M119 and M113 - bit of comparison

[gerryvz]

An interesting article talking about the M113, with a little M119 comparo thrown in for good measure.

interesting, nonetheless.

http://www.marcusfitzhugh.com/CLK/engd.html

Cheers,
Gerry

 

[cm60k]

We surely need to know that value info. about MB M113 & M119 design, very good find, Thankss Gerry........

ZAYED,,

 

[195910]

Nice find GVZ, also plenty of info on other topics aswell

From having owned all three engine block:

M119: best power feeling though not the most powerful (maybe its just the 500E effect).
M113NA: smooth, quiet, simple, though feels and sounds like a V6 somtimes. solved all the M119 LH issues but with less power.
M273: Boringly smooth and quiet, most powerful though too smooth to feel it = Needs MODS !

 

[gerryvz]

The one nice thing about the M113s (don't know about the M273s) is that there is quite a bit of aftermarket gear to modd them out.

Cheers,
Gerry

 

[gsxr]

I agree that the main attraction to the M113 is the availability of goodies, particularly the bolt-on supercharger (and, it was available from the factory in supercharged form).

However, that article basically confirms that the main incentive behind the design change was for emissions, fuel economy, and lowering the cost of manufacturing; while trying not to lose much (if any) power along the way. I think MB did a pretty good job there but I'm still not convinced about the longevity or reliability of the M113 compared to the M119. It does have some nice features though, like the tunable intake.

BTW - what are the "M119 LH issues" that were solved with the M113?

 

[gerryvz]

Also: do note that MB made the 113s with a three-valve head for some time, but eventually went back to a 4-valve design on the V-8s.

Cheers,
Gerry

 

[195910]

Yup, lots of stuff is available for M273. Full Exhaust, Cams, headers, porting, ECU, throttle, supercharger and larger displacement ( 6.1L for 462HP )
You could get an M273 NA up to 500HP. But $$$$$

The new S500 (Bi-Turbo M278) looks promising, 520HP with just an ECU tune !!!

 

[gsxr]

Gerry, that wasn't a 4-valve M113, was it? I'd assume they changed the engine designation along with the redesign?

 

[gerryvz]

No, sorry I wasn't 100% clear with my post. The M113s were 3-valve/SOHC, but with the M273 MB went back to a 4-valve/DOHC design.

http://500eboard.com/forums/showthread.php?696-What-is-so-special-about-the-M119

Cheers,
Gerry

 

[Christian_K]

I think the M113s are not so good V8 engines performance/power/feel wise, especially compared to the m119s. many owners of M119 equipped S-Classes and M113 equipped S-Classes (W140 vs. W220) say its pretty boring. They said, when you start you 500S W140 you get already slight goosebumps on starting-up the engine, while on the M113s they said: "You start the engine... aha its running - and thats it".

There were also a few direct user comparison articles written in german by AMG-Owners-Club Members on their Forums, which is quite nice to read. Short summary was in their opinion, that the M119s is better in all terms, but "build-cost", "efficiency" and "emissions". The 3-Valve design is crap performance wise.
The M113s are feeling very "restricted" above 5000RPM, like if the engine has trouble to further raise RPM in the same speed how the M119 can do it "effortless" till the redline from above 5000RPM. Sound on M113 is also described as "crap" and pretty much "emotion-less". There is no slight "hammering" on lower RPM/Load and a fierce growl on full-load/high-RPM like the M119 has.

I fully support the above written which i recalled from those posts i read, though never owned or closely observed a naturally aspirated M113 first-hand.

 

[195910]

M113 is not a bad block, just not performance oriented. It came during the DaimlerChrysler period and everything it stood for.
A lot of Engine parts including service parts were common with the V6 M112 which made costs lower and servicing easier.

The M273 continued the parts sharing with the V6 M272. It went back to DOHC and single spark plug while carrying over the advancements from the M113

 

[cm60k]

*M113: misery guys(life & death for money no more), Engineers with no pretty wifes with bad food>>bad sleepy night>>big headache in

the morning>>not clear MINDS= "M113"

*M119: Great 90s people(life with reason,lovely air,hidden wallet & open buckets), Engineers gathered and love to sharing ideas>>pretty

wifes waiting to share a delicious dinner>>sleepy with a circle bed>>fantastic night>>beautiful sunny morning without bus

smokes>>fresh Minds= "M119"

ZAYED,,

 

[gerryvz]

That's an interesting way of putting it, Zayed.

I do know that MB marketing studies have shown that M119 drivers get more chicks than M113 owners.

 

[cm60k]

100% Agreee Gerry, and also i hope MB can producing a special metal Stickers for that,, i well purchase 100 pieces and put them ON &

around the ENGINE......

ZAYED,,

 

[gerryvz]

Some months ago I had a gal pretty much proposition me at a local car show when she saw the attached sticker on my 560SEC.


Cheers,
Gerry

 

[195910]

Hey GVZ. Does your wife know you are writing this? j/k

 

[gerryvz]

It's all good. She supports my Benz habit

 

[Taxi Driver]

Hi all, nice to see the comparison M117 vs M119 and now also vs M113,
Good reading as it is one of MB's and the one that took over when the M119 had done its work, also one that has served so well up till now SLK55 and G55, not to forget the SLR McLaren, 13 to14 years or so.
Now I belive, people should'nt speak, for or against if they do not have the knowlege or experience.

First time I ever drove one M113 equipped MB was the moment just befor I decided to buy that AMG C43 T I now own beside the 500E. Immediatly, first seconds at driveaway, wow what a response, what a sound (music) sooo silkysmooth performance
engine and gearshift, litterally *evenflow* even the feel like the 036 was what impressed the most, so similar yet so light to the feel when pressed on, halfway throttle not to mention full steam ahead where the 500 really could not keep up.

I did not think highly about the, just 3valve, only singelcam with.. rockers! But sure thing the engineers did very well as did the engine, it delivered real good. About, not able to rev above 5K, what? from 4000 on it has a distinct *on cam* feel like the M119 also has but I would say even more agile. True, this AMG has a 3.07 diff. and if I like 1:st gear start when in S mode.

Wich one do i like, the almost racebread doublecam I think just look at the internals and build of this engine, remember it even powered a few racecars the C 9 or C11. looking at the constuction, the M119 is the engine most similar to the AMG 6.3 (6.2) the M273 does have DOHC but also *rockers* so I go for the oldie.........Roger

 

[cm60k]

Good input Rog, i have a C43 with E55 Engine swap, and i know its fantastic with a first gear start, i drove it like 8 months as aspirated,

after that i put a Kleemann S/C, it becomes like a bullet, but the speedy thing is the one of 100 things we need to focus in our

cars, but you can hear the Engine after 4800RPM screaming(pleaaaaaas, thats enough my arms well come a sweet gum & need

some rest)........

ZAYED,,

 

[Taxi Driver]

Good input Rog, i have a C43 with E55 Engine swap, and i know its fantastic with a first gear start, i drove it like 8 months as aspirated,

after that i put a Kleemann S/C, it becomes like a bullet, but the speedy thing is the one of 100 things we need to focus in our

cars, but you can hear the Engine after 4800RPM screaming(pleaaaaaas, thats enough my arms well come a sweet gum & need

some rest)........

ZAYED,,

A superch. yeah what I read in MB World, the ultimate solution for the right car with so much feel of a real MB as I did say
earlier very much like the 500E. I was about to upgrade to an E55 engine but when not being drven for a long time, I wonder if it really needs it's so, going like hell as it is but eventually I will hopefully stuff that 5.5 liter in there.
My arms are long enough this summer as I have been driving my Yamaha V-max every good dry summerday and as you can see, I'm still alive,,Roger

 

[195910]

Haaaaa Zayed... Show us this car. how many HP on dyno ?

Hi TaxiDriver, long time. How is the 500E 6.0 ??

M273 is an M113 with a M119 configuration. its not high rev and makes power on all RPMs (flat torque curve with max torque of 530NM available between 2800-4800rpm).

I prefer the M113K block over the M156. Normal engine with more power, not special made with expensive parts that don't last.

 

[Taxi Driver]

Haaaaa Zayed... Show us this car. how many HP on dyno ?

Hi TaxiDriver, long time. How is the 500E 6.0 ??

M273 is an M113 with a M119 configuration. its not high rev and makes power on all RPMs (flat torque curve with max torque of 530NM available between 2800-4800rpm).

I prefer the M113K block over the M156. Normal engine with more power, not special made with expensive parts that don't last.

Hi, long time yes, and a very near loss made me almost forget everything, cars etc etc, now I'm on my feet again and hopefully, next spring/summer will see one 500E 6.0, it's about time.......
About the M113K, I can't get enough seeing it being assembled on the You tube, clip from the AMG plant,,Roger

 

[Taxi Driver]

An interesting article talking about the M113, with a little M119 comparo thrown in for good measure.

interesting, nonetheless.

http://www.marcusfitzhugh.com/CLK/engd.html

Cheers,

How could I forget to thank you Gerry, I haad this article years ago but lost it since, very nice to read about and see pictures of a MB engine. I like to see what's moving around inside,,Roger

 

[195910]

Good to hear you are OK now. Welcome Back

M113 was an Easy Care engine. We had it in our 2002 W220 S500 (RIP). Super smooth and quiet. in 3.5 years of ownership it only needed a new mass flow sensor ($200).

 

[gerryvz]

M113 was an Easy Care engine.

Kind of like those lifetime-sealed 5G-Tronic "Easy Care" transmissions that MB had? How's that "Easy Care" thing workin' out for ya on those 5G's, MB?

 

[195910]

Well the 5 speed (722.6) was rock solid, never heard of any issues. Nobody really followed MB's lifetime ATF thingy. Just change it every 60tkm.
As for the 7G-tronic (722.9) introduced in late 2003 it started off a bit problematic till 2006. most of the older ones only needed a software update and adaptation, yet the MB stealership didn't know/bother and changed the whole AT. I love the response and low revs, but I honestly prefer the firm shifts of older ATs.. feels like a proper gear shift.

Not all new things are bad GVZ it might not be as fun though.

 

[cm60k]

Haaaaa Zayed... Show us this car. how many HP on dyno ?

I dyno the car in one shope here, it shows "468hp Engine >> 349hp Wheel", but im not sure if it correct or not......!?!

ZAYED,,

 

[Christian_K]

An interesting article talking about the M113, with a little M119 comparo thrown in for good measure.

interesting, nonetheless.

http://www.marcusfitzhugh.com/CLK/engd.html

Cheers,
Gerry

Parts of that are rubbish. I mean seriously, this article i heavily biased towards the M113.
Funny are their often repeated wrong claim about the M113 delivering MORE Power than the M119, just let me get you an example:

When comparing engine design, one measure of success is the power output. The 4.2 liter M119 made 275 horsepower, and 295 pound feet of torque. The 4.3 liter has the same peak numbers, but the 4.3 liter makes this peak power over a wider rev range. This is most obvious when comparing a 1997 E420 against the 1998 E430. Aside from the engine, those two are the same car. According to Mercedes-Benz, the zero to sixty times decreased from 6.7 to 6.4 with the M113 design. Initially, one might think the extra 100cc of engine made the difference, but the fuel economy increased as well. According to Mercedes-Benz, the M113 design gets 13% better fuel economy.

WUT? The E420 had 10NM of Torque MORE than the E430, even though it has that "extra of 100cc". Lol. It was only 0.1seconds faster to 62mph because it had the new 722.6xx 5-speed tranny which shifted way quicker than the older 4-Speed 722.3xx boxes and it was starting in first-gear when not in "W" Mode.
Same is true for the 5L Engines. The M119s without the Super-Full-load enrichment was rated in German S-Class, CL-Class and SL-Class with 320HP and 470NM (DIN!). The M113s that replaced them post 1995 had ONLY 306HP and 460NM (DIN!). So how can they still claim that the M113 has more power than the M119??? LOL Fail again.

We once compared a W215 CL 500 with 306HP and 5-Speed tranny to a W140 (short) S500 with M119 but also 5-Speed tranny. The W140 was quicker off the line, even though weighting more.

 

[Trae]

I prefer the M119 over the M113 for power. You can FEEL and hear the power the 500E's put out. Not so on my 2001 SL500. Seems kind of boring in comparison.

Trae

 

[400Eric]

In addition to the inaccuracies that Christian pointed out, there are a few more inaccuracies in that article.

It implies that the M119 used rocker arms which is false.

It is implied that only the M113 has sodium filled exhaust valves. The M119s had them too.

Time has proven the claim that there was "no loss in performance with the three valve design in comparison to the four-valve design" totally false with even MB grudgingly going back to four-valve designs.

This statement is just retarded: "the size of the exhaust valve needs to be a bit smaller that the intake valve area. This is because the residuals from the combustion process take up less space than the incoming air fuel mixture. This is especially true for a modern clean burning engine." The residuals actually take up MORE room, not less, because they are in a greatly expanded state because they are now super heated. It's not so much that the exhaust valve needs to be smaller as it is that the intake valve needs to be bigger. Why? Because it's far easier to shove the old crap out than it is to suck the fresh stuff in.

This statement is just plain bunk: "The dual flame fronts increases combustion efficiency, allowing more of the fuel to be burned. The resulting combustion forces produce a better piston ring seal and less friction between the piston and cylinder." Yeah, and the dual plugs cure cancer too! You'll note that MB is back to using single plug designs again.

"This design utilizes the world's first cast-in cylinder sleeves made of silicon aluminum." I thought our M119s have this feature too?

"The bare aluminum block of the new 3.2 liter M112 V6 weighs a mere 57 pounds. That's over 50% lighter than the cast iron block that it replaces." Kinda C.S. to compare the M112 block to the M104's block, especially when this article was supposed to be comparing the 4.2 M119 to the 4.3 M113. THAT block comparison wasn't made though because that comparison wouldn't have favored the M113 so lopsidedly.

"Under hood space was saved by casting the manifold so that the long intake passages spiral around to each cylinder." Um, so is the manifold on the M119.

This article was clearly written to push the M113 as the next great thing. It's as if the author was paid by MB for his services.

Thanks for the link though Uncle Gerry, it's still the kind of article that gives us some insight that we otherwise wouldn't have. Please keep them coming!
Regards, Eric

 

[gsxr]

"This design utilizes the world's first cast-in cylinder sleeves made of silicon aluminum."
I thought our M119s have this feature too?

The M119 does not have sleeves at all. The cylinder walls are Alusil (silicon aluminum), no sleeves, no liners.

 

[400Eric]

I was referring to the fact the our cylinder walls have a silicon aluminum surface too.

How come you didn't catch and correct all of those other inaccuracies in that article?
Regards, Eric

 

[truls221]

Funny nobody mentions emissions and fuel consumption. Which is better or worse?

the development is biased towards making engines more efficient with lower emissions.

the m113 has real advantages in terms of friction reduction over the m119.

it has roller finger followers which reduce the friction. it has one cam less per bank which reduces the friction, it has one valve less per cylinder which reduces the friction.

and also the catalyst heat up time would be greatly reduced because of less thermal inertia in the exhaust valves.

I am sure that MB engineers didn't make pure rubbish just to save cost, consumption wise it is a better engine.

it also has a broader torque curve than the m119 because of the variable length intake.

Sadly I don't have the FEV report of the M119.975, but this should have shown us the differences between the m119 and m113 also with regards to consumption.

and another question. what about the m273? this is a 4-valve pfi engine, is it better or worse than the m119?

 

[400Eric]

The M273 betters the M113's emission, fuel consumption, (and power) numbers and does it with M119 style 4 valve single plug heads!

And let's not forget that those lower friction numbers come at a cost: These lower friction numbers come from doing things like reducing the surface area of the main and rod bearings. That does indeed reduce the friction, but it also makes for an engine that loses some of it's durability and longevity, as well as taking away said engine's margin for tolerating the increased loads that come from hopping it up, adding N2O, etc.

In another thread, Dave recently linked a page that showed how even the M119 didn't escape the friction reducing antics. The 93 and later M119s had reduced rod and main bearing surface areas compared to the 92 and earlier M119s, So I certainly wouldn't want to see them reduced even further!
Regards, Eric

 

[quicksilver500]

M119 is a car guy motor, but certainly more to own and maintain. When I worked at the dealer ~2006 we quoted a guy 45k for a long block...I know my 500E breaks the tire (275/35/18) loose @4400 RPM in the rain and is down right viscous if you put the hammer down at speed in first, M113 has nothing but a good trans behind it.

Eric - Really that friction stuff started on the LH engines, I saw some CIS M119's and the bottom end looks like a totally different engine. They are the only engines you can swap the M117 crank into. The later stuff is still stout but not just outrageous like the early stuff. Still 6 bolt with big journals, but that just means it can spin faster (Smokey ran 3" in his drag car instead of the big bore 3.25 journals). Less friction is good if you can maintain rigidity!

-Mike

 

[400Eric]

Your post confirms something that I have already been suspecting. If you read between the lines on this document: http://www.w124performance.com/docs/mb/M119/M119_1993_updates.pdf that Dave has posted on his site, it looks like they are saying that the reduction in bearing surface areas applied to the 93 R129 5.0 engine. Why not the rest of the M119s? I think it's because they had ALREADY received the reduction in bearing surface areas! 1993 was the year that the R129 first received the "low deck" 5.0 that the W124 and W140 already had. So the conclusion that I came to is that the change in bearing surface areas occurred when the low deck M119 came out, and that ALL low deck M119s are also "low friction" M119s. I was thinking about starting another thread on this topic when I had the time to see what others thought about my theory.

We have to remember that those bearing surface areas on the original M119 are actually holdovers from the days when it was the 2 valve M117 engine. That's why the M117 crank is a direct bolt in. My issue is that those bearing surface areas where originally established for the loads imposed by a less powerful 2 valve engine. Then they came along and threw 4 valve heads on the beast without increasing the bearing surface areas to better handle the increased loads imposed by the greater cylinder BMEP. So OK, I guess I can live with that (I don't have much choice unless I want to switch brands) but then they come along and kill the tall deck block and begin building ALL M119s on a block that was originally designed for the loads imposed by a little 2 valve, 3.8 liter engine! And then they reduce the bearing surface areas! (Maybe this little 3.8 based block always had the reduced bearing surface areas?) Now we are bordering on "THIS IS BUNK". Then in about 3/93, just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, they brought out open deck blocks and plastic oil tubes!

And then, unbelievably, they still managed to top themselves on the bunkness scale with the release of the M113!

Yes, 6 bolt mains are impressive, but the M119 had 6 bolt mains on only the center three mains. Most ALL modern V8 engines have 6 bolt mains on ALL FIVE mains! Even my Dad's nappy 2 valve 4.6 '95 Thunderbird (The "Blunderbird") had 6 bolt mains on ALL FIVE mains!

Again, I'm looking at all of this from the perspective of having a generous margin for tolerating the increased loads imposed by stuff like N2O or a turbo (or two). Yes, the M119 is a great engine, but it's not as good as it could have been.

I had already decided long ago that if I ever do a 6.0 M119, I'm gonna base it on the older "high deck" block because the taller deck allows more room for a longer connecting rod for a better rod length to stroke ratio. (Something else that Smokey liked!) Now this bearing surface area stuff gives me one more reason to use the older tall deck block! Yes, I know the heads wind up a little farther apart on a tall deck block, but that's what intake manifold spacers are for! Or maybe just adapt the LH injectors, rails, throttle body, and throttle actuator to the tall deck block's CIS-E intake manifold!

Mike, aren't you the guy who was an engineering student living in the Southeast? (Georgia maybe?)
Regards, Eric

 

[gsxr]

Your post confirms something that I have already been suspecting. If you read between the lines on this document: http://www.w124performance.com/docs/mb/M119/M119_1993_updates.pdf that Dave has posted on his site, it looks like they are saying that the reduction in bearing surface areas applied to the 93 R129 5.0 engine. Why not the rest of the M119s? I think it's because they had ALREADY received the reduction in bearing surface areas! 1993 was the year that the R129 first received the "low deck" 5.0 that the W124 and W140 already had. So the conclusion that I came to is that the change in bearing surface areas occurred when the low deck M119 came out, and that ALL low deck M119s are also "low friction" M119s. I was thinking about starting another thread on this topic when I had the time to see what others thought about my theory.

No dice, Eric. The PDF scans of the manual you link to above is for the 124/129/140 chassis (not just the 129) and the updates described apply to all .97x engines as of the 1993 model year. The EPC indicates that the crankshafts changed for the 1993 model year (the engine number break confirms this), apparently for balancing purposes only as stated in the Intro manual, as all the crankshaft dimensions remained unchanged. The .972 simply received these updates from start of production, i.e. there was never a .972 built with the early crankshaft, heavier moving components, etc.

RENNtech did build 6.0 motors using the late blocks, so obviously an "early" .97x block is not required for a 6.0 build. There is no indication that the con rod or crankshaft journals changed dimension, only the bearing width was reduced. And only the newer, narrower bearings are available for purchase from MB (i.e., the wider bearings are superceded/replaced with the narrowing bearings). If you're that worried about a couple mm in bearing width, maybe you can find some new old stock wide bearings? Of interest in the EPC is that the bearing part numbers are the same for both early and late .97x engines, only the quantity changes. The early motors used lapped center bearings (aka "fit bearing") to control crankshaft axial movement. The late motors use a separate "guard plate" (aka "thrust washer") with standard center bearings.

NOTE: The EPC and FSM appear to indicate that the thrust washer design did NOT come at the same time with open/closed deck. For the .974 engine, it appears the thrust washer crank design started at engine #8072, while the closed-deck blocks started at engine #8820. This was in early 1994 model year production (mid/late 1993 calendar year). My 1994 E500 was built in July 1993 and has engine #8040 which should have both the early crank and closed deck.

 

[gerryvz]

begin building ALL M119s on a block that was originally designed for the loads imposed by a little 2 valve, 3.8 liter engine! And then they reduce the bearing surface areas! (Maybe this little 3.8 based block always had the reduced bearing surface areas?)

This is a bit of hyperbole mixed with simplification mixed with confusion.

The alloy-block 3.8 (which appeared in the fall of 1980) is an evolution of the 3.5-liter iron-block motor, which first appeared in 1970; the 4.2 (as used on the 420SE/SEL/SEC/SL) is a further evolution of the 3.8. However, all of these motors were the M116.

The 420 M116 (introduced for 1986) differed from the 380 M116 by having modified combustion chambers, larger inlet and exhaust valves, and the new KE-Jet injection. The second-generation 5.0s also had minor changes with a different intake system that had larger inlet valves, freer-flowing exhaust manifolds, new ignition system and also the KE-Jet ignition.

You are comparing apples to oranges in putting the M119 and the M116 in the same sentence. The M116 and M117 were developed and produced almost in parallel. The M117 started out as a 4.5-liter iron-block motor; when it transitioned to aluminum block it went to a 5.0-liter displacement and was later expanded to 5.6; and did indeed form the basis for the M119.

However, despite their general layout and format being similar, the M116 and M117 (particularly the later-generation, alloy-block models) are significantly different animals in fundamental ways. There are not even that many major parts that can be directly swapped between them. There were even differences between the earlier M116 and M117 iron-block motors, too; the M117 wasn't merely a "stroked" M116.

Furthermore, US model alloy-block V-8s (M116, M117) differed from their European alloy-block counterparts. For the US cars, MB had to alter the shape of the combustion chambers by changing the ratio of bore to stroke.

It is true to say that an M119 is based upon (and you could make a credible case that it is an evolution of) the M117. But NOT the M116. The later, alloy-block M117 was generally a heavier-duty motor than the M116. Also ... you cannot bolt an M116 (380/420) crank into an M119. Even the M117 crank requires a bit of machining to make everything fit just right. It's not a direct bolt-in.

Cheers,
Gerry

 

[400Eric]

I don't dispute any of that Uncle Gerry. What I am saying is that the older "tall deck" M119 block was an evolution of the aluminum M117 (2 valve 5.0, 5.6/5.5) block and the newer "low deck" M119 block was an evolution of the aluminum M116 (3.8, 2 valve 4.2) block.
Regards, Eric

 

[MERCEDES26]

It is implied that only the M113 has sodium filled exhaust valves. The M119s had them too.

Regards, Eric

Just a 10cents worth of info.....my 1960 109b has soduim filled exhaust valves too....!

 

[Ron500E]

So does my 57 Porsche, if the technology were any older I suspect Dr. Ing. Flintstone would have it....

Kind Regards,

Ron

 

[400Eric]

If I'm not mistaken, the Duesenbergs had them in the 1930s! (And dual overhead cam four-valve cylinder heads in the 1920s!)
Regards, Eric

 

[gerryvz]

I don't dispute any of that Uncle Gerry. What I am saying is that the older "tall deck" M119 block was an evolution of the aluminum M117 (2 valve 5.0, 5.6/5.5) block and the newer "low deck" M119 block was an evolution of the aluminum M116 (3.8, 2 valve 4.2) block.
Regards, Eric

Yes, I'm saying that it's an evolution of the M117, not the M116. The M117 was a heavier-duty engine than the M116, particularly in aluminum-block form. The aluminum-block M116 and M117 appeared at the same time, and the M119 (all of them) was very definitely based on the larger/stouter M117.

The M116 was a technical dead-end. The only way they got the 4.2 M116 (as in 420SEL) from the 3.8 M116 was by stroking & boring it. But the 4.2 M116 was the final evolution of that engine, and MB carried the M117 on further as the DNA of the M119.

There were actually two different versions of the 3.8-liter M116 engine !! I'll dive a bit deeper into the specifics of the 3.8 liter M116, for your knowledge, because it has direct bearing as to how they came up with the later 4.2 M116. You see, MB introduced the 380 M116 for US cars back in 1980. During the development of this engine for the US market, MB engineers found that the combustion chamber shape of the 3,818cc engine would not allow further tuning for fuel economy. But, they did not discover this until the 380 had already gone into production for Euro models. The only way they could set this engine up for further tuning, to get the combustion chamber they wanted (to raise gas speeds and improve filling at low engine speeds) was to change both bore and stroke. So, they rapidly redesigned the 380 engine in 1979-1980. As the long-stroke engine was clearly superior, the original engine was discontinued in 1981 and the 3,839cc engine became standard for all world markets (however the US version was smogged down to 155 HP).

Now, the 420 engine was created by putting together the bigger-bore, shorter stroke (3,818cc) block of the original 380 motor, with the pistons, rods and crankshaft of the later (3,839cc) 380 motors !!

None of these shenanigans were ever done with the 5.0 & 5.6 ... the 5.6 being mainly a "stroked" 5.0. The M117, being stouter, was the logical choice as the basic layout/foundation of the M119 (in all its forms). Many knowledgeable folks I've known will tell you that the 5.0 M117 is a naturally smoother, more balanced, and a better-running engine than the 5.6 liter "stroked" version.

Cheers,
Gerry

 

[gsxr]

To clarify: The M119 is in no way based on the M116 and is not an "evolution of" the M116. The M119 is based on / evolved from the M117, essentially adding DOHC heads to the M117.

All this hand-wringing about the "short deck" M119, and/or the 6.0L version with the longer stroke but same rod length, really is an exercise in futility. As mentioned previously, the tall deck motors exhibit no increased wear or failure rate than the short deck, and the 6.0 has no ncreased wear or failure rate compared with the 4.2 or 5.0 displacements. If there were problems with the design, we'd have short decks and/or 6.0's failing left & right at relatively low miles. But, gasp, we don't.

The bore/stroke/rod dimension debate is IMO, academic. You may prefer different dimensions, but the fact is the MB engineers must have done something right, because their design is working just fine in the real world, 20+ years after they were introduced.

 

[fudgitive]

RENNtech did build 6.0 motors using the late blocks, so obviously an "early" .97x block is not required for a 6.0 build.

Here are three engine numbers from AMG Japan 6.0 conversions fitted to '94 and '95 S60's. In all 3 cases the engine number is much lower than the original number from the data card, and interestingly the latest car out of these 3 has the earliest engine number. Can anybody confirm whether these are 'early' or 'late' engines?

11997012052031 ('94 car)
11997012048814 ('94 car)
11997012008942 ('95 car)

 

[samiam44]

I thought Renntech's literature said there was an extra charge ($2500) if you had a late motor.

 

[Taxi Driver]

Hi, this is from one '92 500SE early conversion, looks to be quite so according to the low number.
If Renntech did use open deck what was the base in the '96-'97 SL60 motor? Sort of an enlarged E50 motor...

Roger

 

[gsxr]

Guys, the discussion above was early closed-deck vs late closed deck. Both still closed-deck.

RENNtech did charge extra if you wanted to build a 6.0L in a car that came with an open-deck motor, as they had to purchase a closed-deck block. Their 1998 and 2004 price sheets both indicate an extra $8500-$9000 cost to build a 6.0 in an open-deck car.

 

[gsxr]

Here are three engine numbers from AMG Japan 6.0 conversions fitted to '94 and '95 S60's. In all 3 cases the engine number is much lower than the original number from the data card, and interestingly the latest car out of these 3 has the earliest engine number. Can anybody confirm whether these are 'early' or 'late' engines?

119970-12-052031 ('94 car)
119970-12-048814 ('94 car)
119970-12-008942 ('95 car)

If the EPC is to be believed, for the .970 engine, numbers 046691 and higher are open-deck motors. The FSM (section 01-1000) says 045021 and higher, which is a slight discrepancy, but still fairly close. In either case, the first two serials you list would be open deck and the last one closed deck. I know of one RENNtech 6.0 motor based on a 119970-12-045038 which the EPC says is closed deck, but FSM says is open deck, which makes me suspect the FSM numbers may be incorrect.

Given the serial number discrepancies between EPC and FSM, I think the only concrete proof is the casting number on the side of the block, as listed in the FSM, section 01-1100.

 

[quicksilver500]

Your post confirms something that I have already been suspecting. If you read between the lines on this document: http://www.w124performance.com/docs/mb/M119/M119_1993_updates.pdf that Dave has posted on his site, it looks like they are saying that the reduction in bearing surface areas applied to the 93 R129 5.0 engine. Why not the rest of the M119s? I think it's because they had ALREADY received the reduction in bearing surface areas! 1993 was the year that the R129 first received the "low deck" 5.0 that the W124 and W140 already had. So the conclusion that I came to is that the change in bearing surface areas occurred when the low deck M119 came out, and that ALL low deck M119s are also "low friction" M119s. I was thinking about starting another thread on this topic when I had the time to see what others thought about my theory.

Mike, aren't you the guy who was an engineering student living in the Southeast? (Georgia maybe?)
Regards, Eric

Eric, yes that's me. I was under the impression that there were lots of high performance engines with 2, 4 bolt caps and 3, 3 bolt caps? The 97x crank is a six lobe crank also (pretty sure if I am remembering right) the CIS engines were 8 lobe like the M117. I don't think there is any actual reduction in usable strength, any M119 is a tank motor. What you do gain is probably different metallurgy, lighter more aero crank, and less bearing area. Bearing area is really an argument that doesn't mean anything, MB had reasons for what they did, and this motor is the last super engine to come out of MB in my opinion. My dealer friends couldn't kill one during cash for clunkers, it still ran with no oil and that silicate stuff. They said it would lock up after a few hours, but if you let it cool down it ran again. You may not be able to make 1100HP like the race trim turbo motors, but for street purpose you'd be fine. The compromise of technology, durability, performance, and awesomeness is just about as good at you could commercially ask for in a package like that. I think its terrible that you down play the M119 when it is impossible to determine what engineering went into it. We only see the tip of the iceberg through shop manuals. Also, M117 doesn't compare with the M119, its apples and oranges.

Also to correct my statement about the journals, those are diameter numbers. So while surface area is a component in friction, the dynamics of spinning that extra .25" is what Smokey didn't like.

-Mike