617 starter in a 616 - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Phillytwotank · #1 01-09-2013, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gatorblue92

Yes it was. What does that mean?

I will read through the posted thread as well.

It means that the "starter drive" is bad.

I was having the same problem with mine. It was still starting sometimes but mostly "whirling". I took it out and brought it over to blacks generator shop.

$20 for the replace mention part. $15 for labor. 20 minuets I was out the door. No more whirling!

Air&Road · #2 01-09-2013, 08:43 AM

Yes, they will interchange.

That said, I had an old salt dealer tech tell me that there was a slight difference in an early 616/617 and a late 616/617 starter such that they would bolt in place but were different such that one combination, early on late or late on early would put it in a slight bind.

I have never confirmed this to be true, but I thought I would pass it along.

vstech · #3 01-09-2013, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

Yes, they will interchange.

That said, I had an old salt dealer tech tell me that there was a slight difference in an early 616/617 and a late 616/617 starter such that they would bolt in place but were different such that one combination, early on late or late on early would put it in a slight bind.

I have never confirmed this to be true, but I thought I would pass it along.

Hmm. I've got several engines sitting on the floor, some turbo, some not... starters are all laying on the ground, I'll look them over. I'm sure there were strength improvements over the years. likely soldering/winding techniques have changes technology has changed from the 60's to the 80's *(not all good though...) possibly the webbing on the nose cone on the older ones were thinner?

Air&Road · #4 01-09-2013, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vstech

Hmm. I've got several engines sitting on the floor, some turbo, some not... starters are all laying on the ground, I'll look them over. I'm sure there were strength improvements over the years. likely soldering/winding techniques have changes technology has changed from the 60's to the 80's *(not all good though...) possibly the webbing on the nose cone on the older ones were thinner?

When this guy told me this, I got the impression that he meant that the gears meshed a little tighter on one than the other. I did not get the idea that one starter was built heavier than the other.

Again, this is something I only heard that one time. I probably would have discounted it as myth except for the fact that he was a really level headed, savvy, experienced guy.

qwerty · #5 01-09-2013, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

So maybe you better tell the MB engineers to think more.

Maybe you should accept full responsibility for your theory. I have complete confidence that "the MB engineers" have a basic understanding of four-stroke engine operation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by charmalu

You are correct, but we don`t know what engine Tom was refering to. He may be refering to the 616?

Comparing a 616 to a 616 doesn't seem to be much of a comparison.

t walgamuth · #6 01-09-2013, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qwerty

Maybe you should accept full responsibility for your theory. I have complete confidence that "the MB engineers" have a basic understanding of four-stroke engine operation.

Comparing a 616 to a 616 doesn't seem to be much of a comparison.

I don't feel compelled to prove anything. The engineers spoke when they built the starters. I think I know why, you think the engineers are wrong, I don't.

qwerty · #7 01-09-2013, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

The engineers spoke when they built the starters. I think I know why, you think the engineers are wrong, I don't.

I said nothing about engineers being wrong. The problem lies entirely with one architect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

The resisitance is one cylinder at a time so same size cylinders equals same starter, unless superceded.

Anyone else agree with this statement?

t walgamuth · #8 01-09-2013, 11:02 AM

The second principle was stated in the context of a four vs a five or a six. I would take a different outlook if we were talking about a 16 cylinder engine or perhaps a 12.

You seem intent on making this a disagreeable discussion...care to say why?

gatorblue92 · #9 01-09-2013, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qwerty

I said nothing about engineers being wrong. The problem lies entirely with one architect.

Anyone else agree with this statement?

Ouch.

After some more searching there does not seem to be a truly definitive answer on the subject however Kerry did mention in the other posted thread that he replaced the starter is his N/A 300D with a later turbo starter and had better cold starting which is exactly what I am trying to achieve.

funola · #10 01-09-2013, 01:27 PM

Ha ha this starter debate is never ending.

. FWIW a respected local starter rebuild shop told me that 616/617 turbo or NA starters are interchangeable. I have had starters from a 616, 617 turbo and 617 non turbo apart to steal parts from to put together a good starter and all the parts inside appears to be the same, i.e. they are not grossly different and are interchangeable. The starter that I cobbled up from used parts (I did replace the bushings and brushes and lubed everythig) is running perfect and cranks at 164 RPM per my phototach and starts my engine so fast it's incredible!

If you have a phototach and an ammeter, you can check out a starter on the bench (rpm and amps drawn) from Bosch specs. If it meet those specs, and there are no abnormal noise or smoke, and the bushings and brushes are good, slap that sucker in!

I think that theory of a 4 cyl and 5 cyl loads the starter 1 cyl at a time is flawed. At the very least, a 5 cyl has 1 more cyl and the cranshaft is longer and heavier so the starter has to work harder to move the extra weight so I don't know what the architect is thinking. My guess is Bosch made the decision to use the same starter for the 616 and 617 NA or Turbo engine because it is cheaper than to make different starters for each model.

t walgamuth · #11 01-09-2013, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by funola

Ha ha this starter debate is never ending.

. FWIW a respected local starter rebuild shop told me that 616/617 turbo or NA starters are interchangeable. I have had starters from a 616, 617 turbo and 617 non turbo apart to steal parts from to put together a good starter and all the parts inside appears to be the same, i.e. they are not grossly different and are interchangeable. The starter that I cobbled up from used parts (I did replace the bushings and brushes and lubed everythig) is running perfect and cranks at 164 RPM per my phototach and starts my engine so fast it's incredible!

If you have a phototach and an ammeter, you can check out a starter on the bench (rpm and amps drawn) from Bosch specs. If it meet those specs, and there are no abnormal noise or smoke, and the bushings and brushes are good, slap that sucker in!

I think that theory of a 4 cyl and 5 cyl loads the starter 1 cyl at a time is flawed. At the very least, a 5 cyl has 1 more cyl and the cranshaft is longer and heavier so the starter has to work harder to move the extra weight so I don't know what the architect is thinking. My guess is Bosch made the decision to use the same starter for the 616 and 617 NA or Turbo engine because it is cheaper than to make different starters for each model.

But as we all know the four cylinder was built first. In fact they built 3 cylinder versions of the same motor and I bet they used the same starter too.

It is true the five cylinder crank and flywheel are heavier and there is more drag from the parts rubbing but in the end all that is probably minor in comparison to the 21 to 1 compression ratio. I mean really, take away the compression and you can turn the crank pretty easily with your hands on the big pulley.

If you think the mb engineers just tossed the starter into the 300 motor without any knowledge of wheter it would perform satisfactorily for their customers who were paying $26,000 or more for a 300d when you could still buy a chevy for a third as much, I just think you are not thinking clearly.

funola · #12 01-09-2013, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

But as we all know the four cylinder was built first. In fact they built 3 cylinder versions of the same motor and I bet they used the same starter too.

It is true the five cylinder crank and flywheel are heavier and there is more drag from the parts rubbing but in the end all that is probably minor in comparison to the 21 to 1 compression ratio. I mean really, take away the compression and you can turn the crank pretty easily with your hands on the big pulley.

If you think the mb engineers just tossed the starter into the 300 motor without any knowledge of wheter it would perform satisfactorily for their customers who were paying $26,000 or more for a 300d when you could still buy a chevy for a third as much, I just think you are not thinking clearly.

So you're saying the starter has to overcome only compression, and the mass and drag of an additional cylinder has no effect on starter design?

I am sure the MB engineers did their home work. Maybe the very first 240's used a lower powered starter. When an additional cylinder was added, MB decided to upgrade the 240D starter to a 300D starter for commonality and reduced cost?

t walgamuth · #13 01-09-2013, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by funola

So you're saying the starter has to overcome only compression, and the mass and drag of an additional cylinder has no effect on starter design?

I am sure the MB engineers did their home work. Maybe the very first 240's used a lower powered starter. When an additional cylinder was added, MB decided to upgrade the 240D starter to a 300D starter for commonality and reduced cost?

No I did not say that. I said the effect is small compared to the compression. And I said you can turn a motor with your hands if the compresson is eleminated.

qwerty · #14 01-09-2013, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by funola

I am sure the MB engineers did their home work.

All the talk about MB engineers is nothing but a red herring that has nothing to do with the original theory put forth. The architect stated clearly that he believed that required starter power was a function solely of "cylinder size" and that the number of cylinders was not a factor, since only one compression event occured at a time. Nowhere did anyone claim that MB utilized starters of inadequate capacity.

Air&Road · #15 01-09-2013, 01:30 PM

Wow! And to think that I came here for a quick break from the contention of OD!