M119.975, .974, .985, .980 differences and similarities performance wise

[truls221]

Hello everybody,

I am looking at the differences of the M119 versions to learn more about them, and distinguish the characters performance wise.

For example I have found that the M119.975 and .985 share the same part numbers for all important parts such as camshafts, valves, pistons, conrods etc.

The inlet manifolds are identical part numbers of the .980(E50 AMG) and .985, but the .975 and .974 have different inlet manifolds. In what do they differ?

The exhaust valves appear to be the same for all M119 after the decrease to 7mm stem, but for the .98x, the inlet valve differs similar to the .97x inlet valves, regarding part numbers.

What amused me is that the .975 and .985 seems to be the exact same engine except for the EMS and cylinder heads, but the .97x engines seem to be totally different.

So the question is what distinguish the different parts numbers?

what are the inlet valve diameter of the .97x and the .98x engines? what differs from the camshafts in terms of lift, duration and timing?

Would use this information to get a little more meat on the legs before I start to modify my .975 engine.

is the crankshaft interchangeable between all models? there seems to be a least 4 different crankshaft part number for each .97x and .98x ?? what differes them except for the different stroke of .975/.974?

A long stroke .975 would probably be better in both aspects of consumption and performance.

the question is how to take advantage of the best parts, that can be salvaged and quite cost effective?

the next question is if there is any noticeable improvement of the engine by the change to Motronic EMS from the LH? except from the emissions aspect, would there be any improvement to driveability? As I know of, there is more information about doing an eprom dump and cracking the fuel and ignitions maps for the Motronic, than the LH, which could be useful for any tuning work that relates to these engines.

despite my little experience with the M119, I hope someone would take their time to try and help fill up this thread with good information.

cheers

Truls

 

[gerryvz]

Sounds like an excellent Wiki topic .. a table to distinguish the differences between the 96X, 97X and 98X variants of the M119.

Dave -- ?!?

 

[gsxr]

The .97x intake manifolds have provision for EGR, and for 3-4 temp sensors. The .98x does not have EGR and only has provision for 1 or 2 temp sensors.

MB published some specs for the cam duration, but not lift, however the late .97x cams should be identical to the .98x cams (same part numbers, duration, lift). Crankshaft changed design in mid-.97x production, don't think early & late are interchangeable, but the late .97x may be the same as the .98x?

I'm not sure if there is any major improvement with the ME injection vs LH, and you'll notice the power ratings between the two are nearly identical. I don't think ME offers any WOT enrichment, it stays in closed loop at WOT. The ME systems have four O2 sensors ($$$) compared to the LH's single O2 sensor. There would be more tuning available on ME since you could modify ignition timing, but the ME systems also have non-replaceable chips, and DAS security coding that makes them annoying and expensive to work on. With the LH you can burn your own EPROM and swap chips for displacement changes, etc. Can't do that with ME.

FYI, there were major changes as of 1993, compared to the 1992 motors - details are here:
http://www.w124performance.com/docs/mb/M119/M119_1993_updates.pdf

 

[truls221]

The .97x intake manifolds have provision for EGR, and for 3-4 temp sensors. The .98x does not have EGR and only has provision for 1 or 2 temp sensors.

MB published some specs for the cam duration, but not lift, however the late .97x cams should be identical to the .98x cams (same part numbers, duration, lift). Crankshaft changed design in mid-.97x production, don't think early & late are interchangeable, but the late .97x may be the same as the .98x?

I'm not sure if there is any major improvement with the ME injection vs LH, and you'll notice the power ratings between the two are nearly identical. I don't think ME offers any WOT enrichment, it stays in closed loop at WOT. The ME systems have four O2 sensors ($$$) compared to the LH's single O2 sensor. There would be more tuning available on ME since you could modify ignition timing, but the ME systems also have non-replaceable chips, and DAS security coding that makes them annoying and expensive to work on. With the LH you can burn your own EPROM and swap chips for displacement changes, etc. Can't do that with ME.

FYI, there were major changes as of 1993, compared to the 1992 motors - details are here:
http://www.w124performance.com/docs/mb/M119/M119_1993_updates.pdf

Thanks for the answer and information. I saw the document. But I was still curious to see the lift curves for the different cam profiles. Are the valves 39/35 mm? on the M119.975? What is the inlet valve diameter on the .974?

cheers

Truls

 

[gsxr]

According to the FSM (click here), the intake valves are 38mm, exhaust valves are 33mm, on all 5.0L engines through 1995.

For all 4.2L engines and 5.0L from 1996-up, they are 35mm intake, 33mm exhaust.

I find it strange that the late 5.0's had smaller valves, this could be an error in the FSM... would need to cross-reference the part numbers in the EPC. There is not much info on profiles & duration, but you can view the FSM camshaft specs here.

 

[Jim]

.....There is not much info on profiles & duration, but you can view the FSM camshaft specs here.

Thank-you for the link...I have been reading about Lobe Separation Angle and the effect it has on an engine. Is the LSA known for M119's?

 

[truls221]

Thank-you for the link...I have been reading about Lobe Separation Angle and the effect it has on an engine. Is the LSA known for M119's?

Since you have the open and closing timing angles you know the lobe separation as well.

the lobe separation for the .974 then becomes 114 deg cam angle

thats a fairly good number for an engine which has emissions in focus. I don't know if this is the late position of the inlet though, allthough it seems like it.

I always look at MOP timing relative firing top dead center. and for inlet its 485 and for exhaust its 257 deg CA

would like to know the profiles though. Is the lift around 9 mm? A colleague of mine has a rig to digitally measure both lift and duration. I will use it as soon as I get my hands on a spare engine

 

[Jim]

Since you have the open and closing timing angles you know the lobe separation as well.

the lobe separation for the .974 then becomes 114 deg cam angle

thats a fairly good number for an engine which has emissions in focus. I don't know if this is the late position of the inlet though, allthough it seems like it.

I had another go with the 119.974 (5 litre) valve timing figures, inlet retarded.

Inlet MOP = 185/2 + 33 = 125.5 deg
Exhaust = 179/2+ 170 = 259.5 deg
Lobe Separation Angle = 134 deg.

The 20 deg inlet advance between 1500 and 4700rpm to reduce fresh charge loss would give the 114 deg figure. mentioned. Just thinking that through..advance means happening earlier in the crankshaft rotation so the 33 figure becomes 53...and 259.5 - 145.5 = 114.

Have I got that right?

 

[truls221]

I had another go with the 119.974 (5 litre) valve timing figures, inlet retarded.

Inlet MOP = 185/2 + 33 = 125.5 deg
Exhaust = 179/2+ 170 = 259.5 deg
Lobe Separation Angle = 134 deg.

The 20 deg inlet advance between 1500 and 4700rpm to reduce fresh charge loss would give the 114 deg figure. mentioned. Just thinking that through..advance means happening earlier in the crankshaft rotation so the 33 figure becomes 53...and 259.5 - 145.5 = 114.

Have I got that right?

looking again in the FSM document it says it is for an inlet retarded.

for the early and late .974 i become 114 deg cam angle lobe separation for both.

to calculate this you half the duration. then for the exhaust, if it closes before TDC you add the closing position to half the duration and you got the mop.
for inlet you half the duration, and if it opens after TDC you add the opening position to half the duration and you get the mop.

then if you add these two numbers, and divide by 2 you got lobe separation angle in cam angle.

we assume that the cams are symmetrical.

 

[gsxr]

Lift is roughly 9.0-9.5mm intake, 8.5-9.0mm exhaust, for the 5.0L engines, depending on the model year. The 4.2L has a bit less lift, the 6.0L a bit more.

The cam advance mechanism works on the intake cam only. It's 20° advance for the .96x only, for .97x/.98x engines it advances 25° (crank angle). The advance is only active between approx 2000-4000rpm under certain load conditions.

 

[Christian_K]

I don't know, but the more i read about it, i believe the M119 might have been artificially throttled in the latest versions.
I mean, reduced valve-lift, reduced valve diameter an so forth on the later models. Most-likely to counter performance-gainers like increased compression-ratio, lighter pistons, lighter hydraulic-lifters, Bosch ME injection.

 

[gerryvz]

Changes implemented could well have been to meet tightening (and anticipated) emissions standards. Remember that the M113 went to a 3-valve design partially for emissions reasons.

 

[Christian_K]

Changes implemented could well have been to meet tightening (and anticipated) emissions standards. Remember that the M113 went to a 3-valve design partially for emissions reasons.

Possible... But here in germany the M119s never got any better in their emission rating through the entire series.
I assume, the 5L M119 without (my speculation) "artificial throttling", could be easy having 350HP (DIN) instead of 320HP (DIN) like it was rated. But then it would have been only ~44HP difference to the 6.0L Flagship the M120 - Daimlers super-marketed first 12 Cylinder after the 2. Worldwar. Cars with 6L V12 costed much much more money than the 5L M119 variants, no matter if in the W140 or R129 models. So there had to be a rather big difference in HP from the 5L to the 6L versions to justify the at this time "insane" price for a 6L MB.
Just speculation though

 

[gerryvz]

Yes, it's true that MB didn't want to maintain some exclusivity in the power levels of the M120, keeping it well enough ahead of the M119 to warrant the extra cost. I wonder how many M120 owners realized they really were driving two M104s joined at a single crankshaft

 

[Jim]

I find it strange that the late 5.0's had smaller valves, this could be an error in the FSM... would need to cross-reference the part numbers in the EPC.

Dave,

Thanks for this earlier post and the links...Is this an error in the FSM?

Jim

 

[gsxr]

Dave,

Thanks for this earlier post and the links...Is this an error in the FSM?

No, I think it is correct, apparently MB made the change as a cost-reduction effort on the later 5.0 motors.

 

[samiam44]

Remember that the M113 went to a 3-valve design partially for emissions reasons. I read on the M113 when it was released. MB was proud that it cost 1/2 is much to make as a M119. That was the 3-valve reasoning- cost savings.

 

[126v8]

So what's the difference in the 119 engine fitted to the E50 AMG that it cannot be transplanted in an 036?

 

[gerryvz]

Completely different engine management / fuel injection system. The E50 AMG used the M119.985 ... it doesn't use Bosch LH system that our .97X engines use on the .034 and .036. Thus, majorly different physical wiring and plumbing, computers and electronics, etc.

Probably possible to do a transplant, but not easy and I can't recall it ever being done. Certainly the 119.98X will physically bolt-in to an E500E chassis, but that's the easy part of a potential transplant.

And ... what's the benefit in terms of power/torque generation over the .97X that we have ?!? 352 PS vs. the ~330 PS that we currently have.

The ROI is absolutely not there for said transplant.

Cheers,
Gerry

 

[Taxi Driver]

Completely different engine management / fuel injection system. The E50 AMG used the M119.985 ... it doesn't use Bosch LH system that our .97X engines use on the .034 and .036. Thus, majorly different physical wiring and plumbing, computers and electronics, etc.

Probably possible to do a transplant, but not easy and I can't recall it ever being done. Certainly the 119.98X will physically bolt-in to an E500E chassis, but that's the easy part of a potential transplant.

And ... what's the benefit in terms of power/torque generation over the .97X that we have ?!? 352 PS vs. the ~330 PS that we currently have.

The ROI is absolutely not there for said transplant.

Cheers,
Gerry

Objection; Your Honcho! I'd say, ROI, who care's if you have to, for some reason put in a new motor and get hold of an E50 good and sound?

As you say, physically it fit, convert to LH from your 4.2/5.0 and gain~30hp. The problem is finding a donor or the E50 motor.
I hope to report spring 2015 how my conversion turns out to be. Cheers and have a Merry......

PS, I know what you did "last summer" hope to see You again Roger

 

[gerryvz]

Perhaps someone could install one of those pending "5thscaleracer" exhaust systems on their 119.974 and extract the same amount of horsepower that an E50 .98X engine could provide. Boom! No rewiring or engine removal/installation necessary!

 

[Taxi Driver]

Perhaps someone could install one of those pending "5thscaleracer" exhaust systems on their 119.974 and extract the same amount of horsepower that an E50 .98X engine could provide. Boom! No rewiring or engine removal/installation necessary!

Yeah, right but do'nt forget the E50; cams, intake porting, 11-1 C R. Kick some EXH. and Chip into that equation and expect........? only if you want to.

Let's see if someone ever will do this but it could be done, and it also allows you to keep all systems intact, it's a challenge though. Roger

 

[126v8]

Oh the dreaded ME again.E50s are relatively cheap in Japan