113 SL engine swap

[abdoul]

hi gang!

This, I am sure, has been covered before, but I can't find definite answers.

Can these drive trains be implanted without MAJOR headaches into the 113 SL? I've read about the V6 implant.. but would like to consider these:

1) 3.5 v8 ( from the 280se 3.5)
2) 4.5 v8 ( from the 280se 5.4)
3) 5.6 v8 ( from the 560/sl/se-(c)(l)

Any leads?

[ptoro01]

if it is of any help, I know that the 5.6 and the 4.5 are interchangeable if the 4.5 have K-jet. Otherwise it requires the fuel lines to be changed. The 4.5 and the 3.5 are basically the same engine as well. They should all be m117 I believe. I have no idea if it will fit a 113sl.

3.5's had the d-jet fuel injection which was later changed to k-jet in the 4.5 and the 5.6 have the k-jet but are made of a lighter material than the 5.6.

Hopefully someone can say that a 5.6 will fit a 108 because thats my choice of car.

Peter

[psfred]

At a guess I would think that the V8s won't fit in the SL without some modifications as the W108 chassis was changed for them to fit, and the SL was never sold with one (mostly relocating the brake booster for clearance). Might go in in a VERY tight squeeze, but it's possible that the steering linkage won't allow you room. It is different that the sedans.

An M119 will drop right into the W108/109 chassis, as will any of the diesels, only problem you might have is driveshaft lentgh, not a big deal on those cars since the have "standard" u-joints and any good driveshaft shop will be able to fabricate and balance them minus the flex disk mounts. Not true on later models.

The changeover to a 617 turbodiesel was common in Europe, dropped the taxes and reduced the fuel consumption a lot while not having much impact on performance vs the six cylinder.

Peter

[autozen]

Many years ago a guy here in the Bay Area dropped a 6.3 into a 113. I only saw pictures. So I guess it can be done.

Peter

[Mark DiSilvestro]

There was someone, on this forum I think, that had a w113 converted to diesel-power!

Happy Motoring, Mark

I read an illustrated article many years ago (perhaps Hot Rod Magazine) about a man who transplanted a Chevy 327 V8 into a w113.

[300SDog]

I think the real question is why??

Anybody who has ever owned a straight 6 knows they develop quicker and more responsive torque especially at low rpm's than the V-8, say while accelerating from a standing start, or dropping and grabbing gears. And the 6 cyl combined with a 4 or 5 spd stick in such a lightweight chassis has gotta have plenty of power for fishtailing around corners on windey roads, assuming the driver is skillful enough at handling the car and knows how to use the stick to max out the gears.

Hell, if I had a 113 Pagoda SL with a blown engine I'd probably be thinkin about tossing one of the twincam 6 cyl engines from the late 70's or early 80's into it. And for me an automatic tranny on such a car would be out of the question..... but that's just my opinion.

[Arthur Dalton]

<>

Exactly..
If there is anything cool about a 113 , it is the little Engineering Marvel under the hood..
Mechanical Fuel Injected , over head cam , beautifuly appointed Gem...

Throw it out for a 350 chebbie.???? ..yeah,.....Right. !!!!!

all in the Mind of the Beholder.....

[abdoul]

Why? I am getting a rolling shell and already have both a 4.5 and a 3.5 engine.

Originally Posted by 240DieselDog

I think the real question is why??

Anybody who has ever owned a straight 6 knows they develop quicker and more responsive torque especially at low rpm's than the V-8, say while accelerating from a standing start, or dropping and grabbing gears. And the 6 cyl combined with a 4 or 5 spd stick in such a lightweight chassis has gotta have plenty of power for fishtailing around corners on windey roads, assuming the driver is skillful enough at handling the car and knows how to use the stick to max out the gears.

Hell, if I had a 113 Pagoda SL with a blown engine I'd probably be thinkin about tossing one of the twincam 6 cyl engines from the late 70's or early 80's into it. And for me an automatic tranny on such a car would be out of the question..... but that's just my opinion.

[autozen]

[QUOTE=240DieselDog]I think the real question is why??

And the 6 cyl combined with a 4 or 5 spd stick in such a lightweight chassis has gotta have plenty of power for fishtailing around corners on windey roads, assuming the driver is skillful enough at handling the car and knows how to use the stick to max out the gears.

Obviously you have never had to hand push a 113. They are anything, but light. Remember the body has to deal with the stresses of a convertible and is built accordingly. I have a couple of 113s and wouldn't put any other engine in and not because the engines are that great when compared to modern technology, but because I believe these cars should be kept original.

Peter

[Mark DiSilvestro]

Interesting. According to my reference, the 230SL with hardtop, weighs 3036 lbs, 77 lbs MORE than my '60 Fintail 220S. Without the hardtop, it's only 99 lbs less!

Based mostly on my philosophy of 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it', I also prefer to keep these cars stock. However, if the original engine is destroyed or missing, a transplant can be one way to save the rest of the vehicle.

Ideally, I'd want to adapt the new drivetrain to the receiving car, with minimum modification the to car, so that future restoration to original would still be possible.
I've seen too many unfinished projects and classics destroyed by botched alterations.

I used to daydream about swapping a 190SL drivetrain into my Ponton 180b and occasionally thought about making a 'sleeper' out of a 240D, by transplanting a small-block Ford V8.

Happy Motoring, Mark

[300SDog]

I am stunned, amazed to learn how much the Pagoda weighs..... The only convertible I've ever owned was a '66 Triumph Spitfire that weighed less than 2,000 lbs. And with a 68hp 1147cc engine it was hell on wheels.

If its a choice between the 3.5 and the 4.5 then the 3.5 with a shorter stroke has a better chance of clearing the hood. Good luck with this adaptation, but you've gotta figure it will cost you double the expense of staying with a compatiable 6 cyl engine.

[autozen]

You would think that little car can't weigh that much especially knowing that the hood, trunk, and doors are made out of aluminum. The standard S class weighs around 3400 to 3600 so 3000 lbs is pretty heavy for a little car with smaller bumpers, no back doors, no sunroof, and no rear seats. As I mentioned earlier the body of the SL is designed to be a safe car with no roof structure. Many years ago when I belonged to the Mercedes Club, we rented Sears Point Raceway for the weekend and a friend rolled his 300SL Roadster. Although shaken, he climbed out without a scratch. The windshield structure held up. I've always felt safe driving my 113 on mountain roads. Now if I ever slide out of a turn over a 1,000 ft drop off, well, that will be another story.

Peter

[Mark DiSilvestro]

Also remember that not only is the SL fairly heavy, due to reinforcent of the open body, but in comparison, the Fintail sedans were relatively light, in order to help give acceptable performance with only a 2.2 liter engine (smaller displacement than most Ford Pinto motors!) My curb weight figure of 2959 lbs is for the early 220S Fintail which came pretty spartan, with almost none of the modern amenities such as automatic transmission, power steering, windows & seats or air conditioning. In fact the only frill my '60 220S came with was a power-brake servo.
(Can you imagine a new Mercedes without all those features?)

Happy Motoring, Mark

[autozen]

Mark,
Actually one of the best MBs I have ever owned amongst the hundreds was a 63 or 64 220Sb. It was medium blue with auto trans and power steering. It was as smooth as silk. I believe MB ended with the 124 chassis. The 210 is reasonable. I've even had a stretched 4 door 600, but the 220Sb was still a fine car for the price.

Peter