As far as I understnad it seems that the m119 is easier and cheaper to fix if anything goes wrong and should also be a little cheaper to maintain but I am not 100% sure about it.
Other differences are that the M113 is a 24 valves engine (3 per cylinder) instead of a 32 valver and it has less power but more torque in lowe and mid range.
I would go for the M113 due to the fact that it should be more driveable in real life but ... everyone has his/her own tastes.

Cheers.

 

"More drivable?" Not really sure what you mean, both engines are probably very close performance and drivability-wise, M113 being a bit lighter, M119 being a bit more powerfull and slighly better revving engine.

From that little I know, M119 has some well-known issues like lifter knocking due to lack of oil supply (got it on mine the other day, good engine flush got rid of it). M113 is said to have a few more infrequent but more expensive to fix mechanical things. I bet both are resonably reliable engines, just don't expect it to be "Lexus-like"

 

Which other MB (or Lexus) engine can boast with racing pedigree?
Including the World Sportscar Championship, and 24 Hours of Le Mans?

Sauber C9: Information from Answers.com

1989 24 Hours of Le Mans: Information from Answers.com

1990 World Sportscar Championship season - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1989 World Sportscar Championship season - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mercedes-Benz M119 engine: Information from Answers.com

 

I agree at ErikFinn about the sport palmares of the M119 but since I prefer engines with more low and mid range torque (that's what I mean with "more driveable) I would go for the M113 (newer engine) with the 3 valves per cylinder.
But again, it's a matter of tastes.

Cheers.

 

The M119 develops very slightly more power than the M113. That is the only statistical advantage held by the M119.

The M113 develops more torque over a wider range and at significantly lower revs than the M119.
The M113 is significantly lighter than the M119 (cars equipped with the M113 are faster and handle slightly better than those with the M119).
The M113 is significantly better on fuel than the M119 (23mpg as against 19mpg).

Both engines have rock solid reliability. The M113 is perhaps simpler in construction and the M119 is perhaps more sophisticated. The M119 does indeed have unimpeachable racing pedigree but this is hardly relevant.

The M113 is more recent (1998) whereas the M119 owes its block to a 1981 design and its heads to a 1989 design.

 

M119 has some well-known issues like lifter knocking due to lack of oil supply (got it on mine the other day, good engine flush got rid of it).

It appears as though this has been adddressed at the following site K6JRF Auto Page

FWIW, while having a casual conversation with my local INDY he mentioned that the M113 is as bullet proof as they come. He told me that one of his customers came in the shop with a M113 engine smoking as though it was dead. He simply did a oil change and the car drove out fine. ????

 

It appears as though this has been adddressed at the following site K6JRF Auto Page

FWIW, while having a casual conversation with my local INDY he mentioned that the M113 is as bullet proof as they come. He told me that one of his customers came in the shop with a M113 engine smoking as though it was dead. He simply did a oil change and the car drove out fine. ????

Yup, just went through this. It started knocking, so the local MB dealership wanted it for a week and 2500 dollars to get it fixed. Naturally I was not very impressed and did some research, found this and a couple of other articles and got it fixed in half a day myself.

On the other hand, my 'gross evap' error code is still there and I can't find the reason for it easily. Very annoying, all those blinking lights on the dash it is not exactly Christmas time now

 

ErikFinn, I will tell you honestly: this is my fifth Merc in my life, and the only reason I got the SL500 was that the SC430 which I really wanted to get was almost twice the money here, for the similar age (used). SL500 is a good car, but... after 10 years of direct comparison of two brands side-by-side does not leave me second-guessing which one I'd rather prefer if can afford. No offence or flame intended.

 

All M113s have aluminum engine blocks and aluminum SOHC cylinder heads. The cylinders are lined with silicon/aluminum, and the heads have 3 valves per cylinder. Other features include SFI fuel injection, fracture-split forged steel connecting rods, a one-piece cast camshaft, and a magnesium intake manifold. The M113 E50 is a 5.0 L (4966 cc) version bored to 97 mm and stroked slightly more than the E430 at 84.1 mm. Output is 306 hp (228 kW) at 5600 rpm with 339 ft.lbf (460 Nm) of torque at 2700 to 4250 rpm. Active Cylinder Control variable displacement technology is optional.



The M119 5.0 L (4973 cc) version produced 326 PS (322 hp/240 kW) at 5700 rpm and 354 ft·lbf (479 N·m) at 3900 rpm. Later engines had the full throttle enrichment removed and power was a little less, nearer 315 PS (311 hp/232 kW). The M119 was was a double overhead cam design with 4 valves per cylinder and variable valve timing on the intake side. It was replaced by the 3-valve M113 starting in 1999.


Now about this discussion of HP and torque

HP = Torque x rpm/5252 or if you speak that metric stuff, KW = torque x pi x rpm/30000

If you increase power you increase flywheel torque, always. Look at the HP and torque vs rpms and you will see that as rpms go up the torque and HP curves look identical just offset by the rpm factor.

The M113 has a broader range for high torque values but it does not have higher torque. It is indeed a lighter engine, after all it is a SOHC vs the M119's DOHC and it has just 24 valves. Being lighter it is somewhat quicker to repond. It also reaches its torque band quicker since it has a broader range. All in all, the M113 should have quicker low end acceleration. The M119 , if not electronically limited, has a higher top end and better high speed acceleration.

The M113 has been criticized by some as having all the benefits of Mercedes design and all the negatives of Chrysler quality. That is probably not fair since all of the non-AMG M113 engines are made in Untertürkheim, Germany. However I have a number of friends that have the M113 and they honestly do seem to have more problems than my M119. My 98 now has 92K miles on it and has had no repairs other than tires and brakes.

 

All M113s have aluminum engine blocks and aluminum SOHC cylinder heads. The cylinders are lined with silicon/aluminum, and the heads have 3 valves per cylinder. Other features include SFI fuel injection, fracture-split forged steel connecting rods, a one-piece cast camshaft, and a magnesium intake manifold. The M113 E50 is a 5.0 L (4966 cc) version bored to 97 mm and stroked slightly more than the E430 at 84.1 mm. Output is 306 hp (228 kW) at 5600 rpm with 339 ft.lbf (460 Nm) of torque at 2700 to 4250 rpm. Active Cylinder Control variable displacement technology is optional.

Great info on the M113 however you forgot to mention the twin spark plug per cylinder technology.

 

I guess we all tend to justify the car we bought! I ended up with a M119 engined 1998 SL. At the time of purchase I drove M113 engined cars as well, there's very little to choose between the on road drive really and mainly I went on complete car condition. Although personally I do prefer the slightly "peaker" feel of the 32 valve M119. Also over the past 2 years and 25K miles my car averages 21-22 MPG (UK) that includes lots of start stop driving, on motorway runs it will do 25-27 so going off jjrodger's figures there's not much difference in that either, I can imagine the early four speeds are not quite as good.

 

I have a 1997 E420 and having engine knocking problem. Can you please tell me what I can do? Thank you.

 

I have a 1997 E420 and having engine knocking problem. Can you please tell me what I can do? Thank you.

http://www.benzworld.org/forums/r129-sl-class/1320333-tick-tick-tick-valve-lifters.html

There are other threads as well if you try the search...

 

I have a 1997 E420 and having engine knocking problem. Can you please tell me what I can do? Thank you.

Please read http://www.benzworld.org/forums/1261188-post1.html

 

Now about this discussion of HP and torque

HP = Torque x rpm/5252 or if you speak that metric stuff, KW = torque x pi x rpm/30000

The formulae for HP is ' 2 x Pi x N x T divided by 33000 and i dont mean HP Sauce lol

 

Does anyone know the number designated to the new V8 32 v/cyl. Mercedes engine ? Also is it SOHC or DOHC ?

 

Does anyone know the number designated to the new V8 32 v/cyl. Mercedes engine ? Also is it SOHC or DOHC ?

M273, and it's DOHC (per bank), 32-valve 5,461cc

Mercedes-Benz USA, Model Specifications for the 2007 SL550 Roadster

 

That SL550 is one very nice motor car

 

This is Ken Rockwell's approach to the new car and engine.
I note he is still slagging off the M113 engine whenever he can

 

This is Ken Rockwell's approach to the new car and engine.
I note he is still slagging off the M113 engine whenever he can

I wouldn't comment whether he is wrong or right but I still enjoy reading his stuff... :-D

 

HP formula

Now about this discussion of HP and torque

HP = Torque x rpm/5252 or if you speak that metric stuff, KW = torque x pi x rpm/30000

The formulae for HP is ' 2 x Pi x N x T divided by 33000 and i dont mean HP Sauce lol

Eric

Over here in the US, Newtons (N) are cookies, usually made from figs. Like HP, figs make you go faster. Enjoyed your comments. We are saying the same thing, just different dialects. You are speaking proper British English, and I am speaking back yard grease monkey. lol

Larry

 

Eric

I am speaking back yard grease monkey. lol

Larry

Ahahahhaha.

May I add ..... Whazzuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup ?

Cheers.