Quote:
Originally Posted by deanyel
But you're missing the point. The really long lived MB engines of the past never saw a drop of synthetic oil. The point is the engines have changed. I believe MB boasted to Wall Street that they had cut nearly half of the production cost of the 112 engine family versus the prior engines. Whether they did this intentional to shorten engine life (planned obsolescence) or simply missed a calculation and screwed up is not as important as the fact (obvious to me) that it happened. Bottom end engine problems are not a laughing matter in this day and age. 104 motors and 119 motors don't have them short of really serious abuse.
|
deanyel - I think the issue is not the engine construction, but the recommended service intervals that were inherent to these models. Many savvy owners ran synthetic from the start - and the fact is that synthetics WILL outlast conventional oils - and many also did an extra oil change in between the 'recommended' intervals.
It is my guess that if you ran an M112/M113 engine on conventional oil AND changed it accordingly - i.e. every 4,000 miles or so, the engine would prove every bit as durable as the M104/M119s of the past.
The engines themselves don't "need" synthetic oils, it is the FSS system that requires synthetic oil's long-term performance in order to meet the extended service interval timelines.
Just my $0.02.
__________________
Chris
2007 E550 4Matic - 61,000 Km - Iridium Silver, black leather, Sport package, Premium 2 package
2007 GL450 4Matic - 62,000 Km - Obsidian Black Metallic, black leather, all options
1998 E430 - sold
1989 300E - 333,000 Km - sold
1977 280E - sold
1971 250 - retired
"And a frign hat. They gave me a hat at the annual benefits meeting. I said. how does this benefit me. I dont have anything from the company.. So they gave me a hat." - TheDon
|