500E intake Manifold on E420?

[DLL]

Winter Sunday afternoon daydreaming-

An article I recently read, said the 500E had a different intake manifold than the 500SL, providing more torque - 354 lb/ft, vs 327 ish depending where you read.

I have a 94 E420 with the M119.975 engine.
I also have the 'carcass ' of a 93 500E, with the M119.974.
So, I'm wondering, if I swapped that manifold would I notice any additional power?
I found Gerry's thread on compatibility, different series of M119 engines. From that I 'think' it would fit.
Any insight on that?
1. Would it fit?
2. Would it provide any, ballpark how much, extra power?
3. Would any other 'tuning' be needed to make it work?
(I have a 1992 WOT LH module in the car already).
And I guess 4, worth the effort, and costs of incidental parts? I would be doing it myself, if I did.
Since these cars are limited in tuning options, I'm thinking any area of gain could be worthwhile.
Thanks

 

[gsxr]

So, I'm wondering, if I swapped that manifold would I notice any additional power?

Nope. If there was a benefit, MB would have used the same manifold on the 4.2L engine. They did not.

Most likely you would have a power loss due to reduced intake air velocity.

The only power gain you'll get is if you swap that .974 engine into your E420.

 

[DLL]

Nope. If there was a benefit, MB would have used the same manifold on the 4.2L engine. They did not.

Most likely you would have a power loss due to reduced intake air velocity.

The only power gain you'll get is if you swap that .974 engine into your E420.

OK thanks. Maybe one day!

 

[DLL]

Nope. If there was a benefit, MB would have used the same manifold on the 4.2L engine. They did not.

Most likely you would have a power loss due to reduced intake air velocity.

The only power gain you'll get is if you swap that .974 engine into your E420.

I wonder why though, that manifold wasn't used on the 500SL as well

 

[gsxr]

The 500E engine (.974) and 500SL engine (.972) used the identical intake manifolds.

The early 500SL (129.066 chassis) with 119.960 CIS-E tall-deck engine had a completely different manifold, and most components of that engine were totally different vs the LH-SFI, short-deck engines.

 

[DLL]

The 500E engine (.974) and 500SL engine (.972) used the identical intake manifolds.

The early 500SL (129.066 chassis) with 119.960 CIS-E tall-deck engine had a completely different manifold, and most components of that engine were totally different vs the LH-SFI, short-deck engines.

That makes sense. I guess the article (s) talking about more power in 500E, may have been comparing to the earlier engine. It was written to suggest the 500E was more powerful, which sent me down this rabbit hole.

 

[gsxr]

There was no significant change in power ratings for any 5.0L displacement M119 from start of production to end (1990-1999). All the 5.0L engines were rated nearly identical HP (322) until 1993 when they dropped to 315hp when WOT enrichment was deleted. The 500E did not make more power than the 500SL (either .960 or .972), I'm not sure where that was mentioned.

 

[DLL]

There was no significant change in power ratings for any 5.0L displacement M119 from start of production to end (1990-1999). All the 5.0L engines were rated nearly identical HP (322) until 1993 when they dropped to 315hp when WOT enrichment was deleted. The 500E did not make more power than the 500SL (either .960 or .972), I'm not sure where that was mentioned.

A recent Car and Driver article, says torque numbers were higher @354. Could be my (mis) interpretation though.

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a45754276/what-to-buy-mercedes-benz-500e-e500-1992-1994/

"The 500E used the 322-hp 5.0-liter 32-valve V-8 equipped with variable valve timing and the four-speed automatic from the 500SL of the era. A less restrictive intake boosted torque to 354 pound-feet, 22 more than the SL. In the lighter E-class, the V-8 charged the 500E to 60 mph in 5.5 seconds. The 1993 and '94 models lost the engine's full-throttle enrichment programming in an effort by Mercedes to appease the EPA. This reduced horsepower to 315 and torque to 347 pound-feet, but otherwise, the engines are identical."

 

[a777fan]

Not you. Just typical mis-information that the press likes to perpetuate from time to time.

 

[gsxr]

Those numbers look all wrong... wonder if they were comparing to the M117?

 

[alabbasi]

Must have used Chatgbt to write that

 

[gsxr]

FSM does not list torque specs, but the TDM does.

119.960 KAT = 240kw / 322hp @ 5500rpm, 450Nm / 335 tq @ 4000rpm
119.690 Non-KAT = 245kw / 329hp @ 5500rpm, 460Nm / 343 tq @ 4000rpm

119.974 KAT = 240kw / 322hp @ 5700rpm, 480Nm / 358 tq @ 3900rpm <-- This is for 1992 models with WOT enrichment.
No power gain shown for non-KAT versions of 119.97x.


HP was basically the same but the newer LH-SFI short-deck engine did indeed have an increase in rated torque - I'm not sure why.