[DrewPT]

On the parts diagram, it just has 14mm (2 nub) and 18mm (3 nub). Is the 4 nub no longer an option?

 

[DrewPT]

I've always thought the front wheel wells were pretty large in comparison to the rears, and of course I have the characteristic rear left side sagging (which I hope will be gone soon). I believe the four-nub pads up front are original--if they give the appearance of a "rock crawler", why were they originally included?

The rear spring pads don't appear to have any nubs. I'll have to shove a ruler up there while the SLS shocks are out and attempt to measure their thickness, and determine if there was an original factory proportion from front to back.

 

[DrewPT]

I went ahead and ordered the 2-nub, 13mm pads, plus new springs (Genuine). My reasoning is this: since the car looks a little too low in the back (and I've read some accounts of after SLS and suspension bushings being replaced it can still be the case) and too prominent around the front wheel wells, and I'm going to have new springs installed anyway, those should make the car sit even higher after 36 years/300,000+ miles. A half-inch lower spring pad up front I can't imagine would make it look or feel worse.

Otherwise, with new springs wouldn't it sit higher anyway (particularly if I ordered new 23mm/4 nub pads)?

 

[DrewPT]

I have four nubs in front. when I bought them I actually did not understand the system and got original MB rubber. It seemed like a good idea with my new original MB coil springs. Now my front gap is approaching "rock crawler" territory and we will be cutting the coil soon (I have been trying to do this for some time, but "life is what happens when you are busy making other plans"--John Lennon). Then we will see what nubs seem appropriate for me.

It sounds by your experience, my reasoning is sound.

 

[DrewPT]

My 560SEC [red daubed springs & the self leveling rams at the rear] has 4 nubs at the front .. Apparently.. I haven't made note of the rear spacers on that car..
View attachment 2814241

My Euro 500 without SLS has retained its original spring spacers from new.
View attachment 2814242 View attachment 2814243

I couldn't find any nubs on my rear spring pads--unless it was indeed one that I mistook as molding flash. If both the SLS and non-SLS cars have one nub on the rear, but 4/2 respectively up front, I wonder if the rear SLS system led the engineers to decide the front needed an extra half-inch height?

 

[DrewPT]

Yes, I think so. Many members have experience what I have, which is that ordering the correct spring has resulted in an increased gap in the front wheels requiring cutting. My best guess confirmed by several helpful members is that taking half a coil will bring it to near where I want it, and if I then have to, I can fine tune with a new lower nub spring pad.

I hope the new spring will eliminate the rickety creeking over speed bumps.

Any idea if the standard front shock bump stop (sometimes called three-nub but I'm going to refer to it as three-sectioned as to not confuse it with the spring pads) will still work without having to be cut? Each of the three sections are well over an inch/inch and-a-half in height apiece, and a 10mm shorter pad is less than a half inch. I'm sure my original bump stop is half gone anyway.

I've seen it recommended to cut off a section if the car is to be lowered. That may "technically" be the case here with the pad, but the new spring may even raise it to equal or higher.

 

[DrewPT]

Does it make sense that, since the ride height with the SLS system can be adjusted with the hydraulics, there would be no need for different thickness spring pads?

I thought the higher/more compensatory the SLS adjustment, the more pressure it puts on the system and earlier deterioration. I could be wrong.

 

[DrewPT]

So, if it's not pads and not adjustment, what is it?

Maybe they gave a range of pad options with these factors in mind--a "window" or range of adjustment. I guess the issue is why the SLS models by default came with 4-nub front and 1-nub rear, and the non-SLS a 2-nub front and 1-nub rear.

The fact they offer a 14mm thick 2-nub rear (only 4.5mm thicker than 1-nub at 9.5) I wonder, could be in anticipation of any SLS ride height oddities or suspension bushing issues, I suppose--or, since they would expect the owner would have the vehicles expertly maintained, maybe not. 4.5mm is almost unseen lengthwise on a car, so I really wonder.

 

[DrewPT]

You are absolutely right. A Mercedes mechanic advised me not to over-compensate the SLS adjustment as it could lead to premature wear.

I do not like my car's stance as it is raked forward. I like it level. The spring pads are 3-nub in the rear and 2-nub in front. I will have to replace the front to 3-nub to level the car.

I didn't know there were rear 3-nub pads--unless you can use ones intended for the front on the rear.

So, if the SLS system is sagging, at least it's not over-stressed at that point in time (although it could be evidence of a past an SLS problem, aside from spring/pad wear, diff/subframe bushings)?

In my case, all parts are getting replaced, so maybe the thicker 14mm pad is a good insurance option for not only SLS stress protection-- but visually, particularly with new springs front and back?

 

[DrewPT]

Thanks, with my situation, maybe this extra 9.5mm, while seemingly negligible, would be a good addition to the new springs. How long before the springs start to settle down and compress to a more permanent position?

 

[DrewPT]

You'll have to install the new springs and pads and drive around for a month or so. Then you'll know how the car will settle and see if you like the stance.

Take photos of the car on a level ground. You'll know if you need to switch the pads or if you can get away with adjusting the SLS without over-compensating it.

If the car still tilts down toward the rear left, even after the differential and subframe mount replacements, I wonder if it's safe to have a higher pad on the rear left, and a shorter one on the rear right?

 

[DrewPT]

Another thing, is my '87 is from the anti-squat trailing arm series '86-'87. Perhaps that's another variable?

 

[DrewPT]

my 500sel had 2front 3 rear nubs stock and when i put the HR springs in i bought new ones to refresh.
My sec had 1/2 i and bought same for replacement with HR. The front of that car did not lower as much as i expected, so we cut 1/3 of a coil... each car is different with out any reasonable rhyme or reason it seems

Did you find 1/3rd coil cut to be a satisfactory solution? And, any perceptible difference in feel? The HR springs would be firmer anyway.

 

[DrewPT]

Hey Drew,

You might look back at vdub's threads /posts on this for some perspective germane to your Gen 2 situation.
One of his suspension mod adventures included installing H&Rs on his SEC.. and a surprise that the drop was less than expected, by a margin.
In these postings you will read the 'original' springs removed were painted red, as I recall... A signature of another 'lowering' springs manufacturer.
These springs were NOT stock at all, therefore creating a false expectation as to the final H&R result.

We had a recent treatise on stock 126 springs, part numbers and paint daubs, according to various 126 models & equipment supplied [adding weight w each addition]...
As I recall, the spring part numbers were similar, only the paint daubs were the final arbiter.

For your reference, my '87 FED spec SEC.. has RED daubs on all 4 springs.
I am pleased with the 36 year old factory offerings still, even after 155K on the odometer.
Yes I have changed numerous ball joints, shocks, bushings, caster joints, suspension mounts, SLS components... Yes, a lot.
It drives, rides better than it did back 20 years ago.

Same springs, about 87K miles later....

Drive fast & Good luck,

MBL

Wow, and your Fed spec car isn't sagging irregularly either front or back?