Ls7 Slk???
01-18-2007, 11:57 AM
#1
Member
Thread Starter
Ls7 Slk ???
As noted in another thread, I have a MB V12 twin turbo that I purchased to install in the SLK. (Will tackle after I finish two projects ahead of this one).
I just returned from AMG in Germany where I spoke to a gentleman about getting some very basic AMG tech support (e.g., wiring/computer info). They were very closed to the idea of a 12 in their SLK. I know their high on their 6.2 V8 and rightfully so, but then I got to thinking: I want more power and a six speed in the SLK. What weighs less than the new 6.2 liter V8, makes the same power, is smaller, gets better gas mileage, has a stand alone computer system for it and bolts right up to the world's strongest six speed manual transmission, oh, and features titanium connecting rods and valves? An LS7 V8! Hot Rod magazine put a crate LS7 motor on a dyno and it made 546 hp (w/out cats but rest stock) and 514 lbs/ft torque. The new V8 from Merc weighs 440 lbs. The supercharged Merc motor is 485 and the stock SLK motor weighs somewhere between 440 and 485. The LS7 is around 400 pounds, smaller and with dry sump lubrication and simpler valve train, has a lower center of gravity than the new Merc V8. The LS7 also routinely gets 30 mpg on the freeway in the ZO6. On top of this, the LS7 with a six speed will weigh even less as there's no doubt in my mind that the manual weighs less than the seven speed automatic and torque converter that the SLK55 comes with. And of course, the motor could be moved back an inch or so, further helping handling and reducing understeer. From the outside, the SLK55 would look and sound like a stock SLK55, albeit perhaps a little more aggressive. But I'm guessing weight would be reduced by more than 100 pounds overall, handling would be improved, fuel economy would go up (a 30 mpg SLK with 500 plus hp), braking would be improved and I'd bet the chevy V8 will be more reliable than the complex 6.2 Merc.
So, to Merc and AMG I say they should get off the fence and install the 6.2 in the SLK or else the fastest, best handling, most economical Mercedes may well be powered by an American pushrod V8!
By the way, the GM parts book sells a cam and headers that boost power to over 600 hp on pump gas!
Finally, I know people are going to say it's wrong to put such an engine in a Mercedes. Here's my answer: It ain't no Ferrari. Volume is too high to be a collector car down the line, and frankly, have you seen the massive depreciation on these cars? They seem to sell all day long now, used with low miles, around $50k! (A $15k to $20k hit after just a year or so. Although not nearly as bad as say an SL65 or SL55).
If anyone else is interested, or if you have a little six in your SLK, let me know. May see to make this a kit!
And if anyone needs a new Merc V8 and and seven speed auto lemme know!
I just returned from AMG in Germany where I spoke to a gentleman about getting some very basic AMG tech support (e.g., wiring/computer info). They were very closed to the idea of a 12 in their SLK. I know their high on their 6.2 V8 and rightfully so, but then I got to thinking: I want more power and a six speed in the SLK. What weighs less than the new 6.2 liter V8, makes the same power, is smaller, gets better gas mileage, has a stand alone computer system for it and bolts right up to the world's strongest six speed manual transmission, oh, and features titanium connecting rods and valves? An LS7 V8! Hot Rod magazine put a crate LS7 motor on a dyno and it made 546 hp (w/out cats but rest stock) and 514 lbs/ft torque. The new V8 from Merc weighs 440 lbs. The supercharged Merc motor is 485 and the stock SLK motor weighs somewhere between 440 and 485. The LS7 is around 400 pounds, smaller and with dry sump lubrication and simpler valve train, has a lower center of gravity than the new Merc V8. The LS7 also routinely gets 30 mpg on the freeway in the ZO6. On top of this, the LS7 with a six speed will weigh even less as there's no doubt in my mind that the manual weighs less than the seven speed automatic and torque converter that the SLK55 comes with. And of course, the motor could be moved back an inch or so, further helping handling and reducing understeer. From the outside, the SLK55 would look and sound like a stock SLK55, albeit perhaps a little more aggressive. But I'm guessing weight would be reduced by more than 100 pounds overall, handling would be improved, fuel economy would go up (a 30 mpg SLK with 500 plus hp), braking would be improved and I'd bet the chevy V8 will be more reliable than the complex 6.2 Merc.
So, to Merc and AMG I say they should get off the fence and install the 6.2 in the SLK or else the fastest, best handling, most economical Mercedes may well be powered by an American pushrod V8!
By the way, the GM parts book sells a cam and headers that boost power to over 600 hp on pump gas!
Finally, I know people are going to say it's wrong to put such an engine in a Mercedes. Here's my answer: It ain't no Ferrari. Volume is too high to be a collector car down the line, and frankly, have you seen the massive depreciation on these cars? They seem to sell all day long now, used with low miles, around $50k! (A $15k to $20k hit after just a year or so. Although not nearly as bad as say an SL65 or SL55).
If anyone else is interested, or if you have a little six in your SLK, let me know. May see to make this a kit!
And if anyone needs a new Merc V8 and and seven speed auto lemme know!
Last edited by SLKV12TT; 01-18-2007 at 12:35 PM.
01-18-2007, 12:50 PM
#2
Super Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLK 55 AMG
All the information I've seen indicate that the 63 engine is actually lighter then the LS7...
Here's a quote I digged up:
The non-supercharged 5.4 liter AMG V8 on the other hand supposedly weighs 20 pounds more then the 63 engine (so I guess the supercharger on this engine weighs just short of 30 pounds).
And many, many other sources provide the same numbers... The default 63 engine 'supposedly' has 5hp more then the LS7, and whilst you're right that headers/cam or whatever will pump up hp on the LS7 to 600, I suppose something similar will come out for the 63 as well in the future...
Anyway, I'd love to see an SLK 63 AMG... even if it's a little detuned to 480hp like on the CLK, I think it's still plenty enough
p.s. whilst the LS7 is small thanks to pushrods, the 63 is supposedly also quite compact. It's been fitted in the CLK, and that car doesn't have a huge hood to store much stuff inside... Also, the Z06 supposedly has such good mpg due to the very stretched out 6th gear.
Here's a quote I digged up:
The net result is a fully trimmed (LS7) engine that weighs 458 pounds, only 10 more than the 6.0-liter LS2.
For comparison, AMG's all-new 6.3 liter V-8 (it is actually a 6.2 liter V-8, but it will be called a 6.3 liter V-8 to pay homage to the 250 hp 1967-1972 300SEL 6.3) weighs 438 pounds vs. 485 pounds (old 5.4 liter supercharged V-8). The new V-8 has 510 hp at 6,800 rpm and 630 Nm at 5200 rpm.
Also, BMW's M5 Product Information Guide says that the M5's 5.0 liter 500 hp (SAE net) V-10 weighs 240 kg/529 lbs.
For comparison, AMG's all-new 6.3 liter V-8 (it is actually a 6.2 liter V-8, but it will be called a 6.3 liter V-8 to pay homage to the 250 hp 1967-1972 300SEL 6.3) weighs 438 pounds vs. 485 pounds (old 5.4 liter supercharged V-8). The new V-8 has 510 hp at 6,800 rpm and 630 Nm at 5200 rpm.
Also, BMW's M5 Product Information Guide says that the M5's 5.0 liter 500 hp (SAE net) V-10 weighs 240 kg/529 lbs.
And many, many other sources provide the same numbers... The default 63 engine 'supposedly' has 5hp more then the LS7, and whilst you're right that headers/cam or whatever will pump up hp on the LS7 to 600, I suppose something similar will come out for the 63 as well in the future...
Anyway, I'd love to see an SLK 63 AMG... even if it's a little detuned to 480hp like on the CLK, I think it's still plenty enough
p.s. whilst the LS7 is small thanks to pushrods, the 63 is supposedly also quite compact. It's been fitted in the CLK, and that car doesn't have a huge hood to store much stuff inside... Also, the Z06 supposedly has such good mpg due to the very stretched out 6th gear.
Last edited by Shinigami; 01-18-2007 at 12:53 PM.
01-18-2007, 12:58 PM
#3
Member
Thread Starter
If, if Merc builds the SLK63 then the point may all well be moot, save for the manual transmission.
HOWEVER, No way do I believe the 6.2 weighs less than the LS7. The LS7 has only one cam, the Merc has for cams with mechanisms to make them variable. The Merc is physically larger in every dimension. The LS7 has titanium rods and valves. The merc has twice as many valves and they're not titanium.
Often quoted LS7 engine weight includes flywheel and clutch. That's probably another 30 pounds or so right there.
I've read that motor actually weighs around 378 pounds.
Key is a weight of both motors identically dressed. I'll eat my shoe if a Four cam 6.2 Merc motor weighs less than a plastic intake one cam LS7 motor.
HOWEVER, No way do I believe the 6.2 weighs less than the LS7. The LS7 has only one cam, the Merc has for cams with mechanisms to make them variable. The Merc is physically larger in every dimension. The LS7 has titanium rods and valves. The merc has twice as many valves and they're not titanium.
Often quoted LS7 engine weight includes flywheel and clutch. That's probably another 30 pounds or so right there.
I've read that motor actually weighs around 378 pounds.
Key is a weight of both motors identically dressed. I'll eat my shoe if a Four cam 6.2 Merc motor weighs less than a plastic intake one cam LS7 motor.
01-18-2007, 01:07 PM
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: MI
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2011 Hyundai Elantra GLS
I would hope AMg avails a 6-speed manual transmission for cars of the nature of SLK. I would definitely love to see an SLK coupe (ala BMW Z4 Coupe) with the 6.2L v8 and a proper 6-speed. Why should Porsche Cayman have all the fun?
01-18-2007, 02:25 PM
#6
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'93 RX-7, SLK55
If, if Merc builds the SLK63 then the point may all well be moot, save for the manual transmission.
HOWEVER, No way do I believe the 6.2 weighs less than the LS7. The LS7 has only one cam, the Merc has for cams with mechanisms to make them variable. The Merc is physically larger in every dimension. The LS7 has titanium rods and valves. The merc has twice as many valves and they're not titanium.
Often quoted LS7 engine weight includes flywheel and clutch. That's probably another 30 pounds or so right there.
I've read that motor actually weighs around 378 pounds.
Key is a weight of both motors identically dressed. I'll eat my shoe if a Four cam 6.2 Merc motor weighs less than a plastic intake one cam LS7 motor.
HOWEVER, No way do I believe the 6.2 weighs less than the LS7. The LS7 has only one cam, the Merc has for cams with mechanisms to make them variable. The Merc is physically larger in every dimension. The LS7 has titanium rods and valves. The merc has twice as many valves and they're not titanium.
Often quoted LS7 engine weight includes flywheel and clutch. That's probably another 30 pounds or so right there.
I've read that motor actually weighs around 378 pounds.
Key is a weight of both motors identically dressed. I'll eat my shoe if a Four cam 6.2 Merc motor weighs less than a plastic intake one cam LS7 motor.
I was looking to drop an LS7 in my RX-7 with H/C package (~550 rwhp) as a future mod (since I can't put a single turbo on my RX-7 here in Cali due to Gestappo emission rule enforement). I've since rethought this mod & am watching the failure rate of these 427s in ernest. So far, it ain't good news.
PS - if you want more power out of your SLK, install a Kleemann blower. Contrary to popular belief, your SLK will actually LOSE weight if you also install the full exhaust. Kleemann's blower is all aluminum & a very high quality unit. The exhaust is also lighter than stock. My car weighs 3400 lbs (it lost 20 lbs vs stock). You will still lack a manual tranny but....at least your power issue will be mute. I don't miss a manual as I have an RX-7 for a more pure sports car feel (and I believe you have some other manual cars too so maybe its not such a big deal?
) Besides, weight is not really an issue with that much power. Below 70 mph, traction is the issue - not a lack of power or "the car being too heavy). There is HUGE torque to carry 3400 lbs & you can absolutely feel (and hear) it.
-Matt
Last edited by Yellow R1; 01-18-2007 at 02:28 PM.
01-18-2007, 02:27 PM
#7
MBWorld Fanatic!
Trending Topics
01-18-2007, 03:37 PM
#8
Super Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLK 55 AMG
Actually, this is one bit of info I've been having difficulty in finding.
Can someone provide numbers on the LS7 and 63 engine sizes (h/w/b/etc)? I'm very, VERY interested in having this info
C43AMG: recently, head of AMG mentioned that they're looking into a clutchless manual. Ok, so it's not a full manual like the Z06 has, but it might mean we will be able to buy a non-automatic AMG one day! (if I remember correctly, this was mentioned just over 6 months ago, and they said it would take 2 years... so another 18 months to go then? Who knows).
Can someone provide numbers on the LS7 and 63 engine sizes (h/w/b/etc)? I'm very, VERY interested in having this info
C43AMG: recently, head of AMG mentioned that they're looking into a clutchless manual. Ok, so it's not a full manual like the Z06 has, but it might mean we will be able to buy a non-automatic AMG one day! (if I remember correctly, this was mentioned just over 6 months ago, and they said it would take 2 years... so another 18 months to go then? Who knows).
01-18-2007, 03:52 PM
#9
MBWorld Fanatic!
Actually, this is one bit of info I've been having difficulty in finding.
Can someone provide numbers on the LS7 and 63 engine sizes (h/w/b/etc)? I'm very, VERY interested in having this info
C43AMG: recently, head of AMG mentioned that they're looking into a clutchless manual. Ok, so it's not a full manual like the Z06 has, but it might mean we will be able to buy a non-automatic AMG one day! (if I remember correctly, this was mentioned just over 6 months ago, and they said it would take 2 years... so another 18 months to go then? Who knows).
Can someone provide numbers on the LS7 and 63 engine sizes (h/w/b/etc)? I'm very, VERY interested in having this info
C43AMG: recently, head of AMG mentioned that they're looking into a clutchless manual. Ok, so it's not a full manual like the Z06 has, but it might mean we will be able to buy a non-automatic AMG one day! (if I remember correctly, this was mentioned just over 6 months ago, and they said it would take 2 years... so another 18 months to go then? Who knows).
01-18-2007, 04:39 PM
#11
Member
Thread Starter
PS - if you want more power out of your SLK, install a Kleemann blower. Contrary to popular belief, your SLK will actually LOSE weight if you also install the full exhaust.
Problems with this"solution". First, you lose the weight from the rear where it's needed for traction. Second, you add weight to the nose which increases already bad understeer. Third, you raise CG by removing low weight (exhaust) but adding high mounted weight (supercharger). Fourth, bolting on charger to a stock motor with high compression and rings not made for boost will, without doubt, durability. Fifth, expense: I'd imagine the supercharger system costs a pretty penny. A brand spanking new and complete LS7 is under $13k (including intake manifolds, exhaust manifolds, fuel injectors, etc.) Of course, you can then sell your AMG drivetrain to offset cost of the LS7 motor. On the dyno, my money is on the LS7 to make more power than the charged Merc.
Problems with this"solution". First, you lose the weight from the rear where it's needed for traction. Second, you add weight to the nose which increases already bad understeer. Third, you raise CG by removing low weight (exhaust) but adding high mounted weight (supercharger). Fourth, bolting on charger to a stock motor with high compression and rings not made for boost will, without doubt, durability. Fifth, expense: I'd imagine the supercharger system costs a pretty penny. A brand spanking new and complete LS7 is under $13k (including intake manifolds, exhaust manifolds, fuel injectors, etc.) Of course, you can then sell your AMG drivetrain to offset cost of the LS7 motor. On the dyno, my money is on the LS7 to make more power than the charged Merc.
01-18-2007, 04:53 PM
#12
Super Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLK 55 AMG
The supercharged SLK is supposedly just as fast as an Enzo or other similar vehicles. The Z06 is close to the speed of the Enzo, but not quite (straight line).
The Kleemanized SLK is however nearly 600hp, whilst the Z06 is just over 500, so that should be kinda normal I guess...
What would you do with the V12 if you decide to do an LS7 swap?
I'm gonna go hunting for the size of the 63 engine tomorrow
The Kleemanized SLK is however nearly 600hp, whilst the Z06 is just over 500, so that should be kinda normal I guess...
What would you do with the V12 if you decide to do an LS7 swap?
I'm gonna go hunting for the size of the 63 engine tomorrow
01-18-2007, 05:04 PM
#13
Member
Thread Starter
Hmmmmm. I don't know about that. According to Kleeman's website their package makes a CLAIMED 540 hp. I'd like to see a dyno sheet myself! Dynosheets on the net show the LS7 to make nearly that power bone stock. Slipping in a single cam and bolting on headers, all easy to do before installing a motor, raise power to at least 600 [real] horsepower in the LS7.
The SLK weighs about 3400 pounds. The Enzo weighs 3000-3200 depending on who you believe and puts out 650 hp. I've been in one and there ain't no SLK that can touch it! Also, Enzo has much of its weight on its 345mm rear tires so it can actually put its power to the road.
My advice to SLK Kleeman owners: Don't put your pink slip up when you race an Enzo!
Not sure if these are current prices, but they are not cheap! The numbers are in pounds and one pound is nearly two US dollars.
The combined supercharger/ intake manifold/intercooler costs £14,094 (inc VAT) plus £1051 to re-map the car's ECU. If you just have to have the full 596bhp then you'll also need the £4134 tubular headers and the £4562 stainless system. Finally, the camshafts at £4347
The SLK weighs about 3400 pounds. The Enzo weighs 3000-3200 depending on who you believe and puts out 650 hp. I've been in one and there ain't no SLK that can touch it! Also, Enzo has much of its weight on its 345mm rear tires so it can actually put its power to the road.
My advice to SLK Kleeman owners: Don't put your pink slip up when you race an Enzo!
Not sure if these are current prices, but they are not cheap! The numbers are in pounds and one pound is nearly two US dollars.
The combined supercharger/ intake manifold/intercooler costs £14,094 (inc VAT) plus £1051 to re-map the car's ECU. If you just have to have the full 596bhp then you'll also need the £4134 tubular headers and the £4562 stainless system. Finally, the camshafts at £4347
Last edited by SLKV12TT; 01-18-2007 at 05:15 PM.
01-18-2007, 05:05 PM
#14
Member
Thread Starter
If I don't use the V12TT I will sell it.
Thing is, the LS7 is the "smart" choice. However, a V12 is the best sounding engine in the world. Period. And the stuff dreams are made of!
Thing is, the LS7 is the "smart" choice. However, a V12 is the best sounding engine in the world. Period. And the stuff dreams are made of!
01-18-2007, 06:23 PM
#15
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: OC, CA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
215
My advice to SLK Kleeman owners: Don't put your pink slip up when you race an Enzo!
There is a guy in Dubai who smoked an enzo, literally smoked! in an SLK check it out on you tube. He used the slr motor in it. The SLK walks away from the enzo
There is a guy in Dubai who smoked an enzo, literally smoked! in an SLK check it out on you tube. He used the slr motor in it.
The SLK walks away from the enzo
01-18-2007, 06:57 PM
#16
Member
Thread Starter
I've seen the video and think it is total B.S.
A front engined 3400 pound SLK, now with the added weight of a supercharger and additional cooling (i.e., 3500 pound SLK) with an SLR motor making 617 horsepower SIMPLY ISN'T FASTER than a 3000 pound, 660 horsepower, mid-engined (read gets traction) Enzo.
Lesson to be learned: Question everything you read, see or hear.
A front engined 3400 pound SLK, now with the added weight of a supercharger and additional cooling (i.e., 3500 pound SLK) with an SLR motor making 617 horsepower SIMPLY ISN'T FASTER than a 3000 pound, 660 horsepower, mid-engined (read gets traction) Enzo.
Lesson to be learned: Question everything you read, see or hear.
01-18-2007, 07:20 PM
#17
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'93 RX-7, SLK55
PS - if you want more power out of your SLK, install a Kleemann blower. Contrary to popular belief, your SLK will actually LOSE weight if you also install the full exhaust.
Problems with this"solution". First, you lose the weight from the rear where it's needed for traction. Second, you add weight to the nose which increases already bad understeer. Third, you raise CG by removing low weight (exhaust) but adding high mounted weight (supercharger). Fourth, bolting on charger to a stock motor with high compression and rings not made for boost will, without doubt, durability. Fifth, expense: I'd imagine the supercharger system costs a pretty penny. A brand spanking new and complete LS7 is under $13k (including intake manifolds, exhaust manifolds, fuel injectors, etc.) Of course, you can then sell your AMG drivetrain to offset cost of the LS7 motor. On the dyno, my money is on the LS7 to make more power than the charged Merc.
Problems with this"solution". First, you lose the weight from the rear where it's needed for traction. Second, you add weight to the nose which increases already bad understeer. Third, you raise CG by removing low weight (exhaust) but adding high mounted weight (supercharger). Fourth, bolting on charger to a stock motor with high compression and rings not made for boost will, without doubt, durability. Fifth, expense: I'd imagine the supercharger system costs a pretty penny. A brand spanking new and complete LS7 is under $13k (including intake manifolds, exhaust manifolds, fuel injectors, etc.) Of course, you can then sell your AMG drivetrain to offset cost of the LS7 motor. On the dyno, my money is on the LS7 to make more power than the charged Merc.
1) You don't lose weight from the rear wheels. You lose weight from the mid section of the car where the cats are located.
2) The Kleemann blower replaces the AMG Head unit. Guess what - they weigh within 4 lbs of one another (I weighed them on the scale)
3) I'm not tracking my SLK competitvely at Laguna Seca so a slight change in the CG is a MINOR point. Geezus son, this is a CONVERTIBLE - it handles well but was NEVER meant to handle at the extreme edge of lateral traction.
4) You need to read up on Kleemann's patented blower design? I hear this balogne all the time with my car from people who talk "theory" all day. They say the same bologne about running 16 lbs of boost in my RX-7 (vs stock 10 lbs). Guess what?.....you make changes & modify things to keep temps cool, change your oil religiously, don't beat the absolute **** out of the car and maintain the vehicle, & the car(s) will last a LONG time. I bet my Kleemanized SLK with its patented integrated Intercooler, free flowing exhaust, gets 3k mile Royal Purple synthetic oil changes, and isn't beaten upon, will last as long or longer than a stock 55 (and apparently longer than many stock LS7 engines
). 5) Cost? You are going to buy an LS7 & perform the lengthy & cumbersome install (along with a new manual tranny) & you don't think THAT is going to not only cost you money but TIME? I've got some land in Florida I can sell you!
The Kleemann solution is installed & tuned within 3 Wks. The LS7 approach will take MONTHS...maybe as long as your V12TT install.
Each to his/her own I guess. I just don't see the logic in trying to install a foreign powerplant into an $75k Mercedes that is going to be (from what I can tell) a major cost & time effort. But, more importantly, trying to make an SLK a "track" car when its basic chassis is inferior to many other 2 seat hard top sports coupes readily available?
PS - I fear nothing in my SLK S7. It may weigh 200 - 400 lbs more than an Enzo but I've also got more torque to the rear wheels than the Enzo has at the CRANK to carry its extra heft. Maybe I would still get pulled, and if I did, it likely wouldn't be by that much (I wouldn't really care - its my wife's convertible/daily commuter car for gawds sake
). Besides, there are always more mods (Cams, DRs, dropping some weight, etc) - not that it matters but its fun every once in a while to accelerate. -Matt
01-18-2007, 08:51 PM
#18
Member
Thread Starter
Theory and practice: I've driven both the SLK55 and the Enzo. In stock form the SLK kicks in its traction control due to its small tires and lack of weight over the rear wheels.
I've a set of scales for corner balancing. I suggest weighing your car and seeing what it really weighs on each wheel. That's practice, not theory.
It's a fact that motors for turbos/chargers (piston and ring selections) differ from normally aspirated motors. The stock SLK motor may be durable but it was not built to be boosted. The whipple charger is used by many. In fact, we put one on a Ferrari V8. Great design but it caused early wear of the rings.
Rx7 is a rotary motors, so really comparing apples and oranges/pistons and rotors.
How much was your Kleeman conversion? Headers, computer, Charger, etc?
The LS7 conversion would do one thing without doubt: Make the SLK a real sports car. Sport meaning the driver shifts his own gears with a shifter! Really, if you're paying $75k for an SLK (which seems high), and if you're happy with an automatic, get a used SL600 or SL65 ($80k to $115k) and you'll have a far better built fast automatic car.
I want a sports car with a stick shift and lots of power and no traction control.
Anyone that thinks their SLK is faster than an Enzo and is willing to put their title on the line please let me know. I'll set it up
If the LS7 Motor is around $12k, a six speed another $2k-$3k, plus labor, and if I can sell the AMG V8 and 7 speed auto to offset costs, what is the net price diference between the Kleeman and a faster, better handling, six speed manual SLK?
BTW: Check this out. They say they'd rather walk around the track then drive the SLK55 thanks to its traction control and understeer. They also boo hoo the lack of a manual transmission. Install the LS7 and loose the traction control, get a stick and sports car fans have the car Merc and AMG should have built. http://www.dreamcar.co.uk/videos/Mercedes/SLK55_vs_SL55
Now that's what I want.
I've a set of scales for corner balancing. I suggest weighing your car and seeing what it really weighs on each wheel. That's practice, not theory.
It's a fact that motors for turbos/chargers (piston and ring selections) differ from normally aspirated motors. The stock SLK motor may be durable but it was not built to be boosted. The whipple charger is used by many. In fact, we put one on a Ferrari V8. Great design but it caused early wear of the rings.
Rx7 is a rotary motors, so really comparing apples and oranges/pistons and rotors.
How much was your Kleeman conversion? Headers, computer, Charger, etc?
The LS7 conversion would do one thing without doubt: Make the SLK a real sports car. Sport meaning the driver shifts his own gears with a shifter! Really, if you're paying $75k for an SLK (which seems high), and if you're happy with an automatic, get a used SL600 or SL65 ($80k to $115k) and you'll have a far better built fast automatic car.
I want a sports car with a stick shift and lots of power and no traction control.
Anyone that thinks their SLK is faster than an Enzo and is willing to put their title on the line please let me know. I'll set it up
If the LS7 Motor is around $12k, a six speed another $2k-$3k, plus labor, and if I can sell the AMG V8 and 7 speed auto to offset costs, what is the net price diference between the Kleeman and a faster, better handling, six speed manual SLK?
BTW: Check this out. They say they'd rather walk around the track then drive the SLK55 thanks to its traction control and understeer. They also boo hoo the lack of a manual transmission. Install the LS7 and loose the traction control, get a stick and sports car fans have the car Merc and AMG should have built. http://www.dreamcar.co.uk/videos/Mercedes/SLK55_vs_SL55
Now that's what I want.
Last edited by SLKV12TT; 01-18-2007 at 08:57 PM.
01-18-2007, 09:12 PM
#19
MBWorld Fanatic!
Huh? What about the most rudimentary measurment of engine size?
6.2 Litre V8 vs. 7.0 Litre V8
Now, if you go ahead with this, good luck to you, sounds like a fun project, and something unique. But, did you ever consider stuffing in a built LS1 or LS2 instead of the LS7. Due to complaints posted on the Corvette Board and expensive cost, why not purchase a smaller, lighter, and cheaper motor that can be upgraded to make similar power levels. Although I love the idea of 12 in an SLK, a built, lightweight LS1 or LS2 sounds like your best bet. Very reliable with tremendous tuning potential.
6.2 Litre V8 vs. 7.0 Litre V8
Now, if you go ahead with this, good luck to you, sounds like a fun project, and something unique. But, did you ever consider stuffing in a built LS1 or LS2 instead of the LS7. Due to complaints posted on the Corvette Board and expensive cost, why not purchase a smaller, lighter, and cheaper motor that can be upgraded to make similar power levels. Although I love the idea of 12 in an SLK, a built, lightweight LS1 or LS2 sounds like your best bet. Very reliable with tremendous tuning potential.
01-18-2007, 09:15 PM
#20
MBWorld Fanatic!
Example: New 500 HP LS2 Block for $3,000
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/LS1-L...QQcmdZViewItem
Great starting point with room to build the rest as you see fit.
Great starting point with room to build the rest as you see fit.
Last edited by HLG600; 01-18-2007 at 09:17 PM.
01-18-2007, 09:17 PM
#21
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'93 RX-7, SLK55
Theory and practice: I've driven both the SLK55 and the Enzo. In stock form the SLK kicks in its traction control due to its small tires and lack of weight over the rear wheels.
I've a set of scales for corner balancing. I suggest weighing your car and seeing what it really weighs on each wheel. That's practice, not theory.
It's a fact that motors for turbos/chargers (piston and ring selections) differ from normally aspirated motors. The stock SLK motor may be durable but it was not built to be boosted. The whipple charger is used by many. In fact, we put one on a Ferrari V8. Great design but it caused early wear of the rings.
Rx7 is a rotary motors, so really comparing apples and oranges/pistons and rotors.
How much was your Kleeman conversion? Headers, computer, Charger, etc?
The LS7 conversion would do one thing without doubt: Make the SLK a real sports car. Sport meaning the driver shifts his own gears with a shifter! Really, if you're paying $75k for an SLK (which seems high), and if you're happy with an automatic, get a used SL600 or SL65 ($80k to $115k) and you'll have a far better built fast automatic car.
I want a sports car with a stick shift and lots of power and no traction control.
Anyone that thinks their SLK is faster than an Enzo and is willing to put their title on the line please let me know. I'll set it up
If the LS7 Motor is around $12k, a six speed another $2k-$3k, plus labor, and if I can sell the AMG V8 and 7 speed auto to offset costs, what is the net price diference between the Kleeman and a faster, better handling, six speed manual SLK?
BTW: Check this out. They say they'd rather walk around the track then drive the SLK55 thanks to its traction control and understeer. They also boo hoo the lack of a manual transmission. Install the LS7 and loose the traction control, get a stick and sports car fans have the car Merc and AMG should have built. http://www.dreamcar.co.uk/videos/Mercedes/SLK55_vs_SL55
Now that's what I want.
I've a set of scales for corner balancing. I suggest weighing your car and seeing what it really weighs on each wheel. That's practice, not theory.
It's a fact that motors for turbos/chargers (piston and ring selections) differ from normally aspirated motors. The stock SLK motor may be durable but it was not built to be boosted. The whipple charger is used by many. In fact, we put one on a Ferrari V8. Great design but it caused early wear of the rings.
Rx7 is a rotary motors, so really comparing apples and oranges/pistons and rotors.
How much was your Kleeman conversion? Headers, computer, Charger, etc?
The LS7 conversion would do one thing without doubt: Make the SLK a real sports car. Sport meaning the driver shifts his own gears with a shifter! Really, if you're paying $75k for an SLK (which seems high), and if you're happy with an automatic, get a used SL600 or SL65 ($80k to $115k) and you'll have a far better built fast automatic car.
I want a sports car with a stick shift and lots of power and no traction control.
Anyone that thinks their SLK is faster than an Enzo and is willing to put their title on the line please let me know. I'll set it up
If the LS7 Motor is around $12k, a six speed another $2k-$3k, plus labor, and if I can sell the AMG V8 and 7 speed auto to offset costs, what is the net price diference between the Kleeman and a faster, better handling, six speed manual SLK?
BTW: Check this out. They say they'd rather walk around the track then drive the SLK55 thanks to its traction control and understeer. They also boo hoo the lack of a manual transmission. Install the LS7 and loose the traction control, get a stick and sports car fans have the car Merc and AMG should have built. http://www.dreamcar.co.uk/videos/Mercedes/SLK55_vs_SL55
Now that's what I want.
Why would I corner balance the car? Its NOT a track car nor was it meant to be. I already know its F/R weight distribution (the same as stock) & its total curb weight (3400, not 3500lbs...again - same as stock). In stock format (non Nurburgring/furmer suspensioned 030 package), the car slaloms within .2 mph of Porsche GT2, 911 TT, & C4S. That is pretty good company for a drop top with the softer suspension.
Do I really need to corner balance it? Nope. I could honestly care less what some UK car reporter says about the SLK55? I can counter with others that say they think the car handles great (Jeremy Clarkson bought one he liked it so much). Last point on the SL comments....My wife didn't want a used or new SL. SL's are much heavier & larger cars, not as nimble, nor as fun to drive as the SLK55 (basicly an older man/woman's car IMHO which is fine, just not our style/taste). Its the same reason we passed on a Jag XKR (nice car, just too large/heavy & not a real performer in any category).
-Matt
01-18-2007, 10:46 PM
#22
Member
Thread Starter
Huh? What about the most rudimentary measurment of engine size?
6.2 Litre V8 vs. 7.0 Litre V8
I disagree: The critical factor for a motor for me is NOT it's internal displacement, it's how much does the lump weigh and how much space does it take up.
E.g., a Maserati twin turbo V6 is a very wide motor and terribly complex yet only has 2.5 liters. Little power for much work. From an engineering perspective, the real issue isn't how much space does a piston displace so much as what is the power to weight ratio of the motor and how can it be packaged.
The LS7 is essentially identical to the LS1/LS2 in basic dimensions. LS1 is cheaper but lacks the sophistication of the LS7 and is not that much cheaper.
For the SL: The lady driver had the large, heavy SL around the track 3/10 of second FASTER than the SLK55 and she appeared to be driving the tires off the SLK!
The point for this thread for me was simply this: Mercedes and AMG should get their priorities straight and build a true sports car: One with a manual transmission and the best available engine. The Shelby Cobra is a legend because of Caroll's same philosophy. The SLK is a great car for the money. Better built than a Z4, sharp looking and with a slick roof the Boxster lacks. But those cars all offer manual transmissions.
I say we upstage AMG with a manual and a 500hp V8 with even better fuel economy and handling. Maybe then AMG will give us a manual transmission and an SLK63.
I remember the day when driver skill mattered: When automatic transmissions were considered for girls. I think it's time for a hairy chested modern day Cobra. The SLK can be that car.
6.2 Litre V8 vs. 7.0 Litre V8
I disagree: The critical factor for a motor for me is NOT it's internal displacement, it's how much does the lump weigh and how much space does it take up.
E.g., a Maserati twin turbo V6 is a very wide motor and terribly complex yet only has 2.5 liters. Little power for much work. From an engineering perspective, the real issue isn't how much space does a piston displace so much as what is the power to weight ratio of the motor and how can it be packaged.
The LS7 is essentially identical to the LS1/LS2 in basic dimensions. LS1 is cheaper but lacks the sophistication of the LS7 and is not that much cheaper.
For the SL: The lady driver had the large, heavy SL around the track 3/10 of second FASTER than the SLK55 and she appeared to be driving the tires off the SLK!
The point for this thread for me was simply this: Mercedes and AMG should get their priorities straight and build a true sports car: One with a manual transmission and the best available engine. The Shelby Cobra is a legend because of Caroll's same philosophy. The SLK is a great car for the money. Better built than a Z4, sharp looking and with a slick roof the Boxster lacks. But those cars all offer manual transmissions.
I say we upstage AMG with a manual and a 500hp V8 with even better fuel economy and handling. Maybe then AMG will give us a manual transmission and an SLK63.
I remember the day when driver skill mattered: When automatic transmissions were considered for girls. I think it's time for a hairy chested modern day Cobra. The SLK can be that car.
01-18-2007, 11:40 PM
#23
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'93 RX-7, SLK55
Huh? What about the most rudimentary measurment of engine size?
6.2 Litre V8 vs. 7.0 Litre V8
I disagree: The critical factor for a motor for me is NOT it's internal displacement, it's how much does the lump weigh and how much space does it take up.
E.g., a Maserati twin turbo V6 is a very wide motor and terribly complex yet only has 2.5 liters. Little power for much work. From an engineering perspective, the real issue isn't how much space does a piston displace so much as what is the power to weight ratio of the motor and how can it be packaged.
The LS7 is essentially identical to the LS1/LS2 in basic dimensions. LS1 is cheaper but lacks the sophistication of the LS7 and is not that much cheaper.
For the SL: The lady driver had the large, heavy SL around the track 3/10 of second FASTER than the SLK55 and she appeared to be driving the tires off the SLK!
The point for this thread for me was simply this: Mercedes and AMG should get their priorities straight and build a true sports car: One with a manual transmission and the best available engine. The Shelby Cobra is a legend because of Caroll's same philosophy. The SLK is a great car for the money. Better built than a Z4, sharp looking and with a slick roof the Boxster lacks. But those cars all offer manual transmissions.
I say we upstage AMG with a manual and a 500hp V8 with even better fuel economy and handling. Maybe then AMG will give us a manual transmission and an SLK63.
I remember the day when driver skill mattered: When automatic transmissions were considered for girls. I think it's time for a hairy chested modern day Cobra. The SLK can be that car.
6.2 Litre V8 vs. 7.0 Litre V8
I disagree: The critical factor for a motor for me is NOT it's internal displacement, it's how much does the lump weigh and how much space does it take up.
E.g., a Maserati twin turbo V6 is a very wide motor and terribly complex yet only has 2.5 liters. Little power for much work. From an engineering perspective, the real issue isn't how much space does a piston displace so much as what is the power to weight ratio of the motor and how can it be packaged.
The LS7 is essentially identical to the LS1/LS2 in basic dimensions. LS1 is cheaper but lacks the sophistication of the LS7 and is not that much cheaper.
For the SL: The lady driver had the large, heavy SL around the track 3/10 of second FASTER than the SLK55 and she appeared to be driving the tires off the SLK!
The point for this thread for me was simply this: Mercedes and AMG should get their priorities straight and build a true sports car: One with a manual transmission and the best available engine. The Shelby Cobra is a legend because of Caroll's same philosophy. The SLK is a great car for the money. Better built than a Z4, sharp looking and with a slick roof the Boxster lacks. But those cars all offer manual transmissions.
I say we upstage AMG with a manual and a 500hp V8 with even better fuel economy and handling. Maybe then AMG will give us a manual transmission and an SLK63.
I remember the day when driver skill mattered: When automatic transmissions were considered for girls. I think it's time for a hairy chested modern day Cobra. The SLK can be that car.
). She needed to adjust her seat position, switch OFF the T/C on the SLK55 (it will still engage but much less so than leaving it ON...or she could have taken it off line & put in Dyno mode since she WAS tracking the car). This was also the non 030 equipped SLK55 & it got edged by 3/10s of a second for ~ twice the money? Yup, thats a good ROI.
Maybe Posh Spice needs to don a race suit, some headgear, adjust her seating position (further back), hit the apex lines on a consistent basis, & get an 030 package on the SLK55 - it might lend her some additional credibility (at least on this forum).
-Matt
01-18-2007, 11:44 PM
#24
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: sac, calif.
Posts: 1,164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'06 slk55
This has been a very interesting read/debate.
I've got to say, I'd love to see the SLK with the 6.2L or LS7 engine. However, I find it hard to believe you'll actually do it. How long have you been contemplating the V12 install? Yet, there hasn't been any progress? You seem fairly knowledgable about the whole affair but talk is cheap. I want to see action. I truly hope to see it. I think it would be very cool.
I think that link to the SL vs SLK is complete sh*t. That girl can't even manage to adjust her seat let alone drive this thing. If she's upset about traction control, you can always turn it off or completely disable it through the menu. I give that review little credit.
IMO the SLK does many things extremely well. This is why I purchased this car. I know it doesn't track as well as a Cayman or Z06. It isn't the lightest car or fastest. It's front heavy. However, it's at par with those cars when driven at 9/10ths. Plus, it's better looking and has a hardtop convertible. I think it's damn near perfect.
I've got to say, I'd love to see the SLK with the 6.2L or LS7 engine. However, I find it hard to believe you'll actually do it. How long have you been contemplating the V12 install? Yet, there hasn't been any progress? You seem fairly knowledgable about the whole affair but talk is cheap. I want to see action. I truly hope to see it. I think it would be very cool.
I think that link to the SL vs SLK is complete sh*t. That girl can't even manage to adjust her seat let alone drive this thing. If she's upset about traction control, you can always turn it off or completely disable it through the menu. I give that review little credit.
IMO the SLK does many things extremely well. This is why I purchased this car. I know it doesn't track as well as a Cayman or Z06. It isn't the lightest car or fastest. It's front heavy. However, it's at par with those cars when driven at 9/10ths. Plus, it's better looking and has a hardtop convertible. I think it's damn near perfect.
01-19-2007, 12:23 AM
#25
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cee Fiddy Five
You know what isn't cheap? Doing a conversion as big as this...let the man think! Because whatever direction he takes, it seems like this is going to be one sweet SLK!
