NAKED ENGINE! (W124 Engine cover missing) - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Benzwood · #1 06-04-2003, 03:19 PM

I just realized that my lower engine covering is mssing (1992 300E) and has been for at least a couple years.

Is this something I should replace, or is it just cosmetic?

According to the parts CD it's called an "Anti-noise Capsule" (part 5 in photo) which suggests a purpose, though the engine doesn't seem noisy. Unless it's for air noise at speed.

Also, are there really SIXTEEN screws and anchors (parts 14 and 17 in photo) to attach it? That's what comes up by default but I only see six holes in the photo.

Also, is the "Boot" (part 23 in the photo) part of the cover, and if so where does it attach?

Thanks much...

MTI · #2 06-04-2003, 03:28 PM

The shield does provide some coefficent of drag lowering properties and will take the hit from road debris. For roads with serious obstacles, I think MB also made a metal skid plate.

#3 06-04-2003, 03:29 PM

I bought my 300E at almost 80,000 miles and it was missing at that point. Although they are worthwhile to have in place, I have never chased one down and put on.

Had it been on the car when I bought it, I would have hung onto it and kept it in place.

Good luck,

G-Benz · #4 06-04-2003, 03:51 PM

Bought my 93 with 72K on it...those pieces don't look familiar to me at all!

-fad · #5 06-04-2003, 04:00 PM

I have US version '92 300E 2.6 and the boot cover/ plastic belly pan/ splash guard is indeed in place.

Based upon closer observation of the belly pan while it was off recently for cleaning:

>it does exhibit noticable scars from road warrior debris

>it does appear to have design channeling that may well aide in cooling (air flow) and under car aerodynamics

>it does appear to assist keeping the engine bay and lower engine compartment free of dirty/ grimy nasties you may encounter in day to day use

-fad

PS- my '94 E500 also has this belly pan

Benzwood · #6 06-04-2003, 04:18 PM

Thanks for the replies, sounds like a lot of engine nudity out there! Mine was bought at around 85K too, so the covers apparently die young.

I did notice on the parts CD that the original part is obsolete, maybe it had cracking problems or something. There is a new replacement part number.

fad, do you know if the "boot" material (part 23) is part of your shield? Does it slip over the front edge or something? Also do you recall how many screws are used to attach the cover?

haasman · #7 06-04-2003, 04:22 PM

My 91 300E has the part #5 and it is attached by the parts #14 and #17 in photo. There are six of each. The #14 is pushed into the subframe, like a clip really. Easy to do. The panel itself is sealed in the front by #23 which is really a rubber molding of sorts. It keeps air from catching the leading edge.

Why would you want this on your car in the first place? Because it does lower noise (originally installed to meet the tough Swiss noise standards) and it does have the benefit of improving airflow through your engine compartment. Some say it helps prevent heat rising and heat collection in the engine compartment by creating an encapsulation that moves the air specifically from the front of the car to exit area below the firewall. Here in N. California, the summers can get into the 100s. The 300E continues to amaze me in how well it handles the heat with the AC on AND how well this car is in terms of reliability- now with 210k miles. It makes me wonder if the lower panel does contribute to this by moving the hot air away from the engine compartment.

Almost every new car and truck now include this or similiar covers-shaving any aero drag yields improvement in MPGs. Yesterday evening I was helping a neighbor with her full-size Chevy pickup, a 2001 model I believe. She was loosing coolant and I looked under the truck in the front to see if there were any leaks. It also had this underside engine cover. I was amazed.

The panel does improve areodynamics of the underside of the car. Air running under the car buffets against tie-rods, cross members, oil pans etc. True that maybe more appreciated on the Autobahn at 100+ MPH speeds than here in the U.S.

Also, depending on where you live and what you drive through, it does keep road crap off components such as the alternator etc.

As a lot of people have reported, it isn't seemingly a critical part but if my car didn't have one, I'd put it on. Often the part #5 can be found at a junk yard for less than $50. The parts #14 and #17 and #23 can be order from a dealer for my guess, less than $30.

Hope this helps, keep us posted.
Haasman

Benzwood · #8 06-04-2003, 04:44 PM

Thanks again -- gotta love this forum!

Guess I'll replace mine.

Haasman, I'm curious when you say lower noise, are you referring to engine noise? So is it quieter even at rest?

I'm just back from scooting around under my car and found a total of eight mounting holes -- four are along the front but two appear to have never been used. I'm missing anchors in a couple and the other anchors aren't looking good. So it sounds like six is the magic number. I didn't want to get too many as the CD lists a screw/anchor at $1.35 each.

According to the CD (a few years old), retail is about $15 total for the screws, anchors and 1 meter of boot material. The shield itself is $93.

A junk yard part isn't a good option for me as there are virtually no MBs near where I live. And I'd wonder how long a junkyard shield would last, given the experience of others here.

I'll check with Phil at PartShop to get actual quotes and post back here for those who might be interested.

haasman · #9 06-04-2003, 04:49 PM

Yes, quieter engine noise even at rest which to me is very quiet. The Swiss have been very strict on noise. There were major issues with diesels because of this.

If you decide to go the used parts way and need a junk yard recommendation, I have a friend who might be able to help. Email me.

Haasman

haasman · #10 06-04-2003, 04:57 PM

Also, this Friday evening I could take some pictures of the 300E and post them to see what it looks like.

It would have to be then because my daughter is using the camera until then. Let me know.

Haasman

Benzwood · #11 06-04-2003, 05:44 PM

Hassman, thanks but I've already ordered 'em. Phil at PartsShop echoed SP0CK's comment about the junk yards... he said they usually throw them out even if they do get them because they're nasty and dirty.

Here's the damage for those interested...

Code:

Code               Description    Qty    Price   Total

124 520 41 24      ENGINE SHIELD    1   $93.00  $93.00  
201 505 41 86 OE   BOOT             1   $ 7.50  $ 7.50  
201 990 05 36 OE   SCREW            6   $ 1.35  $ 8.10  
001 994 98 45 OE   LOCK             6   $ 1.00  $ 6.00  

Shipping:          UPS Ground                  $ 11.42  
Sales Tax:                                     $  0.00  
Total:                                         $126.02

Those OE sheet metal screws in their fancy plastic bags sure are spendy.... I wonder how much an MB would cost to assembly if you ordered all the parts separately?

By the way, the reason I found out my shield was missing is because I was considering this Engine Diaper Kit... anybody tried it, or something similar?

-fad · #12 06-04-2003, 06:11 PM

Looks like all is handled- and Qs answered.

Mine does have boot (as you have ordered) and is attached with 4 (#8 or #9mm bolts)

the e500 has 6 mounting bolts as illustrated in your initial pic

best regards
-fad

haasman · #13 06-04-2003, 06:36 PM

Benzwood

BTW the engine diaper picture shows where the bolts go when attaching the panel.

Haasman

John Plut · #14 06-05-2003, 11:35 PM

I have an '88 260e and a '92 300e 2.6 (like yours). Both cars have the spash pans still intact but for some reason MBZ did not make the oil drain plug accessible on the '92 design. Every time I change the oil in the car I have to take the splash pan off. I suspect this is why a lot of cars are missing the pans. I also suspect this is why a lot of owners are topsiding their oil changes.

My '88 model has a little cutout in the pan to access the oil drain plug and I wish the '92 had the same.

John

haasman · #15 06-06-2003, 12:02 AM

John,

why not compare the two and cut one out?

Haasman