350 SDL heresy, heresy! - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

loneranger · #1 06-13-2007, 08:00 PM

I have a 90 350 SDL. It is a beautiful car but seems a tad underpowered, to me anyway. Got some oil in anti-freeze. Sorry to disappoint some of you 350 haters but just a head gasket. I took the head to the machine shop, perfectly flat, no cracks. I have 200K on the car and will keep the car as long as I can drive. My question is: when the engine does give up and assuming I'm not to old and arthritic has anyone ever put a 6.2 liter GM diesel and tranny in a 126 body? Seems like a nice project for a crazy old guy with time on his hands.

TX76513 · #2 06-13-2007, 08:29 PM

AndrewJ · #3 06-13-2007, 08:41 PM

I didnt think the 6.2 was supposed to be a very good motor.

t walgamuth · #4 06-13-2007, 11:23 PM

i think the six two is about the same block as a four fifty four. it is pretty heavy too. it might fit but i wouldnt go to the trouble when you can probably find a decent used mb engine for it.

the swap would make the car pretty sale proof and the extra weight would ruin the cars natural excellent balance.

tom w

#5 06-13-2007, 11:25 PM

Why would you want to put an engine in it that is weaker and gets worse fuel economy?

143 hp @ 3,600 rpm / 257 lb-ft @ 2,000 rpm for the 6.2L diesel VS 150hp and 229lb-ft torque for the OM603.

lonewolftek · #6 06-13-2007, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForcedInduction

Why would you want to put an engine in it that has less power and gets 1/3 the fuel economy?

Enough of the hate for the 6.2!

I have both (see my sig), I drive both, and the GM is just as fine a machine as the MBZ, just not for the same things.

If you want to put a 6.2 (or a 6.5T, or a 7.2 gas) in a Benz, go for it I say. You'd never sell it afterwards, and you'll be shopping for new front suspension components a lot. I'd use a 3.0L Cummins myself.

Heck, I'm crazy enough to want to know if a 6.2 diesel will bolt into a Camaro....

#7 06-13-2007, 11:47 PM

OK. I'll give the 6.2 at least one good thing, GM was helped by Izuzu to design it. Ford and Dodge just outsource their diesels.

Still, for an engine that weighs about 3x as much as the OM603.97 and can only revv to half the 603's RPM range, it's 7hp behind and has only a 28lb-ft advantage. 1/4 turn of the 603's full load screw and I could pass the 6.2 in HP and torque.

lietuviai · #8 06-14-2007, 12:15 AM

Hey why not try to see if you can put a 603 in a GM truck.

BioPOWER · #9 06-14-2007, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lietuviai

Hey why not try to see if you can put a 603 in a GM truck.

NOO!! The metric gods won't allow such sacrilege!

#10 06-14-2007, 12:36 AM

Wow, how did you guys get so far OT? Trucks? Domestic trucks, even? The only time I think about a truck is if I have a bunch of crap to get from one place to another, then I might go rent one. If I'm lucky, I can go a couple of years without even getting in one. Unfortunately, I still have to see them, some folks around here seem to think they are commuter cars.

t walgamuth · #11 06-14-2007, 06:21 AM

This is the first I have heard that izuzu had anything to do with the six two, and I would be very surprised if the engine weighs anywhere near three times as much. A hundred or two more, is more my guess.

I have owned at least four trucks with the six two and am well aware of its good and bad traits, and would not put one in a benz, under any circumstances... a truck yes, maybe but not a benz.

my two cents.

Tom W

loneranger · #12 06-14-2007, 07:39 AM

ok, question. I had a 5.7 in an Olds(which was a bad engine). It had a lot more power than the 3.5 MB, rating aside. Is something wrong with the 3.5 which makes it so slow?

t walgamuth · #13 06-14-2007, 08:41 AM

the 5.7 doesn't have more power than a 3.5 benz, does it?

but for starters look at the displacement. almost twice in the 5.7 POS.

Tom W

lonewolftek · #14 06-14-2007, 09:58 AM

I'm just going to set this out for everyone's benefit:

The 6.2L and 6.5L diesels were developed *solely* by Detroit Diesel. Izuzu had nothing to do with them.

Specs on the 6.2L:
Introduced 1982, normally aspirated, indirect injection, 2-V OHV, cast iron block and head.
Compression: 21.5:1
HP: 143 hp @ 3,600 rpm [107 kW]
Torque: 257 ft-lb @ 2,000 rpm [348 N*m]
Weight without accessories (J-code): 655 lbs. [297 kg]

Can anyone find specs for the 603.97? The mythical 603 that revs to over 7,200 rpm? And only masses 100 kg?

t walgamuth · #15 06-14-2007, 10:02 AM

the 603, i believe runs over 500 # and has power similar to the 6.2. less torque i believe. max rpm 4000 something. there was a post with mb engine weights recently....within the last year.

tom w