M119 and M113 - bit of comparison

[400Eric]

Calm down guys, I'm not saying that the M119 is a bad engine, if it was I wouldn't own 4 of them and I wouldn't be here. I am saying though that a later model low deck, shorter connecting rod, thinner bearing, plastic oil tubed, open deck M119 is not as stout as an earlier model tall deck, longer connecting rod, wider bearing, aluminum oil tube, closed deck M119 is. I think we can all at least agree on that right?

And I still maintain that the M113 is weaker still.

As far as the M116 vs M117 vs. M119 thing goes, I AM TALKING ABOUT THE BLOCKS HERE.
I still maintain that the low deck M119 block is more of an offshoot of the aluminum M116's block while the tall deck M119 block is more of an offshoot of the aluminum M117's block. They are all related. They all even have the same exact bore spacing at 4.43". (Sorry, I don't have the metric dimension. Using the .0394 conversion gives us a ballpark 112.44 mm though.) The M117 and tall deck M119 both have a 245.45 mm deck height while the low deck M119 deck height is only 229.00 mm. I don't have the M116's deck height but I'm sure that someone here does (several folks here probably do) and when they post it we will see that it is also 229.00 mm! The 154.50 mm connecting rod length is shared between the M117 and tall deck M119 too and I suspect that we will find that the low deck M119's 149.00 connecting rod length is shared with the M116 as well. And it's no coincidence that the 4.2 M116 and 4.2 M119 have the EXACT SAME bore AND stroke.

Another thing that I would like to know is what did the Euro market 91 500Es have in them? The tall deck 5.0 or the low deck 5.0? We already know that they were the first M119s to get the LH injection system but were they also the first to get the low deck block? Or is there such a thing as a one year only tall deck LH equipped M119?

Again, I never said that the M116 and M117 are the same. Quite the contrary in fact. My original post on this topic bemoaned the fact that the low deck M119 block is based on the less desirable M116 block, making it clear that it is less desirable than the M117 based tall deck M119 block. I am simply saying that the M116 and M117 are RELATED in much the same way the Mopar "B" eng (350/361/383/400) is related to the Mopar "RB" eng (383/413/426W/426H/440 [yes, there were both tall and short deck 383s]).

Speaking of Mopar, in the late 60s they were developing a new engine known internally as the "Ball Stud Hemi". This new engine was to have all of it's displacements built off of the "B" block with the "RB" block being eliminated because it is more cost effective to build all of your engines using as much shared tooling as possible. While the whole engine program was killed due to other looming, more pressing issues, Other OEMs have streamlined their engine lines in a similar fashion. The Ford 351 M is an example. It is simply a 400 block based 351 Cleveland that allowed Ford to use one block for two different displacement engines instead of using two entirely different blocks to build two different displacement engines. No doubt MB was trying to do the same thing when they put both the 4.2 M119 and 5.0 M119 onto the same low deck block instead of keeping the 5.0 M119 on it's own taller deck block.

This brings us to where we can address Mike's post about "MB had reasons for what they did". Yeah, increasingly, it was MONEY and PROFITS. Increasingly, that is WHY MB did what it did and does what it does and how their motivations were already changing and how it was already showing when the low deck M119 came out. They had gone from building world beaters being their priority to increased profits being their priority. If you read the first paragraph in this post again you can see how the content was already being removed from our engines. Then, when it still wasn't enough for them, they brought out the even lower content M113. Jurgen Schremp was and is an evil man! He very nearly destroyed MB!

Regards, Eric

 

[gsxr]

Calm down guys, I'm not saying that the M119 is a bad engine, if it was I wouldn't own 4 of them and I wouldn't be here. I am saying though that a later model low deck, shorter connecting rod, thinner bearing, plastic oil tubed, open deck M119 is not as stout as an earlier model tall deck, longer connecting rod, wider bearing, aluminum oil tube, closed deck M119 is. I think we can all at least agree on that right?

This is like arguing over which Victoria's Secret model is cuter. C'mon, as mentioned previously, the late M119 engines are NO less reliable than the early engines. When an oil tube pops, replace it and problem is solved - doesn't hurt anything. Yes it's an annoyance, but that does not make for a 'less stout' or unreliable engine. Besides, the late engines can make more power, and I personally prefer the late motors (although I do convert to metal oil tubes when convenient).

And I still maintain that the M113 is weaker still.

I don't know about "Weaker" but the M113 was definitely a cost-reduction exercise for both parts & manufacturing with the 3v/SOHC design. And the M113 does not have as good of a reliability record as any M117/M119, early or late.

Another thing that I would like to know is what did the Euro market 91 500Es have in them? The tall deck 5.0 or the low deck 5.0? We already know that they were the first M119s to get the LH injection system but were they also the first to get the low deck block? Or is there such a thing as a one year only tall deck LH equipped M119?

Of course the early 500E's had the short deck. Only the 129.066 chassis received the tall-deck 119.960 motor. The 124 and 140 chassis only had the short-deck. Don't get hung up on "1991" model year, that is irrelevant. There was never, ever, ever any tall-deck M119 with LH injection. Period.

No doubt MB was trying to do the same thing when they put both the 4.2 M119 and 5.0 M119 onto the same low deck block instead of keeping the 5.0 M119 on it's own taller deck block. ... This brings us to where we can address Mike's post about "MB had reasons for what they did". Yeah, increasingly, it was MONEY and PROFITS. Increasingly, that is WHY MB did what it did and does what it does and how their motivations were already changing and how it was already showing when the low deck M119 came out.

Methinks you accuse MB rather quickly as to their motives in the early 1990's. Most likely they had to switch to short deck to fit the M119 motor into the 124 chassis, which was never desgined to have any V8 in the first place. The R129 and W140 were designed from the ground up for V8's. They may also have found that (contrary to Eric's soapbox) the short-deck M119 gave up nothing in terms of performance or reliability compared to the tall-deck.

 

[gerryvz]

What GSXR said.

Also, the M113 was optimized as a "green-friendly" motor, hence the 3-valve design.

 

[400Eric]

Isn't the R129 essentially a shortened W124? Now before you guys launch into all of the differences between the two, let's focus on the front part of these cars, the front suspension and the engine bay. Those are essentially the same. We already know that MB used R129 parts to beef up the W124s in preparation for the M119. What fits in the engine bay of an R129 fits in the engine bay of a W124. Want to know how I know? On Dave's site there is an article on the RennTech 600E. It's 6.0 is based on an R129 tall deck CIS-E 5.0 M119. It states so in the text and you can clearly see the CIS-E fuel distributor in at least one of the pictures. So no, MB didn't need to shorten the deck to make the M119 fit in the W124. Besides, the deck height difference between the two blocks is only about half an inch, which, when you factor in the 90 degree "V", only amounts to a quarter of an inch increase in height and width. As my Texas relatives would say, that isn't enough to amount to a hill of beans when it comes to fitting the engine into the engine bay.

MB was simply after reduced tooling costs when they put the 4.2 and 5.0, two engines that in their previous incarnations had been on two different blocks, onto the same block.

This is like arguing over which Victoria's Secret model is cuter. C'mon, as mentioned previously, the late M119 engines are NO less reliable than the early engines. When an oil tube pops, replace it and problem is solved - doesn't hurt anything. Yes it's an annoyance, but that does not make for a 'less stout' or unreliable engine. Besides, the late engines can make more power, and I personally prefer the late motors (although I do convert to metal oil tubes when convenient).

You keep forgetting that some folks just plain don't have the time or the money to replace stuff that shouldn't need to be replaced in the first place. Some folks have bad backs and/or bad necks and it is literally downright painful being hunched over these engines trying to get those damn valve covers off. Even with the correct, expensive for what it is, "special" tool, just getting those valve covers off is a pain! It's a job that my 93 doesn't need and never will, so it's not acceptable that my 95 needs it. It's more than just "an annoyance" when you consider that it is an expenditure of time, effort, and money that wouldn't even be needed were it not for the fact that some damn bean counter got into our engines and replaced perfectly fine aluminum tubes with plastic ones destined to fail. I find that MADDENING and unacceptable! I want that A-hole to pay me back for every dime and every miserable minute that I have to spend procuring and then replacing those miserable things! Back in the day, the cheapest M119 car was about $60,000 when the plastic crap showed up. How cheap you gotta be to try to save $5 on a car you're getting $60,000 to $90,000 for? (Mid-90s dollars folks.) It just isn't right! I'm not going to sing "Hi Ho, Hi Ho" while I merrily replace those things! I'll be cursing the guy responsible for those things every single miserable minute that I spend toiling away on the task, and thinking about all of the other more productive things that I could be doing with my time. If I wanted to spend all of my time working on cars, I'd go buy a BMW!

As far as Victoria's Secret models go, don't be silly! There is no argument! Everybody knows that Adrianna Lima is the cutest!
Regards, Eric

 

[gerryvz]

As far as Victoria's Secret models go, don't be silly! There is no argument! Everybody knows that Adrianna Lima is the cutest!

Y'all are way wrong on that. Doutzen Kroes FTW !!!

 

[gsxr]

MB was simply after reduced tooling costs when they put the 4.2 and 5.0, two engines that in their previous incarnations had been on two different blocks, onto the same block.

No dice. It would have been cheaper still for them to build a tall-deck 4.2L instead. Got any other conspiracy theories?

I find that MADDENING and unacceptable! ... It just isn't right!

Well, if the plastic tubes bother you that much, you could always drive a Toyota. I hear those are pretty reliable and even come with metal oil tubes!

 

[Ron500E]

. How cheap you gotta be to try to save $5 on a car you're getting $60,000 to $90,000 for? (Mid-90s dollars folks.) It just isn't right!

Well.... $5.00 per M119 engine multiplied by how many engines, in all of their variants, made with the plastic oil tubes (not to mention spares for the forseeable future) equal how many dollars saved.......? Many Millions.

Businesswise it was a good move, and, despite the bane of enthusiasts, Mercedes is in the business of selling new cars and new spares not specifically catering to people like us who have 15+ year old cars and probably would not buy a new one even if we could afford to.
I really really doubt someone is going to say "I'd was going to buy a new 6.5 Black series but ya know, those SOBs went to plastic oil tubes on their M119 about 15 years ago and ever since then..... maybe I'll just get an Audi RS or some type of Bimmer."

Kind Regards,

Ron

 

[Christian_K]

Its simple... its called "Planned obsolescence", this is what makes todays economies run...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence

Very good documentation about that matter: [video=youtube;0bxzU1HFC7Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bxzU1HFC7Q[/video]
Watched it in german on our channel called "Arte" some months ago...

I don't like it either.. we could have lightbulbs that burn forever, but once everybody got one, the company producing them were literally dead are would remain very small... No super Phillips, Osram, whatever mega-corporations giving tens or hundred thousands of peoples a job....

 

[gsxr]

Well.... $5.00 per M119 engine multiplied by how many engines, in all of their variants, made with the plastic oil tubes (not to mention spares for the forseeable future) equal how many dollars saved.......? Many Millions. Businesswise it was a good move...

Ron is correct. And the failure rate of the plastic tubes is probably in the 0.0x percent range after you factor in the quantities involved (16 per engine). At least they never made SOHC 3-valve heads for the 119 and only foisted that upon the M113.

 

[Jelmer]

we could have lightbulbs that burn forever

Well, yes. But then they'd be much more expensive due to weird materials, and they'd emit less light.

Although I agree with Eric that replacing a part that's already very cheap with one that's slightly cheaper but has a bigger chance to fail is something I do NOT want in a Mercedes, making some sacrifices is necessary to keep the costs in the acceptable range. You can make much parts even more reliable by over-designing them, making them bigger and stronger than they are now, using stronger materials, etc, but does the benefit of that outweigh the cost increase? That after 18 (!) years, you have to replace a certain part? No, not really.

Do you think people would buy a car that's 4x as expensive as the rest in the same class, just because some manufacturer tells you it'll last 60 years, instead of only 15? No, no one would do that. You don't want to put so much money on the table at the sale for one, but people also get bored quickly with stuff. We're all spoiled brats who have it easy compared to thousands of years ago, and we need to keep busy and entertained. We do that by looking at the stuff other people have, and trying to get the better version of that.

Driving in the same car for your entire life simply doesn't fit this way of life, so people won't pay for it (who cares that the person you sell your car to has less trouble?), so manufacturers won't design for it.

It's not a conspiracy, it's our own damn fault for always wanting the newest toys - for a low price.

Also: with thousands of parts, it's impossible to make every part "perfect" and unbreakable. Some things simply wear down, eventually - just as the wire inside your lightbulb example, the electron canon in your old T.V., the very fine grid inside your LED T.V., the resistor in the MAF that has thousands of cubic meters of air passed alongside it, etc.

Come to think of it: most stuff is actually very reliable. Our cars as an example: my car did 160k KM, at 120km/h that's 1,333 hours of driving, or 80,000 minutes. At that speed, the engine does what, 3500rpm? Meaning it has done 280,000,000 rounds! Each time with valves opening, stuff pumping in, sensors doing fancy stuff, explosions happening, cylinders bouncing up and down. 280 MILLION times. The same with printers. Each page requires a few dozen head movements, and each time it moves from one side to the other, a few hundred tiny nozzles open and close a few thousand times. Insane. Or the screen you're reading this on - mine has a 1900x1200 resolution and a refresh-rate of 60hz. If it'll last 5 years, being turned on 4 hours per day it would do 1460 hours, or 315,360,000 refresh cycles, meaning 719,020,800,000,000 pixels are drawn. Unreliable? Huh?

OK, very off topic already, and too much babbling from me. My point is simply that stuff we use can handle a lot already, even the cheap junk. And making it better one step, increases costs exponentially.

 

[gsxr]

Although I agree with Eric that replacing a part that's already very cheap with one that's slightly cheaper but has a bigger chance to fail is something I do NOT want in a Mercedes, making some sacrifices is necessary to keep the costs in the acceptable range. You can make much parts even more reliable by over-designing them, making them bigger and stronger than they are now, using stronger materials, etc, but does the benefit of that outweigh the cost increase? That after 18 (!) years, you have to replace a certain part? No, not really.

Exactly. I agree 100%. The oil tube failure is a nuisance, but thankfully it is somewhat rare, and will almost never cause anything more than some ticking noises until it's replaced. But it is definitely not valid to condemn all "late" M119's due to an easily replaceable part that can be replaced with an item that doesn't fail (metal tubes). Come to think of it, I've heard of very, very few oil tube failures on the forums. Yes they are out there, but the numbers are awfully small (compared to failed wiring harnesses & ETA's, which are also a 1-time fix). I can't really think of any serious M119 drawbacks that are not fixable. Put new chain rails, metal oil tubes, and wiring on an old M119 with 250kmi and it will be good for another 250k if not more. I'm not sure you could say that about the vast majority of Japanese engines.

We all would have preferred that MB use metal tubes throughout the M119 production run, along with wiring that didn't crumble apart, but hey - it didn't happen. But at least these issues are fixable such that they won't re-occur. Complaining won't help though. Maybe with a time machine...

We're all spoiled brats who have it easy compared to thousands of years ago, and we need to keep busy and entertained. ... It's not a conspiracy, it's our own damn fault for always wanting the newest toys - for a low price.

Amen to that. Oy....

 

[400Eric]

No dice. It would have been cheaper still for them to build a tall-deck 4.2L instead. Got any other conspiracy theories?

How so? Please elaborate.
I figure it went down like this: When MB was preparing to "M119ize" the 4.2 M116 like they had already done when they M119ized the 5.0 M117, they decided that, since they would no longer be producing the 5.5/5.6 version anymore (at that point they apparently weren't considering what AMG might want to do) they didn't really need the tall deck block anymore because the lower deck block could be made to work with the 5.0's slightly longer stroke (as opposed to the 5.5/5.6's MUCH longer stroke). If they had continued to build the 5.5/5.6 displacement, then yes, it is very likely that there would have been a tall deck 4.2 so that there would only be one block. That is how it went down with the Ford 351M that I mentioned previously. It wound up on a taller deck block than it had been on originally. Even though a taller deck block is slightly more expensive to produce (more metal after all), it still wound up cheaper overall for Ford because of the savings brought about by using only one block instead of two. Ford of Australia did the same thing when they ditched their 302's original block and started building their 302 on their 351 Cleveland's block. (There was no 400 Ford engine there for them to build a 351M off of, so they had continued to build their 351C.)

I can forgive the wiring harness debacle because that was an honest screw-up. But the oil tubes were a straight "up yours" to the car buyer. They had a perfectly good working part in the aluminum ones. It didn't need to be "fixed". It was only to save money, customer be damned. I have come to expect this kind of behavior from the American car companies, that is why I abandoned them after over 40 years of swearing that I'd be loyal to them till the day I died. But to see this in a car company that charged, on average, three times as much for their product is disgusting. They do their best to convince you that the price premium is buying you the best of everything but all you have to do is open the valve covers and you'll see that that is not the case.

It's no secret that MB entered a dark era when Jurgen Schremp rose to the top of the company. That's why very few of us here have W210s because we all know they are trouble prone and in general inferior to the W124. I'd love to have those better working headlights, 5 speed automatic, Bosch ME engine management, OBDII diagnostics, and double control arm front suspension, but I know I'd be asking for nothing but trouble if I got one. We ALL know that, that's why we don't have one!

A while back, on the old site, I admitted to lusting after an early, M119 powered W210 for all of the reasons stated above, but EVERYBODY there (save for ONE person), most, if not all of whom are now here on this site, really got on my case about it and told me in no uncertain terms to STAY AWAY from those W210s! I bring this stuff up to illustrate the rot that had permeated MB by the time the W210 came out in 1996. It's not surprising that early signs of that rot surfaced before the release of the W210 since, as we all know, cars are in the design stage years before they actually hit the dealership. This of course means that the W210, and all of it's cheap, bunk, problem prone parts were WELL into the engineering phase in 93, the same year that the plastic oil tubes showed up in our beloved M119s. Do you guys see where I'm going with this? The MINDSET of the company had already changed in 93, that's why we started seeing the little things right away, and later, whole cars, as they reached fruition. It's just unfortunate that our later M119s didn't entirely escape Jurgen's antics.

Dave, I am not "condemn[ing] all late M119's due to an easily replaceable part that can be replaced with an item that doesn't fail (metal tubes)". I am condemning the mindset that makes the replacement necessary in the first place. And again, contrary to the picture that you paint, it is neither easy, nor cheap, to replace those damn plastic tubes! And let's don't forget that those late M119s have those open deck blocks too! So it's not just the oil tubes that bother me.

And since you have already brought the chain rails up, I'll go there too. our M119 came out in 89 with plastic chain rails, the same year another very similar DOHC 32 valve V8 came out, the Infiniti Q45 4.5 engine. It too had plastic chain rails that, like our M119's chain rails, also proved to be troublesome. The difference is that by the beginning of the 93 M.Y., Nissan had corrected their chain rail weaknesses with a metal backed design that eliminated their problems. Why couldn't and why didn't MB ever get around to addressing their own chain rail's issues instead of continuing to happily foist the original pieces on their loyal customers, completely unimproved? Why? Because by 93, they apparently didn't care anymore.

I am NOT being unreasonable to expect a car that cost $60,000 to $90,000 (how much is that in today's dollars?) to last more than 20 years without having to open the engine up. Their are LOTS of cars, some that were much cheaper, that can and do clear 20 years without having to be opened up. Even M103s, which you seem to dislike so much, do it all the time. Benzer1, at 237,000 plus miles and 23 years, is a good example!

And no, don't look for me in a Toyota, but don't be surprised if I someday add a Titan 5.6 powered M45 to my fleet. I am not not a fan of the truck, but I love the engine! It is a direct descendent of the original Q45 4.5 engine. It really is the 5.6 M119 we WISH our M119s were! Both dimensionally and design wise! It has a slightly bigger bore and slightly shorter stroke than our 5.5/5.6 does, it has aluminum closed deck blocks, essentially the same length rods as the M117 and early tall deck M119, it has essentially the same bore spacing, direct acting bucket tappets, the ones built after '06 have variable intake cam timing, and it has proven to be tough, durable, reliable, and long lived! These are all things that it has in common with our M119! And get this: they have SIX bolts securing ALL of the mains, not just the center three mains, and, as already mentioned, they have good quality metal backed chain rails! Then add in the fact that turbo kits and N2O kits are a relatively inexpensive (compared to our options) off the shelf proposition for them, and they come with a tough, truck proven 5 speed auto trans. Sounds tasty to me!

Speaking of tasty, are there no Adriana Lima defenders here?
Regards, Eric

 

[Jelmer]

It's easy to blame one person for all this misery, but I doubt it's really that easy. I agree that Mercedes had its Dark Ages after the W124, and its mindset changed from "let's make the best car in the world" to "let's make money", but maybe that was also triggered by the BUYERS having a different mindset? More and more companies started producing proper cars, companies like Toyota, Honda, etc came around and started to build cars that would actually sell on the European market. Other companies introduced properly styled luxury cars, BMW for example.

Maybe their change was too radical, but I do believe some change was needed. You can't keep your prices high simply because you have a reputation of being the best, people will want to 'test' these other cars as well, and you need to fight for your buyers.

 

[gsxr]

This of course means that the W210, and all of it's cheap, bunk, problem prone parts were WELL into the engineering phase in 93, the same year that the plastic oil tubes showed up in our beloved M119s. Do you guys see where I'm going with this? The MINDSET of the company had already changed in 93, that's why we started seeing the little things right away, and later, whole cars, as they reached fruition. It's just unfortunate that our later M119s didn't entirely escape Jurgen's antics.

AH, but not all late 90's engineering was "bunk". The 722.6 which came out in '96 was pretty awesome and that was engineered during the Bunk Era.

Dave, I am not "condemn[ing] all late M119's due to an easily replaceable part that can be replaced with an item that doesn't fail (metal tubes)". I am condemning the mindset that makes the replacement necessary in the first place. And again, contrary to the picture that you paint, it is neither easy, nor cheap, to replace those damn plastic tubes! And let's don't forget that those late M119s have those open deck blocks too! So it's not just the oil tubes that bother me.

$20 at Pick+Pull for a set of OE metal tubes plus a couple hours work to swap them out. Not to mention that 99%+ of plastic-tubed M119's have no failed tubes in the first place. As for open decks, this is like tall decks. YOU don't like the concept, but there is NO evidence that these changes reduced reliability in any way, shape, or form. Zero. None. Nada. Plus, both Brabus & RENNtech built 6.xL engines based on the 4.2L open-deck 119.985 block. Chew on that for a bit.

I am NOT being unreasonable to expect a car that cost $60,000 to $90,000 (how much is that in today's dollars?) to last more than 20 years without having to open the engine up. Their are LOTS of cars, some that were much cheaper, that can and do clear 20 years without having to be opened up. Even M103s, which you seem to dislike so much, do it all the time. Benzer1, at 237,000 plus miles and 23 years, is a good example!

Oh please, there's almost no car ever built that can go 20+ years without the valve covers coming off, if for no other reason than the gaskets can't last that long without replacement. M103's are notorious for requiring new valve guides & seals well before 200kmi (otherwise they suck oil at 1/qt per 1kmi, or worse). M119's have essentially zero issues with the heads (other than the tubes, which I don't count, as the heads don't need to be removed). The early M103's were worse, with camshaft & follower problems, plus issues with the threads stripping, etc. Not a good example. The M104 was better but had head gasket issues.

Besides, you are expecting this from a used car you spent $500 on, not $75k, where you have no idea how the car was treated previously. Maybe if you bought one new and maintained it properly it wouldn't have any problems. Although you'd still lose sleep at night, knowing it had a short/open deck, and was a ticking time bomb... lol...

Speaking of tasty, are there no Adriana Lima defenders here?

I don't think she needs any defending...

 

[gerryvz]

Eric

You're so WRONG on some counts and so RIGHT on others. I think your attitudes are a bit driven by emotion and thus, in a few places a bit out of the mainstream.

One over-arching point: you CANNOT compare anything that MB does, has done, or will ever do with any American car company. Just because Ford did stuff with short and tall blocks, doens't mean that MB thought the same way and did the same things. MB has a very different thought process, engineering mindset, and decision making process than the American car companies, and few parallels can be drawn between them. The fact that the Big 3 American companies continue to foist utter crap on the marketplace, after having 40 years to clean up their act after the Japanese car invasion of the 1970s, says everything you need to know. If there's anyone who doesn't really care about their customer and is not committed to being the best, pushing the limit, and doing the right thing -- it be the American car companies, hands down.

The fact that "innovations" such as the Chevy Volt continue to come out of the US companies proves to me that they don't have a clue as to how to assume industry leadership, so I expect at least another 40 years of US car company decline. Hopefully, these dinosaurs will be gone by then, having handed the market to European and Japanese marques to which it rightfully belongs, IMHO. The US car companies have had their heyday, and they failed the pass the test. This plays out time after time with US cars. I rent them all the time, Fords, GMs, Chryslers, etc. They are all just crap.

Now, to the meat of this post.

Wrong points:

1) Once and for all, no M119 was EVER based on the M116. The M116 was a technical dead-end, and was never developed (nor gave any DNA) past the 4.2. ALL MB-manufactured/sold M119s were evolutions of the M117 -- short or tall deck, open or closed, 4.2 or 5.0. End of story. I know you want to believe otherwise, but you should really TRY to think outside the box on this one.

2) I don't think MB was literally and specifically saying "screw you" to their customers with the plastic oil tubes (and other changes). Rather, it was an attempt to save bucks, which ended up having (unforeseen) negative consequences for the customers. MB made significant running changes after the first few years of the W140 production, to make it significantly cheaper to build. They did this around 1994. Same thing with other 124s .. they were cheapened in subtle ways during the model run, starting with about model year 1993. I have owned a 1992 124 wagon and two 1995s, and there are just some ethereal qualities about the earlier car that made it feel like it was just screwed together better, with better parts. Can't put my finger on it, sort of my version of your famous "butt dyno" if you get my drift. But the point is, that MB wasn't directly thumbing their nose at end customers; they didn't deliberately mean to screw customers.

3) Plastic chain rails were always a hallmark of the M116 and M117 as well as the M119. In fact, with the exception of a very few early iron-block M116s (IIRC), which used metal rails, most all 116s and IIRC ALL 117s used plastic chain rails. Said more plainly, ALL M116s and ALL M117s made with aluminum blocks -- motors introduced in what, 1979...running through 1991 -- used plastic chain rails. They do require replacement but they not particularly early, as long as the engine is maintained well with regular oil changes, etc. They are considered a "wear" item -- one of many. But not something that should be singled out. I believe MB made an engineering decision back in the early 1970s to go with plastic rails on its 116s and 117s (when cost was truly no issue) and it worked well enough, with good reliability, that there was no need seen to change, even with the transition to the M119.

4) M103s and M117s (sister engines) both had issues with valve guides and seals starting at around 150-200K miles. ALL of them have these issues by 200K, and I'm talking burning like Dave said at least a quart of oil every 1,000 miles. In addition the M103 had head gasket issues (oil in the coolant) and the M117 had head gasket issues (oil leaks at the rear cylinders, on to the exhaust crossover pipe). M104s have head gasket issues (largely solved with running improvements) and front timing seal cover leaks (an occasional issue that pops up every 60-75K or so, just has to be dealt with). M119s have none of these issues -- no head gasket, valve guide/seal problems, front cover leaks, etc. And I'm talking ALL M119s.

5) MB made PLENTY of known and unknown positive running changes during the bad years that resulted in good things and better performance. The reinforced M104 head gaskets are one prime example of this -- they are MUCH better than the original few types they tried. There were a number of improvements on the 500E alone for the later models that made definitive improvements over the earlier cars, in many different systems. The larger brakes on the later .036s are one example of this.

Right points:

1) Schrempp did oversee the period during the major dip in quality, but as you correctly say, this was in the works before he took over. Decisions to this end were made in the 1990 time frame, and were rolled into production around 1992-1993 for active product cheapening. As I said earlier, some of this cheapening went into running production changes, and some of it went into product facelifts (a la 140, and the later 124s). As you said, some of it didn't even show up until new models were introduced, such as the W163 ML and the W210s. The earliest MLs (1998-2000) are absolutely HORRIBLE vehicles and IMHO are one of the very WORST single MBs ever made. Doesn't help that they were made in the USA, either..... The bottom line is that you are 100% correct on this one.

2) The MINDSET of the company had moved into production by 1993, but the MINDSET of the company actually changed in the 1989-1990 time period. This was forced by the introduction of Acura in 1986, and the introduction of Infiniti and Lexus for the 1989 model year. MB had an "oh shit" moment when they realized that A/L/I were "for real" and eating their lunch, and they took several drastic steps to fight it -- a dramatic price drop on all cars across the board for the 1993 model year (except the 500E), cheapening/redesign of various parts in their cars, economizing on dealership programs and subsidies (with the unfortunate side effect of weakening the dealer experience for customers, service experience for customers, etc. while I/L/A were hitting this one out of the park !!)

3) You can't compare a modern V-8 with one that was designed more than 25 years ago !!

Cheers,
Gerry

P.S. I don't even know why you guys are arguing about Victoria's Secret models, in light of below. IMHO, the photo below closes the argument, once and for all. Fortunately, or unfortunately, the Dutch model wins
http://skinnyvscurvy.com/hot-models...secret-swimsuit-catalog-2009-13-pictures.html

 

[truls221]

Why do we have an open and closed deck variant of the short-deck M119, if the reason was to save cost?

That means still 2 different castings, which is very expensive. Saying 2 different machining lines for the engine blocks.

Or did the .974 have open deck as well in some variants?

 

[400Eric]

$20 at Pick+Pull for a set of OE metal tubes plus a couple hours work to swap them out.

My sources inform me that you paid five times that amount for your most recent set.

Not to mention that 99%+ of plastic-tubed M119's have no failed tubes in the first place.

I question your figures. There is a whole cottage industry that seems to have sprung up to supply overpriced aftermarket tubes for these later M119s. (An exampled is linked in the link below.) I hardly believe that less than 1 percent of the later M119 production is enough to keep those suppliers in that market.

As for open decks, this is like tall decks. YOU don't like the concept, but there is NO evidence that these changes reduced reliability in any way, shape, or form. Zero. None. Nada. Plus, both Brabus & RENNtech built 6.xL engines based on the 4.2L open-deck 119.985 block. Chew on that for a bit.

It's my understanding that that is only out of necessity. They always PREFERRED to use closed deck blocks.

Oh please, there's almost no car ever built that can go 20+ years without the valve covers coming off, if for no other reason than the gaskets can't last that long without replacement.

You are flat wrong here. When I sold "Uncle", my 70 Ford 3/4 ton van last Summer, he was over 41 years old, wasn't leaking a drop of anything from his engine and he had NEVER HAD ANY of his engine gaskets replaced, save for the gaskets that were required when I replaced his thermostat and when I rebuilt his carburetor. And I can absolutely guarantee the accuracy of that statement too because I had owned Uncle since 1982 and I got him from the original owners who also happened to be the people who lived right next door to the house where I grew up. The first owner always did all of his own work right out there in front of their house and I was always there to watch because even as a kid, I was always into things mechanical. (That's why I was the first to be offered Uncle when he became available.) Again, there are LOTS of 20-plus year old vehicles that have never had their valve covers off, and there are LOTS of 200,000+ mile vehicles that are still going strong that have never had their engines opened.

I have a buddy who is the original owner of a 2001 3.4 liter Tacoma that has well over 300,000 miles on it. He is very bad about changing it's oil, he has only changed the timing belt ONCE, when you are supposed to change it every 75,000 miles, he hacked the cat off when it went bad and partially melted shut, partially blocking the exhaust flow. That is ALL he has ever done to the truck! And he abuses the hell out of it, doing downright stupid things like pulling a trailer that was loaded with a fully loaded Suburban from So. Cal. to Louisiana (to be closer to his daughter), far exceeding it's tow rating. Amazingly, he hasn't even ever replaced the clutch! The point being that if even nappy, poorly cared for, abused Toyotas can do it, Benzes outta be able to do it too!

M103's are notorious for requiring new valve guides & seals well before 200kmi (otherwise they suck oil at 1/qt per 1kmi, or worse).

Yes, that true. That was part of the old, "good" MB's "Automatic oil change" feature. Even when you fail to change the oil, it still stays clean because it is constantly being flushed and replenished on a regular basis. You only need to change the filter at 5,000 mile intervals! Seriously, I feel that adding a quart of oil every 1,000 miles to Benzer1 is less of an annoyance than replacing oil tubes is. (Benzer2's valve seals were already replaced by a previous owner.)

M119's have essentially zero issues with the heads (other than the tubes, which I don't count, as the heads don't need to be removed). The early M103's were worse, with camshaft & follower problems, plus issues with the threads stripping, etc. Not a good example. The M104 was better but had head gasket issues.

I would submit that your "99+%" figure applies here. The vast majority of M103s don't have those issues. Let's face it, M103 powered W124s are the ORIGINAL W124 and it was and is the M103 that helped the W124 earn and attain it's revered place among car enthusiasts, even those who are not "Benz guys", as one of the great all time reliable, durable and long lived vehicles.

Besides, you are expecting this from a used car you spent $500 on, not $75k, where you have no idea how the car was treated previously. Maybe if you bought one new and maintained it properly it wouldn't have any problems.

I paid $575, thank you. Let's don't forget though that I paid $6,000 for B3 and it is just dumb, pure luck that B3 happened to be an early 93 with metal tubes, not a late 93 with plastic ones. But what I paid is irrelevant because it has also happened to folks who have paid big money for their cars and have taken exemplary care of them. Jim F is one well known example: http://www.k6jrf.com/MB_lifter.html (This linked page is a MUST READ on this topic!)

I don't think she needs any defending...

OK, aren't there any Adriana Lima Advocates?

Regards, Eric

 

[400Eric]

Why do we have an open and closed deck variant of the short-deck M119, if the reason was to save cost?

That means still 2 different castings, which is very expensive. Saying 2 different machining lines for the engine blocks.

Or did the .974 have open deck as well in some variants?

They didn't have them at the same time. While it does appear that they had a bit of an overlap period, they basically replaced the closed decks with the open decks.
Regards, Eric

 

[400Eric]

Eric

You're so WRONG on some counts and so RIGHT on others. I think your attitudes are a bit driven by emotion and thus, in a few places a bit out of the mainstream.

Well, I do have some Italian blood, so I can't deny being a little bit emotional at times.

One over-arching point: you CANNOT compare anything that MB does, has done, or will ever do with any American car company. Just because Ford did stuff with short and tall blocks, doens't mean that MB thought the same way and did the same things. MB has a very different thought process, engineering mindset, and decision making process than the American car companies, and few parallels can be drawn between them. The fact that the Big 3 American companies continue to foist utter crap on the marketplace, after having 40 years to clean up their act after the Japanese car invasion of the 1970s, says everything you need to know. If there's anyone who doesn't really care about their customer and is not committed to being the best, pushing the limit, and doing the right thing -- it be the American car companies, hands down.

That is a correct statement about our old, pre-early-90s MB. That is NOT a correct statement about the company that emerged after that.

The fact that "innovations" such as the Chevy Volt continue to come out of the US companies proves to me that they don't have a clue as to how to assume industry leadership, so I expect at least another 40 years of US car company decline. Hopefully, these dinosaurs will be gone by then, having handed the market to European and Japanese marques to which it rightfully belongs, IMHO. The US car companies have had their heyday, and they failed the pass the test. This plays out time after time with US cars. I rent them all the time, Fords, GMs, Chryslers, etc. They are all just crap.

I don't disagree about the American car companies being crap, that is why I abandoned them!

Wrong points:

1) Once and for all, no M119 was EVER based on the M116. The M116 was a technical dead-end, and was never developed (nor gave any DNA) past the 4.2. ALL MB-manufactured/sold M119s were evolutions of the M117 -- short or tall deck, open or closed, 4.2 or 5.0. End of story. I know you want to believe otherwise, but you should really TRY to think outside the box on this one.

This will only be resolved when somebody posts what the deck height dimension of the M116 was. That's where the proof is, and at this point proof is what we need. I still maintain that we will see that the M116 and low deck M119 have the exact same deck height. (We already know that they have the same exact bore spacing, which they share with the M117 and tall deck M119.) Till then all I can do is say that I strongly disagree with EVERYTHING in this paragraph! It's not a question of what I want to believe or not believe. And again, I point out that the 4.2 M116 and 4.2 M119 have the EXACT SAME BORE AND STROKE. There is some proof right there that some M116 DNA did in fact live on into the M119 era. And I suspect that when we get someone to post the M116's data, we will see that the M116's connecting rod length is also the same as the low deck M119's.

2) I don't think MB was literally and specifically saying "screw you" to their customers with the plastic oil tubes (and other changes). Rather, it was an attempt to save bucks, which ended up having (unforeseen) negative consequences for the customers. MB made significant running changes after the first few years of the W140 production, to make it significantly cheaper to build. They did this around 1994. Same thing with other 124s .. they were cheapened in subtle ways during the model run, starting with about model year 1993. I have owned a 1992 124 wagon and two 1995s, and there are just some ethereal qualities about the earlier car that made it feel like it was just screwed together better, with better parts. Can't put my finger on it, sort of my version of your famous "butt dyno" if you get my drift. But the point is, that MB wasn't directly thumbing their nose at end customers; they didn't deliberately mean to screw customers.

No, but they clearly had stopped caring as much about their customers as they used to.

3) Plastic chain rails were always a hallmark of the M116 and M117 as well as the M119. In fact, with the exception of a very few early iron-block M116s (IIRC), which used metal rails, most all 116s and IIRC ALL 117s used plastic chain rails. Said more plainly, ALL M116s and ALL M117s made with aluminum blocks -- motors introduced in what, 1979...running through 1991 -- used plastic chain rails. They do require replacement but they not particularly early, as long as the engine is maintained well with regular oil changes, etc. They are considered a "wear" item -- one of many. But not something that should be singled out. I believe MB made an engineering decision back in the early 1970s to go with plastic rails on its 116s and 117s (when cost was truly no issue) and it worked well enough, with good reliability, that there was no need seen to change, even with the transition to the M119.

The issue I have is that metal backed plastic rails have proven to be more durable, and Nissan was decent enough to change their V8 to that set-up at the beginning of the 93 M.Y., while MB didn't care enough to bother to improve their set-up, despite the fact that it was already proving to have less than stellar durability. I mean really, how hard is it to put some metal backing in those plastic chain rails? It wasn't too hard for Nissan.

And it could also be argued that a DOHC set-up is more demanding on chain rails than a SOHC environment is. And didn't even the M116s/M117s have their timing chain and rail issues too?

When you say "it worked well enough" I am reminded that at one time "well enough" WASN'T good enough for MB. I miss THAT company and I mourn it's passing. (I hope that isn't too emotional for you.)

4) M103s and M117s (sister engines) both had issues with valve guides and seals starting at around 150-200K miles. ALL of them have these issues by 200K, and I'm talking burning like Dave said at least a quart of oil every 1,000 miles. In addition the M103 had head gasket issues (oil in the coolant) and the M117 had head gasket issues (oil leaks at the rear cylinders, on to the exhaust crossover pipe). M104s have head gasket issues (largely solved with running improvements) and front timing seal cover leaks (an occasional issue that pops up every 60-75K or so, just has to be dealt with). M119s have none of these issues -- no head gasket, valve guide/seal problems, front cover leaks, etc. And I'm talking ALL M119s.

Again as I told Dave in my prior post, it really is the M103 that, more than any other engine, helped to cement the W124 legend. The problems that you speak of are a small minority of the M103's production.

You guys have to remember that I used to OWN and run my own 600+ vehicle dismantling and recycling yard. I do have some direct experience in vehicle longevity matters that extends beyond what I have gained through my own personal cars.

5) MB made PLENTY of known and unknown positive running changes during the bad years that resulted in good things and better performance. The reinforced M104 head gaskets are one prime example of this -- they are MUCH better than the original few types they tried. There were a number of improvements on the 500E alone for the later models that made definitive improvements over the earlier cars, in many different systems. The larger brakes on the later .036s are one example of this.

That's just a requirement of staying competitive. You don't get a prize for continuing to improve your product. You get to stay in business.

Right points:

1) Schrempp did oversee the period during the major dip in quality, but as you correctly say, this was in the works before he took over. Decisions to this end were made in the 1990 time frame, and were rolled into production around 1992-1993 for active product cheapening. As I said earlier, some of this cheapening went into running production changes, and some of it went into product facelifts (a la 140, and the later 124s). As you said, some of it didn't even show up until new models were introduced, such as the W163 ML and the W210s. The earliest MLs (1998-2000) are absolutely HORRIBLE vehicles and IMHO are one of the very WORST single MBs ever made. Doesn't help that they were made in the USA, either..... The bottom line is that you are 100% correct on this one.

2) The MINDSET of the company had moved into production by 1993, but the MINDSET of the company actually changed in the 1989-1990 time period. This was forced by the introduction of Acura in 1986, and the introduction of Infiniti and Lexus for the 1989 model year. MB had an "oh shit" moment when they realized that A/L/I were "for real" and eating their lunch, and they took several drastic steps to fight it -- a dramatic price drop on all cars across the board for the 1993 model year (except the 500E), cheapening/redesign of various parts in their cars, economizing on dealership programs and subsidies (with the unfortunate side effect of weakening the dealer experience for customers, service experience for customers, etc. while I/L/A were hitting this one out of the park !!)

3) You can't compare a modern V-8 with one that was designed more than 25 years ago !!

No, but as I stated, the Titan 5.6 is a direct descendent of the Q45 engine, an engine that is the exact same age as the M119. (It is, ironically, basically just a taller deck, longer rod version.) Nissan chose to continue to evolve and improve that V8, while MB chose to simply abandon the M119 in favor of the cheaper to build M113. Nissan never left their 4 valve philosophy, MB did. Time has proven Nissan (and others) correct. Even MB has grudgingly admitted that by their action of going back to 4 valve heads.

P.S. I don't even know why you guys are arguing about Victoria's Secret models, in light of below. IMHO, the photo below closes the argument, once and for all. Fortunately, or unfortunately, the Dutch model wins
http://skinnyvscurvy.com/hot-models...secret-swimsuit-catalog-2009-13-pictures.html

Well, I must say that you present a VERY convincing argument there Uncle Gerry, but I still think that Adrianna wins!

Regards, Eric

 

[Christian_K]

The issue I have is that metal backed plastic rails have proven to be more durable, and Nissan was decent enough to change their V8 to that set-up at the beginning of the 93 M.Y., while MB didn't care enough to bother to improve their set-up, despite the fact that it was already proving to have less than stellar durability. I mean really, how hard is it to put some metal backing in those plastic chain rails? It wasn't too hard for Nissan.

And it could also be argued that a DOHC set-up is more demanding on chain rails than a SOHC environment is. And didn't even the M116s/M117s have their timing chain and rail issues too?

When you say "it worked well enough" I am reminded that at one time "well enough" WASN'T good enough for MB. I miss THAT company and I mourn it's passing.

The 6L M120 V12s that were available in the W140 and R129 have metal backed plastic rails which hardly ever fail... ;-)

 

[Jelmer]

The argument with the boobs wins.

 

[gsxr]

My sources inform me that you paid five times that amount for your most recent set.

Yes, *I* paid that, because I don't have a local source to obtain them. YOU are near P+P's that my sources inform me have metal oil tubes readily available for almost free. Therefore you have even less grounds for complaint!

I question your figures. There is a whole cottage industry that seems to have sprung up to supply overpriced aftermarket tubes for these later M119s. (An exampled is linked in the link below.) I hardly believe that less than 1 percent of the later M119 production is enough to keep those suppliers in that market.

One aftermarket supplier does not constitute "a whole cottage industry". I too would like to know how many they sell, but I bet it's pretty low numbers.

It's my understanding that that is only out of necessity. They always PREFERRED to use closed deck blocks.

The Brabus tech that was discussing this implied that he preferred the .985 open deck block. If the older closed-deck block was superior, they would have used it... these guys were NOT pinching pennies for the 6.xL builds. Point is, it's widely believed that an open-deck block cannot be bored to 100mm (or more), but that is not true... at least not for the .985 casting. It may be true for .97x open-deck castings.

I would submit that your "99+%" figure applies here. The vast majority of M103s don't have those issues. Let's face it, M103 powered W124s are the ORIGINAL W124 and it was and is the M103 that helped the W124 earn and attain it's revered place among car enthusiasts, even those who are not "Benz guys", as one of the great all time reliable, durable and long lived vehicles.

Oh please! Read the forums and you'll see a massive amount of M103 threads related to the heads, gaskets, valves, oil consumption, etc... as Gerry noted above. Very common. M103's also have other issues related to the CIS injection but that's a whole 'nuther topic. I've owned a couple M103's too, don't forget.

...[oil tube failure] has also happened to folks who have paid big money for their cars and have taken exemplary care of them. Jim F is one well known example: http://www.k6jrf.com/MB_lifter.html (This linked page is a MUST READ on this topic!)

Jim has some good info on his site and some not-so-good info. I've already disputed some of his M119 fan clutch findings, and I don't agree with his recommendation to use engine solvent flushes as a cleaning method. Regardless, the oil tube failure is $20 for a new tube + $30 for a valve cover gasket + 2 hours labor to replace. When a tube fails, the result is ticking noise. The result is not a destroyed engine, camshaft, lifter, or anything else catastrophic. A ticking noise. Guess we should start a new poll for the forum: How many failed oil tubes have owners personally experienced (out of how many engines/cars)?

OK, aren't there any Adriana Lima Advocates?

She's quite capable of defending herself! Picture worth 1k words, etc.

 

[400Eric]

Yes, *I* paid that, because I don't have a local source to obtain them. YOU are near P+P's that my sources inform me have metal oil tubes readily available for almost free. Therefore you have even less grounds for complaint!

But my situation is the exception, and your situation is the rule for most of the folks here on this site, so my beef with MB for saddling us with these awful pieces of crap remains valid. And let's not forget that being bent over an engine like that is pure misery for me! Double the misery if I have to pull them off of another car in addition to installing them on my car!

One aftermarket supplier does not constitute "a whole cottage industry". I too would like to know how many they sell, but I bet it's pretty low numbers.

Well, it's obviously enough that they are still offering them.

The Brabus tech that was discussing this implied that he preferred the .985 open deck block. If the older closed-deck block was superior, they would have used it... these guys were NOT pinching pennies for the 6.xL builds. Point is, it's widely believed that an open-deck block cannot be bored to 100mm (or more), but that is not true... at least not for the .985 casting. It may be true for .97x open-deck castings.

The older closed deck block stopped being an option for them at some point (at least new), so they were forced to go with the open deck, which worked out OK only because of the availability of the improved .985 block (which still isn't quite as good as a closed deck block).

Oh please! Read the forums and you'll see a massive amount of M103 threads related to the heads, gaskets, valves, oil consumption, etc... as Gerry noted above. Very common. M103's also have other issues related to the CIS injection but that's a whole 'nuther topic. I've owned a couple M103's too, don't forget.

Yeah, and there are a whole lot more M103s in the world too than there are M119s. When taken as a percentage, the M103 reliability record is quite good. Again, how could the W124 have such an admired, revered status if it's highest production engine wasn't also stellar? And remember, my experience goes far beyond just my own personal cars.

Jim has some good info on his site and some not-so-good info. I've already disputed some of his M119 fan clutch findings, and I don't agree with his recommendation to use engine solvent flushes as a cleaning method.

For the record, he used that stuff AFTER the tube failure, not before, so we can rule that out as a possible cause of the failure. Besides, there's no way that any of his solvent use could or would hurt a metal oil tube!

Regardless, the oil tube failure is $20 for a new tube + $30 for a valve cover gasket + 2 hours labor to replace.

"+ 2 hours labor" but only if you have the right tool, which you should also include on your price list. And really, who is going to go through all of the trouble to get in there and then only replace ONE tube, fully knowing that any of the 15 others might pop at any time? I know you well enough to know that even you aren't going to trust them enough to leave them in there, you are going to replace all of them too. As will the vast majority of the rest of us. So please, kindly include the cost of 16 of those suckers, not just one, in your budget. (And all of this so MB could save $5 per car!)

When a tube fails, the result is ticking noise. The result is not a destroyed engine, camshaft, lifter, or anything else catastrophic. A ticking noise.

As Jim F and others have already documented, there is a general loss of oil pressure when even only one of those tubes fails, with the pressure dropping to nearly zero at idle. You can't convince me that that loss of oil pressure doesn't do at least a little harm to the rest of the engine, especially when the pressure at idle is nearly zero. No, the engines aren't outright dying as a result of that loss of pressure, but it's also not something that any of us here would want our beloved engines subjected too either. And it's not something that MB should be subjecting loyal customers to! They know there's a problem, Jim F quoted the factory document on the subject. They should be doing the right thing and replacing these things free of charge!

Guess we should start a new poll for the forum: How many failed oil tubes have owners personally experienced (out of how many engines/cars)?

Suit yourself. As far as I'm concerned, even ONE tube failure is too many, especially when you consider that it didn't have to happen.

Me, I'd rather have a new poll to see who's model is cuter, mine or Uncle Gerry's!

She's quite capable of defending herself! Picture worth 1k words, etc.

Indeed.
Regards, Eric

 

[gsxr]

The old closed-deck bare blocks were still available for purchase for many years, and may still be available. (?) So in the late 90's when Brabus/RENNtech were building 6.xL 119.985 motors, they could have opted to go that route (as they did for open-deck .97x engines, per the RENNtech price sheet).

I've had the oil tube failure on my E420 and the oil pressure DOES NOT drop to near zero. It may on some engines, particularly if the engine has more than one failed tube (which I've not heard of yet), or if someone is using too-thin oil like an xW-30 (which is probably very common). With xW-40 in the sump I don't think I ever saw the pressure drop below 1.0 bar on the gauge at hot idle, even in 100F summer ambients and 100C engine temps. With the tube replaced (and I did only replace the bad one, with another plastic tube - sorry!) the oil pressure did increase slightly. But one failed tube does not cause a massive loss in oil pressure and engine damage.

No, it didn't have to happen... yes, MB should have retained metal tubes. But they didn't. It's not the end of the world, it's fixable, and tens of thousands of M119's are still purring along with those nasty plastic tubes. Venting about it won't change anything until you can find a functional Wayback Machine on eBay.

 

[400Eric]

I've had the oil tube failure on my E420 and the oil pressure DOES NOT drop to near zero. It may on some engines, particularly if the engine has more than one failed tube (which I've not heard of yet), or if someone is using too-thin oil like an xW-30 (which is probably very common).

Well, there's a documented case of TWO failed tubes right there on Jim F's site that I linked, and those were on just ONE side of the engine!

There's one more thing to add to that price list: Jim F mentioned that you "Will probably need the chain tensioner clamp. If it is as brittle as mine was, it will break when trying to remove it." (to replace the tubes.)
Regards, Eric

 

[gsxr]

Jim fails to mention that if the upper chain guides are brittle and break when removed... the rest of the chain rails are almost certainly in similar condition and should be replaced even if they have not yet broken.

Not to get into another chain rail war, but I agree with Gerry... these are wear items, and are expected to be replaced as needed, usually by ~200kmi or so. MB never intended for the motor to go 1 million miles with zero failures, which is what it sounds like you want, Eric. I think you'll have to design and build your own engine from the block up to get everything you want.

 

[400Eric]

Yeah! I like that idea! I'll get right on that!

I'm not asking for a million miles, I'm just asking for them to not take away from what they were already providing us, and for them to at least equal what their competition provides us, like putting some metal backing into those chain rails like Nissan does (and like MB does on the V12). One shouldn't have to pay an extra $30,000 for the V12 option just to get some metal backed rails. Nissan included them on their V8s from 93 onward, MB should have too.
Regards, Eric

 

[Ron500E]

Perhaps, at first glance, a bit off topic; but if anyone would know the answer to the burning question "are there any pharmacys open 24 hours that do not require a doctors prescription for Schedule 2 (C2) medication" it would be the people following this thread....?

73days 18hours 40 minutes until "Prometheus" opens in the US

Somewhat Kind Regards,

Ron

 

[Glen]

I saw the trailer for Prometheus over the weekend...can't wait!

 

[400Eric]

Glen is the one soul who didn't ridicule me for lusting after an M119 powered W210.
Regards, Eric

 

[Glen]

That's true. The '97 W210 with M119 is a perfectly fine car in it's own right. It certainly has it's issues and shortcomings but what car doesn't? The rusty spring perches are probably not an issue here in SoCal as neither my sister-in-law or good friend had suspension issues during their ownership. Having said that, the styling has never been a strong point for me.

 

[gsxr]

M119+722.6 = match made in heaven, IMO. Bummer it wasn't available in the 124 chassis (only 129, 140, and one year of the W210).

My initial impression of the (early) 210 chassis overall is that, well, I'm not super impressed. It's a very nice Toyota but a somewhat mediocre Mercedes. I can't really provide a proper opinion until I've owned the 210 longer. A few months and maybe 1kmi behind the wheel of the 210 isn't fair when I've got 17 years and 300-400kmi (total) in 124's. Check with me next year...

 

[Ron500E]

I saw the trailer for Prometheus over the weekend...can't wait!

Glen:

There's the US version number 1 @112 seconds, the US version number 2 @ 232 seconds, the UK version and the IMAX version along with the Com-Con version.
This keeps up and I'll have seen the entire movie in 2 minute increments...

I almost drove my 500 to the cinema (obligatory 500 content).

R

 

[quicksilver500]

I was told by my foreman at benz many years ago that the switch was not all money, there was some concern about the swedged steel balls coming loose. I had to re seat one when I did the rails on my car. Maybe I had the one tube where the ball wasn't seated all the way. He's been a factory mechanic for 25+ years and went to M119 school They never replaced the plastic oilers, but he said that the original head gaskets on a M104 lasted 20-30k miles. You could get a car that would need 2 or 3 gaskets before it was out of warranty.

Also, when I worked at Chrysler, they had a V6 that ran 300,000 miles out of a K-Car. Never been cracked open. They thought that was the greatest thing ever, mostly because that motor wasn't even good at as boat anchor....my point is there is always one out of 100,000's....

-Mike

 

[gsxr]

Mike, that is very interesting... I've never heard of any metal oil tube having the swedged ball loose. Uh-oh, I think I hear Eric's vein bulging already...

 

[400Eric]

Thereyou go baiting me again. Don't forget how emotional I am.

In all seriousness though:
Regards, Eric

 

[fudgitive]

Chrysler, AMC & Bigotry

Also, when I worked at Chrysler, they had a V6 that ran 300,000 miles out of a K-Car. Never been cracked open. They thought that was the greatest thing ever, mostly because that motor wasn't even good at as boat anchor....my point is there is always one out of 100,000's....

-Mike

Chrysler also had their golden years of engineering, which sadly had well and truly passed by the time the K-Car came about. Ever tried to kill a slant 6 ?

 

[400Eric]

To that I would add that AMC, a company that Chrysler later absorbed, also had some engines that exhibited some stellar longevity. Both in how long they ran and in how long they were in production. The 4.0 Jeep engine is one example. That's another engine that was hard to kill! It's roots dated back to the 1964 Rambler 232 I6 making it only 4 years younger than the Slant 6 yet it outlived the Slanter by over 20 years! It even outlived AMC! (But only because Chrysler did a hostile takeover.) I've personally seen Jeeps with over 350,000 miles on them that were still running on their original 4.0s! (We have to remember though that there probably aren't going to be too many folks around here who are very impressed with either engine! Too simple, too much iron, not enough aluminum, not enough valves, too many pushrods, not enough plastic, etc. etc. etc.)
Regards, Eric

 

[e55]

Hi guys, returning to the original article tidbits, was wondering if anyone knew what the AMG pieces/mods that were inserted/swaped into 4.3L M113 to birth an normally aspirated AMG 5.5L? Perhaps some of the cheapening-weakening done at MB Corporate to the smaller displacement M113 was rectified at AMG for their 5.5L?

Thanks
-fad

 

[400Eric]

I don't think they did anything to the 4.3L, I think they just REPLACED it with a 5.5L M113.
Regards, Eric

 

[gsxr]

Probably bore, stroke, camshafts, and maybe some head work...

 

[e55]

Eric-- the 4.3L M113 did not appear to be "replaced" by the AMG M113 (as seen in the '99-'02 E55 AMG)...was wondering what AMG did besides stroke/ bore the 4.3L? Some of the article and information shared about the 4.3L M113 vs. M119 may not be applicable to the AMG 5.5L M113 normally aspirated motor?

 

[400Eric]

The article doesn't talk about it, but there were other displacement versions (5.0L and 5.5L AMG) of the M113 that debuted at the same time (1998) that the 4.3 liter version did. The "5.5" is really only a 5.4 liter. The supercharged "5.5" didn't arrive until the 2002 M.Y. AMG started with the bigger bore 5.0 M113 and added a longer stroke crank to arrive at 5.4 liters. I don't know what else AMG did to strengthen the engine and increase it's power production, I only know that the flawed 3 valve head remained, which is my main complaint against the M113, because a 3 valve head pales when faced with 4 valve competition. Again, even MB has grudgingly admitted this by dumping their 3 valve head designs.
Regards, Eric

 

[gerryvz]

I wouldn't call the 3-valve cylinder head design "flawed" -- what was "flawed" about it?

Flawed to me means that it had a defect that affected longevity or resulted in decreased reliability/increased failure rates, as in a BAD DESIGN. It's not a bad design -- it was designed for emissions purposes and to reduce costs -- compromises that were entirely reasonable to MB at the time.

Remember that MB also had a twincam inline-six engine design (the M110) WELL BEFORE they came out with the M103 in-line six, and then they went BACK to the twincam M104 design.

So by your reasoning, Eric, that means the M103 was a flawed, sucky design as compared to the M110, because it reverted back to a single-cam design with two valves per cylinder. I would venture to say that the M103 has definite merits over the M110. And I would say that the M113 has definite merits over the M119. Perhaps not the merits we all appreciate, but certainly merits.

Admit it Eric, you're in over your head on this argument. You need to pack it in and give it up.

Cheers,
Gerry

 

[e55]

Well put Gerry. I've kept an ear out for early M113 specific problems/ issues and was not aware of the M113 3-valve heads being comparatively described as flawed, unreliable, shortlived, or weak vs. the M119 heads- sure they are different in comparison with engineering/cost (+) and (-). From a real world standpoint though & FWIW- the W210 e55 boards have not been plagued with engine or head-related problems or issues even with 150K+ on the clock. Maybe the factory reccomended Mobile1 has a lot to do with it?

 

[Christian_K]

The M113 is missing the heart&feel somehow. It's some sort of boring and compared to the M119s, the engines aren't that rev-happy at RPMs above 5000RPM. Of course now a M113 driver, which never driven a M119 will say different, but its a fact due to the 3-valve design and the slower charge-changes possible with it.

And here in our german Forums, this was discussed since almost the start of the M113 engine countless of times.
Lots of people which switched their M119 to M113 powered cars (i'm NOT talking about AMG M113s here!), whether it was in their S, SL or E-Classes, complained about the M113 beeing a "boring" engine from the emotions point of view. They often said the M119s were alone from the sounds a better engine - slight brabbling at part-loads and low RPMs, fierce growl at WOT, already at engine-starting they felt that there was a real big engine fired up. While on the other hand, they described the M113 as "turning-keys -> aha it runs -> thats it".
Some even said they think the M113s are more fitting into the Mercedes Image and the M119s seeming to were a real exception - a sporty, rev-happy, powerful, loud engine.

Maybe AMG returned some of those emotions back with their versions of the M113. Maybe they could return rev-happiness with different valve-sizes, porting, portmatching, etc compared to standard M113s... I don't know - never driven one myself. Only co-driver in a 55AMG Kompressor, which was a brutal beast i have to admit.

 

[gerryvz]

OK. Given Christian's and e55's posts ... I'm not seeing or hearing anything that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the M113 is FLAWED in any way, compared to the M119.

Japanese cars are rather boring in many ways compared to German or Italian cars. You "turn keys -> aha it runs -> thats it" with Japanese cars same as Christian said about the M113. But is a Honda flawed? I've owned two of them (Civic and Accord) and have owned a Honda motorcycle for the past 10 years and I tell you that in no way were an of those wheeled vehicles flawed.

A bit boring? Yes !

Flawed? No !

Cheers,
Gerry

P.S. Is the M117 flawed compared to the M119, because it only has two valves and one cam per bank?

P.P.S. MB's earlier twincam 2.8-liter M110 inline-six engines made 185HP, as compared to the US-spec 3-liter M103's 177 HP. And the pre-M110 2.8-liter M130 engines from the 1960s and early 1970s made anywhere from 150-180HP with two valves and a single cam.

 

[Taxi Driver]

Christian *Maybe AMG returned some of those emotions back with their versions of the M113. Maybe they could return rev-happiness with different valve-sizes, porting, portmatching, etc compared to standard M113s... I don't know - never driven one myself.*

I also looked over my shoulder at the M113 but from the moment I first drove that C43 I now have had for 3years, I had to
excuse my thinking of the *lesser* simple 3valver. Yes AMG really did one fine job here, revhappy is just it's middlename.
I really love the M119 and also the AMG tweaked M113, if I have to choose...? I keep them both.

 

[400Eric]

I wouldn't call the 3-valve cylinder head design "flawed" -- what was "flawed" about it?

Admit it Eric, you're in over your head on this argument. You need to pack it in and give it up.

Cheers,
Gerry

Geeze, every little thing I say has to be picked apart. I say "flawed" because they brought out a 3 valve engine in 1998, a year that even cheap cars had 4 valve engines! A year that it was already very clear that 4 valve engines were the wave of the future. "Flawed" in this context meaning that the engine was already outdated when it came out. "Flawed" in that they were trying to compete with competition that ALL had 4 valve engines. "Flawed" in that their attempt to save a buck with a cheaper to produce engine didn't work because now they too have replaced it with a 4 valve engine.

Even in the C43, the AMG version of the 4.3 only put out 302 hp and 302 ft #s of torque. Even my smaller M119 4.2, even without the benefit of AMG's brilliance, made 303 hp and 330 tq, using the very much accepted 20% driveline loss standard that nearly everybody uses (despite what Dave thinks about it being 18% on our big, old 4 speed automatic). This was in completely smog legal condition. At the wheels, my 4.2 M119 made 243 hp, 264 tq, compared to the 241 hp, 214 tq the AMGized C43 4.3 made at this site http://www.dynoperformance.com/dyno_search.php?make_1=mercedes (Dave has my dyno chart somewhere. Speaking of Dave, one of his own 4.2s, with nothing more than a 92 ECU, made essentially the same power and torque as my 4.2 did, proving that mine isn't some kind of freak, and is nothing special.) On that same page is another non-AMG 4.3 M113 that made 211 hp, 241 tq. With the benefit of a "active" intake manifold that bolsters low end torque production, that is indeed a better torque showing than the AMG 4.3 provided, but still nowhere near the torque output of our two 4.2 M119s. Here in this example, "flawed" means clearly inferior to it's older predecessor. A step backwards. A cheaper engine with less content. A poor replacement. A poor substitute. Frank Sinatra Jr. instead of Frank Sinatra Sr. Jackie Johnson instead of Dallas Raines. Katy Perry instead of Sheryl Crow.

I say "flawed" in that the 3 valve design has proven uncompetitive when forced to compete against 4 valve competition. I say "flawed" in that EVERYBODY who was making 3 valve heads has dumped the design and gone with four valve heads. Even Ford trucks now have 4 valve head engines. Their 3 valve engines have ALL been dumped. If a 3 valve engine isn't even good enough for a nappy Ford TRUCK, it certainly isn't good enough for a Mercedes Benz! I am nowhere near being "in over my head" here when, by their own actions, even the OEMs, ALL OF THE OEMs, are saying and admitting that I, as well as all of the OEMs already producing 4 valve engines, am/are right, by their action of now going with 4 valve heads too. EVEN MERCEDES! If the 3 valve design was superior, you can be damn sure that MB would have saved the time, effort and money that it took to engineer and then install 4 valve heads on the M113's block! They could have and would have avoided these costs by staying with the 3 valve design!

And again, with the fuel economy and emissions standards constantly getting more stringent, you can be sure that the "greeness" and fuel economy of the newer 4 valve replacement for the M113 3 valve design is better than it's 3 valve predecessor.

Like I said in my very first post in this thread, the M113 was designed and built to save, and thereby actually make, MB more money, the M119 was designed and built to rule the world. That is, in a nutshell, a "bit of comparison" between the M113 and M119. It is in fact, all we need to know! (You are all welcome!)

(Sorry Roger, not meaning to take anything away from your C43. 300 hp in a small, light, RWD car is always fun! I'd take a C43 over a same year American market M3!)
Regards, Eric

 

[gsxr]

Eric, you are focusing on one specific are (power output) where MB was looking at many other variables. Their intent was not necessarily to have the "new" engine make more power per liter than the previous generation. OKfine, it's "flawed" in that power delivery slipped, but it met MB's design goals at the time. I consider flawed to translate into failures, and by that definition, the M113 is no more flawed than the M119.

Also, if you use a 20% correction factor, our 400's would be making ~300hp at the crank, and my 500 would be ~350hp at the crank. I just find those numbers a little too optimistic. I'm not even sure 18% is conservative enough (could be more like 16% or 15%) but I still use 18% as a happy medium.

On a side note, I don't trust those C43 dyno numbers, check out the RPM for peak torque. Something ain't right there. Unless you can view the complete dyno graph (which we can't - the links on that page take you to the wrong page), you can't verify that the dyno pull went low enough to capture the actual torque peak.