anyone ever have one of these installed? what would the drawbacks be? advantages? your info wqould be appreciated

I imagine that Renntech cams are good. They better be at the price they run at. Some draw back may be unsteady idle depending on the degree duration of the camshaft. The advantages are an increase in HP in the upper RPM levels.

Regards,

Clinton Davis
'86 190E 2.3-16V turbo

__________________
Regards,

Clinton Davis
'86 190E 2.3-16V turbo
http://www.190revolution.net

I checked out Renntech cams for my car, and the increase in power was supposed to come on mainly above 3000 rpm. From what I hear they are very good. You might also want to check out AMG. They also have cams for most models. If I go that route, I will probably choose the AMGs. I don't really see myself doing it anytime soon, as most of my 95% of my driving is done below 2500 rpm - even on the hiway at 70mph.

JP Toronto

__________________
Jason Priest
1999 E430
1995 E420 - retired
1986 420SEL - retired

thanks for the info guys has anyone tried on of those cams in a 103 engine? would the fuel mileage decrease?

Anytime you "cam up" an engine, you are basically moving the efficient RPM range higher. The engine will make more power at higher RPM ranges at the loss of efficiency and torque at lower RPM ranges.

You need to be very careful when deciding on a camshaft. Talk to the mfg.'s tech person for recommendations. If he knows what he's doing, he will want to know everything from gear ratio, to intended usage.

Additonally, the M103 engine is already at about 1 HP er cubic inch. When you move past that you are getting into race engine territory, not street use. These engines are already laid out pretty well for a two valve engine. If MB could have cammed it up more without suffering drivability and increased fuel consumption, they would have done it.

I recommend that you consider this very carefully before acting.

sounds as if MBZ got as much as it could out of the 103 from the start. thanks i'll probably leave well enough alone.

I've heard from some of the Ol' timers that the early 124's had some pretty mean cams. They were screamers at hi RPMs but produced a little lumpy idle though. Hence MB phased them out of production and replaced them for any customer that came forward with this complaint. This is coming from very experienced techs. I strongly believe that some the early 103's are more powerful than the later ones. Eventhough they're rated as same HP. Can anyone else back this up?

Later,
Bill
91 300E

MY MB TECH HAD A RENNTECH 500E - HE SAYS IT ALWAYS HAD A HARD TIME PASSING EMMISIONS - AND HE HIMSELF DID THE INSPECTIONS AS HE WAS A STATE LICENSED NJ INSPECTION STATION. WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU?
HE ENDED UP SELLING IT BECAUSE IT WAS MORE RACE BRED THAN STREET DRIVABLE, HE NOW HAS AN E55. ACCORDING TO HIM IT'S MUCH MORE CIVILIZED.

I DID THE CAMS IN MY VW CORRADO AND I DIDN'T PASS STATE EMISSION INSPECTIONS. I HAD TO REMOVE THEM TO PASS.
I MYSELF HAD HAD THE URGE TO MOD MY MB, BUT I FOUND THAT THERE ARE CARS FOR THE STREET AND CARS FOR THE TRACK.
I CHOSE A DIFFERENT CAR FOR THE TRACK
MY 2 CENTS


TONY

Hey Jason you rascal. Foir 12 years I have wanted a cam that would improve myu low end torque and leave the top alone. I haven't found one yet. Now I'm waiting for the time when I have to do a valve grind. Then I will have a performance shop do a port matching, both intake and exhaust a cleanup the combustion chamber and C.C the combustion chamber. That's about all we can do to improve performance but not at the loss of driveability.

Donald L. Swinford
Retired 20+years G.M. Engineering Dept.
1987 300E, 168--- miles
W124030

Welcome to Mercedesshop, Donald! Good to see you on this post as well. I'm sure everyone here will benefit from your insight.

__________________
Jason Priest
1999 E430
1995 E420 - retired
1986 420SEL - retired

I didn't think there could be but one Jason, if I am recieved as well here as at MBCA Forum, I will be very happy. Happy Trails Beep Beep from Houston. Donald!!!

Donald,

I recently had the head off my '88 M103. I looked at the ports and it appeared to me that any gain you could get there would be VERY minimal. The reason I say this is that I have done some playing with ports on a number of American car heads and there is MUCH to be gained. The American ports are absolutely awful. But the Benz ports are really decent as cast. Match porting would provide almost nothing, because the real flow improvements are typically within a half inch to an inch from the valve.

I'm sure there could be some gain, but don't expect anything like you would get with Small Block Chevy's or any of the Fords.

I must say that after writing the above, I must point out that had I had the time, I would have probably spent some time with the flex shaft anyway, because it's hard for me to stay away from a set of ports.

Enjoyed your reply and have a great day,

BZP,

How early are we talking about? I also wonder if maybe the manual transmission cars got wilder cams. Is this as early as '88?

Thanks,

Thamnks Larry for your response of the experience you had with your 103. Oft times we think that a smooth bore is the best port surface; but it creates tubular air bands and seperation of fuel and air. To create better air blending we must break up that tube flow with a little flow turbulance, this mixes the injected fuel with the intake air. Possibly port matching, less interferance in and about the intake and exhaust valve guides could speed up the flow. On my 103.980 engine I've wrapped the exhaust manifolds with an insulating material trying to keep the heat in the manifold which creates more gas speed through the exhaust primary system until it reaches a larger area and expands and creates a lower scavanger pressure area. An old hot rod trick. Have you seen the price for Benz equal length Headers? $1300.00 for a six cylinder and $300.00 for a small block Chevy, WHY? I'll do what can be done if anything, when the time comes. Happy Trails Beep Beep from Houston,

Donald L. Swinford
Retired 20+yrs. G.M. Engineering Dept.
1987 W124030(got smart)
168,800miles

Larry,
These were in the early 124s, 86 and 87. Quite possibly some early produced 88s. I'm gonna get the whole scoop Monday. Maybe there is a way to determine which specific engines were equipped. I too am curious to find out because a buddy of mine has and 88 and 89te. He sold his 87 which spanked the doors off of his later models. I know that maintenance, etc. plays a huge roll in prolonged performance but in this example it's too noticeable.

Bill
91 300E