Nayes

Newbie
Points
1
Location
Ukraine
Car
CLK 200
Greetings!

I own a Mercedes CLK 200 Kompressor (w209) m271 1.8L going from Stage 2 (~241PS and 380Nm) to Stage 3 and have a few questions about upgrading the Supercharger.

Stuff like IC, exhaust, headers, cams, gearbox, ECU tune etc. has been done, questions remains about the Supercharger upgrade and further tune.


Currently, I'm running the stock Eaton m65 (which is a M45 version with another bypass valve), but would like to upgrade it.

The confusion I have is about the mentioned superchargers I can purchase due to availability/budget.

The M62 have longer rotors than the M45 and is suited for 2.5L to 4.0L where M45 is suited for 2.0L to 3.0L engines.

The TVS R1320 is suited for 2.2L to 4.2L engines, with upgraded 4 lobe rotors design, compare to 3 lobes for traditional root types.

About the TVS R410 I could not find any info besides the 0.4L air/rotation and the upgraded 4 lobe rotors design. (TVS R1320 obviously 1.3L)


My Question:

What would be the best upgrade, in terms of power/efficiency?

I have the following mods in mind:

1. upgrading to a ported m62 (due to bigger lobes)
2. upgrading to a TVS R410 (due to upgraded lobe design)
3. upgrading to a TVS R1320 which is obviously the biggest best choice, however I don't know whether it is overkill or not.

Eaton M90/M112 to consider?

Considering the boost drop due to front air intercooler, I want most efficient and max boost with cold air going into the custom aluminum intake manifold, with the least parasitic drag of the roots/TVS style blowers.

I don't mind the whine noise (actually like it)

Another question is whether to do a direct water-to-air intercooler after the supercharger, and possibly running a killer chiller mod with a switch if desired.

This is a daily driver, but I'd like a bit more power out of it, around 300 PS if possible.

Please do not recommend turbo or engine swaps, not possible for me.


Thanks and looking forward to your replies!
 
Last edited:
I don't have a Mercedes, but I do have some experience with the M62. It's a good, reliable unit and makes decent power. I have it on a 3.4L engine and it's a bit small, an M90 would be more efficient since I have to over spin the rotors to make power. The M62 does run very hot and I am unable to run an intercooler so heat is a major issue. For a 1.8L engine, the M90 might seem a bit too big and build boost slow. M112 definitely no.

The TVS rotors are both more efficient in building boost as well as more efficient thermally than the traditional 3-lobe rotor design. I don't know if you chose those two models just due to fitment but that's a HUGE difference in displacement. The TVS R1320 is almost as big as your entire engine and would flow way too much! Have you looked at the TVS R570 or R720? I think those would be better suited for your engine. If the M90 would be the sweet spot for my 3.4L engine, something like the TVS R570 would be an equal amount of displacement per L. It would be larger than your current M45 but not monstrously larger. With the TVS rotors, less cooling is needed so an air-to-air intercooler should be sufficient. Of course though, methanol injectors or even nitrous is always a good thing cooling down that intake charge. I use methanol to control the heat and I find it best to inject before the supercharger to keep the rotors and compressed air cool.
 
I don't have a Mercedes, but I do have some experience with the M62. It's a good, reliable unit and makes decent power. I have it on a 3.4L engine and it's a bit small, an M90 would be more efficient since I have to over spin the rotors to make power. The M62 does run very hot and I am unable to run an intercooler so heat is a major issue. For a 1.8L engine, the M90 might seem a bit too big and build boost slow. M112 definitely no.

The TVS rotors are both more efficient in building boost as well as more efficient thermally than the traditional 3-lobe rotor design. I don't know if you chose those two models just due to fitment but that's a HUGE difference in displacement. The TVS R1320 is almost as big as your entire engine and would flow way too much! Have you looked at the TVS R570 or R720? I think those would be better suited for your engine. If the M90 would be the sweet spot for my 3.4L engine, something like the TVS R570 would be an equal amount of displacement per L. It would be larger than your current M45 but not monstrously larger. With the TVS rotors, less cooling is needed so an air-to-air intercooler should be sufficient. Of course though, methanol injectors or even nitrous is always a good thing cooling down that intake charge. I use methanol to control the heat and I find it best to inject before the supercharger to keep the rotors and compressed air cool.
Hey, thanks for the reply, I appreciate it!

The TVS R570/720 are nowhere to be found - I am looking at the TVS R1320 because this is a cheap 400 Euro option, cutting it out from an Audi TFSI 3.0 V6 supercharger (same unit, link below)

I thought about the issues/disadvantages of running a bigger displacement supercharger, but I always see this kind of info and I just can't figure it out:


It seems, that all this research comes down to the "bigger - better" policy, and I know there is even a twincharge option for my engine, simply adding a .70 AR Turbo feeding into the supercharger (compound setup), multiplying the boost/compression.

The thing is that the Turbo itself is not cheap, and I have to lose/sell my 4-2-1 Stainless Kleeman headers, which would be a shame.

Regarding the temp, I've measured 10-15C above the ambient temp, this summer I had like 45-47C during a hot 32C day, with the upgraded VÄTH intercooler.

I have 62mm supercharger pulley, and a 195 crank pulley, if I'm not mistaken, the M65(M45) spins around 19000 rpm max., the OBDII is measuring peak boost of 0.9 bar, mostly staying around 0.5-0.6 bar.

Another reason I want to upgrade the supercharger, is because of the belt wrap - it is kinda bad, designed for stock use:

https://prnt.sc/1v5b69s

so making a custom lightweight double crankshaft pulley, which will fully wrap the supercharger pulley, is imo a good idea.

Water/Meth I'm considering as well, and an aluminum custom intake manifold, maybe doing even 4 meth injectors for each cylinder.

BTW Audi's V6 TVS1320 supercharger has a manifold, with two water-to-air intercoolers built in - making a few small adjustments I could modify it, skipping the custom aluminum intake manifold I'm planing, swapping the front intercooler with a big radiator and adding a pump making it water/air - but I don't know whether it is worth it/will be cooler than the setup I have atm - what do you think?
 
Yeah I understand about costs. For my engine, there's only one unit that fits made by the manufacturer and it costs $3500! If I were to pick up a used M90 with the standard manifold used it could be had for only $200. There's no direct fit adapter to work on the intake manifold though and it wouldn't pass California's emissions but it would make considerably more power.

You're making a decent amount of boost though even with that little unit. I run at around 11 PSI max boost (0.75 bar) spinning the M62 to 20500 RPM. If the TVS R410 is the only 'small' option, the M90 might be a better option. It doesn't seem like you'll see much more power in going to the M62, not from my experiences vs yours. If the TVS R1320 has to be modified to the extent in the link you provided, I don't think that's a very viable option. It would be extremely difficult to have that go from an uneven exit port to 4 cylinders, not without a custom lower intake manifold and runners.

I agree about the belt design, that will slip at high RPM if it isn't already.

4 injectors for each cylinder seems nice in theory but creates a very complicated design. Getting adequate fuel pressure to each line could be a challenge. Be careful on over complicating simple things - if one of those injectors were to leak or run out of fuel pressure at high RPM it becomes a real threat to the engine. Compare that to a single injector spraying to all 4 cylinders, it's much simpler and less likely to fail. I've learned that in my time working on my engine, simpler is always better.

I don't have much feedback for the intercooler, perhaps others can share. My opinion on it is if you have ANY intercooler, you're doing ok. Anything beyond that is just a bonus.
 
Yeah I understand about costs. For my engine, there's only one unit that fits made by the manufacturer and it costs $3500! If I were to pick up a used M90 with the standard manifold used it could be had for only $200. There's no direct fit adapter to work on the intake manifold though and it wouldn't pass California's emissions but it would make considerably more power.

You're making a decent amount of boost though even with that little unit. I run at around 11 PSI max boost (0.75 bar) spinning the M62 to 20500 RPM. If the TVS R410 is the only 'small' option, the M90 might be a better option. It doesn't seem like you'll see much more power in going to the M62, not from my experiences vs yours. If the TVS R1320 has to be modified to the extent in the link you provided, I don't think that's a very viable option. It would be extremely difficult to have that go from an uneven exit port to 4 cylinders, not without a custom lower intake manifold and runners.

I agree about the belt design, that will slip at high RPM if it isn't already.

4 injectors for each cylinder seems nice in theory but creates a very complicated design. Getting adequate fuel pressure to each line could be a challenge. Be careful on over complicating simple things - if one of those injectors were to leak or run out of fuel pressure at high RPM it becomes a real threat to the engine. Compare that to a single injector spraying to all 4 cylinders, it's much simpler and less likely to fail. I've learned that in my time working on my engine, simpler is always better.

I don't have much feedback for the intercooler, perhaps others can share. My opinion on it is if you have ANY intercooler, you're doing ok. Anything beyond that is just a bonus.
That makes a lot of sense - thanks for the injector tip!

I think I will stick with the upgraded air intercooler, and will probably cut out the TVS1320 from the manifold - with a bit of welding this shouldn't be a problem, this guy made a simple inlet/outlet:

UnzaOY-w6RHXlm-2hEctL4TzH_w-960.jpg


I've double-checked everything, and as I see it, the engine should work just fine with the upgraded supercharger, as I will adapt the stock bypass reverse-throttle, setting everything up the same.

doing alu/silicon piping all around (inlet), I hope to compensate for the 0.15 - 0.2 bar (2-3 PSI) boost loss due to IC and throttle body.

Do you have any experience with exhaust sizing for superchargers? The guy who ran the twincharge setup made a 3 inch straight pipe, but since I don't have a turbo, there is a difference in the required back pressure as I understand?

I heard somewhere, that if you increase more than 50% from stock, you also need to go with bigger pipes - mine has 163PS/230Nm stock, and I'm currently around 267PS/415Nm, but there are still some stock 57mm (2.25 inch) exhaust pipes after the downpipe, before the MEC DESIGN exhaust system:


W209-CLK2009-Adapter-4.jpg


Should I go for 3 inch?
 
Last edited:
There are some great articles on exhaust sizing on the technical info part of this website. Back pressure is a myth that just won't die and keeps being resurrected on forums. Exhaust velocity and speed matters. I have a 2.5 in header to 3 in catback and that's the sweet spot for my 3.4L 375HP engine. Any bigger and I will lose velocity, meaning the exhaust gases will move too slowly at low RPM.

If I were to guess, going to 2.5 would probably be the best size IF you can also replace the 2.25 down pipe. If not, the gains are less but still there. Also be careful if you replace factory piping that is mandrel bent with crush bent, 2.5 in piping when crush bent is 2.25 in the bends so not really any bigger than before. It only flows as much as the most narrow point. If that's the case you will want to use 2.75 in.
 
There are some great articles on exhaust sizing on the technical info part of this website. Back pressure is a myth that just won't die and keeps being resurrected on forums. Exhaust velocity and speed matters. I have a 2.5 in header to 3 in catback and that's the sweet spot for my 3.4L 375HP engine. Any bigger and I will lose velocity, meaning the exhaust gases will move too slowly at low RPM.

If I were to guess, going to 2.5 would probably be the best size IF you can also replace the 2.25 down pipe. If not, the gains are less but still there. Also be careful if you replace factory piping that is mandrel bent with crush bent, 2.5 in piping when crush bent is 2.25 in the bends so not really any bigger than before. It only flows as much as the most narrow point. If that's the case you will want to use 2.75 in.
Thank you for your time and reply!

Will try that in a few weeks, I'll keep this post updated.

Have a nice day :)
 

Please watch this on my YouTube channel & Subscribe.


Back
Top