-
Hi Guest !
Welcome to the 500Eboard forum.
Since its founding in late 2008, 500Eboard has become the leading resource on the Internet for all things related to the Mercedes-Benz 500E and E500. In recent years, we have also expanded to include the 400E and E420 models, which are directly related to the 500E/E500.
We invite you to browse and take advantage of the information and resources here on the site. If you find helpful information, please register for full membership, and you'll find even more resources available. Feel free to ask questions, and make liberal use of the "Search" function to find answers.
We hope you will become an active contributor to the community!
Sincerely,
500Eboard Management
PCV breather hose replacement - Part numbers
- Thread starter jano
- Start date
I recently ordered a complete set of hoses for my pending E500 job, via my local "stealer." The list included GSXR's additions from post #6 above, as well as Jano's list from post #7 above. The list above contains a few plastic connectors that join hoses, and a couple of metal spring-clamps, and so forth.
That should be the complete set of intake tubes & equipment needed. My total cost came out to $202. This is about in the ballpark with Internet pricing via the usual suspects. YMMV depending on which site you use.
This is just a general-guideline cost benchmark, as of April 2018, for a complete set of PCV/top-end tubes to refresh these. A likely "deferred maintenance" item for many if not most folks, particularly if your car has more than 60K miles on it and you don't have documentation that these hoses and lines have been replaced.
A good job to do, particularly if you have the airbox off and check a few of the rubber hoses for fossilization.
Cheers,
Gerry
That should be the complete set of intake tubes & equipment needed. My total cost came out to $202. This is about in the ballpark with Internet pricing via the usual suspects. YMMV depending on which site you use.
This is just a general-guideline cost benchmark, as of April 2018, for a complete set of PCV/top-end tubes to refresh these. A likely "deferred maintenance" item for many if not most folks, particularly if your car has more than 60K miles on it and you don't have documentation that these hoses and lines have been replaced.
A good job to do, particularly if you have the airbox off and check a few of the rubber hoses for fossilization.
Cheers,
Gerry
I find the cost of the parts........., disturbing.
Vader
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Dave, thank you for this information. To confirm, it's the same for a 1993 400E, correct?
Looking at Valve cover gaskets soon on my 95 420 and want to do all the hoses when I do them. Where is the best current source of the parts now and is there a list of all current part numbers for parts I will need? Old thread and don't know how many of these numbers are still current. Also what coolant hoses should I look at replacing while I am in there? Have no idea how old the heater hoses and such are on this car so--.
Regarding breather hoses/hose connectors part numbers, see post #6 PDFs. I actually used it today to get most hoses from a local MB dealer for my 93 400E and successfully installed them.
I did not break one on the passenger side (#137 on the PDF diagram, post #6), despite it being petrified. It's easy to remove it with out much twisting/bending; it lifts straight up with enough gripping surface. On the driver side I don't think it's possible not to break one, and as a result having to replace them all, since there is a cascading effect: detaching broken one, breaks next one, and so on... (#134, 131, 128, 121, 122 + connectors between them)
There are no coolant hoses in the way of either side valve cover.
Last edited:
Thanks just printed that PDF file off.
If you're careful, you can use a Dremel tool to cut a vertical slot in the hose right before the hose that goes down to the bottom of the ETA. Once you cut the slot, you can split open the end of that hose using a screwdriver without breaking the hose to the ETA. That's if you don't want to go as far as removing the ETA. and replacing that hose too Two years ago, Lowman managed to prove that the ETA hose can be replaced without removing the ETA but if you can't get the old hose off the ETA port it's going to have to come out.
I'm doing the 3-joint breather hose to ETA on my 400E right now. I was able to remove the old 3-joint piece intact without removing throttle body, despite it being petrified. However, I'm unable to put the new one in - where it connects to throttle body. Not enough space to create leverage. Is there any trick to force the connection? Thanks
Thanks, Dave. Apparently, the old hose came off ETA, but left the clamp on the neck it attaches too. I have to pull the ETA. Oh well...
Every one I've done on these as well as w140s ends up that way. If you get rough with the hose and it's the least bit brittle it breaks off at the end of the neck, leaving the hose and clamp in place.
I just pull the ETA. Once you done it the job isn't bad, but if you're going in that far be sure to have a new gasket and I would have a new seal between the ETA and MAF, too. This little screws on the band clamps are a real pig, but with a 1/4" driver or a flex driver (better) they can be done.
Dan
@LWB250 thanks for the pointers. I have a new throttle body gasket ready, and the rubber grommet between MAF and throttle body was replaced 5 years ago with a Mercedes part. I've already removed this grommet. I purchased a flexible 7 mm driver for the job, but it was of little help. To loosen the lower clamp, I ended up putting a 7mm 1/4 socket on the tightening screw and then, in a convoluted way, at an odd angle, sticking a screw driver into it and in multiple minute increments loosened it. My whole body aches after this exercise.
What exact tools do you use to loosen lower clamp on this MAF grommet? The one I have is not appropriate for this job. It's not flexible enough to get it seated on the clamp screw. This is what I have:
What exact tools do you use to loosen lower clamp on this MAF grommet? The one I have is not appropriate for this job. It's not flexible enough to get it seated on the clamp screw. This is what I have:
You may still be able to pry off the old clamp and piece of hose stuck on there... but if not, yeah, ETA has to to come out.
The flex driver works ONLY if the last mechanic oriented the clamps in the proper location. IME, this is at the front, facing the passenger side, at a slight angle. As viewed from above, roughly the 6 or 7 o'clock position. In the right place, the 7mm flex driver slides right in. If the last guy put the clamps somewhere else, you'll need to do whatever is necessary to loosen them. If the rubber boot has never been removed, it may break, so plan on possibly buying a new one. It should be soft & squishy. Old ones are fossilized.
You also need to remove the short vertical vacuum pipe at the front of the ETA, hopefully it isn't too tight. Don't forget the aluminum crush washer / seal at the bottom, to the intake. Might be some photos on Gerry's top-end thread, intake manifold refresh portion.
Both clamps' tightening screws faced passenger side. With a top one, the flexible driver I have worked "ok", but it was useless for the lower clamp. This is why I asked which exact one Dan or you used that worked.
Rubber boot is 5 years old and came off in one piece. The original one that was removed back in 2015 tore up
Rubber boot is 5 years old and came off in one piece. The original one that was removed back in 2015 tore up
As someone who just did this job (removing ETA and replacing hose) -- just remove the damn ETA. It's MUCH easier and straightforward. You will probably find other hoses and soft items that need replacing, as well. You will need a new ETA gasket (super cheap, but you said you already have a new one) when you replace it. Hoping your ETA has been refurbished and/or has new wiring?
I'll start pulling ETA in a short bit. Watched Victor's (restore your Mercedes) YouTube videos yesterday. Based on date code, my ETA is original 
. It looks as if someone spliced into it before, otherwise cable sleeve is original. Near certainty I'll need to send for a rebuild. Haven't had any codes though. My car is a non-ASR
. It looks as if someone spliced into it before, otherwise cable sleeve is original. Near certainty I'll need to send for a rebuild. Haven't had any codes though. My car is a non-ASR
No question you need to remove that ETA and send it to Don Roden for a full rebuild. It will be $379 shipped, but you will LOVE what he sends you back. I never had codes either, from my ETA. But it was in horrible shape. Don sent me back about a 10-inch long section of my ETA cable. I still have it sitting here on my desk.
Between the ETA wiring, and the lower wiring harness (my upper harness had been done years ago), if those are the only two things from my Top-End job that I got done, those are very very important. No question my stuff was on borrowed time. But I'm not complaining about 26.5 years out of them !!
Between the ETA wiring, and the lower wiring harness (my upper harness had been done years ago), if those are the only two things from my Top-End job that I got done, those are very very important. No question my stuff was on borrowed time. But I'm not complaining about 26.5 years out of them !!
Pretty much what @gsxr said as far as clamp orientation. I've had good success with a combination of 1/4" drive extensions and a universal joint, despite having lost at least one 7mm socket in the engine valley in the past. I'm pretty sure I removed the vacuum pipe on the manifold that obscures the area, too. Always from the passenger side, I can't imagine how they would get oriented any other way.
Be very careful removing the throttle spring on the ETA, too. If it gets unhooked on the other end where it hooks on the bottom of the intake manifold it's near impossible to get it hooked again. I had to use a boroscope and a helper to get it hooked, not a job I would want to repeat.
Dan
I think that is it!
Removing ETA went smooth. Vacuum pipe fittings cracked easily and I did not lose a spring, which remained attached to wherever it attaches deep inside intake manifold.
My non-ASR ETA has a M02 93 date code. My car was manufactured in April 93. So it's definitively original. I spiced cable sleeve and the wiring inside looks.... Completely normal. Insulation is intact and all wires are wrapped in cellophane.
Cable sleeve has a silver line along its length. @gsxr, Mr. Britannica, do you happen to know if that means it's a factory sleeve (see 2nd photo).
Should I do another splice? What do you gentlemen think?
My non-ASR ETA has a M02 93 date code. My car was manufactured in April 93. So it's definitively original. I spiced cable sleeve and the wiring inside looks.... Completely normal. Insulation is intact and all wires are wrapped in cellophane.
Cable sleeve has a silver line along its length. @gsxr, Mr. Britannica, do you happen to know if that means it's a factory sleeve (see 2nd photo).
Should I do another splice? What do you gentlemen think?
I think that is factory, kiev. Rumor is the pre-facelift ETA pigtails had "good" insulation, and your photos are additional evidence. I'd tape it up neatly with Scotch 33+ and leave it alone.
As mentioned elsewhere, parts inside the ETA do wear out and eventually fail, even if all the wire/insulation is perfect. However, the internal component failures cause FAR more problems on ASR cars, due to the design of the systems. Translation... for an original 1990-1995 dated ASR ETA, even if it's working ok and has good wires, it would be prudent to send it for rebuilt/repair anyway - preventive/proactive maintenance. Limp mode isn't fun.
However for a non-ASR ETA with good wiring, it's optional, since limp mode doesn't exist on non-ASR systems. If you've had no issues with idle speed or cruise control, you could skip a rebuild, for now. OTOH if you don't mind having the car down for a week nor the ~$350 cost, you can always send it to Don Roden for peace of mind.
As mentioned elsewhere, parts inside the ETA do wear out and eventually fail, even if all the wire/insulation is perfect. However, the internal component failures cause FAR more problems on ASR cars, due to the design of the systems. Translation... for an original 1990-1995 dated ASR ETA, even if it's working ok and has good wires, it would be prudent to send it for rebuilt/repair anyway - preventive/proactive maintenance. Limp mode isn't fun.
However for a non-ASR ETA with good wiring, it's optional, since limp mode doesn't exist on non-ASR systems. If you've had no issues with idle speed or cruise control, you could skip a rebuild, for now. OTOH if you don't mind having the car down for a week nor the ~$350 cost, you can always send it to Don Roden for peace of mind.
ARH-WOOOOOOOO, ARH-, ARH-, ARH-WOOOOOOOOOOO
Cruise control works. No codes. It does miss when just started for the first time for the day, but quickly stops when warms a little. I do kind of feel as if it occasionally "drops" for a millisecond and immediately catches, when idling warm. It's imperceivable via tachometer, I just feel it with my "skin", so to speak. Could be vacuum leak related. For example, the rubber connection of a vacuum line from EZL to intake manifold, on intake manifold side dissolved in my hand. It could have been leaking vacuum slightly.... Otherwise, idle speed is normal and there's full power.
Dan, the FSM specs blue Hylomar to keep the ETA gasket in place while contorting it into the manifold. Alternately, you could use string and remove it once the ETA is loosely bolted in.
kiev, there are other brands which are equivalent, available at FLAPS/McParts. Permatex makes a couple IIRC.
kiev, there are other brands which are equivalent, available at FLAPS/McParts. Permatex makes a couple IIRC.
No harm, no foul.
I can see where it would be helpful to keep the gasket in place, but I never had a problem with one moving around when I installed an ETA.
I really hate using sealant on gaskets unless it's absolutely necessary or specifically called for.
Dan
I can see where it would be helpful to keep the gasket in place, but I never had a problem with one moving around when I installed an ETA.
I really hate using sealant on gaskets unless it's absolutely necessary or specifically called for.
Dan
Agree witih you Dan. GSXR is correct that it is specified to hold the gasket in place when installing the ETA, but I do not believe that Hylomar is needed to actually seal things. In the manual it reads more like a convenience.
My ETA came from Don Roden with a new gasket installed to the bottom of the ETA. I would not have used Hylomar or anything else if it had not already been attached.
Same thing with the water pump gasket, which I'm getting ready to re-install. I will NOT use Hylomar with the water pump gasket, though I know some people have. It is not specified to do this in the FSM.
If you need Hylomar or something similar, and don't want to get it on Amazon, you can get something similar at your local McFLAPS store.
My ETA came from Don Roden with a new gasket installed to the bottom of the ETA. I would not have used Hylomar or anything else if it had not already been attached.
Same thing with the water pump gasket, which I'm getting ready to re-install. I will NOT use Hylomar with the water pump gasket, though I know some people have. It is not specified to do this in the FSM.
If you need Hylomar or something similar, and don't want to get it on Amazon, you can get something similar at your local McFLAPS store.
Screenshot below just to confirm I'm not making it up! In general, I agree with Dan, no additional sealants applied to gaskets except in very specific cases. And never, ever, ever apply sealant to M119 valve cover gaskets (link).
For the ETA gasket, the Hylomar is a non-hardening sealant that essentially aids installation and sealing, plus keeps the gasket from sticking to the ETA over years of use so next time, it pops right off without scraping.
Side note - although the FSM spec is 25Nm for the ETA bolts, I have *never* used that much force on them. Typical torque for an M6 fastener is 10-12Nm, and an M8 fastener would be ~25Nm. I don't know if it's a typo or not but I have no interest in either breaking bolts or stripping threads, so I stay down in the 12Nm ballpark. Note you are also supposed to replaced the microencapsulated bolts, but I typically clean and re-use them with sealant applied.
For the ETA gasket, the Hylomar is a non-hardening sealant that essentially aids installation and sealing, plus keeps the gasket from sticking to the ETA over years of use so next time, it pops right off without scraping.
Side note - although the FSM spec is 25Nm for the ETA bolts, I have *never* used that much force on them. Typical torque for an M6 fastener is 10-12Nm, and an M8 fastener would be ~25Nm. I don't know if it's a typo or not but I have no interest in either breaking bolts or stripping threads, so I stay down in the 12Nm ballpark. Note you are also supposed to replaced the microencapsulated bolts, but I typically clean and re-use them with sealant applied.
I wasn't challenging what you said, just drawing on my personal experience of not having issues fitting the gasket, that's all. I've never had a problem getting a gasket off of the ETA or intake regardless of where it stuck, if it did. I don't ever recall seeing any residue or indication that sealant had been used.
Maybe I'm just living right....
Dan
I did not use Hylomar or any other type of sealant when re-installing the ETA and throttle body on my former M104 with ASR, as well as my M117 560. Neither engine suffered any ill effects from not doing so. I'm not sure why one couldn't just place the gasket on the intake manifold surface first, and then install/position the ETA/throttle body down onto it. I realize the M119 is a tight fit, but it should be possible to install the ETA gasket first, then the ETA.
I don't doubt your experiences. But out of general inquisitiveness I'd be curious to know for what reason hylomar was written into the FSM. This is similar to a cellophane over thermal paste on the EZL. If it's indeed for convenience than it's one thing. If it's too improve air metering accuracy by 0.03% in 0.05% of cases, than it's another (if one thinks like a German engineer) 
You're totally over-thinking this stuff, @kiev.
Again: the reason that Hylomar was written into the FSM, was to make the installation of the ETA -- with the gasket loosely attached to the bottom of it -- easier. It was written with the mindset of the intake manifold stack being installed atop the engine. NOTE that when I installed my refurbished ETA, with a manifold that was already disassembled, it was exceedingly easy to place the gasket wherever it was needed, because I had easy access to do this. This is not the case with a fully assembled manifold atop an engine, as you found when you removed the ETA.
The intent was to aid gasket placement given the tight fit of the ETA into and out of the upper runners of the intake manifold, by providing a little "stickness" between the gasket and the bottom of the ETA. NOT to provide a seal between the ETA and the lower portion of the intake manifold -- this seal is the intention of the gasket itself. Only a VERY thin coat of the Hylomar is needed. You could also probably get away with something like a thin coat of rubber cement or other adhesive. The idea is to hold the gasket in place.
The intent of the clear plastic over the thermal paste on the EZL was/is to reduce the "mess" created by sloughing off of the paste onto the hands and engine/body parts, NOT an improved/enhanced thermal transfer.
Both situations are for convenience and user-friendliness, not for a specific technical purpose/advantage.
Again: the reason that Hylomar was written into the FSM, was to make the installation of the ETA -- with the gasket loosely attached to the bottom of it -- easier. It was written with the mindset of the intake manifold stack being installed atop the engine. NOTE that when I installed my refurbished ETA, with a manifold that was already disassembled, it was exceedingly easy to place the gasket wherever it was needed, because I had easy access to do this. This is not the case with a fully assembled manifold atop an engine, as you found when you removed the ETA.
The intent was to aid gasket placement given the tight fit of the ETA into and out of the upper runners of the intake manifold, by providing a little "stickness" between the gasket and the bottom of the ETA. NOT to provide a seal between the ETA and the lower portion of the intake manifold -- this seal is the intention of the gasket itself. Only a VERY thin coat of the Hylomar is needed. You could also probably get away with something like a thin coat of rubber cement or other adhesive. The idea is to hold the gasket in place.
The intent of the clear plastic over the thermal paste on the EZL was/is to reduce the "mess" created by sloughing off of the paste onto the hands and engine/body parts, NOT an improved/enhanced thermal transfer.
Both situations are for convenience and user-friendliness, not for a specific technical purpose/advantage.
Having done this over the weekend I found myself putting the gasket in with the ETA as the unit was in the vertical to horizontal phase of install.
If you put it in first and the ETA second, you risk scoring the gasket as the tight fit and sharp edges might not bode well for the gasket material as it's being shifted around due to the maneuvering. Also the more it's pushed around is also the more dirt it's attracting to be mated to when sealing it up which is why I don't put it in first and then the ETA.
I didn't apply sealant on the gasket. I'm never taking it off again (never ever) so no need to worry about gasket material staying on surfaces.
And 25N-M is way over for this tightening specification. I felt my hands tell me 'no more' on the dial gauge around 9-10N-M with the loctite applied. And even then I felt like it was just a little over. I think after 15 you're starting to get yourself into trouble.
If you put it in first and the ETA second, you risk scoring the gasket as the tight fit and sharp edges might not bode well for the gasket material as it's being shifted around due to the maneuvering. Also the more it's pushed around is also the more dirt it's attracting to be mated to when sealing it up which is why I don't put it in first and then the ETA.
I didn't apply sealant on the gasket. I'm never taking it off again (never ever) so no need to worry about gasket material staying on surfaces.
And 25N-M is way over for this tightening specification. I felt my hands tell me 'no more' on the dial gauge around 9-10N-M with the loctite applied. And even then I felt like it was just a little over. I think after 15 you're starting to get yourself into trouble.
@gerryvz, thanks for taking the time to elaborate. When people of your and @LWB250 grade say one does it doesn't need something, as far as W124 maintenance, that's enough for me. I was just generally curious. I did not have to use sealant on ETA gasket. Just slid it under. New one is flexible enough
Looking at the clips in the above post #15 is 000-995-52-44 the only one used here, and only once per car at the intersection of 134 to the LH valve cover/side of the head? This is other than the metal hose clamps that go from the ETA to the RH valve cover gasket. I looked on my car and only saw that clip; once I touched it it broke so I'm going to get a replacement but I was surprised to not see it used on the mirrored part, where 131 goes into the RH head. It looks less like a clamp for retaining the hose and more like a clip for securing a wire harness or something similar vs actually clamping that vacuum hose to the head.
Oddly looks like some of my hoses from the ETA were replaced at some point (FEBI labels on them) but the smaller bundle has not been.
Oddly looks like some of my hoses from the ETA were replaced at some point (FEBI labels on them) but the smaller bundle has not been.
