When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
By the way, this is a tiny example how Daimer Chrysler "save" money. At the later modells, they save a lousy srew inside the back bumper. Do you see the little gap? You can press the bumper by hand and will see, how you can move it to the car. The gap is not equal now, but the controling saved a dollar per car. Crazy, isnt it?
Regards
Andreas
Damn !! you mean it's more cheap parts on newer models ?
Practically everything in a car can break, and that includes the little plastic tubes which not-uncommonly fail in the lubrication of a later M119. But I know of no instance of a flap breaking on the M113. Do you? If not, why risk misleading readers into believing this could be a problem?
Originally Posted by AndreasHannover
...The leather is bad, the machine is cheap with less power.
When you post that the leather is "bad" on a later 129, are you expressing your opinion or a fact? It's probably the former, and I believe this ambiguity could be a disservice to readers. For sure, though, the leather on a later car is different. It's softer. I like it.
Stating that the M113 makes "less power" is also ambiguous. Question: at what RPMs is this true? That's important, because these engines spin across a range of RPMs, or course, and the power an engine makes varies by RPM.
In typical driving situations each engine essentially never makes peak power. This is immediately apparent if one looks at a chart of power output vs. RPMs coupled with an awareness of where the RPM needle points in the course of driving. I've attached a performance chart from a British-based website. It looks to me like some of the data is a little off, but it is well beyond being good enough to draw conclusions from.
According to various Mercedes brochures an M113-powered car accelerates to 60 MPH in 6.1 seconds; an M119 car needs 6.4. It's apparent why this is the case when you notice an M113 has a torque and power advantage when spinning between c. 2000 and 3500 RPMs. I note that from my reading of the chart at 2500 RPMs an M113 is making c. 160 horsepower while an M119 makes 140 -- a 14% advantage.
In light of the data how someone can regard the M113 as being comparatively "boring" is incomprehensible to me.
Last edited by bobterry99; 01-02-2019 at 11:39 AM.
But I know of no instance of a flap breaking on the M113.
Try Google. Changing the oil tube is much faster than sealing the valve cover gasket, but both are peanuts. In the past, i changed one (1) oil tube of a M119, but all (a lot) valve cover of the M113 / M112 from my engines and some of friends of mine. And the oil / water heater exchange, but it is OK, peanuts. It would be more worse, if the pully would break, is there a reason why you didnt say something about this?
When you post that the leather is "bad" on a later 129, are you expressing your opinion or a fact?
Look and see, but turn off your Mercedes glasses. It is soft, fast flat, cracked and does not let air through. Excellent for furniture, not for a car. But it is OK if you like to sweat while you sit in a hot car, no doubt. Sorry, but if something bad, you can named it. And if something is cheap, you can name it, too. Both are so obvious, you can not talk that away. I tried not to talk about the fancy things Mercedes did to transform the car in a "modern" style. Painted door handles, visible exhaust, SLK mirrors, crome rings for the speedo and so on. Nice, very nice... But these are a matter of taste, not my cup of tea.
The diagram is nice, i hope you didnt spent too much time to find it. The line of the M119 is very funny, nearly as much as the "optimistic" one of the M113.
I wrote what engine i prefer. For me, both V8 are boring. But if i have to make a decision: M119. I wrote it, too: I owned all of them in the past. Now, i own no V8 so i do not have to defend my decision. Better, i can prevent other people for making a mistake.
With this peculiar view so far removed from conventional thinking, you have cast aspersions upon nearly everything you have posted to this thread more effectively than any counterpoints made by me. You have singularly helped achieve my goal of debunking the myth of M119 superiority. It seems needless to continue, yet this is too entertaining to quit just yet.
Originally Posted by AndreasHannover
It would be more worse, if the pully would break, is there a reason why you didnt say something about this?
I presume you are referring to the M113's harmonic balancer. Here in the U.S. those were replaced by M-B free of charge in a recall campaign or the like. I presume it is the same for markets worldwide, and it likely is not a factor in making a purchase decision.
Originally Posted by AndreasHannover
The diagram is nice, i hope you didnt spent too much time to find it.
I can realize your hope. It took less than one minute to locate the diagram. I typed "Mercedes M119 v. M113" into Chrome's search bar, clicked on "Images", and there it was...
The factory brochures state the '99 and later cars accelerate quicker from rest; a club website contradicts that claim and gives data showing they are equal while criticallyneglecting to cite a source. Which source do you think is more credible? And having knowledge of the M113's power advantage at lower RPMs, which acceleration data is more plausible?
With one obvious exception, surely members can suss the correct answers to the above questions with confidence. If someone can not, for them I regurgitate what I wrote in post #11: "...in a single day compare cars powered by both engines and draw your own conclusions."
Damn !! you mean it's more cheap parts on newer models ?
you did it
Customers think, things will get better better during some time. Suppliers think during this time, what they can safe or change that things become cheaper without failing during guaranty time.
you love your M113, right? This is absolutely OK, i am shure, some people like their Swatch watch, too. Much more modern than a Rolex, cheaper, smarter, more exact.
Originally Posted by bobterry99
With this peculiar view so far removed from conventional thinking, you have cast aspersions upon nearly [bla b la bla]
You have seen that i wrote "For me"? It means not that this is a fact, it means: For me. But this does not change the fact that the M113 is a cheap engine
I presume you are referring to the M113's harmonic balancer. Here in the U.S. those were replaced by M-B free of charge in a recall campaign or the like..
This makes this crap so much better
.
And having knowledge of the M113's power advantage at lower RPMs, which acceleration data is more plausible?.
Must be true, you can read it in the internet. No need to check it out by yourself. Oh, wait, you can check it by yourself:
To be fair, there is an advertising for the US with 6,1 seconds. So the rest of the world must be wrong. Or customers have to shown something what could make them buying the "new modern" engine.
So the 306 PS SL500 in the mysterious US version is as fast as the boring V12. Right, must be true, you can read it in the internet.
I can realize your hope. It took less than one minute to locate the diagram. I typed "Mercedes M119 v. M113" into Chrome's search bar, clicked on "Images", and there it was...
Magic. I only found this, why do you think it looks a bit different? Firefox?
No. I love women, family, close friends, and pets. I love no engines. But I very much like how an M113 feels more powerful to me than an M119 in typical driving situations. The fact that it was cheaper to produce and has fewer valves and cams than an M119 is decidedly immaterial to me, since performance is paramount.
If you have a predilection for engines vis-a-vis complexity and expense, have you considered purchasing a WWII-vintage Königstiger tank for tooling around your town?
Originally Posted by AndreasHannover
To be fair, there is an advertising for the US with 6,1 seconds. So the rest of the world must be wrong.
Just you are wrong. The U.S. brochures give acceleration figures of 6.1s (1999 car) and 6.4s (1996 car) going from 0-60 MPH. The European brochures give figures for 0-100 KPH which is equivalent to 0-62 MPH -- hence their slightly higher times.
Missing that distinction accounts for the following nonsensical conclusion:
Originally Posted by AndreasHannover
So the 306 PS SL500 in the mysterious US version is as fast as the boring V12.
The false equivalence made here is a consequence of comparing 0-60 MPH for a V8 car with acceleration to 0-62 MPH for a V12. And why are you calling the V12 "boring"? Nobody else is.
Originally Posted by AndreasHannover
Magic. I only found this...
You found three charts. Did you have a point to make with any of them?
One of your charts shows higher torque and power for an M119. I presume the point was to discredit my chart. Yet, as with mis-comparing acceleration data, you seem to be mis-comparing engines.
In the early '90s the M119 was revised and makes a bit less torque and power than its predecessor. It seems to me you are comparing my chart's '96 weaker-M119 data to a chart of the early, more powerful M119 -- a false comparison. .
Last edited by bobterry99; 01-02-2019 at 01:01 PM.
Recognizing that the M119 power chart Andreas linked to was very likely from a '92 or earlier car, I posted:
Originally Posted by bobterry99
One of your charts shows higher torque and power for an M119...you seem to be mis-comparing engines..
In response, Andreas wrote, "try again", and that implicit denial is a show of intellectual dishonesty which I find appalling. Let's look at some numbers and find out why.
First, it's commonly known among M119 aficionados that c. 1993 the engine became less powerful, as I noted earlier. Therefore, critically, does Andreas' chart represent '92 and early data or '93 to '98 data?
According to the German site with dubious acceleration data which Andreas linked to earlier and the Wikipedia, the early, more powerful M119 has a peak power rating of 240 kW, while the later, weaker version is rated at 235 kW. Now here is the chart Andreas linked to. It explicitly cites peak power of 240 kW, so plainly it does not represent a '96 or later engine. I was right; Andreas was wrong.
Now I'll target another Andreas' chart for scrutiny: the one for the M113. Earlier in this thread Andreas wrote that an M113 makes peak power of 306 (metric) horsepower @5600 RPM. I agree with that, but what does his chart show? Converting the 218 power figure from units of kilo-watts to those of metric horsepower, one finds his chart cites peak power as being just 296 metric horsepower @5500 RPM. So, Andreas posted a chart that contradicts himself (!) and is inaccurate.
I had expected this little debate to be a challenge for me; disappointingly, it is devolving into the metaphorical equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel. Schade!
[...] that implicit denial is a show of intellectual dishonesty which I find appalling.
In your eagerness to attack other people personally, the ability to grasp technical relationships is not very pronounced, right? If you had turned less to the absolute numbers but to the shape of the performance, you might have noticed that all the charts are not real. They are all painted, according to the intention of the author. And your "wild" curve from the M119 is no exception.
How blind can one be to not recognize that? And even more exciting: How can one give an opinion about the performance of an engine when you live in a country where you can not experience such a machine because you are not allowed to? Do you think the experience of a race from traffic light to traffic light shows which engine is better? Or a short acceleration up to 100 miles?
You've probably never experienced how the M113 behaves at higher revs in the higher gears compared to the M119. Even if you do not need that, because that's not typical for the driving behavior in your country. But this does not change the quality of an engine. Just because you do not notice the crap, it's not gone.
If argue like that, all real sports cars such as Porsche, Ferrari, Lamborghini, etc. are great crap. And they are not, out there, in reality. These are technical masterpieces, complex solutions, expensive materials. Like the M119.
The M119 is a state of the art engine. He has everything that was possible in his time and is designed for performance. The M113 just had to be cheap and comply with emissions regulations. The end of the 90s was difficult for Mercedes, they have saved everywhere and ruined their reputation thoroughly. Daimler Chrysler, you remember?
Oh, by the way: The m113 has less power and less torque than its predecessor. And the sales of the R129 broke in since then.
If you had turned to the shape of the performance, you might have noticed that all the charts are not real.
Were you aware that you were linking to bogus charts? I'll guess the charts were real to you and only became "not real" once I caused you to realize that either you or the charts had a credibility problem. Solution: Blame the charts!
The M119 chart you posted as well as my chart are generally accurate. They correctly show the peak torque and power ratings, and the shape of the curves comport with those published by Mercedes in its brochures. If you believe the M119 curves from my chart are "wild", then kindly offer support for that assertion. Tip: provide context and use credible sources for any information you post.
Originally Posted by AndreasHannover
Do you think the experience of a race from traffic light to traffic light shows which engine is better? Or a short acceleration up to 100 miles?
For the 2nd time in this thread you have asked me a question whose answer is to be found in an earlier post: "If one were driving on the Autobahn at 120 MPH and needed to accelerate to pass, the M119 would logically be a better performer {emphasis added}. Here in the U.S. nobody legally drives that speed, and for typical driving the M113 is a better engine."
Originally Posted by AndreasHannover
[The M119] has everything that was possible in his time...
Nonsense. It does not have a variable-length intake manifold a la the M113. Notice how the M113 impressively produces its maximum torque from 4250 all the way down to 2700 RPMs? Credit the intake manifold for this.
Originally Posted by AndreasHannover
The m113 has less power and less torque than its predecessor.
Apparently you have learned nothing, and that's okay, since I'm confident others have. Now ponder this: If one calculated the average power each engine makes over a range of 1000-6000 RPM, could the engine with the higher average plausibly lay claim to being most powerful even while having a lower peak power?
Since this thread has quieted, I'll address the notion that later 129s under DaimlerChrysler became cheaper and implicitly of lower quality:
Originally Posted by AndreasHannover
By the way, this is a tiny example how Daimer Chrysler "save" money. At the later modells, they save a lousy srew inside the back bumper.
As I have now learned, the rear bumper on a later car does indeed have two fewer screws, and it flexes if you press upon its middle, whereas an early car's bumper does not. Was this change made to save money? Perhaps. But it has nothing to do with DaimlerChrysler, since it predates that era by 3-4 years. So do other changes mentioned in this thread.
In the early '90s Mercedes decided to engineer some of the cost out of their SL and S-Class models. Features were eliminated, and systems like the 129's automatic roof were simplified. Doubtless cost savings achieved is why a '95 SL500 had a suggested retail price c. $10,000 less than a '94 car.
If a shopper insists on a 129 that is from an era when M-B was less focused on cost, then a '90-'92 car is the way to go.
12-31-2018, 10:49 AM
