|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|07-24-2019 08:16 AM|
|mahunt||The two engines differ in their exhaust systems and by the weight of the resonator.|
|07-24-2019 07:09 AM|
|Ears||6 inches forward and 6 inches back gets you no where, no matter how much you enjoy the ride...|
|07-24-2019 03:51 AM|
Allegedly Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Allegedly the Apollo moon landings were faked.
Originally Posted by robm.UK View Post
If you look at the torque/power curves of the two engines, it is is intuitive that the M113 engine is quicker to sixty. The attachment was posted by a 129 forum member from Britain who goes by "stats007". It has obvious inaccuracies, but it does illustrate the nature of the power/torque advantage of the M113 at lower RPMs.
And as I wrote, driving the two engines back-to-back it is obvious. There's no need to dig through the literature or speculate. If someone is shopping in north Georgia for a 129, a friend would likely arrange a comparison between a '99 SL500 against a pair of '98 SL500s. Or bring an M113 car to my home and go against your pick of two '91 500SLs.
Also repeating what I wrote in a prior post for emphasis, the M113 performance edge may translate into only a few tenths of a second accelerating to sixty, but at low speeds the throttle response feels livelier, and for me, the car is more enjoyable to drive.
|07-24-2019 01:37 AM|
Allegedly MB massaged the M113 performance figures so that they would be more favourable than the outgoing M119, and of course the latter was downgraded to make the 600SL performance appear to be comparatively better. So in practice I doubt there would be much in it in terms of 0-60 performance between the M113 and M119, other than the possibility that the M119 might indeed be quicker.
Fathertime, we are counting on you to solve this dilemma by taking a M113 and M119 head to head on a timed drag strip.
I believe there are more possibilities to extract more performance from the M119 Cis-e engines over the M113.
So, we know that fuel trim is set to roughly 14:1, which is a trade off between max fuel economy at 14.5:1 and max torque at roughly 12.5:1 air fuel ratio.
On the M119 Cis-e engine, if you strive to run at max torque fuelling by adjusting the Lambda adjustment screw, your efforts will be thwarted because the closed feedback loop won’t let you reap the potential performance benefits. The electro hydraulic actuator (EHA) on the side of the fuel distributor will back off the fuel within its predefined operating window determined by the fuel map in the KE control module N3.
The N3 module does this with input from the O2 sensor (and other sensors) and alters the magnitude and direction of the current to the EHA in order to electronically adjust the fuel trim. A positive current enriches, and a negative leans, depending on the baseline setting basically.
So, if one were to splice a rectifier diode in one of the two wires to the EHA, the diode would only permit current to flow in one direction. So if you oriented the diode so that the EHA only receives inputs on the enriching side of the baseline mixture setting, presumably the EHA would not be able to lean off the fuel beyond the baseline setting. Therefore you potentially could set the baseline lambda to a predefined setting where maximum torque would be now achievable.
Although the EHA would still be able to lean off the fuel back to the limit of the baseline mixture setting, the downside is that the full fuel cut off on deceleration feature on over-run would be defeated. The only control on fuel trim at this point would be mechanical by the air flow sensor. So under engine breaking at high revs (I.e. downhill, high speed, low gear) this could lead to excess unburnt fuel being dumped into the exhaust. Furthermore, if you set the baseline adjustment screw too rich, the EHA would not be able to compensate suffiently to prevent excess unburnt fuel entering the exhaust system. So you would need to consider the risks and the effect of this on your CATs.
This is only an idea, and is offered for others to consider the pros and cons for track use where the CATs have been removed and the engine can be properly set up.
Of course an excess of fuelling would elicit a signal from the engine knock sensors and the ECU would retard the timing.
Crazy idea? Maybe. I let you decide.
I thought I’d share this. The idea is not even fully developed by a long chalk, so if you choose to experiment with this idea, you do so at your own risk.
|07-23-2019 06:39 AM|
Published 0-to-60 times often differ due to factors which vary from test to test. A set of conditions which might elicit a time of 5.9 seconds for a 1991 500SL perhaps might give a time of 5.7 seconds for a 2000 SL500.
At lower RPMs an M113 car has more horsepower. This may translate into only a few tenths of a second accelerating to sixty, but at low speeds the throttle response feels livelier, and for me, the car is more enjoyable to drive. Driven back-to-back against an M119 car, the difference is obvious.
|07-23-2019 02:44 AM|
Originally Posted by bobterry99 View Post
A road test magazine testing the V8 6.0SL alleged that MB ‘massaged’ the official figures of the 500SL so that it did not sit too close to the 600SL. I believe (but would have to check) that the official figure for the latter was 5.9 seconds.
|07-22-2019 06:51 PM|
Originally Posted by wlb50 View Post
So unless an engine is driving the rear wheels through a continuously-variable transmission, you have to consider its horsepower output over a range of RPMs. Below 3000 RPMs the M113 makes significantly more horsepower than the M119, and according to Mercedes it accelerates an SL500 from rest to sixty in 6.1 seconds vs. 6.4 seconds for the 315-HP M119.
|07-22-2019 05:02 PM|
Originally Posted by bobterry99 View Post
Tech said that the "pressure was down" and it "could last a year; could last a week". I think the clutch packs were worn.
Then learned for MY1996 the controller for this transmission was different (first of the electronic transmissions) and that had to also be replaced.
I think the best advice would be "buy the one in the best condition".
I have an E430 and think both of these engines are pretty amazing. Both use negligible oil - the E430 at 100K and the SL at (now) 197K. The post OBD II cars, because of a revised FI system and ignition, get noticeably better mileage.
I don't know which would win a drag race; the M113 has a minuscule amt of hp less than the M119 (302 vs 315).
This is subjective but I have noticed when on the freeway and I tap the accelerator the SL with the M119 seems to downshift more readily and really want to run - I have learned the cruise control is your friend - the E Class despite having 700 cc less displacement and a good 400-500 lbs less weight gets a minuscule amt of mileage less in the city (19 mpg vs 20 mpg) a bit more more on the highway. (27 mpg vs 25 mpg)
All this talk about a Mercedes being less under the Chrysler era is silly IMO. The reason that the merger failed is that Daimler wouldn't let Chrysler technology into the Mercedes fold.
|07-22-2019 11:49 AM|
Thank you all for your replies,
I ended buying the 1997 in Crimson Red and Drove about 1200 Miles already.
I had to do the safety inspection and no flaws were found, the mechanics were very impressed. Only the tires are a little hard being five years old.
Yesterday did the recommended Oil Change at Valvoline, Valvoline 5W30 Adv Full Synthetic MST, it was a little hurtful seeing the inexperienced youngsters taking apart the engine cover checking the air filters without taking the whole air box out first but its all good , only light "trauma".
|06-19-2019 08:29 PM|
Originally Posted by FATHERTIME View Post
I agree with this statement. That said, if the seller is ok with the price and the buyer is ok with the price, so be it. At this point in time, market is soft. Deals are everywhere if you look hard enough. I got my 98 with 118k for $5500 with documented MB service history through 95k miles. I have another $3000 into it rebuilding the entire suspension and steering system (minus pump and box), engine and trans mounts, flex discs, standard tune up and fluid changes, random cosmetic odds and ends, etc.. If I were to list it locally, I could not get more than $6k for it. Just the reality of the market. Personally, I plan on keeping this car for the long haul and hoping that once all the inexpensive (chose that word wisely) ones are gone over the next years, I will see a return on my investment based on supply and demand. Key is documentation, upkeep, and luck of the market. Any car or bike guy will tell you that unless you invest in uber rare classics, it’s never about money and profit but rather love of the ride. Some day I may break even but at the same time, I may not. My “loss” is made up with every mile that I drive the car, maybe like the other dude.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|