READ!!! Free HP for W201 & W124 owners! (Pictures!) - Page 12 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

#**166** 05-12-2002, 11:10 PM

Yes it was the right one on the 16 valve. the resistor is between the 3rd and 4rth intake runners. I might just as well put it back, lol

mushedroom · #**167** 05-29-2002, 01:47 PM

yikes...i've got the m104 engine..ugh...does this mean i'm destined for many headgasket probs, etc.? no no no..say it ain't so...
also what is so unique and better for an m104 engine to be CIS and not HFM....i'm lost....what is HFM and what is CIS?

thanks

mushedroom · #**168** 05-29-2002, 01:49 PM

p.s.
i'm going to take my resistor plug out today!!!
i'll have my results posted tomorrow...
i've got a 92 300CE 3.0L/24V 217hp with i guess what i'm being told is a m104/CIS engine..whatever that means...anyways...
love the freeway accelerations....not too thrilled with the off the line start...(i read somewhere on google searches that this car originally was a 8.0 sec/0-60 but sure doesn't feel like it...

ok well that's that...see ya guys later

mushedroom · #**169** 05-29-2002, 02:14 PM

for all of you guys that aren't noticing any difference, etc...and even you too 2phast!!!!....did you all remove the battery cable so that your computer can reset and readjust to not having a resistor?
maybe that will also solve the high temp issue?
increase hp?
increase acceleration?

i think i read earlier that the car without the resistor or engine retard of any kind runs cooler than normal????

who knows
i'm going to pull resistor and negative battery cable to reset car computer for my 92 300CE..would suggest the same for all of you other MBZ bros.....

woo hoo! gotta love the mercedes benz over the bmw simply cause it's a mercedes benz and not a bmw!!!!! (that was mean...sorry bmw owners...i mean really i'm sorry that you own bmw's) :-)

brookspw · #**170** 05-29-2002, 03:49 PM

To: someone who knows for sure -- is this necessary? (disconnecting the battery, reset computer)

I removed mine, and don't really see a difference except a little earlier kickdown.

brookspw

Potomac Pat · #**171** 05-29-2002, 04:58 PM

Our friendly neighborhood SCCA runners when asked about this R/16 resistor said, "they tried it numerous times in different vehicle and had little if any performance enhancments." Unless someone has proof like dyno runs, etc..... IMO this should be put to rest. IMO

Mercedes Fred · #**172** 05-29-2002, 08:38 PM

my understanding is that this resistor delays the spark in order to prevent pre-ignition, a precaution againts low octane gas. What seems unclear is how removing this translates into extra horsepower; perhaps a number of conditions have to be met before this is measurable, and many claim it has made little or no difference via dyno test or personal experience.

what is vexing is that it is there in the first place and that removing it seems to make no difference. Perhaps "unretarding" the spark has no relation to horsepower at the degree to which the resistor operates (4degrees?).

2phast · #**173** 05-30-2002, 02:50 AM

I can not speak for other owners but removing the R16 on my 190 made a noticeable difference. I coupled this with increasing my spark plug gap to .045

I am also running a cold air intake on my 190. This intake flows much more air than the stock setup, so when pulling the R16, it was like a night/day difference. Low end torque was increased and power throughout the powerband was also increased.

On later model cars, odbi and odbii, chip programmers remove the retard as part of their chip programming sequence, that combined with other programming can increase hp anywhere from 5-15 hp on most vehicles.

As for disconnecting the battery, I am not sure how important that would be on older, pre-odbi vehicles, as the ECU does not control much in the way of fuel, iginition or air flow. Even on later model vehicles (odbii) if you do not disconnect the battery, the ECU will relearn, it just takes longer for the fuel curves to readjust to the increased air flow

Also keep in mind that on the more powerfull engines, a increase in 5-10 hp may not even be noticable via the ol seat of the pants meter, so the results on the 400E's don't suprise me, but I bet if you had a before dyno run and a after dyno run, there would be a rwhp increase. On my Corvette, even a 15 rwhp increase was not noticable via the seat of the pants meter

mushedroom · #**174** 05-30-2002, 02:13 PM

Ok y’all, these are my results from pullin the plug:

But first here is the breakdown on my car…

No mods.
Stock 92’ 300CE - m104/CIS – 24V inline 6 - 217hp

I did notice a little difference in the take off from stop…a bit peppier.

The initial range of power, prior to, during, and after the shifts from starting gear (which I think is 2nd) to the next gear up is smoother and seems to have more balls…..i was wondering why the power sucked in this area……obviously this isn’t the case if you’ve leadfooted the pedal but I’d like to save money on gas!!!
The car does seem to have more “get up and go” to it…

My car does seem to be happier driving without the resistor…I can actually feel it accelerate at mid speeds easier…

From a cold start, the car seems to also start up easier than before where I would have to have the key turned for a split second longer….

As for gas mileage….i used fuel injector cleaner and bumped up from 14-16.7 mpg…will report new mileage with retard plug out…as soon as the new tank is gone….
I will also be adding a k&n filter…soon….

Hope this helps you guys….
Oh no knocking or pinging using Costco 91 octane fuel….so I’m happy…

And I plan on keeping the plug out

Let me know any of your thoughts out there

mushedroom · #**175** 06-03-2002, 03:12 PM

ok...here's another addition...
no change in fuel economy...however, i did drive the car harder with faster off the line starts, speedy turns, hard braking, etc. (not grandpapa-ish like before when i was trying to optimize fuel consumption)....so i guess that's a good trade off....drop the plug...drive hard...maintain decent fuel consumption....

woo hoo
love the car

just hate the birds that hang around it.

#**176** 08-16-2002, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ashman
Does this work ont he M104 Engine?

Has anyone done this on a 3.2L M104 (93-95 W124) car ??
- can I get more info on location of the resistor ?
- what type of results did you observe ?

Thanks -- Manuel

--------------------

93 300CE Sportline : basic mods www.geocities.com/mcantoria/mc-mbz.html
93 NSX : track-prepared www.geocities.com/mcantoria/mc-nsx.html
97 Miata : stock for now

#**177** 08-16-2002, 06:26 PM

I looked everywhere and on the CD to find it. My car does not have it ('95 E320). We did find it on a friends car which is a '95 E420, but of course we couldn't tell a difference on a quick drive.

jsmith · #**178** 08-16-2002, 08:59 PM

93 - 95 w124 m104's don't have it, this was addressed early in the thread.

#**179** 08-17-2002, 02:59 PM

I took off the resistor from my 88 300 E today but did not notice any difference in performance. So I went back home and hooked up my timing gun. There was NO difference in initial timing with the resistor connected or completely taken out.
Maybe it changes the total timing, I did not check for that.

So I decided to put it back in again.
Car performs the same, apparently this modification does not change the initial timing at least in my car.

tvpierce · #**180** 08-19-2002, 05:46 PM

I removed the resistor in my '92 190E/2.3. I didn't notice any difference. But I'm told the most pronounce gain is in high RPMs (near redline) . I never drive my car that hard, so I just put it back in.

jp

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Free horsepower??	Froggy	Mercedes-Benz SL Discussion Forum	11	11-28-2006 09:48 AM
SL owners !! Publish your MB picture Free !!	mcarboni	Mercedes-Benz SL Discussion Forum	0	11-10-2001 11:25 PM
Look This MB Owners! Parts Catalog Free !!	mcarboni	Mercedes-Benz SL Discussion Forum	1	11-08-2001 10:22 AM
Free Snap-On tool set for Mercedes owners	Carrameow	Tech Help	2	09-29-1999 08:06 PM