Results 1 to 47 of 47

Thread: CLK LM engine confusion

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    2

    CLK LM engine confusion

    Hello,

    I recently saw an entry list program cover of 1998 Le Mans:

    http://www.racingsportscars.com/cove...998-06-07e.jpg

    it shows the CLK LM has a 6000cc NA engine (A stands for atmospheric I believe), but the rest of the website shows that the CLK LM engine displacement is 4989cc

    These two pages also say CLK LM has 5 liter v8 but one of them says it is designated as GT108B revised from the Sauber C9/C11's M119HL and the displacement is 4986cc:

    http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/spec/...nz-CLK-LM.html
    http://media.daimler.com/marsMediaSi...14&oid=9919089

    so which one is correct? I highly doubt CLK LM used the 6L to race, maybe there was something else went on? Does anyone know about this?
    Attached Images Attached Images

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to zsm5833 For This Useful Post:

    gsxr (07-12-2017), TerryA (07-12-2017)

  3. #2
    E500E Guru
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    DFW Texas
    Posts
    2,682

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    I'm not sure which motor was used in what race.... MB had 2 M119 race engines. The turbo'd 5.0 liter and an aspirated 6.0 liter. I think the 5.0 liter set the Nuremberg track record.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to samiam44 For This Useful Post:

    TerryA (07-12-2017)

  5. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    2

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    Quote Originally Posted by samiam44 View Post
    I'm not sure which motor was used in what race.... MB had 2 M119 race engines. The turbo'd 5.0 liter and an aspirated 6.0 liter. I think the 5.0 liter set the Nuremberg track record.
    I dont think there exists a 6L racing M119, or they probably never raced it.

    First, if you see the CLK LM section on the third website I provided(which is MB official Daimler) the displacement the gave is 4986cc. I saw the official results of 1998 Le Mans it showed 4989cc, but i never see a result showed 6000cc, only the entry list program cover

    Second, this website says CLR has the 5.7L M119 enlarged from the previous CLK LM 5L M119. If what it says is true, then 6L racing M119 will conflict

    http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/txt/4...-Benz-CLR.html

  6. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA
    Posts
    211

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    It looks like the program sheet you posted is incorrect on the engine displacement for the CLK-LM in 1998. It seems they just posted bad info and perhaps used the specs from the CLK-GTR which was the basis for the CLK-LM and was raced in the FIA GT series the same year.

    For clarification, there are 3 version of this fine racecar: the CLK-GTR, CLK-LM and CLR.

    The CLK-GTR was used only in the 1997 and 1998 FIA GT series and won both driver's and constructors' championships both years. It had a naturally aspirated 6.0l M120 V-12 engine.

    The CLK-LM was raced only in the 1998 24 hr of LeMans and had a naturally aspirated 5.0l M119 V-8 highly modified and renamed a GT108B as the block was completely different due to integral structural gussets for the chassis/rear suspension and dry sump system. The CLK-LM was modified from the CLK-GTR with different front fenders to improved aero, and the V-12 was changed to the V-8 because of weight and durability. The engine had a massive inlet resitrictor to reduce power output to comply with the LeMans class rules and so the V-12 was considered overkill. The V-8 offered an advantage of less weight over the V-12 so they could use weight ballast elsewhere in the chassis for improved chassis balance. Unfortunately the V-8 suffered from excessive vibration and was not as reliable as the smooth V-12 and both cars entered were retired with engine failure early in the race (I don't remember exactly but it was less than 6 hours).

    The CLR was raced only in the 1999 24 hr of LeMans and had a naturally aspirated 5.7l M119/GT108C V-8 engine. The engine is the same at the CLK-LM but with a larger displacement due to smaller inlet restrictors that were a rule change for 1999. The additional stroke also helped with vibration to improve engine reliability. The CLR was the famous 'flipper' that flipped 3 different times during qualifying, practice and finally in the race too, so Mercedes pulled the remaining car from the race at around the 6-hour mark if I remember correctly. Mercedes/AMG dropped the GT program entirely after the trouble with the CLR and didn't participate again until the SLS-GT3 customer program started in 2011.

    Sorry to geek out with the info here, but I've been a huge fan of these cars for years. For the record, I don't know of any 6.0l M119 race engines either, as posted above.
    Last edited by SG-Motorsports; 07-13-2017 at 01:12 AM.

  7. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to SG-Motorsports For This Useful Post:

    500AMM (3 Weeks Ago), ace10 (09-01-2018), albdentist (07-13-2017), gerryvz (07-13-2017), gsxr (07-13-2017), Klink (09-01-2018), Rouven036 (09-01-2018), sheward (07-13-2017), Taxi Driver (07-13-2017), TerryA (07-13-2017)

  8. #5
    E500E Guru TerryA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Age
    76
    Posts
    1,305

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    I agree w/SG on the V12. I to was a nut about these cars and I try to watch LeMans every year for as long as I remember as far back as the Speed Channel.

    I know the V12 was the first version raced at LeMans and was dropped in favor of the V8 the following year. I wasn't into the specs at the time so I will let others speak to that.

    I got to see what I believe we're two CLK-GTRs race at Laguna Seca. I don't remember if it was 97 or 98. I believe that Bernt Schneider was lead driver in one car and Claus Ludwig the other car. They were awesome to watch but really had no competition to speak of. If I remember correctly Schneider's car broke down and Ludwig won the race. It was my one and only time I went to Laguna Seca. I have the race program somewhere but probably couldn't find it in a million years.
    Last edited by TerryA; 07-13-2017 at 06:28 AM.
    Terry

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to TerryA For This Useful Post:

    albdentist (07-13-2017), sheward (07-13-2017)

  10. #6
    E500E Guru Taxi Driver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Stockholm Sweden
    Posts
    901

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    The CLR was raced only in the 1999 24 hr of LeMans and had a naturally aspirated 5.7l M119/GT108C V-8 engine. The engine is the same at the CLK-LM but with a larger displacement due to smaller inlet restrictors that were a rule change for 1999. The additional stroke also helped with vibration to improve engine reliability.
    What do you know? I have been saying for years and years, do a stroker M119! A slight overbore an you have the 5.7 allready.
    No messing about with 100mm+ Just get the 97mm pistons w correct comp. height.....
    '92 500E 6.0 AMG
    '93 400E 5.0 AMG
    '96 E50 AMG
    '96 CL500
    '99 C43 AMG

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Taxi Driver For This Useful Post:

    TerryA (07-13-2017)

  12. #7
    Site Honcho
    Klugscheisser
    Ich bekenne mich
    nicht schuldig.
    gerryvz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    17,829

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    Stroker crank from an M117 5.6L.......

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to gerryvz For This Useful Post:

    TerryA (07-13-2017)

  14. #8
    .036 Hoonigan™
    E500E Boffin
    gsxr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Boise, ID, USA
    Posts
    21,520

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    Quote Originally Posted by gerryvz View Post
    Stroker crank from an M117 5.6L.......
    ... and modified rods, and different pistons, and modifications to the block, and let's not forget modifications to the crank itself.

    Probably require at least two weekends under the hood in your garage. Maybe three.


  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to gsxr For This Useful Post:

    Rouven036 (09-04-2018), TerryA (07-13-2017)

  16. #9
    Site Admin
    auto enthusiast...
    Glen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Carlsbad, CA USA
    Posts
    2,752

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    Quote Originally Posted by gsxr View Post
    ... and modified rods, and different pistons, and modifications to the block, and let's not forget modifications to the crank itself.

    Probably require at least two weekends under the hood in your garage. Maybe three.

    I know of such a motor...but it's in need of a full rebuild.
    '94 E500 (744) | '94 E500 (199)         Misc. snapshots

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Glen For This Useful Post:

    gsxr (07-13-2017), TerryA (07-13-2017)

  18. #10
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    I found this thread when I was searching for information about why the CLK-LM sounded totally different at Le Mans in 1998 than it did in all the FIA-GT races it participated in after Le Mans.
    So I registered here to correct some stuff that was written just because I'm a huge fan of these cars and non-current Mercedes-Benz models in general.

    So here we go:
    First of all they were all normally aspirated!

    CLK-GTR has a V12 engine and was raced by the works team in the 1997 FIA-GT Championship, which did not include the 24 Hours of Le Mans and the works team did not race at Le Mans that year.
    The CLK-GTR was also raced by the works team in the 1998 FIA-GT Championship rounds that took place before that years 24 Hours of Le Mans plus two CLK-GTR were raced for the whole 1998 FIA-GT Championship season, which again did not include Le Mans, by Persson Motorsport. The works team abondoned the CLK-GTR after the opening rounds of the FIA GT Championship and had developed the CLK-LM as the successor. Only the works team took part in the 1998 24 Hours of Le Mans and debuted the CLK-LM there. It had a V8 engine and ABS (anti lock braking). At Le Mans it had the rumbling sound typical for an American V8.

    After Le Mans, where both cars failed to finish, the cars got modified. The ABS was removed because in contrast to the ACO rulebook it was forbidden in the FIA rules. Also the engine must've been altered, because in all the FIA-GT races the rumbling sound is gone and instead it sounds like a high revving V8, to me somewhere between a current DTM V8 and an early 90s Ford/Cosworth V8. I do not know though, why the engine was changed that way and what the displacement numbers were at and after Le Mans. So if anybody has more info about the changes that were made I'd be glad to know.

    CLK-GTR and CLK-LM were both built to GT1-regulations while the 1999 successor called CLR was a LMGTP-class car. It was paddle shifted and also had a N/A V8 but only raced at that years Le Mans. The planned or at least rumored participation in the ALMS wasn't realized after the desaster that happened at Le Mans, which was sad but seems to have been the right decision considering the Porsche 911 GT1 '98, that had absolutely no aerodynamic trouble at Le Mans had flipped at the ALMS's Petit Le Mans race at Road Atlanta the year before.

    So the V12 CLK-GTR never competed at Le Mans, but the V8 CLK-LM competed in both Le Mans and FIA-GT.

    @TerryA: FIA-GT came to Laguna Seca in 1997 and 1998, so if you remember seeing any blue Mercedes cars you were there in 1998 and therefor saw both the CLK-GTR (blue) and CLK-LM (silver). In 1997 all Mercedes cars that competed there were silver CLK-GTRs and the famous Greg Moore was brought in as a driver since he also raced a Mercedes engine in CART.

  19. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to villeneuve For This Useful Post:

    500AMM (3 Weeks Ago), captruff (09-12-2017), Glen (09-12-2017), Harv (09-01-2018), TerryA (07-12-2018)

  20. #11
    E500E Guru TerryA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Age
    76
    Posts
    1,305

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    Villeneuve,

    Thanks for the update. Now I'm going to have to go out and look for that race program. It seems to me both cars I saw were the same silver color, only difference being one had yellow mirror pods the other red.
    Terry

  21. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Evansville, IN
    Posts
    104

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    From the 2018 Goodwood Festival of Speed
    Press Release : https://mercedes-benz-archive.com/ma...l?oid=40526215

    Mercedes-Benz CLK-LM GT-racing sports car, 1998
    The sports car scene was revived in 1997 with the introduction of the FIA GT Championship. Mercedes-Benz and AMG developed the CLK-GTR for the new race series in just 128 days. Powered by a six-litre V12 engine, it dominated the 1997 season, winning six of eleven races, including four double victories. At the end of the season, AMG-Mercedes took the team title and Bernd Schneider won the drivers‘ title. The further developed CLK-LM equipped with a five-litre V8 engine arrived at the end of June 1998 to replace the CLK‑GTR - and it proved even more dominant in the races than its predecessor: not only did it win its very first race at the Hockenheimring, it also won the following seven races that season. After the two wins for the CLK-GTR, this record-breaking performance secured yet another team title for AMG-Mercedes. At a tense finale in Laguna Seca, California, Klaus Ludwig won the FIA GT Championship drivers‘ title together with the Brazilian Ricardo Zonta.

    Technical data

    Cylinders: V8
    Displacement: 4,986 cc
    Output: 441 kW (600 hp)
    Top speed: 360 km/h


    By application x r2) x (Stroke) and I infer (Stroke = 85mm). Albeit my inference or plug/assumption is logically derived, in that (Bore) is more elastic/variable by function of implementation (engineering/labor/etc) than (Stroke) it is not or has not been confirmed or documented in any public information to my knowledge.

    Screen Shot 2018-07-11 at 10.58.41 PM.png
    Last edited by BigWillieStyle; 07-12-2018 at 08:59 PM.

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to BigWillieStyle For This Useful Post:

    500AMM (3 Weeks Ago)

  23. #13
    E500E Guru TerryA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Age
    76
    Posts
    1,305

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    Thanks BigWillie for the up-date

    BTW, Just happened upon this at the Father's Day Auto Show on Rodeo Drive

    Pretty sure this is the V12

    Don't drool over your computers Guys
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Terry

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to TerryA For This Useful Post:

    BigWillieStyle (07-12-2018)

  25. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Evansville, IN
    Posts
    104

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    Quote Originally Posted by BigWillieStyle View Post


    Technical data

    Cylinders: V8
    Displacement: 4,986 cc


    By application x r2) x (Stroke) and I infer (Stroke = 85mm). Albeit my inference or plug/assumption is logically derived, in that (Bore) is more elastic/variable by function of implementation (engineering/labor/etc) than (Stroke) it is not or has not been confirmed or documented in any public information to my knowledge.

    Screen Shot 2018-07-11 at 10.58.41 PM.png

    Update, I found some additional info to support my prior assumption with regard to engine stroke in the LM-GT1 classification circa 1998-1999.

    https://www.motorsport.com/lemans/ne...esented/26494/

    A production engine provided the basis for the engine block and the crankshaft...
    Two major outliers are piston compression height and intake valve diameter. I'm not going to make any claims but I've got a relatively good idea on the mechanical strategy used by HWA AMG to obtain the advertised (SI) units of power HP/kW etc.

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to BigWillieStyle For This Useful Post:

    500AMM (3 Weeks Ago)

  27. #15
    Intl 500E GTG coordinator 195910's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,679

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    Interesting article, it confirms the 6L AMG M119 as the base engine.

    6L M119 was making 381hp in the W124 (rumored to have 408hp same as the BRABUS 6.0), 600HP NA does sound possible on this block with a more advanced exhaust and intake system, as well as higher compression ratio and RPM range. They also had a more advanced engine management systems.

    The SLS's M159 was the same block as the M156, but with considerably more power. The Intake and exhaust system on the M159 alone gave a 50HP difference compared to the SL63 M156. The SLS BS has nearly 60HP more than the SLS with a higher RPM limit and lighter moving parts.

  28. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 195910 For This Useful Post:

    500AMM (3 Weeks Ago), gsxr (08-01-2018)

  29. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Evansville, IN
    Posts
    104

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    Quote Originally Posted by 195910 View Post
    Interesting article, it confirms the 6L AMG M119 as the base engine.
    From the article:

    "A production engine provided the basis for the engine block and the crankshaft of the 600 horsepower unit (M 119) that was run on the dyno for the first time at the beginning of December. Until 1998 the M 119 was used to power S-, SL- and E-class production cars. A five-liter turbocharged version of the M 119 had already taken a Le Mans victory in 1989, the year of the Le Mans debut in the new Mercedes-Benz motorsport era.

    One, did Daimler-Benz create a seperate casting for 6L engines?

    If the 6L M119 was the starting point, wouldn't the pistons be 3.375mm too small?

    Is there a a 94.8mm stroke crankshaft with 119 in the part number?

    In 1998 they most certainly didn't use a production M117 crankshaft, because it weights +5kg more than the M119 5L crankshaft.
    Last edited by BigWillieStyle; 08-31-2018 at 12:38 PM.

  30. The Following User Says Thank You to BigWillieStyle For This Useful Post:

    500AMM (3 Weeks Ago)

  31. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Evansville, IN
    Posts
    104

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    What is AMG, and what isn't AMG is such a clusterfuck. I feel bad for the people in Affalterbach, I've considered reaching out to corporate in a few instances to get clarification, but based on what I read published by self-proclaimed AMG educators, corporate HWA must need a impreginable multi-tiered automated response slash spam-blocker.

  32. The Following User Says Thank You to BigWillieStyle For This Useful Post:

    TerryA (09-01-2018)

  33. #18
    .036 Hoonigan™
    E500E Boffin
    gsxr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Boise, ID, USA
    Posts
    21,520

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    Quote Originally Posted by BigWillieStyle View Post
    One, did Daimler-Benz create a seperate casting for 6L engines?
    No. Never. They were all 5L blocks, bored to 100mm.


    Quote Originally Posted by BigWillieStyle View Post
    Is there a a 94.8mm stroke crankshaft with 119 in the part number?
    Yes. The EPC shows the crankshaft part number as HWA-119-030-03-01, however the number cast into the crank itself is an 117-prefix number, as AMG modified production M117 cranks for the 6L M119 build.


    More info in this document, note the 117 p/n shown pn PDF page 10 of 18 for the crankshaft is the EPC replacement part number, not the casting number:
    http://www.w124performance.com/docs/...119_E60_LH.pdf


  34. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to gsxr For This Useful Post:

    500AMM (3 Weeks Ago), BigWillieStyle (08-31-2018), Klink (09-01-2018), Rouven036 (09-04-2018), TerryA (09-01-2018)

  35. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Evansville, IN
    Posts
    104

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    Quote Originally Posted by gsxr View Post
    No. Never. They were all 5L blocks, bored to 100mm.

    Yes. The EPC shows the crankshaft part number as HWA-119-030-03-01, however the number cast into the crank itself is an 117-prefix number, as AMG modified production M117 cranks for the 6L M119 build.

    More info in this document, note the 117 p/n shown pn PDF page 10 of 18 for the crankshaft is the EPC replacement part number, not the casting number:
    http://www.w124performance.com/docs/...119_E60_LH.pdf
    Thank you. Quality info as always gsxr.

    Sent from my MI MAX 2 using Tapatalk

  36. #20
    E500E Guru Rouven036's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Middle East / Germany
    Posts
    664

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    Some more info to the racing topic in general and for the utilized M119 and M120 engines.
    The M119 was never raced in 6L specification. The CLK LM engines had 5L capacity as stated earlier by SG Motorsports.
    Also there have no standard castings been used. Due to several reasons, the simplest are heads and block have been redesigned to act as structural parts of the chassis and a dry sump layout.
    To go even further, not related to this topic but for racing and what it can mean to use a basic engine: the '94 DTM C-class used a so called M106 engine, as per the regulations the engine must be derived from a series production engine. What Mercedes AMG (HWA) came up with was a engine which was derived from the M119, but it lost 2 cylinders and had except the cylinder spacing nothing in common with a M119 as we know it. Bore diameters can differ from the series engine in a race engine to get as close to the capacity limit as possible. Here for example the DTM Evos which had a standard bore of 97.3mm but utilized in racing conditions up to 98mm.
    So it is with the CLK LM engine and the different bore size diameter to the series product.
    Last edited by Rouven036; 09-01-2018 at 07:13 AM.
    W123, W124, R129, W163, W201, R230

  37. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Rouven036 For This Useful Post:

    500AMM (3 Weeks Ago), gsxr (09-01-2018), Klink (09-01-2018), TerryA (09-01-2018)

  38. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Evansville, IN
    Posts
    104

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    Quote Originally Posted by Rouven036 View Post
    '94 DTM C-class used a so called M106 engine, as per the regulations the engine must be derived from a series production engine.
    Copy/paste?

    Basically the way I would describe the M106, it's a M119 engine block which has been circumcised with a DoAll/Grob bandsaw. Then subsequently de-stroked.

    Sent from my MI MAX 2 using Tapatalk

  39. The Following User Says Thank You to BigWillieStyle For This Useful Post:

    TerryA (09-02-2018)

  40. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Evansville, IN
    Posts
    104

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    Quote Originally Posted by Rouven036 View Post
    Here for example the DTM Evos which had a standard bore of 97.3mm but utilized in racing conditions up to 98mm.
    I'm not saying you are incorrect, I will say I don't know you; whether, you're a self-proclaimed expert or Toto Wolff. To clarify for future edification you should substantiate information with a point of reference.

    1991 190Evo DTM.jpeg

    The atypical response is "well I already knew that" or "you're not telling me anything new." To the contrary for people who don't know the information. Based on my experience. The validity of your statement and whether or not people take you seriously is one's ability to credibly document how you came to your conclusion.

  41. #23
    E500E Guru Rouven036's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Middle East / Germany
    Posts
    664

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    OK, the page of a catalogue where the piston diameters of Evo engines is stated is something I can't acknowledge as a valid resource. These diameters are given there as repair stages depending to what diameter the bores have been machined too. Officially available was never something like that. I can post some more stuff but later.
    W123, W124, R129, W163, W201, R230

  42. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Rouven036 For This Useful Post:

    500AMM (3 Weeks Ago), BigWillieStyle (09-01-2018)

  43. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Evansville, IN
    Posts
    104

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    Btw don't want to be self-serving. Credit goes to Herr Michael for the picture I posted above.

    https://www.ebay-kleinanzeigen.de/s-...12193-223-1898

    Sent from my MI MAX 2 using Tapatalk

  44. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Oosterwolde fr, The Netherlands
    Age
    53
    Posts
    359

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    I know of two M 106 Hubraum versions.

    1994 92,0 x 62,6 mm = 2497 cm³ with 400 PS / 300 Nm and 980 kg Fahrzeuggewicht

    1995 92,0 x 62,6 mm = 2497 cm³ with 440 PS / 300 Nm and 980 kg Fahrzeuggewicht

    1996 94,0 x 60,0 mm = 2498 cm³ with 500 PS / 300 Nm and 1040 kg Fahrzeuggewicht

    http://web.archive.org/web/201603160...ennsport-Motor

  45. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to weide1 For This Useful Post:

    500AMM (3 Weeks Ago), BigWillieStyle (09-02-2018), gerryvz (09-02-2018)

  46. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Oosterwolde fr, The Netherlands
    Age
    53
    Posts
    359

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    Quote Originally Posted by SG-Motorsports View Post
    The CLK-GTR was used only in the 1997 and 1998 FIA GT series and won both driver's and constructors' championships both years. It had a naturally aspirated 6.0l M120 V-12 engine.
    That 6 liter V12 CLK GTR engine did not have the 89 x 80,2 mm 5987 cm³ specifications. Which are factory M 120 BR 140 and BR 129.
    It had 91 x 76,7 mm 5986 cm³ specifications.
    As found in this link. http://web.archive.org/web/201604040...rt-Tourenwagen

    Which does not work anymore. Sadly enough. But some years ago it still did. And then i posted it on a German forum.

    Naamloos.jpg

    I wonder why these race engine specifications are so hard to find. I contacted Michael Kübler on FB and Instagram. Michael Kübler builds high-performance engines for AMG and documents his work on Instagram. He states it is all about privacy.

  47. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to weide1 For This Useful Post:

    500AMM (3 Weeks Ago), gsxr (09-02-2018), TerryA (09-02-2018)

  48. #27
    E500E Guru Rouven036's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Middle East / Germany
    Posts
    664

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    It's easy, such developments costs a lot of money including the development of special materials etc. This is a company secret and advantage over the competitors. So why should it be published? Even after years, what is the general usability of such data in general? Near to nothing since these cars have been not sold to public persons. If they do, like recently some dtm cars sold through MB all time stars, they are sold as in not operating condition. The operation of these cars is very complex and you require outdated equipment (hardware, software and knowledge) which is either not existing anymore, in operational or just the knowledge has been lost.


    Referring to the change in bore stroke ratio it is only normal to opt for a shortest stroke possible layout depending what the base engine bore allows in order to reach as close as possible to the capacity limit given by the regulations. 91mm is not so far of the big M120 bores right?!
    W123, W124, R129, W163, W201, R230

  49. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Rouven036 For This Useful Post:

    500AMM (3 Weeks Ago), TerryA (09-02-2018)

  50. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Evansville, IN
    Posts
    104

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    Here's a reference of a Production vs Racing Motor Configuration. I think the infographic does a really good job of explaining. Ideally these are the key metrics I'd be interested in obtaining.

    Screen Shot 2018-09-02 at 12.45.51 PM.png

    I can't remember what engine this infographic is referencing. I know or I don't think it's Mercedes, I just remember seeing the graphic a couple months back and I screenshotted it.

  51. The Following User Says Thank You to BigWillieStyle For This Useful Post:

    500AMM (3 Weeks Ago)

  52. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Oosterwolde fr, The Netherlands
    Age
    53
    Posts
    359

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion


  53. The Following User Says Thank You to weide1 For This Useful Post:

    500AMM (3 Weeks Ago)

  54. #30
    E500E Guru Rouven036's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Middle East / Germany
    Posts
    664

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    Street version.
    W123, W124, R129, W163, W201, R230

  55. #31
    Intl 500E GTG coordinator 195910's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,679

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    Street version!!

    This might be a typing error. Either CLK-GTR Street version or CLR (Lemans car)

  56. #32
    E500E Guru Rouven036's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Middle East / Germany
    Posts
    664

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    No, there is a CLK LM street version. Two have been built of which one was destroyed for cash testing. Only one is left.
    W123, W124, R129, W163, W201, R230

  57. The Following User Says Thank You to Rouven036 For This Useful Post:

    500AMM (3 Weeks Ago)

  58. #33
    E500E Guru Rouven036's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Middle East / Germany
    Posts
    664

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    Quick Google search found a you tube video. Clearly a CLK, not CLR


    https://youtu.be/r8xR-nYCbTs


    https://youtu.be/cNM5z2FbcyQ
    W123, W124, R129, W163, W201, R230

  59. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Rouven036 For This Useful Post:

    500AMM (3 Weeks Ago), gsxr (09-04-2018)

  60. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Oosterwolde fr, The Netherlands
    Age
    53
    Posts
    359

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    Quote Originally Posted by Rouven036 View Post
    No, there is a CLK LM street version. Two have been built of which one was destroyed for cash testing. Only one is left.
    Yes, there is a street version. But does it really have the 6 liter engine? And if so, does it have 600 HP or so?

  61. #35
    E500E Guru Rouven036's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Middle East / Germany
    Posts
    664

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    Whatever, it is. I don't know. Whatever is known it's a V8, it had in the race version 5L and in the CLR 5,7L capacity. Certainly nothing originated or derived from our standard 119s. As per the CLK LM idle sound or revving sound I would even doubt that it has a cross plane crank.
    W123, W124, R129, W163, W201, R230

  62. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Evansville, IN
    Posts
    104

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    I've got the chassis numbers with source link. On the shitter at the moment.

    1999 CLR, you think they just swapped an LS1 and called it a day? I mean it is 5.7L, or would that be a rush to judgement.

    I'd love for an HWA engineer to go full Mark Lane on my ass, but doubt it will happen.

    Sent from my MI MAX 2 using Tapatalk

  63. The Following User Says Thank You to BigWillieStyle For This Useful Post:

    TerryA (09-10-2018)

  64. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Evansville, IN
    Posts
    104

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    Quote Originally Posted by weide1 View Post
    Yes, there is a street version. But does it really have the 6 liter engine? And if so, does it have 600 HP or so?
    You could get 600whp or 680-700hp from a crossplane DOHC, 5.0L V8. You'd likely see a variation in the configuration of the rotating assemblies at this point, piston/conrod total mass and diameter of intake valve would be the first three components I'd expect to be more "extreme" if its 600whp instead of 600hp at the crank.

    Both examples under my assumption would have valve lift somewhere between 12~13mm and camshaft duration greater than 280deg.

    600whp is really pushing it under 7250rpm

    Sorry I know this doesn't answer the question. I'm just thinking.

  65. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Evansville, IN
    Posts
    104

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    Quote Originally Posted by BigWillieStyle View Post
    You could get 600whp or 680-700hp from a crossplane DOHC, 5.0L V8. You'd likely see a variation in the configuration of the rotating assemblies at this point, piston/conrod total mass and diameter of intake valve would be the first three components I'd expect to be more "extreme" if its 600whp instead of 600hp at the crank.

    Both examples under my assumption would have valve lift somewhere between 12~13mm and camshaft duration greater than 280deg.

    600whp is really pushing it under 7250rpm

    Sorry I know this doesn't answer the question. I'm just thinking.
    For a N/A engine with Exhaust Valve diameter of 33mm, an Intake Side of 38mm is slightly small for Opitimal/Peak power.

    I don't think I'm giving away the golden goose. It's just something that needs to be considered.

    Sent from my MI MAX 2 using Tapatalk

  66. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Evansville, IN
    Posts
    104

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    Can't find chassis #s, but see source link & attached : https://www.classicsportleicht.com/e...Champion-car/4

    1998 Mercedes-Benz CLK LM FIA GT1 World Champion car _ Sold _ Classic Sport Leicht.jpg

    Btw the way the advertisement uses the word "evolution" if we pimp out our motors can we say evolution too????

    Just kidding

    Here's the FIA homo : https://historicdb.fia.com/car/daimler-benz-glk-lm

    Yes the french duffed it up and called it a glk-lm, the link is correct.

    Going to a bunch of duffers to get your homo so you can burn rubber & lube, sheesh!

    Also if anyone from Mercedes-Benz reads this:

    I get it, you're on the SUV gangbang train, but a GLK-LM. "For the love of God & greater Germany!" DON'T DO IT!

    I just picture Lewis & M.I.A jumping dunes in a promo for a $750k glorified baby hauler.
    Last edited by BigWillieStyle; 09-04-2018 at 11:31 PM.

  67. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Evansville, IN
    Posts
    104

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    Also it appears "108" nomenclature in GT108 seems to be a carryover from the Ilmor / Mercedes-Benz IC108B & IC108C V8t used by Penske in 1994/1995/1996.

    Git'R'Done!

  68. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Evansville, IN
    Posts
    104

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    Quote Originally Posted by weide1 View Post
    It's a typo.



    Crankshaft details:

    http://www.nast-sonderfahrzeuge.de/M...ASC&category=1

    Google Translate

    "Hello everybody , I was the chief designer of CLK-LM. We drove the FIA ​​GT with a 180 ° V8 and in Le Mans with a 90 ° V8."

  69. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Evansville, IN
    Posts
    104

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    If anyone is wondering... Call it skeptic plausibility of power opportunity, as a consequence of the 6.0s being rated at 380-400ish. I've done the mathematical analysis on rotating assembly mass, that's why I posted the specs on Crankshaft weight a few months back.


    Fortunately since the M119 went out of production one OEM has made a 4v DOHC V8 and gradually improved it over the passed two decades.

    Sceptics might argue the prominence of a bored out 6.0L is still better. To me I don't know why you'd prematurely bore out a block 4.0mm for 60hp unless it's a business proposition and you have people lined up to buy it whatever the price tag.

  70. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to BigWillieStyle For This Useful Post:

    500AMM (3 Weeks Ago), TerryA (3 Weeks Ago)

  71. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Oosterwolde fr, The Netherlands
    Age
    53
    Posts
    359

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion


  72. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to weide1 For This Useful Post:

    500AMM (3 Weeks Ago), BigWillieStyle (3 Weeks Ago), gsxr (09-27-2018), TerryA (3 Weeks Ago)

  73. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Evansville, IN
    Posts
    104

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    My apologies weide1. I overlooked the Straßen. Your post provides verifiable proof a street variant of the CLK-LM was manufactured with a V8 from the factory. I think some people believe all street variants were V12s or the V8 street versions are "Yenko-Style" V8 conversions of CLK-GTRs.

    I'm still curious about the race version(s). Usually displacement figures bump-up to the limit of what is quantifiably allowable by the rules and regulations of FIA, also my intention isn't to retroactively proliferate any trouble with Ferrari Internal Affairs.

    quote-rules-are-for-the-obidience-of-fools-and-interpretations-of-smart-men-colin-chapman-142-63.jpg

    What were the GT1 displacement limit(s) for naturally aspirated engines in 1997, 1998, 1999?

    Also if the Straßenversion had a different displacement than the Rennversion I'd be curious to know the Manufacturer/OEM justification reason(s)? Lot's of speculative thoughts could be derived to the reason/choice if a variation in displacement exists, but it's more logical to get the design/engineers' practical perspective.
    Last edited by BigWillieStyle; 3 Weeks Ago at 06:38 PM.

  74. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Evansville, IN
    Posts
    104

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    Quote Originally Posted by weide1 View Post
    That 6 liter V12 CLK GTR engine did not have the 89 x 80,2 mm 5987 cm³ specifications. Which are factory M 120 BR 140 and BR 129.
    It had 91 x 76,7 mm 5986 cm³ specifications.
    As found in this link. http://web.archive.org/web/201604040...rt-Tourenwagen

    Which does not work anymore. Sadly enough. But some years ago it still did. And then i posted it on a German forum.

    Naamloos.jpg

    I wonder why these race engine specifications are so hard to find. I contacted Michael Kübler on FB and Instagram. Michael Kübler builds high-performance engines for AMG and documents his work on Instagram. He states it is all about privacy.
    Btw this is great stuff I totally agree with you 100%.

    I get the competition/argument to privacy and the availability of information.

    Then again, at what point in history is it quantifiably acceptable for such information to be published as public or at least verifiable knowledge, if ever? The alter argument is if you don't at some point set the story straight, other people end-up writing/documenting history to suit their agenda.

    Case in point, in my experience everyone I know who ever sneezed in West Lafayette, Indiana won't STFU about Neil Armstrong being a graduate of Purdue University and the incessant rambling about Purdue + America = the Buzzer Beater in the "Space Race." Last year their, Purdue University's, commencement had a segment from the space station. Is that a characteristic of the University's contribution to space exploration or pledge/bitch/lackey stewardship of politics?

    Yes I have an opinion, does it matter, fick nein!

  75. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Evansville, IN
    Posts
    104

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    The CLK-LM at Goodwood 2018, by sound I think it's spinning a 180-Grad crankshaft. Weide1 or anyone with discernable ears and/or knowledge feel free to share?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qhh3b8nNQsE

    Either way it sounds dope!


  76. #47
    E500E Guru Rouven036's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Middle East / Germany
    Posts
    664

    Re: CLK LM engine confusion

    Yes, flat plane crank.
    W123, W124, R129, W163, W201, R230

  77. The Following User Says Thank You to Rouven036 For This Useful Post:

    BigWillieStyle (3 Weeks Ago)

Similar Threads

  1. Hydraulic Lifter confusion
    By Christian_K in forum M119 Engine
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-26-2018, 08:41 AM
  2. Gerry's Engine and Engine Bay
    By Ron500E in forum Appearance and Detailing
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 02-07-2015, 11:25 PM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-07-2013, 06:08 PM
  4. Codes pulled with engine running/engine off
    By Benzer in forum M119 Engine
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-30-2011, 08:59 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •