highly modified Corvette, the only thing that those videos prove is that many unskilled stupid people own Corvettes. Same is true for Vipers, Ferrari's and Lambo's. There was always a betting pool on track days when a Viper owner would show up, it wasn't about "if" they would run off the track, it was "when" :lolol:

The C6 is the best built Corvette to date and I would buy a C6 Z06 in a heartbeat.

Christian_K
05-16-2011, 08:16 PM
Little Diesel ??!!

I can do 0-100km/h in 5.2 Sec and 1/4 mile in 13.3 Sec, and thats in completely stock form with 7G Tronic and tall 2.47 final drive.
Its an Autobahn cruiser much like what the intended use of the 500E was.

After the tuning work it will be 4.7-4.8 Sec , 12.7-12.8 1/4 mile and top speed of 295-300KM/H....torque value is near 600NM though this is flat torque curve.
Thats 0.2-0.3 slower than an E63 on the 1/4. which also has 7G tronic but with shorter 2.82 final drive, higher Cd value, at least 70kg heavier.

I am Not saying it will be as fast as an E63; but would you pay 12,000 euro extra, 2000 euro front brake disc+pads, 1400 euro front bumper, and high price engine and body parts that are all 2 weeks special order....just for two car lengths in front ? a race that might never even happen.
Hi,
first of all i think it doesn't makes much sense actually to compare a sports sedan - which the E63AMG actually is - to a stock normal car with just a big V8 engine.
Also that "little Diesel" was just a nice exaggerated paraphrase of this comparison, no need to get it wrong :-)

Then the Factory-specs for the E500 with 5.5L V and 388HP + 7Speed AT is 5.3 Seconds and no one, none of the massive testings in various German car magazine that i read, nor the countless of private testing i read in huge german MB Forums, did actually manage to hit or to even beat that time in daily driver trim - and i doubt it especially at your temperatures where you actually are living.
So i don't believe your 5.2second figure claim :p , its probably rather real 5.3 to 5.5 seconds in the real world, just like in all the german magazine tests in which they tested it in normal daily driving trim. :mbstar:

Secondly, i hope i don't have to tell you that in the parade-discipline of 0-100kph(0-62mph), at times below 6 seconds, every 0.1 second faster requires major more HP and/or weight reduction.
So when you compare your 5.3 Seconds 0-100kph to the 4.5 seconds of the E63AMG, then i tell you that those little 0.8 seconds (which might look like not so much) are lying "poles apart". ;-)

So i find it really cool that you own a E500 with 5.5L V8 (I love that engine, much like M119) and are going to tune it (what exactly have you planned?), but to reach the E63AMG specs from 0-100kph, not even to talk about its acceleration from 100kph to 200kph, it requires a lot of Tuning and also over 500HP, thats the sad reality.
Also during the direct Race (which yes, might be never happen, but it was you who started to discredit the E63AMG) it will be only 2 car lengths apart from 0-100kph, but i don't want to start to argue what happens at much higher speeds, then you'll probably will see 50 car lengths between your car and a real E63AMG :-) :lolol:

gerryvz
05-16-2011, 08:20 PM
I agree with 2Phast in terms of Vettes just being among the most common cars that have too much power for their owners to handle.

It's sort of like giving someone who is brand new to riding motorcycles, a brand-new CBR600RR or a GSX-R750 (pun not intended). It's only a matter of WHEN, in addition to IF, they wreck the bike and probably themselves. The site http://www.wreckedexotics.com is full of photos of idiots with all types of powerful and exotic cars.

I agree that Vette and Viper owners, generally speaking, tend to be the most clueless though.

Cheers,
Gerry

2phast
05-17-2011, 02:08 AM
It's sort of like giving someone who is brand new to riding motorcycles, a brand-new CBR600RR or a GSX-R750 (pun not intended). It's only a matter of WHEN, in addition to IF, they wreck the bike and probably themselves.

Or a Hayabusa :banger:

195910
05-17-2011, 05:39 AM
The C6 is the best built Corvette to date and I would buy a C6 Z06 in a heartbeat.

You mean ZOPlastic ? never knew what they do with old water bottles till a saw a C6.

But seriously, they are powerful cars with low weight, and require alot of driver skills to get the right number from them. A ZO6 can beat a 997 Turbo if the driver was highly skilled, but with average drivers it a sure loss.

My friend (corvette tuner) owns the fastest C5 ZO6 in Q8, beats tuned 997 turbos !!

195910
05-17-2011, 06:35 AM
Hi,
first of all i think it doesn't makes much sense actually to compare a sports sedan - which the E63AMG actually is - to a stock normal car with just a big V8 engine.
Also that "little Diesel" was just a nice exaggerated paraphrase of this comparison, no need to get it wrong :-)

Then the Factory-specs for the E500 with 5.5L V and 388HP + 7Speed AT is 5.3 Seconds and no one, none of the massive testings in various German car magazine that i read, nor the countless of private testing i read in huge german MB Forums, did actually manage to hit or to even beat that time in daily driver trim - and i doubt it especially at your temperatures where you actually are living.
So i don't believe your 5.2second figure claim :p , its probably rather real 5.3 to 5.5 seconds in the real world, just like in all the german magazine tests in which they tested it in normal daily driving trim. :mbstar:

Secondly, i hope i don't have to tell you that in the parade-discipline of 0-100kph(0-62mph), at times below 6 seconds, every 0.1 second faster requires major more HP and/or weight reduction.
So when you compare your 5.3 Seconds 0-100kph to the 4.5 seconds of the E63AMG, then i tell you that those little 0.8 seconds (which might look like not so much) are lying "poles apart". ;-)

So i find it really cool that you own a E500 with 5.5L V8 (I love that engine, much like M119) and are going to tune it (what exactly have you planned?), but to reach the E63AMG specs from 0-100kph, not even to talk about its acceleration from 100kph to 200kph, it requires a lot of Tuning and also over 500HP, thats the sad reality.
Also during the direct Race (which yes, might be never happen, but it was you who started to discredit the E63AMG) it will be only 2 car lengths apart from 0-100kph, but i don't want to start to argue what happens at much higher speeds, then you'll probably will see 50 car lengths between your car and a real E63AMG :-) :lolol:

I've been reading the report the Autoild and Automotor and sport, did on this car. And non of them say the the Mercedes numbers are fake. I remember Automotor and sport used to say the 500E had a 0-100km/h in 6.8sec ! just to say the E34 M5 is faster.. Me and everybody here know that this is not true and that the stock 500E can do 6.0 sec easily.

As I mentioned earlier, my car will never be as fast as an E63. But it will never be 50 car length away. We are seing all these cars race and its never that much apart. E63 is faster than the E55K in 0-100 (514ps Vs 476), but then the E55 pulls on it. Just ask the AMG forums.

a tuned BMW 335I (360PS) is faster than an E92 M3 (420ps) till 160km/h. I have seen it twice and check the m5board on this as well.

Car performance is never a linear relation. It has so many factors and its not always the fastest car that wins.

I am planning a 62PS increase in power, thats the same power difference between the 500E and the E60 (326vs381). The figure that I am claiming is coming from the fact that all the major tuners (Brabus B8, Carlsson CK50, VATH V50, Renntech) all claim similar numbers with their tuning packages, they can't be all lying ! I can go upto 480PS Daily Driver without forced induction or high Rev and on original displacement.

Jimbo
05-18-2011, 01:04 PM
Good to know. I've also ran this by my crew and the consensuses point to the need for extra clutch packs is based on how much additional power is actually attained, if only 50-60hp are gained, no need for extra clutch packs. ....Many thanks. :excellent:


RennTECH had used the SL600s clutch packs I'm told, whether or not its necessary is another thing , but the sound of a V12 part in there goes a long way I guess....I got a friend/MB tech Nick who moved down there recently and is now working for Harmut. He's shed some light on what they do/did. The 6.0 motors for the 500Es they built...off the shelf AMG E60 liter parts.

Crazy prices? $800 back 10 years ago for the ASR defeat switch set-up?...you bet (about $150 worth of materials at most today isn't it?) Always were and will continue to be expensive...but look at who they cater to; movie stars and professional athletes mostly. No need to price things reasonably to attract anyone other than those folks. :wank307: They do a good job at what they do, and command all the money for it too.

Jimbo
05-18-2011, 01:18 PM
The C6 is the best built Corvette to date and I would buy a C6 Z06 in a heartbeat.



I'd love a newer one too like Rick...POS build quality but they run super strong and ARE a handful to drive...not like these new cars that drive themselves with all the hand of God safety items (nothing wrong with either one) The Vettes still are a throw back to when muscle cars needed 'muscle' to drive them. 100% correct, if you can't drive well, don't get a Vette. Plenty of youTube vids to reinforce that one.

The new Vette championed the new 997TT in one of the recent US car magazines didn't it? OK, the magazine prolly got something for picking it over the P-car...but...they're great rides, as far as USA manufacture goes. Let's not compare them to any 4 door German sedan with a V8 though.

gsxr
05-18-2011, 01:20 PM
I got a friend/MB tech Nick who moved down there recently and is now working for Harmut. He's shed some light on what they do/did. The 6.0 motors for the 500Es they built...off the shelf AMG E60 liter parts.
That's what I thought too... but not all items were AMG E60. The 6.0L cams were custom made for RENNtech with different lift than the AMG E60 cams. And they also appeared to do their own LH EPROM mods, at least for some cars. However, it wouldn't surprise me if the bottom end was largely AMG parts (or, sourced from the same place that AMG was getting them).

:3gears:

gsxr
05-18-2011, 01:23 PM
Having owned and raced a highly modified Corvette, the only thing that those videos prove is that many unskilled stupid people own Corvettes.
No argument there, but what I found interesting was the number of mechanical failures. It wasn't 12 videos of dumb drivers, it was almost half & half squids vs engines blowing or drivetrain parts breaking. Maybe those were highly modified and pushed to the edge of reliability, but I've rarely seen MB's suffer the same fate (although it could be argued that few MB's are making the same power level!).

:grouphug:

2phast
05-18-2011, 01:54 PM
You mean ZOPlastic ? never knew what they do with old water bottles till a saw a C6.

But seriously, they are powerful cars with low weight, and require alot of driver skills to get the right number from them. A ZO6 can beat a 997 Turbo if the driver was highly skilled, but with average drivers it a sure loss.

My friend (corvette tuner) owns the fastest C5 ZO6 in Q8, beats tuned 997 turbos !!

I agree, the interior was never top notch, but on par with the interior of most BMW's, just no where near the level of quality of the Mercedes. The C6 does have a nice leather interior, but the 4LT option makes it much nicer with all the extra leather and leather dash.

Actually the Corvette (at least the C5 and C6) is a very easy car to drive on the track. Out of the box it is very fast and balanced. My C5 was probably in the range of 420-440 hp at the crank and I could walk all over Porsche TT's (996 variant). I spent a lot of time at PCA and BMWCCA events and the only cars that were ever a challenge were the Porsche TT's or the full-on race cars.

The traction control/yaw system using on the C5/C6 does an excellent job of keeping drivers out of trouble, assuming of course they leave it on. One reason Vipers end up in the dirt all the time is the lack of this type of safety system.

gerryvz
05-18-2011, 02:00 PM
half & half squids vs engines blowing or drivetrain parts breaking.Hey GSXR, don't you bill yourself on some forums as being an E500E and/or W124 squid ? :stickpoke:

2phast
05-18-2011, 02:18 PM
No argument there, but what I found interesting was the number of mechanical failures. It wasn't 12 videos of dumb drivers, it was almost half & half squids vs engines blowing or drivetrain parts breaking. Maybe those were highly modified and pushed to the edge of reliability, but I've rarely seen MB's suffer the same fate (although it could be argued that few MB's are making the same power level!).

:grouphug:

First white Corvette had a N20 problem, thats self explanatory.

Second white Corvette on the dyno was supposed to be putting down around 1200 hp and was supercharged running 32 psi of boost. Self explanatory on that one also.

Third white C6 blew the rear differential. 2005 and early 2006 models (that car is a 2006) had shit differentials and this was a common problem, not just on the track. No excuse for such a POS diff in a 400+ hp car. I don't know anything more about that car, could be stock or modified.

Fourth car is a black C6 Z06. Those cars are rock solid, even the early models. Don't know what the story is behind that one.

Fifth car is a red C5 Z06 Corvette. 685 rwtq, over 200 passes on N20 all stock internals. Self explanatory.

Sixth car is a yellow C5 Z06 Corvette. No stats, but he was running N20 also. Self explanatory.

Seventh C5 grey Corvette blew a differential during a auto cross. Owner is Steve Abbott, he races in SCCA events. I don't know much about his car, but its far from stock. It's gutted, weighs in around 2800lbs. Given he runs mostly autox type events, its safe to say there is no N20 involved in this diff failure.

Here is a picture of Steve's interior

https://www.500eboard.com/forums/images/imported/2011/05/23.jpg

That more or less covers the majority of blow ups.

JESSter76
07-19-2012, 03:57 PM
Hey everyone,

I'm pretty new to the site. I have a 1994 E500. Just wondering if you can still get Renntech mods? Or if someone here has any Renntech stuff for sale. Really I'm looking for the Carbon Fiber Airbox.

Thanks in advance for all your input.

Cheers,
Jesse

gsxr
07-19-2012, 04:36 PM
I'm pretty sure you can still buy the RENNTech stuff directly from RENNtech, but it's expensive. The airbox looks very nice but will make little, if ANY, power gains. You can drop in an early LH module (like this one (http://www.500eboard.com/forums/showthread.php?545-FS-1992-Euro-LH-module-w-WOT-enrichment)) and pick up 8-10rwhp but that's about the end of the easy power gains...

:apl:

JESSter76
07-19-2012, 05:20 PM
Thanks for the info gsxr. What exactly is an LH module? Where is it? And why did the earlier cars have it and why was it removed/changed in the 93/94 models? And the earlier cars had less HP right?

Christian_K
07-19-2012, 06:13 PM
The Airbox is just a gimmick in the 124.036 chassis... There are other air bottlenecks to solve first, before using that Renntech thing. Also i remember old posts from Dave in the MBworld Forums or was it Benzworld, where he had some issues with ful turned wheels and the Renntech Airbox? Dave?

The LH module is your main ECU. It controls Fuel injection. Older models have more power and torque because the old LH Modules contain something called "WOT-Enrichment", which richens the Air-Fuel Mixture on full-load (WOT -> Wide open Throttle) to around 12.6:1 (good for power, bad for consumption and pollution), while the later ones stick in the so called "Closed Loop" and maintain a Eco-friendly Air-fuel Mixture of 14.7:1.

gsxr
07-19-2012, 07:53 PM
Yup, what Christian said. The 93-up models eliminated the WOT enrichment most likely for environmental concerns. The module looks like the one shown below, just with a different part number (the one in the picture is from an AMG E60). The module resides inside the CAN box near the passenger side hood hinge (photo is here (http://www.w124performance.com/images/M119/LH/1991_Euro_CAN_box.jpg)).

:seesaw:

http://www.w124performance.com/images/M119/LH/E60_LH_Module.jpg

samiam44
07-20-2012, 10:03 AM
Where's this 4.4 sec claim? I'm reading the linked article with the yellow R129 and it clearly shows 4.6s. Anything less than 5.0 requires a drag strip. Car could have easily had 2.82 gears... You never know.

Christian_K
07-20-2012, 11:10 AM
Where's this 4.4 sec claim? I'm reading the linked article with the yellow R129 and it clearly shows 4.6s. Anything less than 5.0 requires a drag strip. Car could have easily had 2.82 gears... You never know.
Was a typo by szvook probably. 4.6 was meant which is unrealistic either.
~5.0 seconds sounds more realistic for a 440HP low-weight car with slow 4 speed auto gearbox.


ADMIN EDIT: The 1998 RENNtech brochure mentioned the 4.4 second 0-60 time. The C&D article shows 4.6 seconds.

JESSter76
07-23-2012, 08:01 PM
thanks for the info guys.

Frank Hogan
09-26-2012, 08:59 AM
Any one had their tranny converted to a 6spd? I know that Rennlist conversations about converting a 928 to manual is always tilted towards "find an existing manual" or "prohibitive cost" but since the former is not an option and the latter is somewhat moot after a topic on 46K engine upgrades….I wonder if RUF would tinker with them ( I know Alois Ruf has a E500E kicking around in his stable)?

maw1124
12-17-2014, 05:19 PM
I got a friend/MB tech Nick who moved down there recently and is now working for Harmut. He's shed some light on what they do/did. The 6.0 motors for the 500Es they built...off the shelf AMG E60 liter parts.


Does anyone here have any intel on what their "rear subframe mod" consisted of? Was that just E60 parts as well, similar to what they did on the yellow SL in the article GVZ posted above? I ask because it's time for rear SLS struts, which naturally leads me to think of E60 fronts (or Bilstein sport), SL600 brakes all around. Specifically I'm told that in order to do the SL600 rear brakes I need newer style LCAs (?), and I'm wondering if RennTech's rear subframe mod (which my car has) changes any of these fitment requirements. Obviously I'd like to know as much as possible in advance, so as not to make a science project out of it. I have the E60 shock information from another post (thanks GSXR).

I appreciate your thoughts, Gents. Cheers,

maw

Glen
12-17-2014, 05:40 PM
The RENNtech subframe mods were just heim jointed links that replaced the factory rubber bushed arms...really horrible for a street driven car.

As far as brakes, I think what you mean by SL600 brakes are really what we know today as Silver Arrow brakes which use 334mm front rotors and associated calipers. GSXR often sells these as bolt-on kits that DO require using the late style lower control arms. Again, this is for the front brakes.

For the rear, the SL600 brakes are 300mm rotors and associated calipers. Depending on what year your car is, you may or may not have the proper backing plates. If you have the smaller backing plates, you have two choices. 1. Trim them to allow fitting 300mm rotors or, 2. replace them with the larger plates, note that this will require replacing the rear wheel bearings.

maw1124
12-17-2014, 06:04 PM
Thanks, Glen. I have a '92. Trimming the backing plate or doing just front brakes would be likely options. Yes, Silver Arrow 334 fronts. I apparently butchered GSXRs advice on the LCAs. Thanks for clarifying.

Cheers,

maw

samiam44
12-18-2014, 09:19 AM
It's really hard to say on what was done on Renntechs as each one was custom. Yes, pistons/crank setup were same as AMG- but cams, porting, oversized valves etc were done differently on many different motors.

I thought the 440 hp were
1) standard motor
2) extrude honed intake
3) 39 mm intake valves
4) big RT cam (? 11mm lift).
5) exhaust-

It would be a good discussion with Hartmut sometime on what worked and what didn't. Dave do they have any cams on the shelf to build motors anymore?

Michael

gsxr
12-18-2014, 10:27 AM
Michael, last time I talked to Hartmut (couple years ago) they did not have any M119 cams available except one last set of solid-lifter race cams, which he was planning to use on a personal/company race car of some sort.

You are correct that every build was custom/different and it is VERY hard to know what was done without either the original paperwork, or taking the motor apart for some reverse engineering. Based on the PDF's in the first link, the 440hp motor has CNC ported/polished heads, tubular headers, very likely 39mm intake valves, and the "big" 11mm cam.

For the record, I've always felt the claimed power numbers were optimistic... I think they used a generous conversion from the rwhp numbers. A real 440hp should be 360rwhp and I have only seen one M119 dyno graph anywhere near that number, and it was a special build by Bernard with custom-grind cams that were >$5k/set. The highest number I've ever seen from any RT motor was ~340rwhp which is ~415 crank, not 440.

:grouphug:

maw1124
12-20-2014, 08:38 AM
For the record, I've always felt the claimed power numbers were optimistic... I think they used a generous conversion from the rwhp numbers. A real 440hp should be 360rwhp and I have only seen one M119 dyno graph anywhere near that number, and it was a special build by Bernard with custom-grind cams that were >$5k/set. The highest number I've ever seen from any RT motor was ~340rwhp which is ~415 crank, not 440.


Dave, you hit something here that always nicks me a bit, generous dyno conversions. It looks like you're using something like 29.5% drivetrain loss in going from 340rwhp to 440 crank? Even in going from 340rwhp to 415 crank you're giving them something like 22%? If I did the math right, I think you're being WAY generous here, gracious even.

Anything over 20% drivetrain loss looks like specious BS to me. Now, admittedly my benchmark is AMG cars, which tend to calculate out at 20% all day long. I think American cars tend to use 25%? And maybe this is how AMG got their reputation for "sandbagging" on HP claims -- if you apply a 25% or 30% drivetrain loss to the rwhp of their cars, they're producing WAY more than they claim, and would correspondingly be subject to higher guzzler taxes (thus, the sandbagging). Their claimed 495hp for the 55k motors dyno at 415 rwhp bone stock. If you apply a 25% drivetrain loss to that, you're at 518hp crank, not 495hp as claimed (which looks like 20% loss).

So I guess that's a long way of saying: (1) I agree that people BS their hp claims; (2) without knowing the drivetrain loss they're using, you cannot really evaluate the claim; (3) most importantly, there seems to be no unified standard for drivetrain loss (and therefore hp) calculations; and (4) even in the most generous scenarios, RT claims raise eyebrows.

Have I gotten this completely wrong? Anyone else have thoughts? This should probably be a new thread, but I'm interested in what you guys think, and what dyno numbers you see on your stock 500E's, which tells us what drivetrain loss MB is using.

Cheers,

maw

gerryvz
12-20-2014, 08:46 AM
When I did my dyno tests for my nitrous-oxide system installation, I used an 18% drivetrain loss figure, which was consistent with what BergWerks was using for their own car with nitrous. I think that's a reasonable figure, and probably within a couple of percent of reality.

gsxr
12-20-2014, 09:52 AM
I use an 18% conversion for all W124 with automatic transmission. Tested across multiple cars, the RWHP numbers with 18% conversion come very, very close to the factory rated power... I'd say 2%? Click here (http://www.500eboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2452) to view a dyno graph from a stock 1993 500E. It is far more difficult to fudge rear-wheel dyno numbers, which may partly explain why so few people post dyno results, and/or why so few people have their car dyno'd in the first place. I suspect many folks take whatever the rear wheel number is, decide what they WANT the estimated crank power to be, then use whatever conversion factor gives them the desired results. Anyway, the math can get tricky, especially when doing a 'reverse' conversion, i.e. from RWHP to estimated crank. It works like this for an 18% conversion:

Crank HP x 0.82 = estimated RWHP
Example: 322hp x 0.82 = 264rwhp (stock 1992 500E power rating)

RWHP / 0.82 = estimated crank HP
Example: 264rwhp / 0.82 = 322 crank HP


For the claimed 440hp claimed by RENNtech, using various loss estimates:

440hp x 0.75 = 330rwhp - 25% loss
440hp x 0.78 = 343rwhp - 22% loss
440hp x 0.80 = 352rwhp - 20% loss
440hp x 0.82 = 361rwhp - 18% loss (<-- Dave's preferred number)
440hp x 0.85 = 374rwhp - 15% loss

From the dyno sheet (highest HP) I've seen on a RENNtech 6L, with ~340rwhp**:
340rwhp / 0.82 = 415 crank HP


**DISCLAIMER: The two best (highest peak power) dyno sheets I've seen were actually 325rwhp and 328rwhp, but both were without WOT enrichment. Based on the gains with the 4.2L and 5.0L engines, I estimate that both would produce, maybe, 340rwhp with WOT enrichment. So, the ~415 estimated crank HP is best case scenario. I have DynoJet dyno sheets from four different RENNtech 6.0L cars, was told DynoJet results verbally from the owner of a 5th (no graph), and have the results from Bernard's custom motor as a 6th (data was publicly posted on a German forum). I'd love to get more data to work with but it's bloody difficult to obtain.

omegabenz
12-20-2014, 04:39 PM
Here are some PDF files of RENNtech's product offerings over the years.

I emailed you some pics of The RENNtech tranny cooler that run.exe had.

Ron500E
12-20-2014, 04:40 PM
Austin.... do you still have your Hammer?

gsxr
12-20-2014, 04:56 PM
I emailed you some pics of The RENNtech tranny cooler that run.exe had.
Thank you! I have added them to my website, and put the link in the first post in this thread.

:thankyou:

maw1124
12-20-2014, 05:44 PM
I do the math the other way but am not smart enough to figure out what it means. That is, I take the dyno sheet and add some percentage (multiply it by 1.___) to "add back" the drivetrain loss. Maybe that's the plus or minus 2%. But thanks for indulging me in this.

maw

gsxr
12-20-2014, 05:57 PM
I do the math the other way but am not smart enough to figure out what it means. That is, I take the dyno sheet and add some percentage (multiply it by 1.___) to "add back" the drivetrain loss. Maybe that's the plus or minus 2%. But thanks for indulging me in this.
Yeah, the maths get complicated... the "other way" would be about 22%, i.e. 264rwhp x 1.22 = 322 crank hp.

18% is the percentage loss via drivetrain.
22% (1.22) would be the number to multiply by to "add back" the 18% loss.


:matrix:

quicksilver500
01-04-2015, 10:05 AM
Don't forget to normalize to environmentals. Altitude, humidity, temp play huge roles. If that 340 # was taken here (Atlanta) in August, it could be a 360 or more # in October....

My car only dynoed 254, in July - 98F and under water. The guys calculated back to something more standard like 72F 30% (I can't remember exactly) and with the 18% we were north of 322HP in a 1993 car.

Type of dyno is really important too. They had a 4 wheel Dyno Dynamics. They claimed it had a more accurate and usually lower output than something like a dynojet or mustang dyno.

-Mike

EDIT:

http://www.forgedperformance.com/

^This place

gsxr
01-04-2015, 10:56 AM
Yes, correction factors are important. The DynoJet DRF file has the raw uncorrected data, but the WinPEP software will allow you to choose the desired correction factor (SAE, DIN, etc). I use SAE since it is the most conservative and usually the most common as well.

Different dynos can have different results on the same car... always try to use the same dyno for before/after testing on a given car. It gets more difficult comparing different cars on different dynos across the interwebs. The local shops will usually say theirs is "better" for [insert reason here] to get your business.

:grouphug:

maw1124
03-17-2015, 08:45 PM
Uploading the PDF documents into the site archives just to provide another, alternative source for them.

Still trying to decipher this: do we know what their "performance final drive AND limited slip differential" included? I'm looking for this in layman's terms -- meaning at 80mph, which one makes my RPMs higher / lower, and at the expense of what? Whatever this is, mine has it. I see maybe 19mpg highway -- maybe. And RPM seems high for 80mph. Hopefully you guys can help me make sense of this.

Not that I'm about to swap it out or anything, but I would at least like to understand it. Then I can decide what's what. Thanks in advance.

Cheers,

maw

gsxr
03-17-2015, 08:53 PM
Still trying to decipher this: do we know what their "performance final drive AND limited slip differential" included? I'm looking for this in layman's terms -- meaning at 80mph, which one makes my RPMs higher / lower, and at the expense of what? Whatever this is, mine has it. I see maybe 19mpg highway -- maybe. And RPM seems high for 80mph. Hopefully you guys can help me make sense of this.
Performance final drive = different gear ratio.

Limited slip = Gleason-Torsen type differential to prove better traction. It appears RENNtech had units custom fabricated, the equivalent today would be Quaife or WaveTrac (which IMO may be better units).

These were available separately or combined ($$$$).

Stock 2.82 gears should result in 3000rpm at 80mph. There will be a 200rpm difference up or down if you had either 2.65 or 3.06 gears.

:spend:

gerryvz
03-17-2015, 09:01 PM
Stock 2.82 gears should result in 3000rpm at 80mph. There will be a 200rpm difference up or down if you had either 2.65 or 3.06 gears.

:spend:Maw, just as a point of comparison, my 560SEC (which was a stock 2.47) spins 800 RPM higher at 80 MPH with the 3.07 gears. It's doing a good 3,400-3,500 RPM at 80 MPH. Over the course of the past nine years, I've found that it costs me around 0.5-1 MPG in overall fuel economy. That's around a 7-8% penalty from the lower gears.

Even with the lower gearing, the car still performs within the stated EPA mileage numbers for city and highway that were published when the car was new. I also had a 560SEL and 560SL (both with stock 2.47) to compare it against on a constant basis. Due to its size and weight, I found that the 560SEL actually got slightly worse mileage than the modified SEC, while the lighter/smaller 560SL garnered substantially better mileage.

Cheers,
Gerry

maw1124
03-17-2015, 09:41 PM
Thanks Guys. I think I have it.

Mine has the package as quoted (performance AND limited) for $3,990, back whenever (mid 90s). So it must have 3.06, which corroborates the +200 rpm difference. I actually like this because I seem to be always in the power band at highway speeds -- nudge your right ankle and off you go. A rebuilt trans amplifies the effect. The remaining mods seem to be net neutral in effect.

Some of the extra RPMs may be offset with 18" wheels (rolling diameter kept close, maybe a hair bigger); some of the MPG loss may be offset with a lighter exhaust; then MPG maybe lost again through the RennTech eProm; but then maybe gained again with freer exhaust flow. Net neutral, for any practical purpose anyway.

But I needed to understand the gearing to think my way through it. Thanks for your help.

Cheers,

maw

samiam44
04-07-2015, 04:05 PM
Maw,


If you want to find out what ratio you have- simply look at the RHS lower rear corner. RT built my diff and it was nicely tagged with the LSD and 2.65 ratio. Only person I've ever heard of with a 3.06 is Stu Ritter's 034.


Michael

M104-AMG
04-07-2015, 11:11 PM
I have both a 3.06 and 3.06 ASR diff just begging for me to install the LSD . . .

:-) neil

gerryvz
04-11-2015, 11:07 PM
Maw, just as a point of comparison, my 560SEC (which was a stock 2.47) spins 800 RPM higher at 80 MPH with the 3.07 gears. It's doing a good 3,400-3,500 RPM at 80 MPH. Over the course of the past nine years, I've found that it costs me around 0.5-1 MPG in overall fuel economy. That's around a 7-8% penalty from the lower gears.

Even with the lower gearing, the car still performs within the stated EPA mileage numbers for city and highway that were published when the car was new. I also had a 560SEL and 560SL (both with stock 2.47) to compare it against on a constant basis. Due to its size and weight, I found that the 560SEL actually got slightly worse mileage than the modified SEC, while the lighter/smaller 560SL garnered substantially better mileage.

Cheers,
GerryOver the past few weeks, I've been driving my 560SEC the 30 miles (one-way) into downtown Houston down I-45 every day since I started at a new job with an office at Two Allen Center. Interestingly, my MPG has gone up about 1.5-2.5 MPG with this freeway driving, and I'm getting in the mid-15 MPG range now after many years of more "stop and go" driving the back roads to my previous job. The additional MPG is very welcome.

Cheers,
Gerry

samiam44
04-12-2015, 02:37 PM
Just remember, those engines had to meet emissions. I wondered if the Brabus big cam lift was 11mm too?

Without emissions, a touch more lift, mild port work..

My car has always dynod strong. Rt rebuilt the Trans and put a lower stall convertor in the car. I'm guessing that's the magical 2% difference.
Michael

carreraboy911
12-01-2015, 04:44 PM
If anyone is looking for trans work in the northeast, remotemark just had a shop there do a full rebuild of his E500 trans, including new engine mounts and some other odds & ends, for - IIRC - $2500 total out the door, parts & labor. This was from an old-time experienced MB tech who knows the 722.3 inside & out. Probably worth checking into if you live in that area....



more info on that shop please?