RE: HWA Evo: 'Please don't call it a restomod'

[EyeHeartSpellin]

So, so much want

[akashzimzimma]

Baddie said:

DonkeyApple said:

I'm not sure I quite believe the reasoning for the M276 being chosen for their restomod project. It's a pretty big engine and quite too heavy with all the DOHC gubbins sitting on top of a tall V. Arguably the iconic engine to use for a restomod in order to get a real restomod feel would be the M113 V8 which is tiny, weights the same, the weight sits much lower and it's really not much longer.

I wonder if when creating this rather lovely restomod they didn't have to move the front track forward so as to be able to sink the very tall V6 low enough?

Anyway, great restomod. Well done.

Interesting, hadn’t thought of the M113 as compact or light, thought it was an old-school lump heavy but very durable. Would it have the right character for a racy DTM hommage? Would’ve thought the dry sump would have dropped the V6 low enough and the front axle was moved to get the weight distribution by putting the engine behind it.

I’m not sure about the V6 turbo either, maybe a re-engineering like Singer or Tuthill to produce a revvy NA motor.

the all alloy M276 Dela 30 is actually quite a light engine for a bi turbo V6m Its only about 180-185Kgs.
I had one in my C43 Estate 205 and the nose felt pretty light, much lighter than a Class with a 3.0 diesel V6. The M119 5.0 in my SL felt like an anvil up front ( in comparison). its not especially tall vs any other DOHC V6, and its not a hot Vee so the weight of the turbos is lower down by the sides of the block.
The m113 NA version is a light and compact v8, being all alloy and having on SOHC, the NA ones only weigh about 200 kgs.
However that would of course not develop near enough power for this and lacks any ability to easily increase the power.
The m113K is obviously much more powerful but both are too old for such a car and not available as crate engines.

[WPA]

I think I would prefer an original especially for £725k

[DonkeyApple]

CLK-GTR said:

I don't like restomods

You sir, have lucked in as this isn't a restomod but an old car that's been restored and then modified.

[Freakuk]

The Top Gear video goes into the amount of work that is needed on this project. Take a basic E-class and gut it, strip it, repair any issues, remove the from and fit a redesigned front end, internal strengthening, to meet modern crash standards, and that's before we even get to the bodywork, glass, engine etc.

It's a hell of a lot of money and you would have to think twice, but what a thing.

[p4cks]

DonkeyApple said:

CLK-GTR said:

I don't like restomods

You sir, have lucked in as this isn't a restomod but an old car that's been restored and then modified.

[trevalvole]

Rat_Fink_67 said:

trevalvole said:

One point in the V6's favour, is I'd suspect you'd struggle to get much more than 400bhp out of an n/a 5.4 litre M113, and perhaps the supercharged version would bring more packaging issues? May be they should have used a 5.5 litre M273 V8?

The final M113 derivative was the M152 that was used in the R172 SLK55 AMG. Good for 416bhp, and fitted with a really good cylinder shutdown sytem. It would've fitted the bill nicely!

I'm not sure you could call the M152 a M113 derivative, as Wikipedia says it was a variant of the M157, that seems to be part of the M278 engine family, which was developed from the M273. The M152 has DOHC (presumably VVT too) and direct injection, none of which the M113 had. Also the M113 was twin-spark, whereas the later engines weren't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_M152_e...

I agree, though, that the M152 would have fitted the bill.

[JJJ.]

If they've planned to do a W124, odds on that will get a V8. So, on that basis the lighter V6 makes sense in the W201.

[akashzimzimma]

Rat_Fink_67 said:

The final M113 derivative was the M152 that was used in the R172 SLK55 AMG. Good for 416bhp, and fitted with a really good cylinder shutdown sytem. It would've fitted the bill nicely!

The M152 in that SLK is a completely different engine all together from the M113. It was an NA version of the M157 bi turbo in the bi turbo 63s.
It has DOHC, Direct injection and VVT. Nothing in commmon with the m113 at all. All are old engines anway and not ones Mercedes or AMG would be able to supply to HWA.

[DonkeyApple]

akashzimzimma said:

Rat_Fink_67 said:

The final M113 derivative was the M152 that was used in the R172 SLK55 AMG. Good for 416bhp, and fitted with a really good cylinder shutdown sytem. It would've fitted the bill nicely!

The M152 in that SLK is a completely different engine all together from the M113. It was an NA version of the M157 bi turbo in the bi turbo 63s.
It has DOHC, Direct injection and VVT. Nothing in commmon with the m113 at all. All are old engines anway and not ones Mercedes or AMG would be able to supply to HWA.

Yup it was the M155 in the SLR that was spawned from the M113. The engines that followed were different architecture and larger and heavier. The M113 was about 190kg with all the ancillaries so same sort of weight as the later V6 chosen for this car. The upside of the later V6 is that firstly it was still available which would have been a rather large factor in its choice but as a turbo unit they can program it to do what they wanted, where they wanted in the Rev range really. The M113 just did what it did out of the box and the best you could do was change the cam. Which in some ways just has more charm for a restomod.

[HarryW]

Being penniless I’m obviously not the target market, even if I had Elon’s billions I doubt this would make my list though.

[WCZ]

what's worse value for money, this or the p25? the p25 seems dynamically more tuned but this looks better and has carbon bodywork etc

[NGK210]

Finally, the 190 gets some rear legroom.
Yes please.

[chrisironside]

GreatScott2016 said:

Makes the P25 sound like a bargain

This was my exact thought when I saw the price.
I'd say the P25 looks a lot classier than this!

[je777]

For that money, thy could have had a more exciting engine. Surely the 6.2-litre M159 V8 engine.

Also, I'd want it to look exactly like the original. Why do restomodders insist on silly lights?

Edited by je777 on Thursday 20th June 13:43

[C.MW]

It's like a Ruf then as that car looks just like a 911 but is a different car underneath the skin. In fact, this one in some aspects seems to deviate even further away from its origin than a Ruf does. However, Ruf has sealed its own identity with the now legendary Yellowbird in the 80's. Not sure if HWA has heritage of that magnitude to lean on. Still sounds like a serious bit of kit though.

Edited by C.MW on Thursday 20th June 14:27

[tallsopp]

See Top Gear YouTube vid n the car

[DonkeyApple]

je777 said:

For that money, thy could have had a more exciting engine. Surely the 6.2-litre M159 V8 engine.

Also, I'd want it to look exactly like the original. Why do restomodders insist on silly lights?

Edited by je777 on Thursday 20th June 13:43

The lights on restomods is a mildly interesting area.

The end product travels much quicker than the original that it is based upon which means you certainly want modern lighting at the front but getting modern light tech into old looking housings is often not achievable so you end up having to make the difficult choice to go 'new' but it is the right choice.

Rears are potentially less of an issue but that said, in recent years the latest cars have stopped being able to 'see' a car in front that is using old light tech. The end result is that you find cars behind you on main beam a lot of the time and needing to turn on the rear fogs so their computer 'sees' you and comes off main beam. The best solution therefore is to upgrade those and again you can't usually find solutions that have the modern lights in old housings etc.

[je777]

DonkeyApple said:

je777 said:

For that money, thy could have had a more exciting engine. Surely the 6.2-litre M159 V8 engine.

Also, I'd want it to look exactly like the original. Why do restomodders insist on silly lights?

Edited by je777 on Thursday 20th June 13:43

The lights on restomods is a mildly interesting area.

The end product travels much quicker than the original that it is based upon which means you certainly want modern lighting at the front but getting modern light tech into old looking housings is often not achievable so you end up having to make the difficult choice to go 'new' but it is the right choice.

Rears are potentially less of an issue but that said, in recent years the latest cars have stopped being able to 'see' a car in front that is using old light tech. The end result is that you find cars behind you on main beam a lot of the time and needing to turn on the rear fogs so their computer 'sees' you and comes off main beam. The best solution therefore is to upgrade those and again you can't usually find solutions that have the modern lights in old housings etc.

Interesting, thanks.

Seems to me that automatic lights on main beam shouldn't be legal until they're perfect - no wonder I'm always being blinded - people should be able to actually operate their cars themselves.

But useful info., ta - I'll put my foglights on.

Also, is there a technical reason why some people nowadays use mainbeam on dual carriageways?

[wolfie28]

Angelo1985 said:

Showed the pictures to my missus saying “that’s my next Mercedes”. She replied: “are we going to deal with drugs in Eastern Europe with it?”
I think it sums up the aesthetics compartment of this car

My thoughts exactly. I'm sure Albanian drug barons and Russian mafia bosses are licking their lips about this.