View Single Post
Old 06-10-2000, 08:07 PM
Ken C Ken C is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 117
Hi, all. I've got a question about the M110 (double-overhead cam I-6, as in the "280" series engines of the early '80's).
We've all heard (and I've experienced 3 examples of) the valve guide problems of the M102/103 engines (from W201 and W124 cars) -- i.e., the guides wear, allowing too much "wobble" of the stems, which reams out the centers of the seals and permits excessive oil consumption.
Well, my newest acquisition has a 1984 M110.994 (about 90K mi.) that uses some oil (300-500 mi/qt -- it varies with the way it's driven) and I'm considering having the valve seals replaced. However, my prior experience with such a fix with M102 and M103 engines was that it was fruitless without also removing the head for valve guide replacement because of their inherent flaw -- prematurely already worn, they will quickly destroy new seals, too.
Question: Does the M110 share this valve guide flaw with the M102/3 engines? That is, if I want to have a reasonably successful fix of the M110's oil consumption, am I again going to have to do the head (to replace guides) as well, or will the straightforward seals' replacments suffice?
I'm planning to go to my local dealer to have them replace the seals -- but I want to know, in advance, whether I should resist (what I anticipate might be) their suggestion to also pull the head for the valve guide job, also. I know it was warranted for my M102/3 engines, but don't know if it's justified for this model, too. I want to be prepared with an answer.
Also, would the M110 engine cost more for mere valve seal replacement than a M102/3? About how much should it be (dollars and flat-rate hours)? And that would include a valve lash adjustment, I suppose ... right? {the M110 doesn't have the self-adjusting features of the M102/3's, I understand}
In advance, thanks to all.
Reply With Quote