-
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
So let's say I wanted to make a 500R
- Thread starter Pos
- Start date
I still say rear mount is the way to go...more power returned per PSI dumped in.
We'll be doing a .6 conversion on a 107...once I become familar with the software etc I would Very much like to do an 036. I would do the track rat but it's looking like that will become a Lemons car in short order..and that's a pricey mod..;-)
I will say, adding a quaife was the BEST bang for the buck in modifying this car... she also responded well to more spring and austin's camber plates but that's a different story. Ditching SLS and fan clutch helps claw back some HP as well..
jono
We'll be doing a .6 conversion on a 107...once I become familar with the software etc I would Very much like to do an 036. I would do the track rat but it's looking like that will become a Lemons car in short order..and that's a pricey mod..;-)
I will say, adding a quaife was the BEST bang for the buck in modifying this car... she also responded well to more spring and austin's camber plates but that's a different story. Ditching SLS and fan clutch helps claw back some HP as well..
jono
The ROI and ease of installation is most promising with remote mounts, but routing the tube up front with adequate ground clearance may be a challenge, even with an oval tube. Also, this would likely require moving to standalone ECU (ditching LH, and also losing ABS, ASR, and cruise control). All acceptable for track-only, but not an option for a street car, for me anyway.
For track use only, that's an option. The factory Sachs/Horton disengages over 3500rpm anyway, and shouldn't re-engage until below 3000. On the track, with the revs kept up, the clutch would be disengaged most of the time. Don't expect much, if any, real-world power gains here.
SLS = Self Leveling System. Minor weight loss from removing the hydrualics, minor power gain from switching to standard (non-tandem) PS pump. Again, this is a track-only mod.
I think LH can handle 7 lbs...I wonder what can be done fuel wise w/ different/adjustable pressure regs...
I will say, the engine will pick up w/ just a touch more alacrity w/ the fan clutch ditched.
I remember reading that on the 190 16V's the SLS pump would suck over 5HP under Load.
Oh, I'll also say urethane filled engine mounts and a filled trans mount makes the car Snapier under foot...it's nice off the line
jono
I will say, the engine will pick up w/ just a touch more alacrity w/ the fan clutch ditched.
I remember reading that on the 190 16V's the SLS pump would suck over 5HP under Load.
Oh, I'll also say urethane filled engine mounts and a filled trans mount makes the car Snapier under foot...it's nice off the line
jono
SLS = Self Leveling System. Minor weight loss from removing the hydrualics, minor power gain from switching to standard (non-tandem) PS pump. Again, this is a track-only mod.
Oh yeah, I knew that!
You forgot one more benefit: SLS deletion equals fewer headaches. In that light, it sounds like a worthwhile mod.
Regards,
Eric
LOL! But still too many for me though!
I've got to be honest with you, I'm enjoying the hell out of this new to me 92 300E. I've always been impressed with what a sweet all around car my 89 300E is, imagine what a revelation this new one that has over 100,000 fewer miles is to me!
Regards,
Eric
I've got to be honest with you, I'm enjoying the hell out of this new to me 92 300E. I've always been impressed with what a sweet all around car my 89 300E is, imagine what a revelation this new one that has over 100,000 fewer miles is to me!
Regards,
Eric
Last edited:
This I can't understand. As an ex-owner of an 86 and 90 300E, I have direct experience with them, along with the 400E/E420. The 034 has better than 50% more power and gets BETTER fuel economy than the 300E! And, you don't need to pull the cylinder head off for a rebuild every ~200kmi to cure an oil drinking problem on the M119. And the 034's air conditioning works better. And there's no pesky manual belt tensioner on the 93-up M119. Etc, etc. Yet you are "impressed" with the 300E.
What color is the sky in your world, Eric? Just curious...
This I can't understand. As an ex-owner of an 86 and 90 300E, I have direct experience with them, along with the 400E/E420. The 034 has better than 50% more power and gets BETTER fuel economy than the 300E! And, you don't need to pull the cylinder head off for a rebuild every ~200kmi to cure an oil drinking problem on the M119. And the 034's air conditioning works better. And there's no pesky manual belt tensioner on the 93-up M119. Etc, etc. Yet you are "impressed" with the 300E.
What color is the sky in your world, Eric? Just curious...
+100
How about someone doing a 400R ??
And the M104 has 217 HP (compared to the US M103 177 HP), gets better mileage than the 103 engined cars, and doesn't have the valve guide/seal issues. Still has the head gasket & front timing cover issues though. Only drawback to the 104 IMHO, excepting the wiring harness and ETA wiring....This I can't understand. As an ex-owner of an 86 and 90 300E, I have direct experience with them, along with the 400E/E420. The 034 has better than 50% more power and gets BETTER fuel economy than the 300E! And, you don't need to pull the cylinder head off for a rebuild every ~200kmi to cure an oil drinking problem on the M119. And the 034's air conditioning works better. And there's no pesky manual belt tensioner on the 93-up M119. Etc, etc. Yet you are "impressed" with the 300E.
What color is the sky in your world, Eric? Just curious...
Cheers,
Gerry
Wiring harness & ETA are typically one-time fixes, and both are relatively easy/inexpensive to replace if you are patient and watch the forums+eBay for late-datecode versions. I don't even consider this an issue at all. The M103 just has very few, if any, redeeming features. It was a very nice motor for the 1970's (when it was probably designed).
Wiring harness & ETA are typically one-time fixes, and both are relatively easy/inexpensive to replace if you are patient and watch the forums+eBay for late-datecode versions. I don't even consider this an issue at all. The M103 just has very few, if any, redeeming features. It was a very nice motor for the 1970's (when it was probably designed).
Sheesh Dave...it's not a bad motor overall. It's smooth and runs great, despite the CIS injection. I personally think it sounds better then the M104 and it looks better, IMO. It was designed in the 80's btw, it replaced the M110 from the 70s.
But I agree, given the choice of M103 or M104 in a 124, the M104 is a better choice.
This would definitely be more of a sleeper. Narrow body with a discreet body kit. Drop in a 5.0 or 6.x liter and it would be quite a little beast. Or maybe do a rear mount turbo on the 4.2 liter...then drop a 5.0 liter in
I owned a few different M103 cars. Overall I was just never impressed. And I'm not a fan of CIS. Weak low-end torque, need to rev it to find power, not easy to work on, PITA fiddling with idle mixture and EHA adjustments, plus the head problems - ugh. I'm not sure about the sound, I never paid that much attention.
It's a relative of the M102 which first hit USA in late 1983 (in the 1984 model year 190E). I'm assuming it showed up in Europe in 1983 if not a year sooner. So it was either designed in the VERY early 80's, or the late 1970s. I bet it first hit the drawing board (literally, as this was pre-computer age) in the late 70's. Would be interesting to know the timing.
Heck yeah!! The M104 ain't bad at all. Decent power, HFM EFI, digital diagnostics... I like the M104.
Bondavi has one of these (400E with RENNtech 6.0) but the AMG body kit kinda defeats the sleeper /Q-ship thing a little. Jono has one too, minus the external giveaways. I know of a third but the owner hasn't been active on the forums in many, many moons.This would definitely be more of a sleeper. Narrow body with a discreet body kit. Drop in a 5.0 or 6.x liter and it would be quite a little beast. Or maybe do a rear mount turbo on the 4.2 liter...then drop a 5.0 liter in
I drove a 400E with a renntech 6.0 and that car was an absolute beast. This was months before I bought my 500E and it was another couple years until I installed my nitrous kit, so it's hard to compare the two. It was probably more in line with the whole "R" concept than any 500E would be. That car just felt more "bare bones" and raw than the 036. With the same motor, the 036 could potentially be faster around a track, but I don't think it would have that same spirit. The 500E was just meant to feel, refined.
I don't mind the M103 at all. My wife's first wagon (a 1992) had one and it was great, never had major issues with it other than replacing the head gasket once. Yes the M103 was designed in the late 1970s and very early 1980s, and appeared in the 1980s. So what. The M104 was designed during the latter half of the 1980s and first appeared around 1990.
CIS-E isn't that big of a deal to work on. It's very reliable and while comparatively low-tech compared to the M104's Motronic, it's certainly fine with me. I'd own another M103 car, no problem.
CIS-E isn't that big of a deal to work on. It's very reliable and while comparatively low-tech compared to the M104's Motronic, it's certainly fine with me. I'd own another M103 car, no problem.
Yeah, yeah I can just imagine something like that! That would be cool! Something that looks like a real turd but can still run dead even with a modded and tuned 500E. I saw something like that on YouTube! I'll try to find it.
Here it is!
[youtube]ublEoCJhPik[/youtube]
As for the M103 CIS vs. M104 HFM debate, two things:
1) Once you start looking at HFM cars, you'll find that you are now in the same price range as the 034s! I know this because that is EXACTLY how I ended up with my first 034! I was originally looking for a nice HFM car and found that "I could've had a V8" instead, so I did! The funny thing is, with the 034's tall 2.24 gearing, there's hardly any fuel economy penalty when stepping up to the big boy. So instead of comparing M103s to M104s, you should be comparing M104s to 034s. Who wins that one, Huh?
2) I'm sorry, the HFM cars just aren't as reliable as the CIS-E cars. There's always something going wrong with the HFM cars. My 88 and 89 both have more miles on them than the Sauceman's HFM car, yet his car has NEVER ran right. It's having issues right now as we speak! My two have been stellar. The 88's only issues have all been traced back to only two things: one bad electrical connection and a rusty fuel tank. Sauceman, please educate the people! I've already said it many times but I will say it again: Benzer1 and Benzer2 are THE MOST reliable cars I have ever owned! EVER! Their stellar reliability record with me is why I now have FIVE W124s! It all started with those two M103s! That is how much they impressed me!
Regards,
Eric
Last edited:
This I can't understand. As an ex-owner of an 86 and 90 300E, I have direct experience with them, along with the 400E/E420. The 034 has better than 50% more power and gets BETTER fuel economy than the 300E! And, you don't need to pull the cylinder head off for a rebuild every ~200kmi to cure an oil drinking problem on the M119. And the 034's air conditioning works better. And there's no pesky manual belt tensioner on the 93-up M119. Etc, etc. Yet you are "impressed" with the 300E.
What color is the sky in your world, Eric? Just curious...
It's like I've said before Dave, there is just something about a car that you don't have to work on all of the time. I know it seems strange but sometimes it's nice to be able to just get in, turn the key, and drive. Weird I know. What can I say. Call me crazy. My 400E, with 100,000 fewer miles, gives me far more trouble than my 88 and 89 combined! Yes, it sucks having 100 fewer horses, that's why I have and tolerate my two pain in the ass 034s. But sometimes I just get so desperately tired of working on them! Maybe I just have 034s that are more troublesome than average, I don't know.
In my own experience with fuel economy, I have been getting exactly THE SAME from Benzers 1 through 3! (20 to 21 in mixed driving with a very heavy foot.) Yes, that's a comparatively poor showing for the M103s but they don't cost me any repair monies so they win the cost per mile contest overall. With my new baby Benzer5's slightly taller 2.87 gears (vs. 3.07s), I'm hoping that the fuel economy will be at least a little bit better from this newer M103. We'll see. Maybe having 100,000 fewer miles will help it too.
There is also a balance in these M103 car's handling that my 034s just don't have. I can comfortably and confidently drive them right on the ragged edge of their adhesion without feeling any stress or breaking a sweat. Under similar conditions I always feel like my 034s are about to bite me in the ass. I can't explain it really, it's just that my 034s don't feel as "tossable".
The valve seal issues were completely resolved by the time my 92 M103 was built, and it also has first gear start! I just spanked a current generation Hemi Dodge truck with it the other day (Our first race!), so I know there is some spunk in this new guy too!
Regards,
Eric
Last edited:
Eric, it's not valve seals, it's valve GUIDES. Head must be rebuilt to fix that. You must be a lucky with your M103's as the tijts1 guy is on the Fruitbird forum with his Uro part success stories. I did have to work on my M103's, they never ran great, but they did usually run ok. Again, I've owned both, I'd never want to own an M103 again if I could avoid it. The only car I'd even consider would be a W124.2xx (4Matic) and only for the AWD, and only because we couldn't get 4Matic in a 124 in USA with any engine except the M103. I'd much rather have an OM603 4Matic, real shame those weren't imported.
Actually, with the M103 (and M117) it is both the valve guides and seals that wear out, generally at around the 150K-175K mileage mark, requiring removal of the cylinder head to press in new guides. This is also a bit past the time when the head gaskets generally fail, so it's often done all at the same time.
The M104 (and M119) eliminated this because of the geometry & mechanism of how the cam lobes actuate the valves. The cam follower (rocker) setup on the M103 and M117 introduced a slight degree of "side to side" motion when the followers hit the valve stems, and eventually this wear translated into enlargement of the brass valve guides, which enabled oil to leak past the seals and down the stems into the chambers, particularly when the car was at rest, or idling.
The M104 (and M119) changed this design, which eliminated this "side to side" sear on the valve stems/guides, in favor of a more "dead-on" motion, so the guides don't wear.
Valve stem seals are more-or-less inconsequential. They are a "wear" item and can be replaced in a couple of hours with the cylinder head(s) left on the car. This is a common "band-aid" approach to solve the problem of oil leakage into the combustion chamber, but at best new seals will only buy six months to a year, if that, before the problem re-emerges. Many people swear that new valve seals will permanently fix the problem, but I've seen PLENTY of 117s and 103s where the problem was just temporarily masked.
I wonder how many otherwise good 103s and 117s have been junked over the years because of this problem, and the fact that the owner didn't want to spend the $1,500 to pull the head on a 103 and have the top-end properly fixed (or $4-5K on a 117).
You do have to say, as far as the 104 and 119 are concerned, that MB moved to fix this problem. Too bad they didn't fix the head gasket and front cover oil leakage issues with the 104. They really should have.
Cheers,
Gerry
The M104 (and M119) eliminated this because of the geometry & mechanism of how the cam lobes actuate the valves. The cam follower (rocker) setup on the M103 and M117 introduced a slight degree of "side to side" motion when the followers hit the valve stems, and eventually this wear translated into enlargement of the brass valve guides, which enabled oil to leak past the seals and down the stems into the chambers, particularly when the car was at rest, or idling.
The M104 (and M119) changed this design, which eliminated this "side to side" sear on the valve stems/guides, in favor of a more "dead-on" motion, so the guides don't wear.
Valve stem seals are more-or-less inconsequential. They are a "wear" item and can be replaced in a couple of hours with the cylinder head(s) left on the car. This is a common "band-aid" approach to solve the problem of oil leakage into the combustion chamber, but at best new seals will only buy six months to a year, if that, before the problem re-emerges. Many people swear that new valve seals will permanently fix the problem, but I've seen PLENTY of 117s and 103s where the problem was just temporarily masked.
I wonder how many otherwise good 103s and 117s have been junked over the years because of this problem, and the fact that the owner didn't want to spend the $1,500 to pull the head on a 103 and have the top-end properly fixed (or $4-5K on a 117).
You do have to say, as far as the 104 and 119 are concerned, that MB moved to fix this problem. Too bad they didn't fix the head gasket and front cover oil leakage issues with the 104. They really should have.
Cheers,
Gerry
Gerry is correct. ^^^
The difference with seals vs guides is, you can replace the seals without pulling the head. For the guides, the head must come off, and the job is an order of magnitude more difficult (and more expensive). I did seals on my one M103 and it helped a little, but it needed guides. I just added oil (quart every 500-700 miles, IIRC) and drove it. Sold it to a friend who put ~70kmi on it before trading it in with ~290kmi!
The M104 (and M119) have far fewer (IMO), and slightly different, problems. M119 long blocks are amazingly robust and I bet the vast majority go to their grave with the heads never removed.
The difference with seals vs guides is, you can replace the seals without pulling the head. For the guides, the head must come off, and the job is an order of magnitude more difficult (and more expensive). I did seals on my one M103 and it helped a little, but it needed guides. I just added oil (quart every 500-700 miles, IIRC) and drove it. Sold it to a friend who put ~70kmi on it before trading it in with ~290kmi!
The M104 (and M119) have far fewer (IMO), and slightly different, problems. M119 long blocks are amazingly robust and I bet the vast majority go to their grave with the heads never removed.
I know that there was an issue with the seals as well on the pre-90 M103s. I remember reading that an improved seal for these came out in the early-90s production engines. (90-91ish)
Yes, I get that there is no side loading on the valve guides with direct acting buckets and that it would be nice if we had that feature on our M103s, like we did on it's predecessor, the M110, (Now THAT was an engine! Too bad it's engine management systems were even more archaic than the M103's.) And yes, the M104, and the M119 have direct acting buckets as well.
I too like a lot of the M104s features. Remember, I even tried to buy one for myself! But I can't justify spending roughly the same amount of money for an M104 powered car that an 034 would cost. And if we are talking wagons, which didn't come with M119s, well sorry, I take my wagons in the form of a Volvo.
I never said that Benzer1 doesn't use oil...... he does. I just live with it. I'm going to tell you all something pretty shocking, down right disgusting actually, so maybe those of you with weak stomachs should turn your heads for a moment........ When I change the oil in one of my other cars, I save the oil and use it as refill oil for Benzer1! He goes through so much oil so quickly that it doesn't stick around long enough to get dirty or old. It's constantly getting replaced!
Benzer2 doesn't use much oil because he got a head rebuild a few years before I bought him. B2 actually came with some history and receipts!
Hey, I'm not thrilled that the M103 is basically just a copy of the BMW M30, and that it's just a cheaper to build replacement for the M110, but like I say, this all started with a certain 89 300E that has just simply been the most reliable car I have ever owned. That means something to me.
As of tonight, you can add a Nissan Armada to Benzer5's now rapidly growing "kill" list.
Regards,
Eric
Last edited:
We did NOT vote NOT to talk about the M103 and M104 on this forum.This thread started so good on this topic "So let's say I wanted to make a 500R"
Now it is talk about the M103 and M104 - despite we recently voted to not have that on this forum?!?
I simply don't get it, sorry...
In fact, people voted (overwhelmingly) to have me post a thread about my M104 top-end rebuild, in the Off-Topic Discussions sub-forum.
What people voted on, was NOT to have an M104-specific sub-forum on this site.
I will oblige both of these wishes. But in no way was talk about the M103/M104 censored from this site by wishes of the membership.
It's all Eric's fault. Bad Eric! (LOL!)This thread started so good on this topic "So let's say I wanted to make a 500R"
Now it is talk about the M103 and M104 ... I simply don't get it, sorry...
Yup, good summary. Well, a 6.0L engine is technically a bolt-on, but it's a pretty expensive bolt-on...So, what I have gathered from this thread is it is pretty much impossible to upgrade the 500E with bolt ons, but an Edlebrock sticker might get you a 5 hp gain.
I've been coming back to read this post, and it's gone from 500R, to a group buy for a SC, to M103 vs M104 debate. Somewhere in there, I got my answer though. And to make a 500R worthy of the badge, bolt-ons were never acceptable.
And it even almost became an M104 vs 4.2 M119 debate!
Threads veer off topic sometimes after the main question has already been thoroughly discussed.
Sometimes the best stuff in a thread is the stuff posted AFTER it goes off topic. Like the time Uncle Gerry and I were debating about who is the hottest Victoria's Secret model. Now THAT was some worthwhile info! (I won that debate BTW.)
Regards,
Eric
Threads veer off topic sometimes after the main question has already been thoroughly discussed.
Sometimes the best stuff in a thread is the stuff posted AFTER it goes off topic. Like the time Uncle Gerry and I were debating about who is the hottest Victoria's Secret model. Now THAT was some worthwhile info! (I won that debate BTW.)
Regards,
Eric
Last edited:
No, I haven't bought a car and the exercise was just that - a way of helping me formulate thoughts as to what would make a 500R and the money necessary to do that. In my opinion, to be worthy of the 500R badge, you'd have to:
1) Either make engine 6.0 or supercharge it. Probably SC it.
2) Make it a manual transmission.
3) Get monster brakes from an aftermarket supplier. Preferably something lighter than stock.
4) Firm up the suspension.
5) Weight reduction - remove seats and replace with lighter ones with more of a racing feel to them (heavily bolstered but nicely upholstered); remove decklid/trunk and get replaced with carbon fiber ones. Anything else that can go that doesn't totally sacrifice the niceness of the drive. It'd still be quite heavy, I get it.
6) Sticky tires.
7) ASR switch.
Figure $10k on the car if you got a cheap one; $20k if a very good one (yet another debate - you'd do this to a good one???). Another $10k for the engine. Another $10k for the manual tranny. Another $5k-10k in incidentals. You could easily drop $30k after buying the car. You'd end up with a unique 500E, and it would be impossible to recoup those expenses if you sold it - it's now your car for life. Worth it? Only to the crazy. I'm 1/2 crazy, so I could go either way. It'd be a helluva lot easier to buy a cherry 500E for $20k-25k and keep it stock. That's the other 1/2 that's practical and intelligent.
Maybe start with a car like this then....
http://www.500eboard.com/forums/sho...500E-Black-Black-160kmi-8-795-(Chatsworth-CA)
This thread started so good on this topic "So let's say I wanted to make a 500R"
Now it is talk about the M103 and M104 - despite we recently voted to not have that on this forum?!?
I simply don't get it, sorry...
Yes that's correct. It was a bit incomplete wording from my side, but I'm sure people understood my opposition to the heavy off-topic in this thread. It is nice to be a bit separate on topics - one thing is the derailed topic, another thing is to find back to all the good, but hidden, off-topics around..
I did also vote for a thread on the M104 top-end rebuild, that will be great.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Similar threads
