C111-IId and C111-III details from Mercedes
C111-IId and C111-III details from Mercedes
05-12-2009, 05:53 AM
#1
This post was last modified: 04-04-2011, 02:41 PM by ForcedInduction.
Attached Files
ForcedInduction
05-12-2009, 05:53 AM
#1
This thread is in moderation. Please PM me for info.
Attached Files
05-12-2009, 05:55 AM
#2
This post was last modified: 04-04-2011, 02:41 PM by ForcedInduction.
05-12-2009, 05:58 AM
#3
This post was last modified: 04-04-2011, 02:42 PM by ForcedInduction.
Attached Files
Image(s)ForcedInduction
05-12-2009, 05:58 AM
#3
This thread is in moderation. Please PM me for info.
Attached Files
Image(s)
05-12-2009, 06:02 AM
#4
This post was last modified: 04-04-2011, 02:42 PM by ForcedInduction.
Attached Files
Image(s)ForcedInduction
05-12-2009, 06:02 AM
#4
This thread is in moderation. Please PM me for info.
Attached Files
Image(s)
05-12-2009, 11:04 AM
#5
So, what can we learn from these engine pictures for our quest to 200+HP?
-Free Flowing Fresh-air intake
-Custom intake Manifold
-intercooler
-is that an M or an MW pump?
-Larger straight-thru exhaust
What we can't see...
- Injectors?
- Pump mods?
- Timing?
I wonder what the average sustained RPM would have been for the trials. It's obvious that these engines are near bullit-proof!!!
OH! Before I forget, most important: Thankyou, thankyou Forced for putting forth the effort to get this great information!!!!
'Jurgen' - 1982 300sd cream paint with palimino MB tex interior. Now running with new cooling system
.......discovered oil cooler has pinhole @#$%@
Nitrile gloves back on......'Otto' - 1985 300sd anthracite? grey/silver? with grey leather interior. (heated front seats!!!!
) Euro headlightsMods are in the works...
Telecommbrkr
05-12-2009, 11:04 AM #5Too bad MB didn't put this car into production. Hmmmmm, I wonder where DeLorean got his styling cues from............
So, what can we learn from these engine pictures for our quest to 200+HP?
-Free Flowing Fresh-air intake
-Custom intake Manifold
-intercooler
-is that an M or an MW pump?
-Larger straight-thru exhaust
What we can't see...
- Injectors?
- Pump mods?
- Timing?
I wonder what the average sustained RPM would have been for the trials. It's obvious that these engines are near bullit-proof!!!
OH! Before I forget, most important: Thankyou, thankyou Forced for putting forth the effort to get this great information!!!!
'Jurgen' - 1982 300sd cream paint with palimino MB tex interior. Now running with new cooling system
.......discovered oil cooler has pinhole @#$%@ Nitrile gloves back on......'Otto' - 1985 300sd anthracite? grey/silver? with grey leather interior. (heated front seats!!!!
) Euro headlightsMods are in the works...
05-12-2009, 11:27 AM
#6
(05-12-2009, 11:04 AM)Telecommbrkr -is that an M or an MW pump?
Its an MW, but based on the pictures above showing the smooth sides of the pump case, its definitely not an off the shelf pump. Plunger size, injection timing, etc is part of the "confidential" information the Dr. wouldn't tell me.
Quote:I wonder what the average sustained RPM would have been for the trials.Assuming "230/600 x 15" is an error meant to be "230/60 x 15", and 215/70 VR 15 means a ~26.5" diameter and with the noted 1.65 overall ratio: 156mph II average- 3200rpm, 186mph III average- 3400rpm and 201mph III top speed- 4200rpm. It makes sense they would run at that average RPM given its right at the torque peak.
They used a nonwastegated turbo and got ~300lb/ft of torque around 3500rpm. I bet if a wastegated, or VNT, were used that the torque could be near 400lb/ft at 2000rpm.
This post was last modified: 05-12-2009, 12:34 PM by ForcedInduction.
ForcedInduction
05-12-2009, 11:27 AM
#6
(05-12-2009, 11:04 AM)Telecommbrkr -is that an M or an MW pump?
Its an MW, but based on the pictures above showing the smooth sides of the pump case, its definitely not an off the shelf pump. Plunger size, injection timing, etc is part of the "confidential" information the Dr. wouldn't tell me.
Quote:I wonder what the average sustained RPM would have been for the trials.Assuming "230/600 x 15" is an error meant to be "230/60 x 15", and 215/70 VR 15 means a ~26.5" diameter and with the noted 1.65 overall ratio: 156mph II average- 3200rpm, 186mph III average- 3400rpm and 201mph III top speed- 4200rpm. It makes sense they would run at that average RPM given its right at the torque peak.
They used a nonwastegated turbo and got ~300lb/ft of torque around 3500rpm. I bet if a wastegated, or VNT, were used that the torque could be near 400lb/ft at 2000rpm.
05-12-2009, 02:25 PM
#7
I can't believe the head is of light alloy.
Also the tires are not the same seize on front and rear on the photos, but in the list of data.
But I can check this on the car in the museum
One day I might give the guy a call, maybe I can get further information.
I heard that they used custom made 6 mm elements and that the next restriction was supposed to be the prechamber.
Electrical fuel pumps? also to be checked on site!
But I think we can do this too and even more using the VTGs.
We will see.
Tom
Good information, thanks.
I can't believe the head is of light alloy.
Also the tires are not the same seize on front and rear on the photos, but in the list of data.
But I can check this on the car in the museum
One day I might give the guy a call, maybe I can get further information.
I heard that they used custom made 6 mm elements and that the next restriction was supposed to be the prechamber.
Electrical fuel pumps? also to be checked on site!
But I think we can do this too and even more using the VTGs.
We will see.
Tom
05-12-2009, 04:54 PM
#8
EDIT: Check out that monster ALDA!
This post was last modified: 05-12-2009, 04:55 PM by GREASY_BEAST.
GREASY_BEAST
05-12-2009, 04:54 PM #8Nice job Forced! This is great info.
EDIT: Check out that monster ALDA!
05-12-2009, 10:42 PM
#9
(05-12-2009, 02:25 PM)tomnik But I can check this on the car in the museum
Ah, thats right, you live in Germany! People have taken pictures before but very few. Maybe if you call ahead you can organize with the museum for somebody to open the hood/doors for you.
ForcedInduction
05-12-2009, 10:42 PM
#9
(05-12-2009, 02:25 PM)tomnik But I can check this on the car in the museum
Ah, thats right, you live in Germany! People have taken pictures before but very few. Maybe if you call ahead you can organize with the museum for somebody to open the hood/doors for you.
05-13-2009, 12:04 AM
#11
Wonder what is the difference on that ALDA?
This post was last modified: 11-29-2009, 01:04 PM by ForcedInduction.
Gota love Mercedes Diesels!
.
DeliveryValve
05-13-2009, 12:04 AM #11Thanks for posting and great info Forced!
Wonder what is the difference on that ALDA?
Gota love Mercedes Diesels!
.
05-13-2009, 02:55 AM
#12
(05-13-2009, 12:04 AM)DeliveryValve Wonder what is the difference on that ALDA?
Maybe nothing. Imagine the year so it is just the prototype.
On the other hand maybe not even they can remember anymore what parts they modified. Nearly all modification were handmade and not well recorded if at all (like the elements).
Tom
(05-13-2009, 12:04 AM)DeliveryValve Wonder what is the difference on that ALDA?
Maybe nothing. Imagine the year so it is just the prototype.
On the other hand maybe not even they can remember anymore what parts they modified. Nearly all modification were handmade and not well recorded if at all (like the elements).
Tom
05-13-2009, 03:12 PM
#13
(05-12-2009, 11:04 AM)Telecommbrkr Too bad MB didn't put this car into production.Actually they did. Kind of. The guy that designed these started making them on the side as custom cars. MB was so impressed they allowed him to used the Stern. The only time in history that has ever happened. I believe he used the MB engines.
1987 300D Sturmmachine
1991 300D Nearly Perfect
1985 300D Weekend/Camping/Dog car
1974 L508D Motoroam Monarch "NightMare"
OBK #42
(05-12-2009, 11:04 AM)Telecommbrkr Too bad MB didn't put this car into production.Actually they did. Kind of. The guy that designed these started making them on the side as custom cars. MB was so impressed they allowed him to used the Stern. The only time in history that has ever happened. I believe he used the MB engines.
1987 300D Sturmmachine
1991 300D Nearly Perfect
1985 300D Weekend/Camping/Dog car
1974 L508D Motoroam Monarch "NightMare"
OBK #42
05-13-2009, 05:54 PM
#14
With them able to get what seems to be reliable power out of this engine before, too bad they didn't produce it for regular sale models, or at least give people the ability to do the same through personal modification.
lowriderdog37
05-13-2009, 05:54 PM #14Very good info. Would there be a difference in the cam, or the valves too?
With them able to get what seems to be reliable power out of this engine before, too bad they didn't produce it for regular sale models, or at least give people the ability to do the same through personal modification.
05-17-2009, 05:02 PM
#15
'78 300D, OM617.912: 4spd manual, TB03 at 10PSI, 26*BTDC, DV's turned, HVAC, emissions system removed, e-fan, short ram, 3" downpipe to straight exhaust, W126 Bendix brakes, MR2 Spyder seats. 2890lbs
I am also noticing a dry sump oil system on both cars. That could be worth some power.
'78 300D, OM617.912: 4spd manual, TB03 at 10PSI, 26*BTDC, DV's turned, HVAC, emissions system removed, e-fan, short ram, 3" downpipe to straight exhaust, W126 Bendix brakes, MR2 Spyder seats. 2890lbs
05-17-2009, 05:59 PM
#16
ForcedInduction
05-17-2009, 05:59 PM
#16
They still have a dipstick though. All the dry sumps I've seen measure at the tank.
05-21-2009, 09:00 AM
#17
(05-17-2009, 05:59 PM)ForcedInduction They still have a dipstick though. All the dry sumps I've seen measure at the tank.
How are they supposed to top off their oil during a pit stop if they can't measure visually from the tank?
GREASY_BEAST
05-21-2009, 09:00 AM #17(05-17-2009, 05:59 PM)ForcedInduction They still have a dipstick though. All the dry sumps I've seen measure at the tank.
How are they supposed to top off their oil during a pit stop if they can't measure visually from the tank?
01-03-2010, 11:15 AM
#18
Looking at those pics, That 'Ally Head' looks suspicously like a Cast-Iron one to me!....
Alastair E
01-03-2010, 11:15 AM #18Hmm....
Looking at those pics, That 'Ally Head' looks suspicously like a Cast-Iron one to me!....
01-03-2010, 11:38 AM
#19
ForcedInduction
01-03-2010, 11:38 AM
#19
They never say what alloy it is. Just because its "light" doesn't mean it has to be aluminum. They could have also painted it.
04-23-2010, 11:46 PM
#20
Too bad no one builds a kit car replica of the C111-III for the W124 or W126... one could only dream. Being able to build an exact mold of that body would be nearly impossible unless someone were able to borrow that car out of the museum... *drool*
The Toecutter
04-23-2010, 11:46 PM #20I would wager money that the C111-III streamliner could exceed 50 miles per gallon at 70 mph... that body is beautiful, and by addressing aerodynamics and weight, you need not sacrifice horsepower and performance to get good fuel economy. Most modern 230 horsepower cars would be lucky to reach 150 mph, let alone more than 200 mph...
Too bad no one builds a kit car replica of the C111-III for the W124 or W126... one could only dream. Being able to build an exact mold of that body would be nearly impossible unless someone were able to borrow that car out of the museum... *drool*
04-24-2010, 05:43 AM
#21
(04-23-2010, 11:46 PM)The Toecutter Most modern 230 horsepower cars would be lucky to reach 150 mph, let alone more than 200 mph...
Given enough room and gearing they could. Mercedes even said it took the entire 7.8mile track length to reach its top speed.
This post was last modified: 04-24-2010, 05:44 AM by ForcedInduction.
ForcedInduction
04-24-2010, 05:43 AM
#21
(04-23-2010, 11:46 PM)The Toecutter Most modern 230 horsepower cars would be lucky to reach 150 mph, let alone more than 200 mph...
Given enough room and gearing they could. Mercedes even said it took the entire 7.8mile track length to reach its top speed.
04-25-2010, 03:12 AM
#22
(04-24-2010, 05:43 AM)ForcedInduction(04-23-2010, 11:46 PM)The Toecutter Most modern 230 horsepower cars would be lucky to reach 150 mph, let alone more than 200 mph...
Given enough room and gearing they could. Mercedes even said it took the entire 7.8mile track length to reach its top speed.
The Mercedes C111-III streamliner was able to reach that speed in 7.8 miles of track because it had such a low drag coefficient times frontal area that its power requirements to maintain a given speed were greatly reduced compared to a modern production car.
Cars with similar horsepower like the Audi TT or Porsche Boxter have their gearing already optimized for their top speeds, and they definately can't reach 200 mph!
Another case in point, Opel's Eco Speedster turbodiesel concept can reach 155 mph with only 112 horsepower, thanks to a 0.20 drag coefficient and a 15.8 square foot reference area. It also gets 94 mpg US combined!
If you want a fast car that also sips fuel, reducing weight and reducing aerodynamic drag are all you need. Even with a guzzling V8, dramatic results can still be seen.
Consider one of Newton's laws:
Net Force = Mass * Acceleration
If you reduce aerodynamic drag, more force will be left over for the engine to apply towards moving the car instead of overcoming drag.
The C111-III is a very impressive machine. I wish Mercedes or some other company would put such a streamlined machine into production. They clearly have the capability to do so, and there are plenty of people who would sacrifice style for greatly improved performance AND fuel economy and many would gladly purchase a car that has both in abundance. If only someone would build it... ;_;
The Toecutter
04-25-2010, 03:12 AM #22(04-24-2010, 05:43 AM)ForcedInduction(04-23-2010, 11:46 PM)The Toecutter Most modern 230 horsepower cars would be lucky to reach 150 mph, let alone more than 200 mph...
Given enough room and gearing they could. Mercedes even said it took the entire 7.8mile track length to reach its top speed.
The Mercedes C111-III streamliner was able to reach that speed in 7.8 miles of track because it had such a low drag coefficient times frontal area that its power requirements to maintain a given speed were greatly reduced compared to a modern production car.
Cars with similar horsepower like the Audi TT or Porsche Boxter have their gearing already optimized for their top speeds, and they definately can't reach 200 mph!
Another case in point, Opel's Eco Speedster turbodiesel concept can reach 155 mph with only 112 horsepower, thanks to a 0.20 drag coefficient and a 15.8 square foot reference area. It also gets 94 mpg US combined!
If you want a fast car that also sips fuel, reducing weight and reducing aerodynamic drag are all you need. Even with a guzzling V8, dramatic results can still be seen.
Consider one of Newton's laws:
Net Force = Mass * Acceleration
If you reduce aerodynamic drag, more force will be left over for the engine to apply towards moving the car instead of overcoming drag.
The C111-III is a very impressive machine. I wish Mercedes or some other company would put such a streamlined machine into production. They clearly have the capability to do so, and there are plenty of people who would sacrifice style for greatly improved performance AND fuel economy and many would gladly purchase a car that has both in abundance. If only someone would build it... ;_;
04-25-2010, 06:31 AM
#23
(04-25-2010, 03:12 AM)The Toecutter I wish Mercedes or some other company would put such a streamlined machine into production. They clearly have the capability to do so, and there are plenty of people who would sacrifice style for greatly improved performance AND fuel economy and many would gladly purchase a car that has both in abundance. If only someone would build it... ;_;
I do too. Supposedly there were several people that sent MB a blank check when they heard MB was considering a production run.
ForcedInduction
04-25-2010, 06:31 AM
#23
(04-25-2010, 03:12 AM)The Toecutter I wish Mercedes or some other company would put such a streamlined machine into production. They clearly have the capability to do so, and there are plenty of people who would sacrifice style for greatly improved performance AND fuel economy and many would gladly purchase a car that has both in abundance. If only someone would build it... ;_;
I do too. Supposedly there were several people that sent MB a blank check when they heard MB was considering a production run.
04-26-2010, 02:47 PM
#24
1987 300D Sturmmachine
1991 300D Nearly Perfect
1985 300D Weekend/Camping/Dog car
1974 L508D Motoroam Monarch "NightMare"
OBK #42
Actually there was. I can't remember the name of it but it was the only non MB made care to sport the MB badge. Google isn't showing it.
1987 300D Sturmmachine
1991 300D Nearly Perfect
1985 300D Weekend/Camping/Dog car
1974 L508D Motoroam Monarch "NightMare"
OBK #42
04-27-2010, 08:39 PM
#25
(04-26-2010, 02:47 PM)winmutt Actually there was. I can't remember the name of it but it was the only non MB made care to sport the MB badge. Google isn't showing it.
Was it a kit, or a pre-built car? Hopefully it was a body kit.
I'm going to do some digging to see if I can find it. I want to know what the cost was as well.
The Toecutter
04-27-2010, 08:39 PM #25(04-26-2010, 02:47 PM)winmutt Actually there was. I can't remember the name of it but it was the only non MB made care to sport the MB badge. Google isn't showing it.
Was it a kit, or a pre-built car? Hopefully it was a body kit.
I'm going to do some digging to see if I can find it. I want to know what the cost was as well.
05-04-2010, 08:31 AM
#26
The isdera, link has info for it
meareweird
05-04-2010, 08:31 AM #26http://190rev.net/forums/showthread.php?t=12824&page=16
The isdera, link has info for it
05-06-2010, 06:09 AM
#27
(05-04-2010, 08:31 AM)meareweird http://190rev.net/forums/showthread.php?t=12824&page=16
The isdera, link has info for it
The isdera models sold lack all of the streamlining of the C111-III, defeating the entire purpose of the concept...
A 0.30 drag coefficient is nothing to brag about. The 1921 Rumpler Tropfenwagen had a 0.27! The 1935 Tatra T77a, a 0.21! The best the automakers seem to give us is the new Prius, with a 0.25, and a Mercedes coupe with a 0.24, nearly 90 years later. Pathetic. College kids without wind tunnel access can do and have done better...
Why can't someone build and mass produce a simple, bare-bones, lightweight, streamlined sports car? A sports car with a 454 ci old-tech carbuerated V8, 2,500 lbs curb weight, Cd of ~0.18, frontal area of 18 ft sq, and gearing to make use of its engine's output with regard to top speed, would have absolutely no problem reaching 45 mpg on the highway at 70 mph... a 5 cylinder turbodiesel version, or course, would get similar results to the C111-III...
This post was last modified: 05-06-2010, 06:09 AM by The Toecutter.
The Toecutter
05-06-2010, 06:09 AM #27(05-04-2010, 08:31 AM)meareweird http://190rev.net/forums/showthread.php?t=12824&page=16
The isdera, link has info for it
The isdera models sold lack all of the streamlining of the C111-III, defeating the entire purpose of the concept...
A 0.30 drag coefficient is nothing to brag about. The 1921 Rumpler Tropfenwagen had a 0.27! The 1935 Tatra T77a, a 0.21! The best the automakers seem to give us is the new Prius, with a 0.25, and a Mercedes coupe with a 0.24, nearly 90 years later. Pathetic. College kids without wind tunnel access can do and have done better...
Why can't someone build and mass produce a simple, bare-bones, lightweight, streamlined sports car? A sports car with a 454 ci old-tech carbuerated V8, 2,500 lbs curb weight, Cd of ~0.18, frontal area of 18 ft sq, and gearing to make use of its engine's output with regard to top speed, would have absolutely no problem reaching 45 mpg on the highway at 70 mph... a 5 cylinder turbodiesel version, or course, would get similar results to the C111-III...
05-06-2010, 01:22 PM
#28
(05-06-2010, 06:09 AM)The Toecutter Why can't someone build and mass produce a simple, bare-bones, lightweight, streamlined sports car?
Safety standards....
John Robbins
'05 E320 CDI - 118k - Faaaaaast!!
'87 300TD - 317k - Cracked head... but an OM606 is on the way!
'79 300SD - 295k - Bad engine = project car!
(05-06-2010, 06:09 AM)The Toecutter Why can't someone build and mass produce a simple, bare-bones, lightweight, streamlined sports car?
Safety standards....
John Robbins
'05 E320 CDI - 118k - Faaaaaast!!
'87 300TD - 317k - Cracked head... but an OM606 is on the way!
'79 300SD - 295k - Bad engine = project car!
05-06-2010, 04:47 PM
#29
(05-06-2010, 01:22 PM)Tymbrymi(05-06-2010, 06:09 AM)The Toecutter Why can't someone build and mass produce a simple, bare-bones, lightweight, streamlined sports car?
Safety standards....
I doubt that. Do some research on the 1983 Volvo LCP 2000... 1,500 lbs curb weight, the size of a station wagon, 0.20 drag coefficient, more than 80 mpg highway, 0-60 mph in 11 seconds and a top speed of 115 mph with only a 50 horsepower turbodiesel, and could withstand a 45 mph head on collision and met/exceeded the safety standards of the time. Volvo also claimed it could have been produced at a cost comparable to a conventional car and there was market demand for the product; they simply refused.
I think planned obsolescence within the auto industry is the real issue. Why roll out an 80 mpg car when you can produce a bunch of small incremental improvements over a long period of time? It does minimize R&D costs and machine tools costs for the next model, and maximizes profits for each small advancement made. If you have read books such as "Taken for a Ride" by Jack Doyle, it becomes plainly obvious that collusion within the auto and oil industries is a widespread fact, and still exists today, sadly.
The folks at mulhollandraceway.org have been complaining about porky vehicles for years; they've been wondering why a sports car hasn't been built for a sub $30,000 price range, that weighs less than many 4-door sedans on the market today(Kia Rio, ect.), and has at least 300 horsepower to back it up. They are looking for sub-2,500 lb canyon carvers. A new Miata weights as much as a 1964 Mustang, despite the Miata's body being made out of much lighter materials and the Mitata being a smaller car than the steel-bodied Mustang! This is at least partially due to all of the dead weight thrown into interiors of cars these days; the average new car has heavier trim items than my 300 SDL, which is frankly, a pig...
The body design and how it deforms, along with any protection to prevent the passengers from being crushed(eg. roll cage), is mainly responsible for the vehicle's safety. Added weight does almost nothing except to make your car more dangerous to the other driver; the safety benefit for you is marginal at best, and is only existent when colliding with another vehicle. His a stationary, non-deforming object, like a building or a guard rail, and that weight is detrimental.
These 3,500-4,000 lb Ferraris and Lamborghinis we are seeing lately are the result of companies making luxury cars posing as race cars... they are embarassing, and frequently get raped by stock Miatas on hilly canyon roads due to the effects that weight has on acceleration, cornering, and braking on gradients. Those cars might handle and accelerate exceptionally well on a flat skidpad, and be untouchable on the interstate, but that weight spells trouble on hills... The engineering that goes into those cars is still incredible, but those cars would be much better if that engineering didn't have to attempt to make a 4,000 lb pig be the best that it can be.
I think there is money to be made if someone build's a C111-III kit for the W124 or W126. The difficulty would be obtaining a mold of the original's body work. There is a lot that goes on in a wind tunnel when shaping a car of that sort; while a hobbyists mioght be able to eyeball the C111-III, they definately won't obtain the low 0.18 Cd without having access to MB's work and design(although they will still get a decent Cd; 0.25 is in the realm of possibility for any hobbyist without windtunnel access).
The Toecutter
05-06-2010, 04:47 PM #29(05-06-2010, 01:22 PM)Tymbrymi(05-06-2010, 06:09 AM)The Toecutter Why can't someone build and mass produce a simple, bare-bones, lightweight, streamlined sports car?
Safety standards....
I doubt that. Do some research on the 1983 Volvo LCP 2000... 1,500 lbs curb weight, the size of a station wagon, 0.20 drag coefficient, more than 80 mpg highway, 0-60 mph in 11 seconds and a top speed of 115 mph with only a 50 horsepower turbodiesel, and could withstand a 45 mph head on collision and met/exceeded the safety standards of the time. Volvo also claimed it could have been produced at a cost comparable to a conventional car and there was market demand for the product; they simply refused.
I think planned obsolescence within the auto industry is the real issue. Why roll out an 80 mpg car when you can produce a bunch of small incremental improvements over a long period of time? It does minimize R&D costs and machine tools costs for the next model, and maximizes profits for each small advancement made. If you have read books such as "Taken for a Ride" by Jack Doyle, it becomes plainly obvious that collusion within the auto and oil industries is a widespread fact, and still exists today, sadly.
The folks at mulhollandraceway.org have been complaining about porky vehicles for years; they've been wondering why a sports car hasn't been built for a sub $30,000 price range, that weighs less than many 4-door sedans on the market today(Kia Rio, ect.), and has at least 300 horsepower to back it up. They are looking for sub-2,500 lb canyon carvers. A new Miata weights as much as a 1964 Mustang, despite the Miata's body being made out of much lighter materials and the Mitata being a smaller car than the steel-bodied Mustang! This is at least partially due to all of the dead weight thrown into interiors of cars these days; the average new car has heavier trim items than my 300 SDL, which is frankly, a pig...
The body design and how it deforms, along with any protection to prevent the passengers from being crushed(eg. roll cage), is mainly responsible for the vehicle's safety. Added weight does almost nothing except to make your car more dangerous to the other driver; the safety benefit for you is marginal at best, and is only existent when colliding with another vehicle. His a stationary, non-deforming object, like a building or a guard rail, and that weight is detrimental.
These 3,500-4,000 lb Ferraris and Lamborghinis we are seeing lately are the result of companies making luxury cars posing as race cars... they are embarassing, and frequently get raped by stock Miatas on hilly canyon roads due to the effects that weight has on acceleration, cornering, and braking on gradients. Those cars might handle and accelerate exceptionally well on a flat skidpad, and be untouchable on the interstate, but that weight spells trouble on hills... The engineering that goes into those cars is still incredible, but those cars would be much better if that engineering didn't have to attempt to make a 4,000 lb pig be the best that it can be.
I think there is money to be made if someone build's a C111-III kit for the W124 or W126. The difficulty would be obtaining a mold of the original's body work. There is a lot that goes on in a wind tunnel when shaping a car of that sort; while a hobbyists mioght be able to eyeball the C111-III, they definately won't obtain the low 0.18 Cd without having access to MB's work and design(although they will still get a decent Cd; 0.25 is in the realm of possibility for any hobbyist without windtunnel access).
05-06-2010, 05:35 PM
#30
(05-06-2010, 04:47 PM)The Toecutter Do some research on the 1983 Volvo LCP 2000.
Along with its crash ratings compared to even the cheap modern cars.
ForcedInduction
05-06-2010, 05:35 PM
#30
(05-06-2010, 04:47 PM)The Toecutter Do some research on the 1983 Volvo LCP 2000.
Along with its crash ratings compared to even the cheap modern cars.
05-06-2010, 06:01 PM
#31
(05-06-2010, 05:35 PM)ForcedInduction(05-06-2010, 04:47 PM)The Toecutter Do some research on the 1983 Volvo LCP 2000.
Along with its crash ratings compared to even the cheap modern cars.
Some of the safest modern cars sold in the US are Honda Civic EXs and Hyundai Elantras that weigh in at ~2,600 lbs, far less than the average new car sold in the U.S. While the data for the LCP2000 is from outdated safety standards, it does illustrate that lightweight cars being safe is a matter of their design, not of their weight.
Some of the safest cars ever built are F1 race cars, and they are quite light. A driver can crash at 200 mph and often walk away... try that at 70 mph with most modern SUVs.
Given the risks involved, I would not have been surprised if the C111-III was an exceptionally safe car to drive. It seems to have plenty of area that can deform in a crash, for starters.
The Toecutter
05-06-2010, 06:01 PM #31(05-06-2010, 05:35 PM)ForcedInduction(05-06-2010, 04:47 PM)The Toecutter Do some research on the 1983 Volvo LCP 2000.
Along with its crash ratings compared to even the cheap modern cars.
Some of the safest modern cars sold in the US are Honda Civic EXs and Hyundai Elantras that weigh in at ~2,600 lbs, far less than the average new car sold in the U.S. While the data for the LCP2000 is from outdated safety standards, it does illustrate that lightweight cars being safe is a matter of their design, not of their weight.
Some of the safest cars ever built are F1 race cars, and they are quite light. A driver can crash at 200 mph and often walk away... try that at 70 mph with most modern SUVs.
Given the risks involved, I would not have been surprised if the C111-III was an exceptionally safe car to drive. It seems to have plenty of area that can deform in a crash, for starters.
05-07-2010, 06:58 AM
#32
(05-06-2010, 06:01 PM)The Toecutter Some of the safest cars ever built are F1 race cars, and they are quite light. A driver can crash at 200 mph and often walk away.
Most of that is the thousands of dollars of equipment the driver wears and that he is strapped tight to the seat. A 3-point belt and airbag doesn't even come close (IF the driver wears it).
ForcedInduction
05-07-2010, 06:58 AM
#32
(05-06-2010, 06:01 PM)The Toecutter Some of the safest cars ever built are F1 race cars, and they are quite light. A driver can crash at 200 mph and often walk away.
Most of that is the thousands of dollars of equipment the driver wears and that he is strapped tight to the seat. A 3-point belt and airbag doesn't even come close (IF the driver wears it).
05-07-2010, 03:16 PM
#33
(05-07-2010, 06:58 AM)ForcedInduction(05-06-2010, 06:01 PM)The Toecutter Some of the safest cars ever built are F1 race cars, and they are quite light. A driver can crash at 200 mph and often walk away.
Most of that is the thousands of dollars of equipment the driver wears and that he is strapped tight to the seat. A 3-point belt and airbag doesn't even come close (IF the driver wears it).
It is the energy dissipation of component and structural crumple zones that reduce the energy impulse to the occupant. Rigid cockpit structures and restraints certainly do their part, but even in crashes where the occupant zone is not breached and the restraints work, the driver is often maimed or killed by the simple energy transfer to his/her body over a too brief time interval ( high impulse ).
RustyLugNut
05-07-2010, 03:16 PM #33(05-07-2010, 06:58 AM)ForcedInduction(05-06-2010, 06:01 PM)The Toecutter Some of the safest cars ever built are F1 race cars, and they are quite light. A driver can crash at 200 mph and often walk away.
Most of that is the thousands of dollars of equipment the driver wears and that he is strapped tight to the seat. A 3-point belt and airbag doesn't even come close (IF the driver wears it).
It is the energy dissipation of component and structural crumple zones that reduce the energy impulse to the occupant. Rigid cockpit structures and restraints certainly do their part, but even in crashes where the occupant zone is not breached and the restraints work, the driver is often maimed or killed by the simple energy transfer to his/her body over a too brief time interval ( high impulse ).
05-15-2010, 06:28 AM
#34
http://www.worldcarfans.com/110051426262...pted-theft
Quote:Thieves caused damage to the vehicle but were unsuccessful
May 14, 2010 1:37 pm
A 1970s era Mercedes show car was the victim of an attempted theft as the car waited on a transport trailer for a Channel crossing on its way to the Mercedes-Benz World Brooklands.
The thief or thieves damaged one of the gullwing doors and the nearside front wing of the C111 trying to get into the vehicle but were unsuccessful. They likely had no idea what this car was since there would have been no way to drive off with the vehicle - the car is a mock-up and has no engine.
The C111 was a concept car by Mercedes-Benz which came in various alternative power train iterations, for which it was intended, throughout the 60s and 70s. Besides being fitted with turbocharged petrol/gasoline engines, Mercedes tried diesel and rotary engine power plants on it too. A C112 version also followed, fitted with a 6.0 liter V12. No version ever made it to production.
The car eventually made it to Mercedes-Benz World and the damage has since been repaired.
This post was last modified: 05-15-2010, 06:28 AM by ForcedInduction.
ForcedInduction
05-15-2010, 06:28 AM
#34
Okay, which one of you was planning on making your own III?
http://www.worldcarfans.com/110051426262...pted-theft
Quote:Thieves caused damage to the vehicle but were unsuccessful
May 14, 2010 1:37 pm
A 1970s era Mercedes show car was the victim of an attempted theft as the car waited on a transport trailer for a Channel crossing on its way to the Mercedes-Benz World Brooklands.
The thief or thieves damaged one of the gullwing doors and the nearside front wing of the C111 trying to get into the vehicle but were unsuccessful. They likely had no idea what this car was since there would have been no way to drive off with the vehicle - the car is a mock-up and has no engine.
The C111 was a concept car by Mercedes-Benz which came in various alternative power train iterations, for which it was intended, throughout the 60s and 70s. Besides being fitted with turbocharged petrol/gasoline engines, Mercedes tried diesel and rotary engine power plants on it too. A C112 version also followed, fitted with a 6.0 liter V12. No version ever made it to production.
The car eventually made it to Mercedes-Benz World and the damage has since been repaired.
06-05-2010, 02:31 PM
#36
(04-27-2010, 08:39 PM)The Toecutter(04-26-2010, 02:47 PM)winmutt Actually there was. I can't remember the name of it but it was the only non MB made care to sport the MB badge. Google isn't showing it.
Was it a kit, or a pre-built car? Hopefully it was a body kit.
I'm going to do some digging to see if I can find it. I want to know what the cost was as well.
It was build by buchman
Dominique
Attached Files
Image(s)(04-27-2010, 08:39 PM)The Toecutter(04-26-2010, 02:47 PM)winmutt Actually there was. I can't remember the name of it but it was the only non MB made care to sport the MB badge. Google isn't showing it.
Was it a kit, or a pre-built car? Hopefully it was a body kit.
I'm going to do some digging to see if I can find it. I want to know what the cost was as well.
It was build by buchman
Dominique
Attached Files
Image(s)
06-20-2010, 04:52 AM
#37
I did not know this otherwise I'd try to sell them the Holly elements (but I will try to get in contact with these guys...)
www.spiegel.de/auto/fahrkultur/0,1518,700883,00.html
Some more details in the photos and sound files on the lower left side (bad quality and strange starting procedure)
Tom
they reactivated the C111-II recently.
I did not know this otherwise I'd try to sell them the Holly elements (but I will try to get in contact with these guys...)
www.spiegel.de/auto/fahrkultur/0,1518,700883,00.html
Some more details in the photos and sound files on the lower left side (bad quality and strange starting procedure)
Tom
10-23-2010, 07:01 AM
#40
Run by at 3:17
Here is a video with a decent shot.
(screencap)
ForcedInduction
10-23-2010, 07:01 AM
#40
Its a IId that was in the 2010 Goodwood Festival of speed. Apparently Mercedes restored the IId and has been showing/running in races around Europe. I'm having a hell of a time finding any decent video of it in action though.
Run by at 3:17
Here is a video with a decent shot.
(screencap)
10-26-2010, 02:21 AM
#43
(10-25-2010, 10:07 AM)winmutt I think I just creamed my pants.
Yes, thanks FI. This has been great. Never thought I'd see modern footage of that in action. BTW guys have you guys ever seen the automotive quarterly dealing with those cars?
"Molly" Jan. '84 black/tan 300d 180k miles, two owner car
Silberpfeil
10-26-2010, 02:21 AM #43(10-25-2010, 10:07 AM)winmutt I think I just creamed my pants.
Yes, thanks FI. This has been great. Never thought I'd see modern footage of that in action. BTW guys have you guys ever seen the automotive quarterly dealing with those cars?
"Molly" Jan. '84 black/tan 300d 180k miles, two owner car
12-20-2010, 03:08 AM
#44
1981 Mercedes 300TD Lowered 4 speed manual Holset HX30
mike-81-240d
12-20-2010, 03:08 AM #44http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3jIIS3FFAQ
1981 Mercedes 300TD Lowered 4 speed manual Holset HX30
01-23-2011, 10:15 AM
#45
(05-12-2009, 05:58 AM)ForcedInduction Compression ratio: approx. 21
Cylinders: Gray cast iron block
Cylinder head: Light alloy, removable
Hello,
the (by Mercedes not rated confidential) information I got says
Compression Ratio for the 190HP Version: 17:1
Compression Ratio for the 230HP Version: 17,5:1
but it doesn´t say anything about a light alloy cylinder head, so i am pretty sure the cylinder head is also gray cast iron.
Gruß
Volker
by the way; cool stuff you guys got here!
This post was last modified: 01-23-2011, 10:17 AM by Volker407.
(05-12-2009, 05:58 AM)ForcedInduction Compression ratio: approx. 21
Cylinders: Gray cast iron block
Cylinder head: Light alloy, removable
Hello,
the (by Mercedes not rated confidential) information I got says
Compression Ratio for the 190HP Version: 17:1
Compression Ratio for the 230HP Version: 17,5:1
but it doesn´t say anything about a light alloy cylinder head, so i am pretty sure the cylinder head is also gray cast iron.
Gruß
Volker
by the way; cool stuff you guys got here!
01-24-2011, 04:58 PM
#46
1982 300D Turbo ... 3,6xxlbs, No fan, No AC, Hood Stack, No ALDA, No rear bumper and stuffed front, A/W Intercooled, Injectors by Greezer and HUGE Pre-Chambers with help from OM616 & Simpler=Better, Fuel Cranked up, 60 Trim Compressor wheel, EGT, EMP, Boost 50" Rigid Radius bar on roof Aux tank for a total of 48 Gal Of Diesel! Odyssey PC-1750 Battery in trunk, 27"x8.5"/R14 Maxxis BigHorn Mud Terrains, In June '14 issue of Off Road Mag
AX15 Jeep Trans swap in progress....
Captain America
01-24-2011, 04:58 PM #46I just noticed the remote oil filter they got goin on ... Pretty cool!
1982 300D Turbo ... 3,6xxlbs, No fan, No AC, Hood Stack, No ALDA, No rear bumper and stuffed front, A/W Intercooled, Injectors by Greezer and HUGE Pre-Chambers with help from OM616 & Simpler=Better, Fuel Cranked up, 60 Trim Compressor wheel, EGT, EMP, Boost 50" Rigid Radius bar on roof Aux tank for a total of 48 Gal Of Diesel! Odyssey PC-1750 Battery in trunk, 27"x8.5"/R14 Maxxis BigHorn Mud Terrains, In June '14 issue of Off Road Mag
AX15 Jeep Trans swap in progress....
01-27-2011, 05:07 PM
#47
http://ticker.mercedes-benz-passion.com/...ahre-w123/
They also had changed the piston rod and the piston because the piston bolt was bigger than stock
Gruß
Volker
This post was last modified: 01-27-2011, 05:16 PM by Volker407.
nice big resolution picture
http://ticker.mercedes-benz-passion.com/...ahre-w123/
They also had changed the piston rod and the piston because the piston bolt was bigger than stock
Gruß
Volker
02-21-2012, 02:09 PM
#48
http://www.traumautoarchiv.de/html/2311.html
Gruß
Volker
more pics from a show in germany in 2010 after the car was restored in 2007
http://www.traumautoarchiv.de/html/2311.html
Gruß
Volker
02-22-2012, 04:26 AM
#49
http://www.gwa-tuning.com/p_C111.html
1982 s123 300TD TurboDiesel (US Spec) in France
http://www.worldcarfans.com/111010430287...al-vehicle
http://www.gwa-tuning.com/p_C111.html
1982 s123 300TD TurboDiesel (US Spec) in France
02-22-2012, 10:44 AM
#50
1987 300SDL 6spd manual om606.962 swap project
1985 300td euro 5spd wagon running
willbhere4u
02-22-2012, 10:44 AM #50That's cool even the Ferrari
1987 300SDL 6spd manual om606.962 swap project
1985 300td euro 5spd wagon running
Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)
1 Guest(s)
Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)
1 Guest(s)