93 engine mgmt in 92 engine (M119)?

[tkd_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

[Jim's500E]

What car is this for? SL?...if its a 500E...its the 92' that has more power.

[tkd_M119]

It's a 92 400e.

[Benzmac]

The 92 has more power.

[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?

[JimF]

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

[Michael]

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...

[suginami]

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.

[-fad]

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

[suginami]

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.

[-fad]

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

[Michael]

-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

[suginami]

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...

[-fad]

...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

[Benzmac]

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.