Trap Oxidizer Campaign - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

#1 03-20-2006, 12:40 AM

i was reading on the forum about the trap oxidizer replacement campaign, so i decided to do a little reaserch,and found some interesting information. i appologize if this has been covered here, but i just wanted to tell what all i have found. apparently there were two campaigns, the original one replaced the trap with another trap, and would continue to do so every 30K for thr life of the car. but in dec 1996 they sent the owners of the qualifying mercedes cars a letter(see link below for letter) that was telling them that a new technology oxidizing catalyst was now available that would permanently replace the old trap. i called my dealer found that my car qualified took it in and they replaced all at no cost, plus they gave me a 2004 C240 for 4 days. i have the whole recall notice in pdf located at the link below. the entire job was over $1000.00 fortunately it all was for free, they replaced the trap with a catalyst with part number 126-490-34-14,
it affects 1985-1987 mercedes diesels 123.133, 123.153, 123.193, 126.120, 126.125, 124.133, 124.193, 126.125. of all the models some are california specific 126.125, 126.120, and 123.193. call your local dealer ask to speak with a service advisor, give them your chassis number, ask if there is any service campaigns on your car they should be able to tell you over the phone.

http://members.cox.net/mercedessd/trap.pdf

PatricdeBoer · #2 03-20-2006, 06:16 AM

I wish my sd had some recalls on it so I could get a shiny c240 for half a week.

Diesel Giant · #3 03-20-2006, 08:04 AM

Not many other manufactures would still stand behind their products 20 years later. They should have never been put on, but hats off to MB for doing the right thing.

#4 03-20-2006, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diesel Giant

Not many other manufactures would still stand behind their products 20 years later. They should have never been put on, but hats off to MB for doing the right thing.

i agree, if the turbo had been damaged by the trap, it too would have been replaced at no cost.

NoCalMer · #5 03-20-2006, 11:53 AM

Thanks for the information.

ConnClark · #6 03-20-2006, 12:18 PM

After I sent in for my mileage award, I got the recall letter from Mercedes Benz about the trap oxidizer. Funny thing is I got my mileage award paper authenticated by the dealer while I was getting my trap oxidizer recall work done. I think they do a recall check when you submit your mileage award.

If you haven't had this recall work done to your car get it. It really helps top end performance as well as highway mileage.

300Dguy · #7 03-20-2006, 08:06 PM

Thanks for information. I own an Calf 1985 300D and it too has the new oxidation catalyst vs the trap oxidizer with part number 126 490 3414. If MB is correct, this is excellent news as I was always wondering how safe it was to run like this. Do you, or anyone else out ther know if this new technology negates any of slightly less HP the Calif models were rated? I suppose the exhaust routing and manifold configuration required to fit all this apparatus in such a tight space probably contributes to the lower HP rating.

I have been contemplating converting to the Fed setup since I have access to a salvage vehicle with all the necessary parts. Given this latest development, any suggestions or comments relative to the value trying to convert to a Federal set up. I'd be very interested in hearing from anyone that has actually done this. Advantages? Pitfalls, etc.
Thanks

ConnClark · #8 03-20-2006, 08:25 PM

The new oxidation catalyst negates some, but not all of the power robbing back pressure of the emissions system.

federal conversion info
emissions swap...part one

dieseldiehard · #9 03-20-2006, 09:55 PM

There have been cars (SDL in one case and an '87 300D in another) with the new oxidation catalyst that got plugged up also, and similar to the Trap Oxidizer they caused the engine to run hot and very sluggish. I have a theory that this occurs when the car is driven less than vigorously and in lots of city traffic and perhaps there are other factors like fuel or if the car is burning oil that taken into account explain the carbon that collects on the matrix inside either item. The CAT is fairly far down the exhaust line. Mercedes for years put Cat converters as close to the engine as practical, before O2 sensors and EFI was common. The 230.4 was a case where that plan was really bad and the CAT was directly under the carburetor and it would overheat the carb and dry out the fuel hoses etc. Bad idea for reliability but the engineers were trying to get it as close to the sopurce of heat as possible . In a diesel if there is lots of carbon built up on the CAT it won't effectively be burned off if the thing bever gets driven hard (my theory again).

Obviously the best technical solution is a trap-ectomy or cat-bypass. For places where smog checks on diesels are in place this may not be a good idea.

As long as the factory is covering these under warranty however that is one alternative and a cheaper one.

Maybe driving the latest gasser once every three of four years while the 603 is at the dealer's under a campaign would be a pleasant experience and afterwards you may appreciate your 603 diesel even more (especially if fuel prices would come down!)

#10 03-20-2006, 10:22 PM

has any one ever just removed the trap and replaced it with a regular pipe?

Hit Man X · #11 03-21-2006, 12:41 AM

Ny SDL is like that, no cat or TrapOx...

autozen · #12 03-21-2006, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diesel Giant

Not many other manufactures would still stand behind their products 20 years later. They should have never been put on, but hats off to MB for doing the right thing.

Don't look to any of this in the future. In the past MB has kept an open ticket on their shortcommings like the trap oxidysers and failing front suspensions on the 107 models, but no more. Ask the people with failing crank balancers that had to finally file a class action suit to get MB to say; " oh yes, we do have a problem". The NHTSA had to step in and make MB recall the tail lights on the SLKs, because the cheaply designed Detroit rear light assemblies melted causing a safety hazard. I have been an MB mechanic for 30 years and am sadened by how MB quality has gone into the toilet.

#13 03-21-2006, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hit Man X

Ny SDL is like that, no cat or TrapOx...

on the sdl that was part of the campaign, the trap by the engine was replaced with a pipe 603-140-03-03 and moved under the car like a conventional gas catalyst, the new number is 126-490-13-20 so look under there, it may be there and you not know it.

Hit Man X · #14 03-21-2006, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carson356

on the sdl that was part of the campaign, the trap by the engine was replaced with a pipe 603-140-03-03 and moved under the car like a conventional gas catalyst, the new number is 126-490-13-20 so look under there, it may be there and you not know it.

The one under the car has been hollowed out somehow...

#15 03-21-2006, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hit Man X

The one under the car has been hollowed out somehow...

probably from extreme exhaust temperature