OM648 crankshaft
OM648 crankshaft
Would someone on here happen to know if the OM648 (or OM613) crankshaft is a direct fit into the 603 and 606 blocks?
While the 92.4mm 3.5L 603 crank is a bit extreme, the 88.3mm 613/648 crank seems like it could be a happy medium for stroker builds.
Has anyone tried this already?
Thank you for any information.
Irony.cc
Hello,
Would someone on here happen to know if the OM648 (or OM613) crankshaft is a direct fit into the 603 and 606 blocks?
While the 92.4mm 3.5L 603 crank is a bit extreme, the 88.3mm 613/648 crank seems like it could be a happy medium for stroker builds.
Has anyone tried this already?
Thank you for any information.
Irony.cc
i dont know what u want to do , but the way is having a crank , pistons and rods from 603DE35 into a 606.96X it fits with some cutting here and there nothing special , the block is the same.
the 611/2/3 crank wont suit your needs despite it fits in. rod issues....
FD,
Powered by tractor fuel
hello ,
i dont know what u want to do , but the way is having a crank , pistons and rods from 603DE35 into a 606.96X it fits with some cutting here and there nothing special , the block is the same.
the 611/2/3 crank wont suit your needs despite it fits in. rod issues....
FD,
Powered by tractor fuel
(10-08-2015, 11:37 PM)Matej Hello,If you happen to buy an OM648 engine, I'd take the oil pan/pump off your hands. There are a few of them in Ebay.
Would someone on here happen to know if the OM648 (or OM613) crankshaft is a direct fit into the 603 and 606 blocks?
While the 92.4mm 3.5L 603 crank is a bit extreme, the 88.3mm 613/648 crank seems like it could be a happy medium for stroker builds.
Has anyone tried this already?
Thank you for any information.
50harleyrider
10-09-2015, 06:13 AM #3(10-08-2015, 11:37 PM)Matej Hello,If you happen to buy an OM648 engine, I'd take the oil pan/pump off your hands. There are a few of them in Ebay.
Would someone on here happen to know if the OM648 (or OM613) crankshaft is a direct fit into the 603 and 606 blocks?
While the 92.4mm 3.5L 603 crank is a bit extreme, the 88.3mm 613/648 crank seems like it could be a happy medium for stroker builds.
Has anyone tried this already?
Thank you for any information.
(10-09-2015, 04:08 AM)barrote the 611/2/3 crank wont suit your needs despite it fits in. rod issues...What rod issues would there be? Or did you mean that only the 613 had rod issues and the 648 is fine?
I will be picking up a spare OM606 and also an M104 gasoline engine (which actually uses the OM606 crankshaft), so I wanted to play around with them and turn one (or both) into stroker motors. After looking into using the 3.5L 603 crankshaft, it is too extreme for what I want and I do not think it is worth trying to make it work. The stroke is 8.4mm longer than the standard OM606 crank which could cause all kinds of potential longevity issues, especially if the engine is regularly revved high. On the other hand, the 648 crank only has a 4.3mm longer stroke, which sounds like a perfect candidate, if it fits.
Irony.cc
(10-09-2015, 04:08 AM)barrote the 611/2/3 crank wont suit your needs despite it fits in. rod issues...What rod issues would there be? Or did you mean that only the 613 had rod issues and the 648 is fine?
I will be picking up a spare OM606 and also an M104 gasoline engine (which actually uses the OM606 crankshaft), so I wanted to play around with them and turn one (or both) into stroker motors. After looking into using the 3.5L 603 crankshaft, it is too extreme for what I want and I do not think it is worth trying to make it work. The stroke is 8.4mm longer than the standard OM606 crank which could cause all kinds of potential longevity issues, especially if the engine is regularly revved high. On the other hand, the 648 crank only has a 4.3mm longer stroke, which sounds like a perfect candidate, if it fits.
Irony.cc
basically u can drop in the 603.98 (alias 603DE35) internals inside the 606.96X block. and fit it with the 606 4 valve head...
the rod issue i was talking about was the size, there are no rods that fit the 613 crank with the 87mm or 89mm IDI pistons,
so u have a big issue to solve , or u can either make custom rods wich does not make a stroker
i plan to do that in the 605/612 engine , does not worth the assle... the 603/6 and 613 is just one cylinder more...
u can check in WIS app the sizes and shapes ...
M104 comes in many shapes and flavours , 2.6 2.8 3.0 and 3.2 liter so wich one are u talking about?
FD,
Powered by tractor fuel
as i said ... 603DE35 is the same family as the 603.96X wich is the same block size as the 606.96X .
basically u can drop in the 603.98 (alias 603DE35) internals inside the 606.96X block. and fit it with the 606 4 valve head...
the rod issue i was talking about was the size, there are no rods that fit the 613 crank with the 87mm or 89mm IDI pistons,
so u have a big issue to solve , or u can either make custom rods wich does not make a stroker
i plan to do that in the 605/612 engine , does not worth the assle... the 603/6 and 613 is just one cylinder more...
u can check in WIS app the sizes and shapes ...
M104 comes in many shapes and flavours , 2.6 2.8 3.0 and 3.2 liter so wich one are u talking about?
FD,
Powered by tractor fuel
I know the 3.6 AMG M104 engine uses the 3.5 603 crank, but it has problems with reliability. Other people also tried using the 3.5 crank in the 3.2 with various piston and rod sizes, but the consensus is that it is not worth it because the stroke is simply too much.
However, if the 613/648 crank fits, it could be a much more realistic swap.
As for rods, I am not too worried if any OEM ones fit into the 606 or M104, because I will probably just have custom ones made.
Irony.cc
The M104 is the common 3.2L.
I know the 3.6 AMG M104 engine uses the 3.5 603 crank, but it has problems with reliability. Other people also tried using the 3.5 crank in the 3.2 with various piston and rod sizes, but the consensus is that it is not worth it because the stroke is simply too much.
However, if the 613/648 crank fits, it could be a much more realistic swap.
As for rods, I am not too worried if any OEM ones fit into the 606 or M104, because I will probably just have custom ones made.
Irony.cc
diesel tuning has nothing to do with gasoline, for instance in a gasoline engine want to be below the square as much as possible in order to have high rpm ability, in a diesel max u going to run is 6/7 k so u want to be inside the max peak tq, and for that the max u want to be is in the square(stroke/diameter=1 ) or above 1 ratio.
in a diesel, usually parts are a way more strong and heavy and that is the reason why u can live with such high compression ratios and high piston relative velocities, wich in long term lead to beating on the cylinder walls ad ovalization, vibrations and hard running.
this being said , i dont belive a M104 crank to be as strong and heavy as the 603/606 or even the 613. but one thing i know is crank and rod botom bearings are the same size in almost all MB. all i have seen are the same size. that does not mean they fit one and the other
For instance AMG in the C30 CDI engine choose a 2.9 liter version of a 612. previously the 5 cylinder used to be 2.9 liter like the 617, alont times when reliability and brute force was needed the 2.9 version came around like the 602.98X direct injected, or the 602.94X for sprinter vans... something must be diferente in a 2.9 liter 5 cylinder ....
the 3.5 liter version of the 603 is the same principle , the thing is that it might not work so well.
about the 613crank, it will fit the insights of a 603, u can take my word, remember 613 is 88mm DI, changing that , u will need to balance the crank with the right piston and rod´s , i dont know about that there but here is f$%# expensive.
regards
FD,
Powered by tractor fuel
well that i don´t know,
diesel tuning has nothing to do with gasoline, for instance in a gasoline engine want to be below the square as much as possible in order to have high rpm ability, in a diesel max u going to run is 6/7 k so u want to be inside the max peak tq, and for that the max u want to be is in the square(stroke/diameter=1 ) or above 1 ratio.
in a diesel, usually parts are a way more strong and heavy and that is the reason why u can live with such high compression ratios and high piston relative velocities, wich in long term lead to beating on the cylinder walls ad ovalization, vibrations and hard running.
this being said , i dont belive a M104 crank to be as strong and heavy as the 603/606 or even the 613. but one thing i know is crank and rod botom bearings are the same size in almost all MB. all i have seen are the same size. that does not mean they fit one and the other
For instance AMG in the C30 CDI engine choose a 2.9 liter version of a 612. previously the 5 cylinder used to be 2.9 liter like the 617, alont times when reliability and brute force was needed the 2.9 version came around like the 602.98X direct injected, or the 602.94X for sprinter vans... something must be diferente in a 2.9 liter 5 cylinder ....
the 3.5 liter version of the 603 is the same principle , the thing is that it might not work so well.
about the 613crank, it will fit the insights of a 603, u can take my word, remember 613 is 88mm DI, changing that , u will need to balance the crank with the right piston and rod´s , i dont know about that there but here is f$%# expensive.
regards
FD,
Powered by tractor fuel
1 Guest(s)
1 Guest(s)