Does LH Module 014-545-62 32 made in 1992 for a 4.2 liter motor have WOT enrichment?
I have done some research but can't seem to find out the answer.
Thanks
I have done some research but can't seem to find out the answer.
Thanks
-
Hi Guest !
Welcome to the 500Eboard forum.
Since its founding in late 2008, 500Eboard has become the leading resource on the Internet for all things related to the Mercedes-Benz 500E and E500. In recent years, we have also expanded to include the 400E and E420 models, which are directly related to the 500E/E500.
We invite you to browse and take advantage of the information and resources here on the site. If you find helpful information, please register for full membership, and you'll find even more resources available. Feel free to ask questions, and make liberal use of the "Search" function to find answers.
We hope you will become an active contributor to the community!
Sincerely,
500Eboard Management
Does this LH Module made in 1992 for a 4.2 liter motor have WOT enrichment
- Thread starter Stevester 500E
- Start date
What month of 92 was it made? It's there on the "top". You can see it without even removing it from the car. It will look like this: 92M08. If it was made after 07/92, it's not going to have WOT enrichment. Like I said before, I have 014 545 63 32 ECUs from 4.2s that are NOT enrichment ECUs, and I have a 014 545 64 32 ECU from a 5.0 that is not an enrichment ECU. Your part number is too close to those two, but one way we could know for sure is if you get us that date code! You said you think it's 10/92, find out for sure!
Eric, the other 4.2 LH Module that has WOT is 012-545-3032. I have it listed for sale, but pending sale now that I know my buddies 014-545-62 32 module does not have WOT. We thought because his cars is a 1992, that it would have WOT - obviously month code on module is very important.
Yes, it is dated about 92/10. And it is true, there is no way to know it was original.
I had a friend who's C36, 3.6 cross over tube was swapped out at the dealer by a sneaky technician.
And as a pleasant surprise, I found a 92 LH WOT module in my 93' 500e !
I had a friend who's C36, 3.6 cross over tube was swapped out at the dealer by a sneaky technician.
And as a pleasant surprise, I found a 92 LH WOT module in my 93' 500e !
FYI: Just to clarify it's the part number matched against its application that's important. Modules with varied programming could have been and/or could be made at any time. The date code you refer to is only when the module was made, It has nothing DIRECTLY to do with it having WOT or not.
It's as simple as this: If a V8 or V12 LH module was specified for a 1992, it has WOT. If it is specified for a 1993 or later car it doesn't have WOT. That will be true regardless of when the module was made.
Now that having been said, Eric's guidance has relevance in the sense that it is extremely unlikely that that an LH module made in May '92 wouldn't have WOT, as they wouldn't likely have been making any modules for the '93s yet.
Also for clarification, note that the WOT discontinuation was world wide, and was driven by the desire for better fuel consumption figures in Europe on the European standard tests, which apparently included some time at WOT. Contrary to most imaginations, it had nothing to do with USA / CARB emission or federal CAFE regulations. Most of you here already know that, but just in case...
Yes, I was only trying to get to that date as that was a quick and easy way to know, without having to look it up, if it was an enrichment ECU or not, because if it was made AFTER 07/92, we know automatically that it wasn't/isn't an enrichment ECU. (I have two ECUs here that are dated 07/92, one is a 92 M.Y. ECU, and the other is a 93 M.Y. ECU.)
But, as we've alread seen, gsxr actually already answered this question less than two months ago in Stevester's other ECU thread.
Klink, if I'm not mistaken, even the replacement ECUs for the 92s didn't have enrichment, is that correct?
I can't say for sure about the WOT in the replacements, but I'd bet that the replacements specified for a '92 did still have it because strictly speaking, changes to the mixture management would require FED and/or CARB recertification, a PITA process, so there would be little chance they would alter this.
I don't know. Benz wouldn't tell you even if they knew, even if there was anyone still there that would know. If I think of anything reliable, that you guys haven't already mentioned, I'll post it. Interesting dilemma...
But like I said, except for you drag racers. I think it's absolutely useless knowledge. The subjectively fastest purely stock 500 I ever drove was a '93. Bought new by a serious motorhead. This guy drove like a Cullen, and he drove his cars that way from the moment he took delivery. We used to put new Michelin MXMs on it about every 5K miles! They were almost showing cord, all the way around, every 5K. At 40K miles it remains the fastest feeling stock fiver that any of us ever drove. Every tech and advisor would get out of that car and say something about how it just flew, me included. I attributed it to having little friction anywhere due to it's brutal treatment from the first minute on. Big shock, this most excellent customer dropped dead of a heart attack. His salesman bought that car as soon as the estate settled. Shortly after that a car went over the center line and the resulting head-on totaled it. Driver got out without a mark, just sore as hell for the next few days. Other driver had seat belt on, late model American car, spent months in the hospital. Testament to MB...
It is interesting that even now for the E400E there are 2 replacement units in the EPC: 014 545 15 32 for '92 cars, and 021 545 70 32 for '93 onwards. I'd bet you dollars to donuts that the 014 545 15 32 has WOT.
There are 2 part numbers for 1992 034 WOT enrichment LH modules
012-545-3032 & 014-545-1532
I have the 012 module in my car date code 91M12
And a spare 014 module date coded 92M02
The 021-545-7032 is a superseded part# for the original 016-545-1332
The reason was an updated chip which allowed a wider self adaptaion range for the code 19 issue
There is a service bulletin on this.
No bet. If the '92 module is still available (and not superceded), it will have WOT enrichment. I'll give you a box of Dunkin's for free anyway though!
UPDATE: Screen shot attached from FSM. The "code 19" fix with 4.2L module 021-545-70-32 mentioned in the previous post extended adaption range to ±32%. This module does not have WOT enrichment. If I can find the TSB, I'll add it to this post later.
Attachments
Klink can check Paragon and let you know exactly how many exist on MB shelves worldwide, Eric. Better get that box ready to ship to the right coast.
Klink can check Paragon and let you know exactly how many exist on MB shelves worldwide, Eric. Better get that box ready to ship to the right coast.
I'll look and see tomorrow. It would not surprise me if they are still available but priced higher than Baba Ram Dass...
No bet. If the '92 module is still available (and not superceded), it will have WOT enrichment. I'll give you a box of Dunkin's for free anyway though!
Correct, as usual.
And it is still available, as using a 93-95 module would cause the car lose power at WOT
I doubt MB would NLA a part that affects a cars performance.
Under $700 according to trade motion
I'll check with Lionel tomorrow
https://www.mercedespartscenter.com...4+545+15+32&action=oePartSearch&siteid=215720
Last edited:
MB pricing is incoherent and senseless. The 4.2L EZL's are much cheaper new as well. The answer to your next question is "...because they can".
I wonder why only the 1992 400e's got WOT and the 1992 400se's didn't, or did they?
It would seem to reason that if the reason for the introduction of the non wot modules had to do with fuel consumption, etc., that the 1992 400se's would have had wot . . . .
For stirring the pot, can I get a small Duncan donuts coffee, best coffee know to man. . .. .
It would seem to reason that if the reason for the introduction of the non wot modules had to do with fuel consumption, etc., that the 1992 400se's would have had wot . . . .
For stirring the pot, can I get a small Duncan donuts coffee, best coffee know to man. . .. .
Last edited:
Would a 1992 400e LH module with WOT work in a 1992 400se and increase the WOT HP?
Great to hear some body is doing brain surgery on the W140's.
If WOT was dumped by MB because of better fuel consumption without it, W140 4.2L engines must have had WOT.
If WOT was dumped by MB because of better fuel consumption without it, W140 4.2L engines must have had WOT.
Yes. When mine failed, my guys smartly found a used one from a W140, saved me some money. But they told me it HAD to be a '92 car.
maw
So you're saying this is definitive, no if's, and's or but's. Nor's or Or's, either. Yes? No? Maybe so?Note the critical words "all" and "no"...
J-Sauce,
That means that 013 545 66 32 from the W140's has WOT, date code 91/M11. Not sure which others you and Eric have opened up to compare, but please share any other part numbers from the W140 that have WOT.
That means that 013 545 66 32 from the W140's has WOT, date code 91/M11. Not sure which others you and Eric have opened up to compare, but please share any other part numbers from the W140 that have WOT.
I will repeat: All 1992 USA model year V8 and V12 LH fuel injection modules have WOT. From the start of USA model year 1993, no V8 or V12 LH fuel injection modules have WOT. Note the critical words "all" and "no"...
Cold starting difficulty. GVZ has a good thread on it dated 9/20/2011.
They also diagnosed "erratic fuel pump operation" at that time. I was hoping they put the part number of the used ECU on the invoice, so I could give it to J-Sauce. But no luck.
maw
They also diagnosed "erratic fuel pump operation" at that time. I was hoping they put the part number of the used ECU on the invoice, so I could give it to J-Sauce. But no luck.
maw
Last edited:
And remember that your old module is repairable with you still have it: See the first 4 posts from member tcg1122.
I actually think I do have the original. They subsequently grabbed my RennTech chip out of it (for what that's worth) and put it in this one. IIRC I then kept it, which would put it in the attic. Let's hope I never have to find out if I kept it, although I have a PM into tcg1122 on another matter and if he responds, maybe I have two issues for him (or her) instead of one. Thanks for the heads up, Klink.
Cheers,
maw
Cheers,
maw
