What is the Difference between the 92-93-94 500E/E500? - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

yhliem · #16 03-01-2004, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by suginami
Disclaimer: While I don't own a 124.036, I would think a 1992 would be the most desireable because you get slightly more horsepower, and an engine block that can be bored out.

1992 US Spec 500E was rated @ 322hp.
1993 US SPec 500E & 1994 US Spec E500 were both rated @ 315 hp.

The increased desirability is more psychological IMO because I highly doubt that the 7 fewer hp is that noticable given that we're talking about 300+hp to begin with.

yhliem · #17 03-01-2004, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bryan Harter
I was very surprised that MB chose to change the block design mid year ( I would think they would have held off for the next model (210)) Seems like alot of $$$ (testing/emissions cert...) for a mid year change.

MB is well known for incorporating engineering changes in mid-production. this is nothing new.

yhliem · #18 03-01-2004, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by gerryvz
Rotors for these calipers as used on the later cars are considerably more expensive than the previous (smaller) rotors, and there are separate part numbers for left and right. The earlier cars used the same part for right and left side.

Gerry,

AFAIK MB no longer supplies both left & right replacements for the 320mm front rotors. Although the internal cooling vanes are directional, they just source one rotor for both sides resulting in one side having reversed cooling vanes.

Just cheaper for MB I guess: one less part number to maintain.

omegabenz · #19 03-01-2004, 12:42 AM

The open deck is probably better because everyone knows the 500E has over heating problems. Maybe that is why they switched from closed to open deck blocks.

omegabenz · #20 03-01-2004, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yhliem
Gerry,

AFAIK MB no longer supplies both left & right replacements for the 320mm front rotors. Although the internal cooling vanes are directional, they just source one rotor for both sides resulting in one side having reversed cooling vanes.

Just cheaper for MB I guess: one less part number to maintain.

That sucks.

I should try to get some of the old style ones.

gerryvz · #21 03-01-2004, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yhliem
Gerry,

AFAIK MB no longer supplies both left & right replacements for the 320mm front rotors. Although the internal cooling vanes are directional, they just source one rotor for both sides resulting in one side having reversed cooling vanes.

Just cheaper for MB I guess: one less part number to maintain.

I haven't heard this is the case; but there's a great chance you are right. Perhaps this change was made recently.

I do know that as of last September 2003, I had a set of new rotors and pads installed on my own car (sourced from MB at that time) and they were indeed different part numbers.

Cheers,
Gerry

Michael · #22 03-01-2004, 12:39 PM

I recently purchased the later rotors from MBZ, and they had different P/Ns as well as different, directional vaning as appropriate.

The reason MBZ went to open deck blocks after '92, as I understand, because the open deck blocks are considerably cheaper to manufacture; it was not done for cooling reasons. Also, the closed deck block is stronger, as back in the day it had to deal with over 1,000HP in the twin turbo Sauber cars. However, given the relatively mild state of tune 500E500s are in (they are road cars, after all) I can't think either block is preferable.

Some of the points made on this thread are new to me-thanks all for sharing!

yhliem · #23 03-01-2004, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gerryvz
I haven't heard this is the case; but there's a great chance you are right. Perhaps this change was made recently.

I do know that as of last September 2003, I had a set of new rotors and pads installed on my own car (sourced from MB at that time) and they were indeed different part numbers.

Cheers,
Gerry

Maybe it's an MB Canada thing then.

-fad · #24 03-01-2004, 08:45 PM

off hand they are hard to enumerate comprehensively ...

however, if one searches the Hot Rod forum, there lies a wealth of information on the '94 E500's (subtle) mechanical, technical, and equipment upgrades/ evolvement/changes

as mentioned already, the 124.036 was continuously improved (as other MBs) in this respect until final production

hope this helps
-fad

gerryvz · #25 03-01-2004, 09:16 PM

I just walked in the door not 30 seconds ago from my local indy shop. I had them check out the part number for the E500 brakes with their online sources (local distributors).

One distributor (who has old stock) still has both part numbers listed, and separate rotors in stock.

Another distributor had both rotors as one part number, as yhliem suggested. It looks like this is the case going forward.

Cheers,
Gerry

placo1 · #26 03-02-2004, 11:32 AM

Gerry,

That's disappointing to hear, seems MB is in their consolodation phase with regards to parts for our cars. Not the first time many of us have heard certain parts (like carpeting) are being discontinued. Brakes are important though, I wonder why they would do that?

Some other changes I remembered:

1. In 1992 the engines had metal oil tubes, this was changed either in 93 or 94 production year for plastic oil tubes. Not sure why they did this.

2. The very early 92 models I've heard have stiffer front struts, this was changed due to complaints of harsh ride. By chance does anyone know the part numbers of the earlier struts and the later struts?

3. Two types of CD changers were available for the cars, either the Becker Silverstone or the Alpine 6 Disc Changer. Both are DIO's.

Jim's500E · #27 03-02-2004, 02:21 PM

Richard....if you can get the VIN....have a MB dealer run its history...hopefully that 92 car was serviced at a MB dealer and the info entered into the service database.

When I found my car it only had reciepts for a few years....using the VIN thru the dealer network I was able to find out all the work from the 3 different dealers it had visited in the previous 8 years of his ownership.

Definitely run a CarFax report too !! There's recently been 2-3 'salvage title' 500Es here in CT for sale.

You reconsidering MB 500E over the Audi S4 now...good man !!

gerryvz · #28 03-17-2004, 05:46 AM

Something else I just thought of as a difference between the cars:

The later cars (94s, at least) had a different remote control joystick for the exterior mirrors, and both a motorized driver's side and passenger side mirror.

I think the earlier cars only had a motorized passenger mirror, and the driver's was controlled by hand.

Right?

Cheers,
Gerry

placo1 · #29 03-17-2004, 11:01 AM

Tsk Tsk Gerry, take a look at my first reply on this thread.

Richard,
So did you ever end up finding the right 500?

gerryvz · #30 03-17-2004, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by placo1
Tsk Tsk Gerry, take a look at my first reply on this thread.

Yeah, but I expanded on your post with the addition of information about the joystick/control. But thanks for pointing that out; I had neglected to review the entire thread before I posted.

Cheers,
Gerry