"Eric, You have to consider that the tooling made can be more based on using new tools for new engines, also keep in mind that merc had no reason to worry abt block rigidity on an I-6 that at best makes 280HP."

Yes I'm well aware of this. Such was the case on an engine here in America from Ford know as the "FE". The fact is M.B. still spent the time and effort and money to add reinforcing ribs to the blocks when they upgraded the tooling. Why expend the effort if it didn't accomplish anything? Why not just replace the tooling and call it done? All I'm saying is the newer block clearly had some thought and effort (which is money) put into it that they didn't have to do but they did. Must have been a reason. Must have been a benefit.

On the second point it's not true they had no reason to worry as the OEMs are always trying to continually reduce NVH levels to ever lower levels. Competition in the car biz is brutal! The side benefit of this effort is we get ever stouter, stronger blocks for their efforts.
Regards, Eric

__________________
89 300E "Benzer1" 15.924 Uncorrected
93 400E "Benzer3" 14.200 U.C.
95 E420 "Benzer4"
92 300E "Benzer5" 16.299 U.C. Future turbo CNG
87 300D "Benzer7"
87 300D "Benzer8"
87 300D "Benzer9"
87 300D/70 AMC Javelin "Sidewinder-Benzer"
87 300TD "Benzer11"
06 E320 CDI "Benzer12"
05 E320 CDI "Benzer12A"
71 AMC Javelin AMX 401 "Sidewinder"
74 AMC Hornet 401 "C.K.10" 13.63 U.C.
74 Bricklin SV1 "Presto" AMC 360 pwrd.