|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
If the M119 engine was so good, why isn't it still produced?
I have one of these engines in my car and it is great, but why did it only last 7 years?
__________________
1992 Mercedes-Benz 400E 2002 Mercedes-Benz ML500 |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
AFAIK the S500 still uses the M119.
Sixto 95 S420 91 300SE 87 300SDL 83 300SD |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The M119 engine lasted 10 years!
The only reason that MB doesn't still use that engine is $$$$ Costs almost 50% less to build a M113 engine!!
__________________
MERCEDES Benz Master Guild Technician (6 TIMES) ASE Master Technician Mercedes Benz Star Technician (2 times) 44 years foreign automotive repair 27 Years M.B. Shop foreman (dealer) MB technical information Specialist (15 years) 190E 2.3 16V ITS SCCA race car (sold) 1986 190E 2.3 16V 2.5 (sold) Retired Moderator |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
119
Hi
As MBDOC stated, cost! Dismantle a 119 engine and admire what was known as "Craftsmanship" Holes were drilled then threaded, all mating surfaces milled to perfection, truly built the "Old German Way!" Dismantle a 112 or a 113 and admire "Manufacturing" Holes that have self tapping bolts screwed in by a machine, non critical mating surfaces sealed with silicone sealer/filler, very evident that these are built the "Times a Million Way!" I love performing mechanical surgery on MBZ's formerly crafted engines but the new generation engines do very little for me beyond maintenance/triage! MrC |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I think the M112/M113 engines also are slightly cleaner than the older M119 - As I recall they went to 3 valves per cylinder to help cold start emissions.
I've never worked on an M113/M112 but I can tell you an M119 with the valve covers removed is a mighty pretty sight..... Tim |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The camshafts on my M119 engine show absolutely no wear at all after 230K Kms and 11 years.
__________________
99 BMW 540i 6-speed 110K Km 03 SAAB 9-5 wagon 80K Km 92 400E (Sold) 245K km Still missing the days with the Benz, it kept me busy. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Also, I think the early pre-92' closed deck blocks for the M119 where difficult to cast, resulting in many castings not passing spec's. Result = higher overall cost.
93 on where open deck. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
The change from the M119 wasn't about emissions. The engines are/were in the same emission class. In fact the 4 valve design didn't NEED an EGR valve(ie: 1996 & later). The M112/113 definitly need the EGR valve to lower NOx
The only reason was $$$$ & they are saving 50% over the cost of the M119. The M119 is a real engine!!
__________________
MERCEDES Benz Master Guild Technician (6 TIMES) ASE Master Technician Mercedes Benz Star Technician (2 times) 44 years foreign automotive repair 27 Years M.B. Shop foreman (dealer) MB technical information Specialist (15 years) 190E 2.3 16V ITS SCCA race car (sold) 1986 190E 2.3 16V 2.5 (sold) Retired Moderator |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Gilly |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
I think the M113 is just as good because the M119 doesnt have such an amazing engine electronics system. M119 only have 2 coils while the M113 has 8 coils and 16 spark plugs. Also the M113 computer monitors much more variables than the m119.
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Later on the 119 got DIS and also had 8 coils, like the M104 had after it got DIS. This i believe happened when the M104 and M119 went from CIS-E injection to HFM injection (or was it when it went from HFM to ME injection?). WELL anyways, it eventually went to an 8 coil design, I know it did have 2 coils at first.
You hear of some problems with the M112 engine, but for some odd reason the M113 seems to have avoided alot of the bad press. I do like the "feel" of the M119 better, the 113 is a pretty good engine though, old world craftsmanship or not. Gilly |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
M113 is great. I have one in my family with 150,000 km (in an ML no less!) and it has had not one single engine problem in that time. Same goes for M112 my father had in the '97 E320 (with 95,000 km when sold). No leaky cam adjusters, no where near as hard on engine mounts as the M119, twice as fuel efficient and we caught both the balancers berfore they hit the timing covers, not that the balancer counts as an engine problem in any case.
Having said that, I too love the M119 especially post '94 builds (having got rid of the distributors).
__________________
Andrew 300e 294,000mi 380sel 185,998mi 380se 309,980mi |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
The Aussies got the 112 engine a year before us Yanks?
Gilly |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Well, something improved with the M113. I get 25% better fuel economy with the M113 than with the earlier M119. Also, the M119 engines are massive. It can be very hard to work in the engine compartment occupied by an M119.
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
No question that the 112's and 113's will pound a lot of miles before requiring any internal attention, they are terrific engines.
From a manufacturing standpoint look at some of the savings that are prevalent with new technology. Cast parts are so close to tolerance that some by-pass the machining step and just wait to be installed. Connecting rods are now cracked at the separation point so the only machine work needed is the bore than divot for the rod bearing tab. A majority of sealing surfaces on the engine now get a bead of sealant instead of a gasket. When fitting a vehicle with an engine the 112 and 113 allow greater flexibility because they are more compact as well as lighter than previous engine designs. Compact, lightweight, better power production, lower production costs, more flexibility, what more could one ask for. I suppose we could ask for a more durable transmission? On second thought……….maybe not. Have a good weekend all. |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|