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 > Mercedes-Benz Performance Paddock

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-11-2002, 10:21 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 403
93 engine mgmt in 92 engine (M119)?

Does anyone know if you can hook up a 93 ecu to a 92 engine (M119)? I'm assuming it can't be done or is too much trouble to be done being that I don't seem to find anyone doing this. Or - is it more that just an ECU that gives a 93 motor more power?

Tom
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-12-2002, 01:33 PM
Jim's500E's Avatar
Large Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Manchester, Connecticut
Posts: 1,325
What car is this for? SL?...if its a 500E...its the 92' that has more power.
__________________
Jim

1992 500E
2007 CLK63
2003 Audi RS6
2001 Audi allroad
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-12-2002, 04:15 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 403
tkd_M119

It's a 92 400e.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-12-2002, 07:54 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Suwanee, GA, USA
Posts: 4,712
The 92 has more power.
__________________
Benzmac:
Donnie Drummonds
ASE CERTIFIED MASTER AUTO TECHNICIAN
MERCEDES SPECIALIST 11 YRS
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-13-2002, 12:51 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 403
I thought that the 92 had around 258hp while the 93 has 275. Plus the 92 EPA ratings are 16-21 MPG and the 93 are 17-25 MPG. Or am I mistaken?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-13-2002, 10:24 AM
JimF's Avatar
'94 S500: only 793 sold!
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,929
The '93 has more hp . . .

Net power,
1992: 268 hp @ 5,700 rpm
1993: 275 hp @ 5,700 rpm

Net torque,
1992: 295 lb-ft @ 3,900 rpm
1993: 295 lb-ft @ 3,900 rpm

Compression ratio
1992: 10.0:1
1993: 11.0:1
__________________
Regards . . . . JimF
-------------------
'94 S500 Cpe

Visit my Mercedes Web Page
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-13-2002, 11:23 AM
Michael's Avatar
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 2,699
Jim/all,

That compression ratio info is incorrect - MBZ actually had it wrong on their website! All of the M119 motors ran 10:1 compression, regardless of year/application.

I'd think the '93 electronics would be fine...
__________________
"If everything seems under control, you're simply not going fast enough" --Mario Andretti

Michael
1995 E500 street car
1986 Porsche 944 Turbo S track car
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-13-2002, 12:36 PM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,538
I agree with Benzmac for the same reason that '92 500E's are the most sought-after.

They produce the most horsepower because 93's and later faced more stringent smog emissions rules.
__________________
Paul S.

2001 E430, Bourdeaux Red, Oyster interior.
79,200 miles.

1973 280SE 4.5, 170,000 miles. 568 Signal Red, Black MB Tex. "The Red Baron".
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-13-2002, 02:15 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 1,562
Hi Paul-

from following 500e/e500 buyers/owners chatter over the years ..not really sure that the '92 500e's are the 'most sought after' ....

weren't the published factory perf figures 0-60mph and top speed identical? (...and the difference 315hp vs 322hp @ a net of 2%; similar diff in torque specs)?

I've observed that there's a distinct following for each 500e/e500 model year(s) for various reasons: tastes, bias's, etc.

In either case, performance-wise they are alot of MB for street use.

best regards
-fad
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-13-2002, 02:49 PM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,538
O.K., I'll buy that, but I've read enough on the Hot Rod section that tells me that most people are looking for a '92 model because of it's additonal horsepower, and then probably the '94 model that you've got because of the updated hood / grill / lights.

I've read the least sought after model (if there really is a "least sought after" 500E) is the '93 because you lose the hp but don't get the updated hood.
__________________
Paul S.

2001 E430, Bourdeaux Red, Oyster interior.
79,200 miles.

1973 280SE 4.5, 170,000 miles. 568 Signal Red, Black MB Tex. "The Red Baron".
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-13-2002, 05:24 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 1,562
Hi Paul-

Yes- Quite naturally we are drawn to addl HP- - and why not if it comes with the '92 car gratis!?

I was drawn to the extra 7 ponies and torque too of the 1992, but really was adverse to an additional 2 years of wear-and-tear & downside risk...likely figuring that the wear and tear of a '92 may render its addl 7 ponies null vs. a newer e500 (ie compression loss, driveline/chassis wear etc.)

After weighing the options and availability, I developed more personal bias towards:
> Starmark availability years
> '94 interior aesthetics: Bose system, drivers center arm rest, extra rocker panel panel switch vs. '92, steering wheel, etc.
> '94 exterior aesthetics: lights, grill, hood, etc.
> '94 hardware aesthetics: SL600 front brake hardware, extra cooling passages/jacket around the motor's cylinders, etc.

Although I've not actually heard it from a prospetive 500e buyer yet- - I agree that the '93 got somewhat shortchanged and is slightly less desireable vs. the '92 and '94.

Best regards
-fad
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-13-2002, 05:49 PM
Michael's Avatar
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 2,699
-fad/all,

As to the "extra cooling/passages" of the '92 vs. '93 & later cars-the earlier motor were of a closed-deck design, meaning when you pull a cylinder head off you cannot see between the cylinders on a closed deck motor. However, the closed deck blocks did have coolant passages between the cylinders, but block material was left remaining between the cylinders up near where the block meets the head for strength. Thing is, for every closed deck block that came out of the casting & cylinder lining/siliconizing (sp?) process properly, some 10+ were thrown away as inferior...very expensive block with those numbers(MBZ musta lost their A$$ on early 500Es, 500SLs & 500 SELs). Plus, that extra material, in an under-stressed 320ish HP road car application, was overkill. Remember, these motors were meant to develop 1,000+ twin turbocharged fury, and to do so dependably, in endurance races. Later, MBZ figured out how to minimize their production losses and went to the open-deck design, which proved more than adequate to the task but saved them dinero. This is why the tuners will only bore out a closed-deck motor-with the later blocks, there wouldn't be enough material up near the head gasket to seal the cylinders properly.

Ultimately, unless you plan to 6.0 the car, I'd go for whichever aesthetically appeals to you...subjectively, those 7 extra HP are truly negligible, for one; the bigger brakes of the later cars are only viable if you track the car, or live in the land of the autostrada/autobahn/autoroute (I track my car, so popped on the later brakes). The later stereo is quite a bit better than the early ones (I replaced mine completely).

And I do like that clamshell arm rest - on my upgrade list
__________________
"If everything seems under control, you're simply not going fast enough" --Mario Andretti

Michael
1995 E500 street car
1986 Porsche 944 Turbo S track car
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-13-2002, 06:22 PM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,538
Nice post.

I've read of the "closed deck design" thing before, but had no idea what it referred to.

In any event, I'd give either my left nut or my right nut (take your pick) for any year 500E / E500...
__________________
Paul S.

2001 E430, Bourdeaux Red, Oyster interior.
79,200 miles.

1973 280SE 4.5, 170,000 miles. 568 Signal Red, Black MB Tex. "The Red Baron".
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-13-2002, 06:41 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 1,562
...Thanks Mike for the info

>would you imagine that there was a 'closed deck' M119 cast
and an 'open deck' M119 cast>>and there was not more work in casting between these blocks?

>or, would you imagine that the 'closed deck' M119 casting was the same for all M119's but the open deck was machined after the casting? If so, the open deck would appear to more labor intensive and costly vs. a simply cast M119 w/ no addl work ?

What would be the theoretical difficulty in consistently casting/cylinder lining a correct closed deck M119 that would yield a 90% production failure? how does the failure relate to the closed deck block production process?

Can you share where this information sourced from? Any details on this in the the Intro to Service manual?

tks-fad
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-13-2002, 08:24 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Suwanee, GA, USA
Posts: 4,712
Jim, guys,

We all know that pubished power claims are exactly that, claims.

I know for a fact that the fuel system in a '92 is different in respect to wide open throttle. The '92 will dyno about 15hp higher under WOT in the same conditions as a '93.

In '92, the LH fue system uses a pre-made map for fuel and ignition based on CLT, MAF, MAT, and TPS.

The '93 does this plus kicks in the O2 for better economy and lower emissions.
As seen below in the EPA ratings.
tkd_M119 I thought that the 92 had around 258hp while the 93 has 275. Plus the 92 EPA ratings are 16-21 MPG and the 93 are 17-25 MPG. Or am I mistaken?


The reason the ratings were higher in HP was to help sell the car.
__________________
Benzmac:
Donnie Drummonds
ASE CERTIFIED MASTER AUTO TECHNICIAN
MERCEDES SPECIALIST 11 YRS
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 05:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2018 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page