Hi,
I'm turboing a 96 with a manifold and turbo from a 99. I have figured out some simple things. I have an injector question: I have a set of injectors from my previous 99 turbo E300. I do not plan on changing the non turbo injector pump on my 96, could I use the injectors from a 99 which pop at 139 in place of my non turbo injectors which pop around 119? Could this be done with no other changes? Would it help? Make no difference? hurt or help economy/ performance?
Please help.
Thanks
Lowflyingbird

I can only speak in general.

I believe the Injectors made for the turbocharged Engine have a higher Opening/Pop Pressure do deal with the higher compression when the Turbo is working.

The higher compression causes the Air to be more dense so the Fuel being Injected has to shoot through thicker Air; so they raised the opening Pressure.

Does the 96 Fuel Injection Pump have an ADLA on it?

__________________
84 300D, 82 Volvo 244Gl Diesel

I may be incorrect, but I belive that the non/turbo engine in the 96 would be an issue if you add a turbo to it. From what I understand, the turbo engines are designed to a different standard than the non turbo versions i.e. pistons, valves etc.. and the addition of a trubo would place stress on these parts for which they were not designed to handle. Good luck

__________________
96 E300d

Hi,
First, Thank you;

Good point to be made on injectors, I did not take the engines boost pressure into account when thinking about pop pressure. Strange, if it were a gas car, in the past I knew better when thinking of rail or injector pressure.
ON the other response, I do know that I can not take the non turbo motor far with boost because of build difference between turbo and non turbo model motors. I do not plan on a high boost system, only enough to make a moderate difference. I figure in the 8-10 psi range. I owned a 99 E300 before and did a bit of work to that car where the boost was considerably high.

If ANYONE with a 98-99 E300 could check, or better take a picture of where the oil feed line come from on the turbo model, I'd really appreciate it. OR, If anyone has a tech manual showing a picture or illustation?

Thanks
Keith

I'm fairly sure that the turbo engine uses a different gearbox.

Me, I'd just sell the N/A and buy a turbo car.

I got a good deal on the 96, and like the fact that it has the early model 4 speed automatic. It's non computer, known to be bullet proof, and cheap to replace. Oh wait, I forgot transmission fluid cost less than gold. Besides both the 4 and 5 speed trans. have a 1:1 final drive ratio, so there is no benefit on the highway for having a 5 speed. I think the rear axle ratio is also the same, 80mph @ approx 3100 rpm.

The oil feed comes from the side of the block, near the block heater.

__________________
-Evan


Benz Fleet:
1968 UNIMOG 404.114
1998 E300
2008 E63


Non-Benz Fleet:
1992 Aerostar
1993 MR2
2000 F250

That would be great if someone could send a pic. I have no issue with drilling a hole in a block, tapping it for NPT then a pipe to flare fitting. It's just a matter of drilling the correct spot!!
PLEASE I BEG ANYONE, post a pic.

Not true:

The 722.6 five-speed automatic tranny has a 0.82 overdrive fifth gear. Fourth gear is 1:1.

The 1996 E300 with 4-speed tranny has a 2.87 axle ratio, the 1997 E300 with 5-speed tranny has a 3.46 ratio. This translates into a 2.84 final drive in 5th, providing the same freeway RPM's in either car, 96 or 97, but allowing lower gearing for quicker takeoff on the '97 without loss of freeway cruising capability. The four-speed tranny (722.438) was used in 1996, the 1997 non-turbo had a 722.600.

The 98-99 E300 turbo had 3.07 gears with the 722.608 tranny, the lower axle ratio was possible due to the turbo engine's increase torque, and the final drive in 5th gear is 2.52 for reduced freeway RPM's.

__________________
Dave
Boise, ID
Check out my website photos, documents, and movies!

I don't have a pic of a 606, but here is a photo of the 603, which is very similar. The oil feed hole is plugged with a piece of white paper towel in this example, it's diagonally between the coolant drain port and the engine mount bracket, right below the rearmost freeze/expansion plug.

Pics of an OM606.962 are at this link but the turbo + manifold hide the exact location of the oil feed.




I'd sell the '96 and just buy a 98-99. Totally not worth the effort involved here unless your time is worth nothing and you can get parts for free... just my $0.02...

I really do appreciate all the info, and understand the recomendation to sell the NA to buy a turbo. As for the transmission and rear diff, thanks for clarifying.
You just have to understand, I paid $3000. for this car, It looks good and runs great. Some small issues to fix, but nothing major. I had alot of parts in the garage from my 99. I simply cant touch another 99 for under $8000.

Have you figured out the total cost? You can get a complete 98-99 turbo engine for under $2k. How about the intercooler & plumbing, btw? Do you have that available from the 99 to retrofit?

Also, the turbo itself won't add any power... you have to add fuel to make power. Do you know for certain if the 96-97 engine management will compensate for the positive intake pressure? Even if it does, the nonturbo IP is not capable of pushing as much fuel... even maxed out, with the smaller 5.5mm elements it would probably max out at 160-170hp. The 98-99 pump can supply enough fuel for roughly 200-220hp. Since it's all eletronic, you'll have to figure out how to increase fueling... don't think you can use the 98-99 computers with the 96-97 pump due to the difference in pump elements.

The turbo with manifold $489. shipped. That includes return line and V clamp with cut pipe off of turbo's outlet. Gaskets for both int. and exh. approx $35. I have a set of inj. from my previous 99 turbo. I know that i'm restricted by my inj. pump. I'll tell you, from what I have seen places with a 98-99 complete motor want alot more than $2k. But, I also can not use alot due to computer differences. I was not planning on high boost, so no intercooler. I might upgrade later on to improve the inj. pump to allow more boost.

Buy the way, I can not thank you enough for the pics. I saw those same bosses on the side of my block, but since they were located right around the freeze out plug I did not think that they were oil passage. I see near the oil pan, on the block the return area for the oil.

True, with low boost there is less need for an intercooler. I'm still not sure if the stock computer will "see" the additional airflow and increase fueling automatically. If not... you'll get zero power gain. You can run all the boost you want, but without fuel it will just overheat the intake charge (or with an intercooler, just add more air while still making no extra power). Power comes from air+fuel, just adding boost alone won't add power. Same for adding an intercooler to a non-intercooled engine with mechanical injection... the IC itself won't add any power, it will just reduce EGT's a bit. Should be an interesting experiment to see how the non-turbo computer reacts when boost is present.



Cool, glad the photos helped!

It will be interesting to know if fuel enrichment is limited by the MAP sensor or ECU. Maybe a turbo MAP sensor will help things along.

Sixto
87 300D