Which was Mercedes' finest era? - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Jim B. · #16 05-28-2006, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michaeld

t walgamuth,
I can't remember for certain, but I looked at the last couple of my posts, and did not see where I said the 80's cars had a "fatal flaw." I noted that Tomguy said that "nearly every MB in this era has a fatal problem," referring to all the years. That said, let me say the following:

I DO know that 80s engines were all aluminum (which saved weight at the expense of creating less durable engines), and that for 2-3 years 80's Benzes used only a single-row timing chain (which was just a very very bad idea!).

The 80's found automakers using much more aluminum and much less steel as a general principle. Steel resists damage better than aluminum, and is also easier to repair (weld, etc). Steel is also much safer than aluminum in an accident. The tradeoff is increased weight and rust (ala Alabassi's post).

I can say this: I love the delicious feeling of safety and security that I get driving my w116. Until the 80's, cars were tanks; after the 80s they weren't.

eeeennnnt. Wrong.

I disagree with you. Until 1945, the Mercedes WERE tanks. Literally.

Panzerkampfwagen VIII "MAUS" DB509, 12 cylinder, 1080 bhp, 13-20 kph, 2700 litres fuel tank, 1500 litres reserve, 6 men.

Source: www.achtungpanzer,com

Fatal problem was they lost the war anyway

t walgamuth · #17 05-28-2006, 07:17 AM

ok michaeld.

you didnt say fatal flaw. that word was someone else's.

you said that the 80s had a letdown in quality and also in 95. i still say that the 80s were among the best.

the presence of aluminum is a sign of engineering to a standard not a price. mercedes has always used more aluminum in their cars than cheaper cars. ferrari has always used more than mb. much more.

less weight means better performance and economy of operation.

the presence of aluminum has in no way compromised the safety of mb cars. each generation the chassis have become more stiff which allows more and more aggressive spring and shock setups and still maintain good ride and handling. each generation also becomes more and more safe.

usually they become lighter too. the exception is the bloated 140 series in which they tried to out cadillac cadillac...or lincoln town car. i remember reading with feelings of embarrassment for the engineers that some of the 140 cars came out of the factory with more weight than the tires were rated for.

i really cant speak with authority of anything newer than the 124s of which i have owned two, and found them to be expensive to repair, and went back to 123 and 126s.

tom w

michaeld · #18 05-29-2006, 02:03 AM

T walgamuth
You can say that again (oh, you did!

).

I can only say this: I've known a number of men who've built engines for 1/4 mile racing; and every single one - without fail - look for cast iron blocks. I'll tell you what: I'll bring 2 identically sized rods - one iron and one aluminum - and which one would you want to bet you can bend? Cast iron engines were overbuilt, and that was a good thing. Aluminum has several advantages over iron, a few of which I attempted to list: durability isn't one of them.

I've also got a theory about ride quality and weight, given the fact that I've read a lot of posts from people who compliment the ride of older cars and deride newer cars: weight matters. In motorcycles, cruiser bikes are built to be heavy - not because they are cheap or low quality - but because the heavier weight of the bikes translates to a smoother ride. Someone will have to explain to me how the same phenomenon wouldn't equally apply to cars.

As for aluminum cars being safer: play chicken with me, and you will be the one who gets out of the way of my heavy iron beast! I can't believe you are actually suggesting that your flimsy aluminum chassis is safer than my steel one! Airbags? I don't need no stinkin' airbags!

Finally, in terms of aluminum equalling higher quality, are you seriously suggesting that the aluminum Korean cars of today are higher quality than the Mercedes Benzes (and Rolls Royces, for that matter) of the pre-80s? That simply seems self-referentially false to me. I would argue that aluminum increasingly became popular in order to lower the overall cost of materials, to decrease weight to increase fuel efficiency to comply with increasingly tough emissions standards, and to reduce overseas shipping costs.

Aluminum has been around since 1826; it seems to me that the burden is on you to explain why Mercedes-Benz and other high quality car manufacturers did not exclusively use it to build their engines until the 1980's. As an example, let me cite the 6.9, produced until 1979, which was the most expensive and highest performing saloon car ever made. Iron engine block. If aluminum was superior, believe me, the engineers would have called for it.

PS As to why I said that MBz suffered a drop in quality in the 80s, it was due to the fact that they lost a significant element of their core design team (but if you think the 60's/70's cars were crap, I suppose you would simply think they were getting rid of dead weight). In 95, Mercedes went from a 5 year development program to a 3 year program, which many think resulted in a loss of quality.

BTW, I LIKE 126s. I would certainly own one. I'm not out to insult them per se. I'm just making the case for the era I believe in.

Jim,
I did not know that Mercedes ever built tanks; but I suppose it shouldn't come as much of a surprise. I DID know that they built the majority of the trucks and light utility vehicles. In any event, my 450SEL really IS something of a tank, but fortunately I do not intend to call upon it to go to any wars in the near future!

Mike

t walgamuth · #19 05-29-2006, 07:05 AM

ok. i will explain.

first. aluminum costs more than steel or iron, so anyone wishing to make a cheap car will use less aluminum and more steel and iron.

aluminum was used for engine blocks extensively in more expensive high performance cars. with steel or iron sleeves. ie the 63 or so 300 sel, a high performance version that used al block with steel sleeves. ferrari used aluminum blocks with sleeves from 1949.

later people tried them without sleeves. first i remember was the vega. of course they used crap material and it was a massive failure even by gm standards. mercedes begain building silicone impregnated aluminum engines about 82 or 3 and they have proved to wear like iron. but they arent cheap to build. if it is done correctly it works.

a good ride resulting from heavy vehicle weight is a true fact. but it is not the total weight that makes a good ride (does a one ton dually pickup ride good? no.) good ride comes from having a low unsprung weight as compared to the sprung weight. anything that is attached solidly to the car is sprung weight. anything that moves along with the wheels is unsprung weight. fully independent rear suspension provides excellent ride and handling (like in your benz) but costs a lot more to build (that is why mustangs and camaros dont have it). the very heavy axle and wheels on a one ton pickup are unsprung and compared to the empty bed make an unfavorable ratio of sprung to unsprung weight and result in a very bouncy ride. put in a ton of weight in the back and suddenly the ratio is excellent and your one ton rides like a benz.

so my 53 caddy which weighed 4500 pounds rode nicely because the body and such was pretty heavy compared to the axle and so it rode nicely. my 83 240 d rode just as nicely because it has very well engineered fully independant rear suspension, well tuned springs and (expensive) shocks and very light weight aluminum wheels and tires resulting in a very favorable sprung to unsprung weight ratio. it weighs 3200 pounds.

aluminum is expensive. so that is why you find it used rarely in chassis and bodys of mass produced cars. audi makes one. jaguar does too.

i am not aware of any korean cars that do. they tend to be cheaply made so if they want to save weitght i bet they use plasitic more than aluminum.

my 72 bmw rode like a dream. weighed 376 pounds. lots of aluminum.

i talked to a fellow who had a new bmw motorcycle a few days ago. he loved it but had had a bunch of harleys before the beemer. i asked him what it weighed (it was an 1150 cc boxer...lovely bike) he guessed 800#. so i went back to my office and looked it up. it weighs about 500#. expensive. lightweight. lots of aluminum.

hope this helps.

tom w

Karsten · #20 05-29-2006, 07:36 AM

When Audi made the first crash tests of the A8 with aluminium body, they found that it surprisingly was very safe compared to a steel body.

It probably has to do with the fact that aluminium hardens as it crumbles.

The later versions of the aluminium engine blocks with hard chromed bores only shows about 25% of the wear a cast iron block would get at the same amount of work.

The Mercedes aluminium V8 engines has also proved to be very reliable with just a minimum of service.

Karsten

t walgamuth · #21 05-29-2006, 07:45 AM

yep. my 84 500sec seems to require less to keep it running than my beloved diesels. it does use more gas though.

tom w

michaeld · #22 06-03-2006, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

ok. i will explain.

Ok. Now I will try to explain.

Here are some excerpts from an LA Times article that I find illustrative:

"But not everybody with aluminum engines is so enamored. The history of aluminum-block engines is full of disappointment and premature failure owing to warped cylinder heads, leaking seals, blown gaskets and worn cylinders."

"Despite advances in aluminum engines, they still cannot withstand overheating, contaminated oil or dirty coolant the way cast-iron blocks can, says Bill Whitney, president of Prestige Engine Co., a Dallas specialist in remanufacturing aluminum-block engines.
"They are definitely subject to premature failure," he says. "Aluminum-block engines are subject to blown intake and exhaust gaskets. They are the weak links in the chain.""

(Los Angeles Times, October 18, 2000, "Iron's days are numbered as auto makers cast their lot with aluminum"). The article specifically states that the move toward aluminum today is due to improved fuel economy from reducing weight.

There are a number of durability issues that aluminum suffers. Cast iron has relatively low corrosion rates in automobile engines. Aluminum, by contrast, has one of the highest oxidation potentials of any metal. Aluminum is particularly sensitive to a process called erosion-corrosion where a rapidly flowing fluid can remove the protective oxide layer. The corrosion of aluminum can be quite a problem - a problem which is simply nonexistent with iron. There are other problems caused by aluminum, such as the fact that aluminum salts will precipitate out of solution in the cooler parts of the coolant system.

Iron is a stronger metal than aluminum. It has a higher melting point. It has a higher density. And it has superior stiffness and wear characteristics. These are simply scientific facts. Aluminum alloys are typically only around one-third as stiff as cast iron. Also, aluminum has a much higher coefficient of thermal expansion. All of this means that distortion with both heat and stress is a bigger potential issue with an aluminum-block engine. Which is precisely why the LA Times article makes the comments that it makes.

I haven't even mentioned practical issues such as the ABSOLUTE necessity to use torque wrenches on every single aluminum application due to the constant fear of stripping. And anyone who would rather rebuild an aluminum engine than an iron one is just plain nuts.

As for the fact that Ferrari uses aluminum blocks, show me a Ferrari that's racked up a million miles, and maybe I'll get impressed. Race cars use the lightest materials, true; but they also go through a heck of a lot of engines in their races. I was surprised to learn how many automobiles - foreign ones included - continue to use iron in their engines today. Where weight isn't an issue, iron continues to be the metal of choice. Fuel economy standards are forcing the transition to aluminum, not improved "quality."

As for the suspension elements in the 80's Benzes vs the older ones, I'll have to check. I was pleasantly surprised when I read that the zero offset suspension pioneered in my 450SEL continue to be used in MBz today. It also featured anti-squat rear and anti-dive front suspensions that were way ahead of the times. I'm really not sure what the 80's cars did to dramatically improve from the 70's.

Frankly, your comment about using iron instead of aluminum being "cheap" strikes me as being extreme to the point of being a bit bizarre, as such a position would demand the conclusion that Mercedes-Benzes were "cheaply made" until the 80's. If anything, the actual situation is exactly opposite! The older Benzes were driven by engineering far more than by accounting or marketing. The 75-79 6.9s - ridicuously expensive and incredibly engineered - used iron blocks. Cheap? These cars cost significantly more than Rolls Royces!!! If aluminum performed better in that car, you can bet your britches that the engineers would have used aluminum! The fact that they did not should tell you something.

My opinion of modern cars is going down. The increasing use of computers and electronics WITHOUT QUESTION means that they will have shorter lifespans than the older cars. Why? Because they require more and more highly specialized equipment and sophisticated mechanics (removing the possibility of DIY) that will increasingly drive up labor prices far beyond the value of the cars as they age. In 15 years, a lot of expensive new cars will be junk.

As for my comment about motorcycles that you brought up in your post, go to a motorcycle dealer that sells cruiser bikes (BMW does not make a cruiser; try HD, Honda, Kawasaki, Yamaha) and ask them why the cruiser bikes are so much heavier than the sport bikes. Their answer will get to the point I was making about weight and ride quality.

Good discussion!
Mike

Dana B. · #23 06-03-2006, 02:21 PM

Great discussion. Refreshingly civil.

BMW did build a cruiser (http://www.bobsbmw.com/motorcycles/R1200C-old.html), which weighed in at 525 lbs. stripped.

My '67 R50/2 (429 lbs., gassed up), sitting next to modern Harley D. Road King (692 lbs. sans gas), seems virtually silent. I would challenge any hog to a suspension comfort test ;-).

First aluminum engined car built in the U.S. was the 1961 Buick Special (and Skylark), an innovative light-weight design (fantastic looking car as well). Unfortunately, I had my g/f's '62 Skylark rebuilt -- and it blew a year later :-0.

What's left out of this discussion about MB quality is interior design and workmanship. I worked on an MB lot in the mid-'70s. The handbuilt interiors of the 220SE pontons (w219) through the 280SE 3.5 coopes (w111), not to forget the w100 (600), made the plasticky MB interiors of the '70s and later look cheap. The 450SLC, the most expensive MB on the lot in 1975, and even the 450SEL 6.9 a year later, weren't half as elegent as earlier luxury MBs. Call it Old World craftsmanship versus post '71 mass production -- and an emphasis on passenger safety incorporated into later models.

Tomguy · #24 06-03-2006, 03:07 PM

The MB cast-iron blocks were a LOT heavier than the aluminum counterparts. But the major reason MB made the change is most likely cost and ease of production. An aluminum block might initially cost more to make (And that is debatable), but a cast iron one requires a LOT more effort to machine and they can simply NOT be produced in the quantities needed for modern vehicles at a resonable cost, unlike aluminum. Plus, aluminum is a LOT safer to make than cast iron - in fact, most is made in China anymore because safety requirements in developed nations simply make it cost too much to be worthwhile.

Aluminum is a lot easier to handle and machine than steel. In a non-extreme environment (such as door panels, etc) it rusts far LESS than steel because the aluminum oxide that forms is actually harder than the aluminum itself and protects the aluminum behind it from further rust - the opposite of iron oxide. As I said earlier, the initial cost of aluminum may be higher - but the work required to use it is a lot LOWER - the same with molded plastics found on most every vehicle built today. A molded plastic bumper's raw materials cost more than a steel one's, but it's a LOT simpler to mold and paint that plastic than it is to stamp or press a steel one and then plate it, thereby lowering the total cost of manufacture, and producing a lighter vehicle. Plus, in MINOR accidents, the plastic/rubber bumpers often "Bounce back" into shape, preventing small taps in the parking lot from costing hundreds of dollars in damage. The downside is that, in a high-speed collision, your plastic bumper might as well not even be there.

#25 06-03-2006, 11:57 PM

Benz Engineers have traded reliability for performance (speed, lower cost per vehicle, more functions, better mpg) in most design decisions made over the last 30 years. Both are elements of 'quality,' and figure into your definition of 'best.'

The final iteration of reliability vs. performance is the SLR. Repairing carbon fiber is either impossible or ridiculously expensive and the material itself is prone to many problems that steel doesn't have. Performance wise, mercedes are creeping closer to 10/10ths (like the ferrari) at the expense of reliability.

Michael, if your concept of quality is simply what is reliable and comfortable (70's mercedes), you are limiting yourself. And your choices in cars

. I rather like the concept of a Ferrari. Can you have a NA output of 100hp per liter? Sure, but the engine eats itself alive and only lasts 50k miles before a complete rebuild. Its a design decision and calling that sort of performance good or bad only shows your own bias.

Please, don't drag out the 6.9 as an argument for performance in the 70's -it doesn't fly. I see a euro-tune 6.9 has 286hp, an output of about 41hp per liter. Rather quaint when compared to the '85 2.3-16v ( 2.3 liters, 185hp) at 80hp/liter or the slr (626hp, 5.5 liters) at 114 hp/liter.

Again, you are putting undue limits on your experience if you value reliability and comfort above all.

cheers,
dan r.

ps. Perhaps this will act as a koan:
I read a review of a early 70s volvo that said "This thing is built like a tank and will last forever. But who would want to drive a tank forever?"

michaeld · #26 06-04-2006, 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dana B.

Great discussion. Refreshingly civil.

I would not remain at this or any other forum in which members did not remain civil. I've seen threads in some other forums in which people got about as petty as people could get in a chatroom. No thanks. I've got better things to do than argue with angry name-calling morons. I DO enjoy a good argument, though!!!

I tried your link, Dana, but only got a misdirected link. I have the Cycle World 2006 Buyer's Guide, though, and no BMW cruisers. There's a full dress tourer, a couple sport tourers, and a sport bike or two; but no cruisers.
FYI the Honda VTX1800, Kawasaki Vulcan 2000, Suzuki Bouldevard M109, Triumph Rocket III, and Yamaha Road Star are examples of cruisers. These bikes, with dry weights of at least 750 lbs, have defined the cruiser genre. Harleys are under-weight and under engined by the standards of the competition.

Dan,
I did not bring up the 6.9 to get into any kind of "manhood measuring contest" with later models. I introduced it into the discussion as one example of the top-of-the-line no-expense-spared flagship model that used an iron block (and therefore served as a defeator for the claim that iron was a sign of cheapness.

Now that YOU bring up the performance, I'll comment a LITTLE (I do not own a 6.9, and am not intimately familiar with either it or the 85 model you describe. The 6.9 had 286 hp at 4250 rpm, and 405 lbf/ft torque at 3000 rpm. Having that level of power available at that low of a range is something that needs to be experienced to be fully appreciated. You aint winding that baby up to get power; it is there the moment you step on the accelerator. Also, the 6.9 had a 3 speed, and a differential to produce power (NOT gas savings, to be sure, but power a'plenty). There are later Benzes that would beat the 6.9 (such as the 560SEL), but I'm pretty sure your 85 2.3L aint one of them. But having said the above, I didn't introduce the 6.9 as the king of kings of performance, but as an example of the best quality that Mercedes could produce - all with an iron block. The argument I was having was about aluminum vs iron, and whether iron was "cheap" compared to aluminum - not about horsepower as measured per liter.

As for your comment that I am "putting undue limits on my experience," I'll go with that. I think that we often have to make trade-offs; the most amazing sportscar is not also the most durable sedan. You kind of have to pick one or the other, IMHO. If I have to choose between high performance and high durability, the latter will win out every time. But that's just me. Ferraris have their place in God's creation, but probably not in my garage. I'm about practicality with a touch of performance.

In any event, your last point stands: I DO choose to limit my experience to cars that - with basic maintenance - will go and go. I would GLADLY drive a tank forever!

My "performance days" were all about motorcycles. And coincidentally, they occured in the 80s. I realized that I could get on a $500 POS bike, and blow by a $50,000 sports car at the light with a contemptuous flick of the wrist. And if I got a decent $5000 bike (with a couple of performance mods)? The motto was "Blu-By-U" was appropriate. I had 145 hp on a 550 lb frame: I could blow by anything on four wheels like it was standing still. Too many near-death experiences cured me of that mentality, however. Now I just want to sedately drive down the road protected by a big metal box. I'd rather be the tortoise than the hare. I'll let you guys debate performance.

I've learned I don't have to go fast to have fun. But I have no fun at all when my car breaks down and I have to spend $$$ to get it back on the road!
Mike

Dana B. · #27 06-04-2006, 10:56 AM

Michaeld,

Here's another picture. The bike's been discontinued:

http://www.crocodile.org/lord/pictures/BMW-R1200C-1998.jpg.

#28 06-04-2006, 11:57 AM

Quote:

"As for your comment that I am "putting undue limits on my experience," I'll go with that. I think that we often have to make trade-offs; the most amazing sportscar is not also the most durable sedan. You kind of have to pick one or the other, IMHO. If I have to choose between high performance and high durability, the latter will win out every time. But that's just me....In any event, your last point stands: I DO choose to limit my experience to cars that - with basic maintenance - will go and go. I would GLADLY drive a tank forever!"

If your mind is already made up, why ask the question in the first place?

Nobody would argue that the time of highest reliability for benz was anywhere but in the late 60's and early 70's. In the march towards performance (speed, weight, mpg, do-dads) there is no doubt that mercedes has become less reliable-the sheer number of subsystems makes this a statistical argument. At the same time, it is remarkable what sort of performance they have achieved. As it happens, the 0-60 times and top speed of my little 2.3 liter and the 6.9 are apparently identical*. Except my car is doing far more with far less displacement...doing more with less is a facet of performance i think.

You are indeed debating performance, but you just assume its a bad thing because of personal bias. Don't blame benz for taking a design philosophy (performance over reliability) in the 80's, 90's and 00's that you disagree with from personal preference.

A discussion of what is benz's 'best era' should concern to what extent they achieved what they set out to do. Anything else is just an exposure of of bias.

cheers,
dan r.

*i found different quotes for each car, brock yates claimed that the 140 mph fig on the 6.9 was low but 5 mph, some yahoo whipped the crap out of a 2.3-16v till he got lower than the 7.5 second 0-60 mark, blah, blah, blah.

ediflorianus · #29 06-04-2006, 03:24 PM

The finest ares where when the NATZY's Rulld and the 70' (but hte 50s and 60) worn't bad. afther that ... **** hapend

300SDog · #30 06-04-2006, 05:21 PM

Nah, the natzy vehicles sucked...... non-synchro trannies with straight-cut gears, no hydraulic disc brakes, no unibody construction and the crummiest fuel feed imaginable. Might as well be driving a truck.

But for my money, and what put MB on the map at global scale, was the 190c circa 1960-67 during the golden years of automobiles - when you'd be pressed to find *any* city in the world that didnt have a thriving population of w110 Heckflossen on the road.

Imagine Cairo or Bangkok in 1965 where practically *every* vehicle you see is 190c fintail, all over the airports and used as police cars and taxi cabs too. Thats what I'd call the finest era of MB automobiles.