-
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
Question- why Limited Springs are different?
- Thread starter 036
- Start date
The Ltd spring has a smaller wire diameter (14.15mm vs 14.25mm) and is about 0.1 coil rounds shorter:
http://www.w124performance.com/docs/mb/W124/124_coil_spring_specs.pdf
Edit:
Please notice that Dave compared a new Ltd. spring with used, already sunken in normal springs!
Also part number 1243243704 has the same wire diameter than the Ltd. spring, but the same number of coil rounds than the A1243243004.
I would like to know why they made both the A1243243704 and A1243243004?
http://www.w124performance.com/docs/mb/W124/124_coil_spring_specs.pdf
Edit:
Please notice that Dave compared a new Ltd. spring with used, already sunken in normal springs!
Also part number 1243243704 has the same wire diameter than the Ltd. spring, but the same number of coil rounds than the A1243243004.
I would like to know why they made both the A1243243704 and A1243243004?
As mentioned above, the rear Limited spring is very slightly softer and shorter, likely to reduce ride height and improve appearance. The stock ride height on the 036 was too tall in the rear from the factory IMO. This likely was more obvious with 17" wheels and the spring tweak helped fix this.
Used spring free length rarely measure much different than new springs, btw. There is already substantial variation between new springs. And contrary to popular belief, springs rarely "wear out" or "sag". You'll see more change in ride height up front with new struts, and zero with new springs (unless the spring bottom coil is broken).
Wheels are unsprung weight and have no effect on spring rate/selection.
No idea where the #37 springs came from or why they were used, and they don't exist in any MB systems. If I didn't have a pair in my hands to see for myself, I wouldn't believe they existed at all. I suspect they may have been installed on late-production facelift cars but really don't know for sure.
Used spring free length rarely measure much different than new springs, btw. There is already substantial variation between new springs. And contrary to popular belief, springs rarely "wear out" or "sag". You'll see more change in ride height up front with new struts, and zero with new springs (unless the spring bottom coil is broken).
Wheels are unsprung weight and have no effect on spring rate/selection.
No idea where the #37 springs came from or why they were used, and they don't exist in any MB systems. If I didn't have a pair in my hands to see for myself, I wouldn't believe they existed at all. I suspect they may have been installed on late-production facelift cars but really don't know for sure.
If it was only about ride height: Why did not MB use a thinner spring pad instead of making an extra spring?
Or were there any non Ltd. E500s delivered with the thinnest pads from factory?
Regarding sagging springs: I think it has sth. to do with the used metall too. New springs often use cheaper metall
I just had new front springs installed on my wagon (with the old springs still from 1993). Used the same springs with same stripe color, no visible change at all...
Or were there any non Ltd. E500s delivered with the thinnest pads from factory?
Regarding sagging springs: I think it has sth. to do with the used metall too. New springs often use cheaper metall
I just had new front springs installed on my wagon (with the old springs still from 1993). Used the same springs with same stripe color, no visible change at all...
It might have put the target height at the end of the adjustable range, i.e. in some cases the thinnest pad may not have lowered the rear to where MB wanted it, with standard springs. If so, a shorter/softer spring would be required, hence the #38 were created.
Yep. Quite a few people have reported the same thing, just confirming my theory that (1990's vintage) MB coil springs almost never "sag".
But when replacing old, worn-out front struts... new ones can lift the front end 10-15mm. But after a few years, the front end drops again as the strut gas pressure is reduced.
Yep. Quite a few people have reported the same thing, just confirming my theory that MB coil springs almost never "sag".
My 220SEb must have been an exception.
I say that as my W111 had front springs that were original and intact, but easily 3cm - 5cm "shorter" under load than the new ones from the factory. The left front was so weak that someone had put those awful J.C. Whitney spring spacers that look like giant aluminum screws with a 1/2" drive socket in them. They're still in one of my drawers, I don't know why.
Dan
One viewpoint to the height of rear end.
The thickness of rear rubber pads are 8mm (A201 325 09 44), 13mm (A201 325 10 44, typical in .36) and 18mm (A210 325 11 44). Due to the geometry of suspension the change in pad thickness roughly doubles the change of height of the car. So with these pads you can tune the height either -10mm or +10mm from normal. Which may have been too big steps or too less for pedantic engineers. It might have been cheaper to create new spring than new pad with molds. And with new spring you can also tune other characteristics.
The thickness of rear rubber pads are 8mm (A201 325 09 44), 13mm (A201 325 10 44, typical in .36) and 18mm (A210 325 11 44). Due to the geometry of suspension the change in pad thickness roughly doubles the change of height of the car. So with these pads you can tune the height either -10mm or +10mm from normal. Which may have been too big steps or too less for pedantic engineers. It might have been cheaper to create new spring than new pad with molds. And with new spring you can also tune other characteristics.
Last edited:
I guess that the Ltd spring lowers the rear about 5-10mm.
And it looks like some E500s actually came with the thinnest spring pads on the rear axle from factory.
Now that is when the shorter spring makes 100% sense to me!
And it looks like some E500s actually came with the thinnest spring pads on the rear axle from factory.
Now that is when the shorter spring makes 100% sense to me!
Last edited:
