Parts Catalog Accessories Catalog How To Articles Tech Forums
Call Pelican Parts at 888-280-7799
Shopping Cart Cart | Project List | Order Status | Help



Go Back   PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum > Mercedes-Benz Tech Information and Support > Diesel Discussion

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old 05-01-2003, 03:38 PM
gsxr's Avatar
Unbanned...?
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 8,102
Funny, this exact topic popped up on the MBZ.org list today, from a different source. Marshall is of the same opinion as I am. But someone else mentioned a Euro 240TD without SLS, lending more weight to the possibility that non-SLS springs exist - just not in USA models! The parts, if they exist and are still stocked in Germany, are orderable from the USA. I'll check the Euro EPC tonight and see what I can turn up.

I think what Marshall and I have been thinking, as LRG said, is that all USA model wagons had SLS and we tend to forget our neighbors across the pond had more options.

__________________
Dave
Boise, ID

Check out my website photos, documents, and movies!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-01-2003, 08:05 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: central Texas
Posts: 17,281
....
Attached Thumbnails
300TD Rear Suspension-wagonvin79.jpg  
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-01-2003, 08:08 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: central Texas
Posts: 17,281
1979 wagon non SLS....
Attached Thumbnails
300TD Rear Suspension-mbwagon79rear.jpg  
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-02-2003, 12:08 AM
Ken Downing
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Well not sure what it all means.. but

My 123 manual shows a 123.190 with out level control and showes the rear spring mercedes part # 115 324 38 04 They also show the following springs for the 123.190 with out level control for poor road conditions..

123 234 35 04
115 324 36 04
123 324 33 04

Now here is what I have also found.. that the first spring 115 324 38.. and a 123 324 06 04 were used on us wagons with level control..

So now here is what they say about the springs

spring spring travel Wire dia. Spring Length
per 1000 N load

115 324 38 04 18.7 15.1 361
123 324 33 04 20.9 15.8 360
123 324 35 04 17.9 15.2 369
115 324 36 04 15.5 16 357

I do not know a lot about springs but it seems to me that the 115 324 36 04 would be the strongest spring and perhaps carry the most load.. However is also seems to be the shortest.. Whitch means ?????


Ken
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-02-2003, 12:51 AM
gsxr's Avatar
Unbanned...?
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 8,102
I just went through everything I could find in the Euro EPC, and also the 1985 Tech Data Manual. I could not find evidence of ANY 123 station wagon... 123.183, 123.190, or 123.193 that came with standard (non self-leveling) rear suspension. Everything is SLS. Click on any standard parts, and you get "Callout not valid for this BM" or "Not valid for this SA" or whatever (BM = Bill of Materials, SA= Special Application).

The 123.190 springs are 115-324-38-04
The 123.193 springs are 123-324-06-04 (rolled from above)

I did find this:
123-324-33-04 = Harder suspension (higher vehicle level)
123-324-38-04 = Higher permissible load (1300kg rear axle)

ALL of these springs are specified for use with "hydropneumatic spring leg", or an SLS shock that will support a portion of the car's weight. There is no spring I could find that will work with a standard, non-load-bearing shock. All I can say is that perhaps the car in question had been converted in the past? Beats me. I'm not saying a non-SLS wagon never came from the factory, I'm just saying the EPC and TDM indicate that. I did not look through the W123 chassis service manual though, which it appears Ken did.

Comparing the 124 spring rates, where the sedans had SLS optionally, is interesting. The spring for non-SLS has the testing force in Newtons about 20-35% higher, i.e. 4090N vs. 5700N, wire diameter is close (1mm difference), but deflection is much different - 21.9 vs 17.2. Assuming the 123 SLS spring leg carries a similar percentage of weight compared to the 124 (which we don't know for sure), there is simply no spring part number listed in the TDM that is 20%+ higher than the stock USA-spec 123 wagon spring. The strongest appears to be the 123-324-38-04, with roughly 10% more force (6400 vs 5850) and a lot less deflection (12.6 vs. 18.45).

I'd just fix the silly SLS. Without it, if you carry a load in the rear it will sag. If you never carry a load, why own a wagon? Hmmm. G'night, 'tis past me bedtime now...




Regards,
__________________
Dave
Boise, ID

Check out my website photos, documents, and movies!

Last edited by gsxr; 05-02-2003 at 01:11 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-02-2003, 01:10 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: central Texas
Posts: 17,281
"if you carry a load in the rear it will sag" .... gsxr

I always assumed that if one replaced the shocks one would use a driver controlled air shock, to keep that from happening...
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-02-2003, 01:14 AM
gsxr's Avatar
Unbanned...?
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 8,102
That's one other option, assuming you can find an air shock to fit, and set up a pump system? Just curious, why doesn't anyone want to fix the SLS... is it strictly the cost (new or used parts?) or the complexity? It seems the system functions quite nicely when it's working, and doesn't fail terribly often.
__________________
Dave
Boise, ID

Check out my website photos, documents, and movies!
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-02-2003, 01:21 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: central Texas
Posts: 17,281
I would assume with the parameters needing to be met... that an air shock would be the natural fix.... I can not imagine , with all the off road vehicles using stuff like this , that it would be hard to find one with the right distance travel, even if some adapter had to be welded up to make it bolt in...
Systems which supply their own air and only require a control button are available for pickup trucks and all sorts of SUVs.... using something like a tire air compressor... does not have to be big...
You said it was past your bedtime.. so GO to bed......
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-02-2003, 09:06 AM
Ken Downing
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
My book shows that level control was a standard starting in 79 for the US , AUS and Japan.. However seems before that it must have been an option..

An other comment here says On model 123 for vehicles with trailer coupling, adjust rear springs by one step higher, respectively, by means of a higher rubber mount or by installing blue springs..

So that seems to mean you can get different rubber mounts to put on top of the springs.. Blue mounts being the shortest and Red seem to be the taller all the way thru.. However I do not seem to find any thing more about the rubber mounts.. It really is starting to look like to me that they just kept using the same springs and just put a thicker rubber spacer on top of them to raise the rear end up some so it would have farther to travel..

The only other thing I seem to find is that the T-sedans with higher load and for poor roads get a 8.5 mm spacer between the frame floor and rubber spring.. (the rubber spring is the rubber bumper to keep it from bottoming out so hard)

An other option on the 78 with out level control may be that it was brought back by some one in the Service.. then the cars are often built with the American type plate but will have many none standard options for here.. I have had two of those over the years.. A 57 and a 66..

Ken
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-02-2003, 10:10 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: central Texas
Posts: 17,281
It is funny how different people make different assumptions ... for instance:
"However seems before that it must have been an option "-Ken
I assumed they had not 'invented' it or worked out the design prior to that.... That they put the wagon out, had feed back from those loading it down and it running down the road in a less than elegant position... and they went in and designed a suspension which took load into account.....

These pages about the rubber cushions or the springs ( pages and pages and pages ) are not easy to interpret.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-02-2003, 12:03 PM
Ken Downing
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
You said>>>>>>>It is funny how different people make different assumptions ... for instance:
"However seems before that it must have been an option "-Ken
I assumed they had not 'invented' it or worked out the design prior to that.... That they put the wagon out, had feed back from those loading it down and it running down the road in a less than elegant position... and they went in and designed a suspension which took load into account.....<<<<<<<<<


Intresting thought.. However they show rear level control in the 114 and 115 book starting in 68.. and as an option even then.. perhaps back farther as I am to lazy to go up in the attic and dig out some older books..

They show a long list of cars with rear level control and they are 6- 107's 6- 114's and 7- 115's... So rear level control was around before they came out with the 123 T..


You are right.. People do make assumpitons.. One thing I do know about Mercedes is that there is no fast rule about any car..

I have life long friend that has had S Class Mercedes for years.. All her cars have crank windows... Her 116.. 126 and even her 2002 S500.. If you want some thing.. Mercedes will make it for you... It just cost money.. Odds are they are not listed in the book for the 2002 S500

Ken
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-03-2003, 07:52 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Charlottetown, PEI Canada
Posts: 6
I agree with the listers stating that it would be easier to just fix the SLS.. This was my original plan, but a cracked 123 190 head put a halt to it.

I'll check with Rusty to see if a set of either one these springs are available anywhere.

123-324-33-04 = Harder suspension (higher vehicle level)
123-324-38-04 = Higher permissible load (1300kg rear axle)

If yes, it should not be a problem to find a shock to match..

I really appreciate all of the information, the effort, and time spent for those that posted.. Thanks, Swampy
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-03-2003, 08:48 AM
Ken Downing
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
With out a head to hold the pump I agree with you.. and odds are you can find an air shock to lift it up if needed . After all lots of cars do not have the level control and make it fine.. and if its just transportation like mine then it would really make little difference.. Who knows.. You may well come across a head at some point in time ...

Ken
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-03-2003, 12:11 PM
gsxr's Avatar
Unbanned...?
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 8,102
These are the only 5 springs currently on the MB-USA price list, along with the list price EACH:

123-324-06-04 - $100
123-324-27-04 - $100
123-324-35-04 - $133
123-324-36-04 - $115
123-324-41-04 - $172

The others are not on the USA price list, but are on the Euro price list:
http://wwwsg.daimlerchrysler.com/Projects/wi/cda/etpl?etpl_lang=01

123-324-33-04 = $110 EUR
123-324-38-04 = $116 EUR

That means a USA dealer can indeed order the last two, but finding one who will do this - or admit it's possible - will be a problem. Most will tell you flat out they can't get it, because it's not on their price list, which is BS. It just means they'll have to make some extra effort, either calling or faxing the order to Germany. But for $250-$300, plus air shocks, repairing the SLS is looking better and better (IMO).

Note that ALL of the 7 part numbers listed above are intended for use with the SLS "hydro spring leg", not standard shocks.


Best regards,
__________________
Dave
Boise, ID

Check out my website photos, documents, and movies!
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-04-2003, 10:38 AM
Ken Downing
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Lets not over look the fact that the stock spring did carry the car and some load.. the Rear level should not have kicked in until you put more than standard load.. It should not have carred the rear of the car all the time.. One thing to also remember is that there is a rubber piece above the spring.. some were thicker than others.. Odds are it is smashed to most nothing.. Replacing them with the standard or thicker ones would be a very good move and may well solve some rear sag... Replacing the spring with a new spring and the old rubber may give you some thing much like you have..

We have replaced the upper rubber on many Mercedes to get rid of rear end sag and just kept the same springs.. Many of the cars returned to very near stock height.. And a thicker rubber would put it above stock height..

Ken

Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2024 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page