You obviously have zero clue what you are talking about. The spring was not randomly selected. Rather, it was designed and went through a lot of R&D before being marketed. Those expenses was in the $1,000's of dollars by folks who are true diesel experts. Then, it was road tested for a while. THEN, it was marketed. OVER 80 of these have been sold and all 2 thumbs up as compared to your "experiment" which you discussed.

So, I guess folks can evaluate proven prior results, expensive R&D, and true diesel experts versus your one time experiment.

I guess even trolls take a stroll on these threads.

Here (attached below) is the MB FSM related to 617.xxx IP fuel pressure test values. As posted in various threads in this forum, including the “whunter” thread you referenced [Fuel injection pump starvation with a good lift pump. For those interested, my own data and conclusions are in that thread; post #82


Now, greazzer, as for your claims, based on your so called R&D and the “$1,000's of dollars by folks who are true diesel experts.” I say: show me the evidence.

The evidence should include, for each of the vehicles involved in your extensive R&D (and also for each of your 80 satisfied customers):

a) the systematic IP pressure testing, per MB FSM, with the original, unmodified pressure relief spring, first …and

b) then, the same tests with your “not randomly selected,” but “designed” spring

c) a table summarizing the post-modification fuel pressure values that were either:

a) Within factory specs …or

b) Above factory specs

d) an objective report on the operating characteristics of the modified test vehicles

e) the before and after MPG table

f) a report on whether any of the 80 modified vehicles overheated their IP as a result of your spring

Don’t forget to include how your so-called R&D accounted for whether the cars involved had a clean strainer, fuel filters, correctly set valve timing and valve clearances, properly adjusted IP timing, a properly functioning lift pump and known good injectors with balanced pop values and good spray patterns; also the compression test results of the test motors.

Wait… What’s that? Oh you don’t have those values? It was just too much trouble to gather this information during your research worth “$1,000's of dollars?” I see. Well, then, your spring, my dear greazzer, is just snake oil.

Had you done real R&D (like that done by Bosch or MB or Monark) you would have some credibility. You have not, therefore you have none. Sorry.

Perhaps you want to insist that your own unique greazzer insights are superior to those of the silly german enginners, what with their fancy-shmancy engineering degrees and those ivory tower research labs, with those white labcoat wearing scientists, looking down their noses and issuing those condescending MB FSMs with actual fuel pressure values; …that all of their research is just an unproven theory compared to your faith based spring.

It looks like, absent real data based on real R&D, that would have to be your position. In that case, my dear greazzer, YOU are the troll.

Now, about those 160 thumbs (80 customers x 2 thumbs, assuming each had 2) that you have offered. Is that your evidence? Thumbs are not evidence. Even 160 thumbs are mostly wishful thinking. Before and After fuel pressure values are data that could be evidence. OK ? Make your argument based on real facts.

So, once more I say: show me the evidence of what your modified spring does to the fuel pressure.

If it just brings the pressure to within factory spec, we come back to my main point – that the stronger (or stretched or shimmed) spring just compensates for some other fuel delivery problem. One danger is that it obscures the problem making it that much more difficult to bring the car into proper spec, but that may be of little interest to some.

Attached Thumbnails