i was daydreaming yesterday - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

t walgamuth · #1 02-20-2007, 06:30 AM

on my way back from chicago. (they have a lot less snow there than we do in lafayette...very unusual).

has anybody replaced the 3.5 rod bender 603 motor with a 617?

I know that the newer cars have some electronic apparatus that the 617s don't have, but i really don't see why you couldn't do the conversion. didn't the last year of 617 have some electronics associated with the fuel injection, too?

we don't have emission tests here in indiana.

technically i suppose most places it would be illegal to put in an older style engine for emission reasons.

tom w

Wodnek · #2 02-20-2007, 07:21 AM

If you had a 126 parts car to be the parts doner, no reason why you cant.

Icefire · #3 02-20-2007, 12:12 PM

I saw a 86 SDL with a 617 in it, I dont know about emissions where you are, here there are none on cars older than 20 years, and diesels only get a visual smoke inspection.

It should be easily accomplished.

barry123400 · #4 02-20-2007, 12:55 PM

Simply on the basis of power and cold starting ability The 3 litre 603 would remain my choice. I think it kind of makes overall better sense for me. Also on resale of the buggy it might be less offensive to the purchaser. In fact just changing to the 3 litre 603 short block might even raise the cars resale value. I for one would pay a little more if the 3.5 lower block had been eliminated. The other reason is the changover is pretty easy in comparison perhaps. Even someone as limited as me can manage it as well.
If one really wants the 617 I personally think that is okay for the individual. It does backdate the car a little though. The three litre does a little as well but is the closest known option available at present so it would be tollerated better.
Now if the cdi engines prove to be good over time and can be manipulated into the engine compartment. This is a horse of another color. Value of the car should soar as well as user enjoyment. These engines will soon start to appear at wrecking yards near you. Very scarce at first of course.
I can almost visulise the threads on site when the first one is done. Perhaps there might even be a slight power upgrade if I were to slide a cdi into a 240d of mine?

It might elimiate a little of the character but i could live with it I think.

The only problem might be the tendency for the car to go faster uphill than it used to go downhill.

The real crunch in my mind though is rebuilding or installing another 3.5 litre engine. You would subconsiously wait for the inevitable again if it occured or not. This approach at least in my mind is the only really bad error. Every other approach has got to be better.

pawoSD · #5 02-20-2007, 01:20 PM

I also want a W140 with a 617 in it, that'd be one cool ride.

H-townbenzoboy · #6 02-20-2007, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry123400

The real crunch in my mind though is rebuilding or installing another 3.5 litre engine. You would subconsiously wait for the inevitable again if it occured or not. This approach at least in my mind is the only really bad error. Every other approach has got to be better.

If you get a new 3.5 OM603 crate engine from MB, you still get to have the original engine intended for the car, but they don't have the rod bending problems like the original ones did.

DslBnz · #7 02-20-2007, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H-townbenzoboy

If you get a new 3.5 OM603 crate engine from MB, you still get to have the original engine intended for the car, but they don't have the rod bending problems like the original ones did.

That is a misconception.

Perhaps they are not as common, but there are others on this site that have had engine failures with even the newer 3.5 liter blocks. Myself included.

kerry · #8 02-21-2007, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry123400

Simply on the basis of power and cold starting ability The 3 litre 603 would remain my choice. I think it kind of makes overall better sense for me. Also on resale of the buggy it might be less offensive to the purchaser. In fact just changing to the 3 litre 603 short block might even raise the cars resale value. I for one would pay a little more if the 3.5 lower block had been eliminated. The other reason is the changover is pretty easy in comparison perhaps. Even someone as limited as me can manage it as well.
If one really wants the 617 I personally think that is okay for the individual. It does backdate the car a little though. The three litre does a little as well but is the closest known option available at present so it would be tollerated better.
Now if the cdi engines prove to be good over time and can be manipulated into the engine compartment. This is a horse of another color. Value of the car should soar as well as user enjoyment. These engines will soon start to appear at wrecking yards near you. Very scarce at first of course.
I can almost visulise the threads on site when the first one is done. Perhaps there might even be a slight power upgrade if I were to slide a cdi into a 240d of mine?

It might elimiate a little of the character but i could live with it I think.

The only problem might be the tendency for the car to go faster uphill than it used to go downhill.

The real crunch in my mind though is rebuilding or installing another 3.5 litre engine. You would subconsiously wait for the inevitable again if it occured or not. This approach at least in my mind is the only really bad error. Every other approach has got to be better.

There have been a fair number of cdi's on Ebay from wrecked Sprinters. You'd have to marry the ECU and electronics to the car somehow. I don't think the 617 ever had any electronics associated with it.

t walgamuth · #9 02-21-2007, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry123400

Simply on the basis of power and cold starting ability The 3 litre 603 would remain my choice. I think it kind of makes overall better sense for me. Also on resale of the buggy it might be less offensive to the purchaser. In fact just changing to the 3 litre 603 short block might even raise the cars resale value. I for one would pay a little more if the 3.5 lower block had been eliminated. The other reason is the changover is pretty easy in comparison perhaps. Even someone as limited as me can manage it as well.
If one really wants the 617 I personally think that is okay for the individual. It does backdate the car a little though. The three litre does a little as well but is the closest known option available at present so it would be tollerated better.
Now if the cdi engines prove to be good over time and can be manipulated into the engine compartment. This is a horse of another color. Value of the car should soar as well as user enjoyment. These engines will soon start to appear at wrecking yards near you. Very scarce at first of course.
I can almost visulise the threads on site when the first one is done. Perhaps there might even be a slight power upgrade if I were to slide a cdi into a 240d of mine?

It might elimiate a little of the character but i could live with it I think.

The only problem might be the tendency for the car to go faster uphill than it used to go downhill.

The real crunch in my mind though is rebuilding or installing another 3.5 litre engine. You would subconsiously wait for the inevitable again if it occured or not. This approach at least in my mind is the only really bad error. Every other approach has got to be better.

as usual barry has summed it up well. i especially agree with his last paragraph.

and i agree that afik the rod bending has never been completely solved in the 603 3.5 liter.

tom w

H-townbenzoboy · #10 02-20-2007, 09:08 PM

Hmm... never knew that. Well, I guess if you want to be on the safe side, you can pull a "sixto" and dump a 3.0 OM603 in there.

benzforlife · #11 02-21-2007, 12:01 AM

go with the 617, it will beast