Down to 3 E500s - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Dcraig · #46 12-19-2002, 05:39 PM

If the hp on the 500 is under-rated, does that mean it's under-rated for my 420?

Craig

Dcraig · #47 12-19-2002, 05:43 PM

Daesun- Carl at Bergwerks told me in their tests, the K&N's actually slow the car down. I asked him when I was thinking about them for my car.

So, keep 'em in there.:p

Craig

Dcraig · #48 12-19-2002, 06:02 PM

I agree. I don't know how he came to that conclusion. He told me to save my $$.

Craig

Daesun · #49 12-19-2002, 06:23 PM

Michael - I found the page claiming that variable intake valve timing was added in '94.

History of the 500E

suginami · #50 12-19-2002, 06:33 PM

So the C43 must be a normally aspirated V8, and the C32 must be an inline-6 that is turbocharged or Kompressored.

Daesun · #51 12-19-2002, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by suginami
So the C43 must be a normally aspirated V8, and the C32 must be an inline-6 that is turbocharged or Kompressored.

The C43 has the 4.3L V8 from the production 430 cars with some AMG tweaks to bump its output a bit. The C32 has a supercharged intercooled version of the 3.2L V6 from the 320 cars. The SLK32 sports the same powerplant and rockets to 60 mph in ~4.5 sec.

Michael · #52 12-19-2002, 06:50 PM

Daesun,

I'd never seen that website...wonder how they got their info, because it is categorically incorrect on the variable valve timing and "flatter torque curve" issues (I got my info from the MBZ publication "Introduction Into Service").

Suginami,

The C32 actually uses a 3.2 litre modular V-6, with the supercharger residing in the "V" between the cylinder heads.

Craig,

As to the "under-rating" of the 5.0 M119s, I presume this because a 322HP engine should not be able to pull a 3,850lb car down the quarter at/under 14 seconds (I've turned from 13.8 to 14.1 in the 1/4, repeatedly, and I have something like 150lbs of stereo stuff in my car). I have no idea whether the 4.2s were conservatively rated as well. I highly doubt, though, that any "weak" motors left the factory, since if they couldn't make their claimed output they were likely scrapped...a policy Ford would do well to consider

Daesun · #53 12-19-2002, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dcraig
If the hp on the 500 is under-rated, does that mean it's under-rated for my 420?

With any production engine, you're going to get a range of power output. Some will be stronger, some will be weaker. Rumor has it that only the most potent 5.0L M119s were handpicked for use in the 500Es.

Who knows? Maybe your 420 is especially strong as well. Only the dyno will tell for sure. The same applies to 500s as well, of course. For all I know, I have a 290 hp "dud", and you have a 300 hp gem.

As far as K&Ns slowing a car down, what is the logic behind that? It's a generally accepted fact that K&Ns flow more air than paper filters. Whether or not that equates to more power is dependent on how the engine management system reacts to the added airflow. But more air should never slow a car down. If anything, the engine will be incapable of converting the added airflow to more power, and the result would be zero gain. An exposed K&N filter is a different story, as sucking hot air from an engine bay would definitely result in power loss. But the drop in filters reside in stock locations, so intake air temps should be identical.

But I'm certainly no engineer, so I welcome somebody more qualified to enlighten us all on this topic.

yhliem · #54 12-19-2002, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Daesun
With any production engine, you're going to get a range of power output. Some will be stronger, some will be weaker. Rumor has it that only the most potent 5.0L M119s were handpicked for use in the 500Es.

If I am not mistaken, the M119 block used in the 500Es was actually a modified M119 as the standard M119 was too tall to fit into the confines of the W124 engine bay even after the chassis had been altered.

I can't see them building an M119 to completion and testing it out only to strip it down and deck it.

Daesun · #55 12-19-2002, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yhliem
If I am not mistaken, the M119 block used in the 500Es was actually a modified M119 as the standard M119 was too tall to fit into the confines of the W124 engine bay even after the chassis had been altered.

I can't see them building an M119 to completion and testing it out only to strip it down and deck it.

Hey, all I'm doing here is spreading unsubstantiated word-of-mouth tales and possibly severely misinforming hundreds of unwitting victims who read and accept as fact said hearsay. Is that so wrong?

Like I said, it's a rumor. But you have to admit, it sure feels like more than 322 hp, doesn't it?

Dcraig · #56 12-19-2002, 07:46 PM

I often think that I must have more than 275 when I hit it at 10mph, it downshifts to 1st, chirps the tires, and launches itself into the atmosphere. LOL. I should change my sig to read: "The poor man's 500"

Craig

blackmercedes · #57 12-21-2002, 12:26 AM

The C32 is the quickest by far. It has the most power, the most torque, the best power/weight ratio, and the best aerodynamics by a country mile. Remember too, that the C32 has a five speed. And the SLK is even quicker.

Unless you're packing Porsche with a turbo power or Z-06 (super exotics are too rare) don't mess with the following:

SLK32 AMG
SL55 AMG
E55 AMG

In 2003, Kompressor means "kompressing" the competition.

Now as far as E420 2.82 vs. E500, I'd say it might be close in a head to head accel run. The E420 is a touch lighter. The E500 still has the edge. Now, drop in a 3.07 in the E420, and it might be a different story.

For overall performance, c'mon, even the most ardent E420 supporter has to admit the E500 has the advantage in many areas. Bigger boots, bigger brakes, bigger suspension bits, and the mildly intimidating flared front fenders!

Really guys, let's face it, a ten year old MB that can run with most contemporary performace cars save for the biggest of the big dogs is pretty amazing.

The E420 rates as the best high performance used sedan buy bar none. You can pick a reasonably cared for example for half the price (or less) of a well worn C36 or E500.

Michael · #58 12-21-2002, 04:47 PM

John/all,

The C32 actually is down on torque vs. the M119 5 litre; 332 lb-ft vs. 354. Not that the little beast needs it!

need2speed · #59 12-23-2002, 11:00 AM

Craig, this article is for you!

Sometimes less can be more

Götz Leyrer compares the 500 E and the 400 E in assessing the W124 range.
Auto Motor und Sport 30.10.1992

At first sight the decision seems easy. Why should you pay more than 140.000 Marks for 320 horsepower, when for 92.000 Marks you get 279 horses which will be enough for any situation?
Of course, we must remember here that the top model of the mid-size Mercedes range has not only the larger and more powerful V8, but also a chassis more in tune with sporty driving and comes luxuriously equipped. The 500 E has, among other things, ASR (electronic anti-slip system), air conditioning and radio.
The 500 E is the driver-oriented luxury limousine with a dose of sport added. It corners with somewhat more in reserve. The body moves less and the car steers more precisely. You must accept small losses in suspension comfort, which remains unusually good. And the 500 E has power reserves which overshadow the quick 400 E.
And yet: The new 400 E is 50.000 Marks cheaper than the 500 E and is thus an offer which you actually cannot refuse. The performance is similar to the cheaper 320 E´s, but it is delivered in a much more relaxed manner. The generous power and torque flow smoothly through an automatic transmission which works so unobtrusively that you have to call it perfect.
You get top-notch comfort, with suspension that is free from all sporty hardness yet there is no feel of floating. The 400 E avoids hectics of all kind. It does not inspire to full use of the engine like the 500 E. You prefer a relaxed style and the power becomes a reserve that calms down your driving ever more.
You feel the weight of the V8 – as you do in the 500 E - and the car´s reactions are somewhat slower than in the less energetic mid-size Mercs. Yet even this fits into the overall character of the easy-going touring limousine. And let us not forget one thing. The 400 E´s bodywork has no macho give-aways.

Performance:

400 E / 500 E

0-60 km/h 4,2 / 3,5
0-80 km/h 5,8 / 5,0
0-100 km/h 7,9 / 6,8
0-120 km/h 10,4 / 9,3
0-140 km/h 14,2 / 12,2
0-160 km/h 18,3 / 15,6
0-200 km/h 36,2 / 27,2

Standing kilometre 28,2 / 26,7

Top speed km/h 250 / 252

Fuel litres/100 km 14,1 / 14,8

Weight kg 1.710 / 1.778

Thanks very much to Jukka Luoma for translating from the original German!

Dcraig · #60 12-23-2002, 11:25 AM

Thakns Dean but it brings a couple things to my mind.

First, with all the talk about the 400E/E420's being made in Mexico, I doubt that the Germans would take likely to a MB being imported to their country that was made in Mexico, unless there were 400's made in Germany and there was a factory in Mexico sending them to the USA.

Second, I thought that the preformance of the European cars were faster than the USA cars due to emissions. That performance data suggests that the 500 was 0-62 in 6.8 seconds which is almost a full second slower than the road test data here in this country. Same with the 400's. Road & Track did 60 in the E420 in 7.1. My car with the new rear end is 6.4x.

I agree with the article, that's why I want a E500, but I think Santa's sleigh is over-weight this year. I'd like to find a perfect E500 with 30-45,000 miles, all records, pampered, and pay about $35,000. As it is now, my E420 spends most of it's time in the garage. I've had it 13 months and put on about 4000 miles.

Am I reading it wrong?