Lower Splash Guard E420
 

My lower engine splash guard on my E420 is just about shot and I was thinking about permanently removing it. Has anyone experienced any problems running without the guard? I know some have mentioned that it will enhance the cooling, but I was wondering if there are any major down sides to this, like the alternator getting wet when it rains. I was also wondering if it was designed to enhance air flow and cooling, like some of the lower cowlings on other vehicles. Thanks.

That's the first thing I do with a car. It seems cruel to leave it on the car. It raises the engine temp, masks fluid leaks, thwarts oil changes, etc. 90+ percent of the cars on the road do fine without a belly pan.

It is there to channel airflow and protect the Belt from road debries.
It serves a function.

But Arthur, that airflow is so limited compared to taking it off entirely. I've done this several times - the cars consistently run 10 degrees cooler. I've even done on/off, on/off to test the temp. I don't think MB ever said it was there to cool the engine, but to manage the air temps - i.e hotter, for emissions. Add to that the nuissance of it, and the fact that it covers up fluid leaks, it's nuts on an older used car. Volvo used to do it, then just dropped it. I'm still suspicious that it's a ploy to keep customers away from changing their own oil.

<I don't think MB ever said it was there to cool the engine,>

Yes they do.
Factory Service manual.
But the main reason is to keep water off the belt to prevent slippage from wet roads. That is why the AC has a speed sensor on the compressor.

I almost forgot, MB dropped it too - on the 140 bodies, around 1996 I think. I had a VW service rep tell me that a factory rep admitted to him that while it served some purpose it's principal purpose was increasing service revenue. I'm not suggesting it has no purpose, it just has so many negatives on an older car, and it can't be really necessary or MB wouldn't have dropped it on the 140 body, and perhaps other models, not sure.

They are a pain in the ass....the mounting screw anchores always break...
I have cut a 4" access hole in a few with a drier vent saw so you don't have to pull it for Oil change...

But there is a cowel effect, probably more so on the 104. Belt protection is the main reason why I leave them.

No doubt a shop can't throw away parts like an owner can. I get great pleasure from throwing away what I consider to be superfluous parts - to make it easier next time.

What one considers a useless part has a lot to do with how much one knows about the logical reason and performance behind the part.
See guys dump cowellings all the time without any regards to the designs purpose..and there IS a purpose.

This is good information coming from both sides of the argument. It will be a difficult decision whether or not to buy a replacement. Thanks again, guys.

I'm sure I've thrown away hundreds of parts over the years, and with absolute impunity - never a single problem. Much of what I've thrown away MB doesn't even bother to put on the cars anymore. I think the 90s were the age of excess - lots of over-engineered parts and systems. In the end I think it's largely a personality issue. If your a minimalist you like keeping it simple. These old sedans are just going to the salvage yard anyway.

Yeah, I remember talking to some of the Engineers when the 124 was introduced, they were pretty proud of the "revenue-generating panel". That is a complete fabrication/BS by the way.

When the 124 was designed, the encapsulation panels were there for a reason. They keep the engine clean, provide proper airflow, allow the engine to run proper temperatures (if the engine is running hot, there's a problem), reduce engine noise, and reduce aero drag & lift.

It can be removed, you can run without it. I don't, I just don't like the filthy engine. If the engine leaks it needs repair anyway, but that's another story.

If you remove the engine panel, you will also want to remove the transmission panel as the air will eventually catch the transmission panel and pull it down, at least one forum member had this happen on a 124.

But you're missing the point - the question is not whether it had a purpose when the car was new but whether it can be removed on a 15 year old car. Obviously it can be. Way over 99 percent of the cars on the road over the last century have done fine without a belly pan. BTW, what do suppose changed on the 140 body - that for all those good reasons it had to have one, then suddenly it didn't need to have one. But the parallel doesn't work on the car in question. As to MB's altruism it's just a good thing they don't sell swamp land, because there'd be a lot of buyers.

On the 94 I just bought a few months ago, the sump guard/ belly pan is missing. And I want it.

(Marginally) Better fuel economy and also protects (somewhat) the oil sump/ pan. In exchange for 10F cooler temps? I'll take it. Thats what the fans are for. And the engine is designed to work at those "elevated" temps.

I would find out how expensive it is before I decide whether it is necessary.

I leave them on, but I'm not sure I would spend 80~90 bucks for one.

The 124 wasn't a product of the 90's....more over engineering of the late seventies/early eighties.

If it's excess to you and your car is ultimately heading to the salvage yard then feel free to take any part off that you deem not necessary.

To me if I'm buying a car, I prefer that all the parts are there whether superfluous or not.
It indicates more of a chance that the vehicle has been cared for...

Open the hood of an M104 and see the center cam cover plate missing exposing the spark coils...is it needed? ... not really, but makes me wonder why parts are missing and what other parts may be missing.

To each his own...one man's junk is anothers treasure !!!

Absolutely, to each his own. As argued earlier it's more of a personality issue than anything else - some people like following directions, others more prone to independent thought. Just don't ask everyone to blindly trust Mercedes because you do. The argument that belly pans are a necessity, especially on an older car, is a bad one. Mercedes themselves did away with them on the 140. Volvo had them and did away with them. The argument is especially difficult for me to swallow because I've driven a half dozen bellypan-less 124s at least 150k miles with no signs of a dirt, engine temp or slipping belt problem.

That's my theory, and think I read it somewhere long ago - that the belly pan was to raise engine temps. It makes intuitive sense - box up an engine and the temps are going to rise. 100 degree op temps may well be good for emissions, but the heat can't be good for the engine over the long term. And I've always passed emission tests with flying colors - often at one-third or one-quarter of allowable standard, and feel no ecological guilt over it.

Wrong, W140's have two pans, one just behind the lower bumper and one under the engine. I work on them every day.
If they stopped installing on later ones it was to save $$$, not because it's not needed.

Even new models have them, the newest I've seen is a 2005.

Mine is a little beat up and I'm spending the $120 to get a new one.

Here's the splash shields that MB did away with. # 5 and 14


http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k1...hshield001.jpg

Wrong or not wrong? That's a little confusing. They did away with at chassis # A191708 which must be somewhere around the 1995 model year.

As I said, on later W140 maybe to save $$$.

All new Models still use them, some the full lenth of the undercarriage.

I agree 100%

Emissions had nothing to do with the belly pan...
The M103-12V world market cars had no cat, air pumps, nothing... only a closed loop crankcase vent system...

Note you own a 190SL....
On this car if there are original parts missing would it lessen its value ?

Oh, certainly, but that isn't the subject of the thread. The subject of the thread is old, basically worthless sedans. BTW, the 190SL is gone, now have 94 E420 and 95 S320, both without belly pan, the former removed by me, the latter never installed by the factory.

These "originality" debates are great fun, on all kinds of forums, but never really resolve anything. I still contend these questions are really just personality indicators - people fall into either the "I want to think" catagory, or the "I do as I'm told" catagory. Trusting MB implicitly must be a great time saver, but there's also significant evidence of engineering buffoonery over the last 15 or 20 years.

I think it's safe to say your in a minority with your "opinion" regarding encapsulation panels.

Since your not in the "automotive trade" I value your opinion even less if that's possible.

Safe to say I don't agree with anything you have to say.

Of course I only base my opinion on 30 years of experiance as a MB technician..

That's the great thing about these forums. And thanks for that substantive response.

Your most welcome. .:)

substantive: possessing substance; having practical importance, value, or effect:

Good job, but it's "you're".

Thank you , for correcting my grammer this time.

"You're" now my favorite forum member.

FWIW,, we are working on a 97 140 that has the lower splash shield on it.

I think its more an aerodynamic aid/ engine sump protector than an emissions tool. In Africa we had steel sump guards; they were more open on the sides, i.e didnt completely seal the bottom of the engine bay, but made of much sterner stuff. We scoffed the Euro and American imported models with the plastic bellypan when they came in. Marginal rotection for our conditions.

Although, now that I think about it, the tropical fan and the more open sides of the steel sum guard would also have been standard spec for African models. Together with taller springs.

I might be the only one here who actually discussed this with the powertrain Engineers when the car was designed, and the only one here who actually did engineering on the 124 chassis, ... it was kind of a clever little twist at the time that worked. Kind of like the same-era Porsche 944S4 spoiler under the tail of the car, funny things happen when you manage airflow under the car where the pressure and flow is highest.

It can be done without, I doubt it has a measurable difference at any legal speed here in the US. I just prefer to keep it for originality and to keep the engines clean, no big deal. Part of the engineering overkill that makes this era unique.

As far as sump protection, maybe from leaves. Anything that could damage the cast sump wouldn't likely be deflected by a thin plastic panel.

Dean: If you have a take-off set from your '94 E320, I'd be happy to buy it from you, PM me with details please.

got rid of it on my 97 e420. Seems like my engine mounts are lasting much longer now... Also makes it easier to check on the car. Unless I live up north with snow and salt, definitely disposable... also makes the car lighter... ;)

Didn't have the ducted engine-mount cooling of the 124s?

Just a side note, the 201 was actually the first to use these panels.

I remember we all hated having to remove them for service.

When I started at MB the only models were 107, 123 and 126