bobblehead

Removing the covered shields only take a few minutes 😄

sixfive

just got word that transmission is out of the car, oil separators replacement has been completed and they found flying wheel plate bolts worn and they're being replaced as well once they arrive tomorrow. I do not know what and how important those bolts are so google will have to help me a bit unless somebody on here can explain it easily but I have a feeling the extended warranty purchased when new was the right thing to do as the bill might be a bit on the high side . . .

Sunbeltgolfer11

How many miles o you have on the car?

sixfive

67k

Rover338

When I bought my 2018 E63S Wagon and discovered the RMS was leaking because there were small (quarter size circular oil spots) of oil on the ground underneath the car. When laying down on the ground and looking underneath the car you could see the sheen of oil residue from dripping down onto the felt/carpeted splash shields underneath the car. But as someone previous posted taking the undershields off takes 2 seconds especially if the car is on a lift and then can accurately be diagnosed as to what is leaking

TugboatBill

I'm perplexed how flywheel bolts can get worn. Maybe someone that doesn't know how to use an air wrench?

DannyXFL

I'm at the dealership today with my 2018 E63s. They indentified the RMS leak very quickly and also recommended the oil separators, however they are the same units that failed already, they've not been redesigned. The tech knew all about the issues, so MB is catching on. The best they could do was offered me a 2 year warranty on the separators, so that WHEN they fail again they will be covered. Notbsure I want to spend $8-10k for another fauly part. I don't trust that. They will probably cover the part, but not the labor. This is a engineering flaw on an emissions system that's mandated by the government. Just like direct injectors ruin the intake valves. They are literally designing low emissions vehicles that can't make it to 50k miles. Makes sense to get us all in EVs.

ffejnotrom

Oh , MB definitely knows about it. So much so that on my G63 they have specific parameters on how the RMS fails that will tell the technician wether its an oil separator that caused it, or just a faulty RMS. Has to do with how the seal fails, which direction the seal is either sucked in or blown out ( I think, I could be incorrect on that terminology) but in any case the dealer told me specifically they have internal documentation from MB corporate to tell the dealer what caused the RMS leak.

What I would like to know is there is an easy aftermarket method to ventilate the crankcase properly as to not create a vacuum or too much pressure in the block which is the cause of the RMS fail.

Many moons ago when I would build import race motors, we would routinely place a valve cover vent/filter on it basically allow the oil vapor to escape rather than being re-routed back into the intake. Looked like a mini K&N intake filter on the valve cover. Maybe 2" in diameter.

For me I would use that as a solution just to basically relieve that pressure in the block, because the oil separators do basically nothing and are useless. But it would at least allow the RMS to hold up longer while the OVS can get as clogged as they want and the pressure isnt affected.

chassis

It’s called a catch can. Not sure if a M17x aftermarket solution is available yet. It likely will be soon. Probably wouldn’t pass smog in CA or other states that have a smog test.

SnoopLevine

I've messaged a few companies that are active in providing aftermarket solutions for our cars. Let's hope one of these companies seizes the opportunity and develops a catch can for the M177 LS2.

ffejnotrom

Yes, I doubt would pass emissions, but if I needed to I could just reconnect it to the original OVS for the emissions test.

Isnt the OVS kind of a catch can anyway ? It's been a long time since ive spent any time working on motors.

We would just put a filter on where the hose connects to the valve cover and over to air intake, and then just plug the hole in the intake. Not even install the catch can. Just the remove the hose, and put filter on.

Much simpler motor back then, and likely even back then we probably weren't doing things properly, but didnt seem to have much issue.

chassis

Yes, the oil-vapor separator is a factory catch can. Thing is, MB failed, and it doesn't work reliably.

Adding a filter to a breather hose exposed to ambient would result in oil vapor accumulating and making a mess in the area of the filter, hence the purpose of a catch can, to catch the accumulated vapor and mist which condenses to liquid oil. Today's boosted DI engines have more blowby than a 1968 Chevy small block.

DannyXFL

The more I read, the more this seems par for the course for big turbo engines. Tons of heat, pressure, and blowby. The urge to step on the peddle exacerbates the issue. Yes, MB should have a stronger PCV system. Its obvious when one is failing, with the whistling, but I never heard anything, maybe it went quickly? I'm willing to put in some $$$ to get it in top condition, but I am nervous waiting to hear the from the shop. My hope is to replace or upgrade PCV system and RMS and anything else that needs replacing while apart and have a working car that I can aggressively maintain. My fear is what else may be lurking....

HBerman

Better have deep pockets!

chassis

It's too bad that the M17x engine does not appear to be a candidate for long-term ownership, even with aggressive preemptive maintenance. The vapor separator issue is simple in principle, but it gives no warning signs before popping the RMS. Of course the vapor separators can be preemptively replaced, but at what time or mileage interval? It's guesswork.

And the vapor separator job, while not rocket science, does take some hours in the shop/garage, so not something that is easy or quick. And not guaranteed to prevent RMS failure with 100% certainty.

And the M17x has not cleared the hurdle yet for having a reputation (or not) for bore scoring. The engine still doesn't have enough time on the road to make a statement one way or the other. It could be as bad, or worse, or better, than the M278/M157 engines which are well known for scoring.

MB is making disposable appliances these days, more so than BMW and Porsche. Sadly.

HBerman

It's also too bad that Mercedes hasn't corrected the parts in spite of the numerous failures of the oil separators. So much for a hand-built engine being anything more than an advertisement. Sigh!

chassis

Agree. MB, on a good day, is slow to recognize field issues and even slower to do anything about them. One example is the oil-in-harness situation across M274/276/278/157 engines. The final revision of the cam sensor and cam magnet part numbers (there were many) seem to be OK but even this is not 100% clear.

Another example is the string of bad four bangers M274/264/254. The 274 has a long list of well-known fatal problems, the 264 was very short-lived, and the current 254 is well-known for cylinder head failures. Seems MB's strategy is to flee the scene of the crime by designing new engine variants, and to do little or nothing for products in the field, and their owners.

theboogers

Who is the builder name on your engines?

Cylinder Head

iTrader: (1)

Irrelevant. This is a parts issue.

DannyXFL

Spoke to MB-only Indie shop today. The tech didn't seem phased. He said most of their customers' cars have leaking RMS. He wants me to bring it in and change the oil to 5w40, slightly thicker. He said drive it everyday for a month and monitor. He is going to remove the shield to make it easier to see. He said they do 5w40 in all their cars with no issues. I asked about the risk of further damage and he said None as as long as the oil level stays in range. No risk to turbos, cylinders, etc.

He also encouraged everyone to wait on a recall.

just his opinion, but I felt better that he wasn't as dramatic as the MB dealer

HBerman

....?????? So the majority of the Mercedes cars being serviced in this shop are leaking oil and that's acceptable? Not a chance that the condition is normal, but probably represents the large expense of corrective action. Recall?? Perhaps, but more likely a design flaw that is an annoyance at the least and potentially an engine killer at the worst. I'd stay away from that shop that talks about oil leakage as the mitigation process. Oh, make sure that when you are visiting your friends that you carry a plastic tarp to put under the car to prevent oil spots on their driveways.

graphitegreyamg

A lot of fear mongering here with plenty of assumptions. I’ve got in good word that the aftermarket world is after a good solution for crankcase pressure control or in the least something to increase the efficiency of the current separators so they don’t cause problems. The LS1 separators were faulty and the LS2’s were updated but still not adequate. With this in mind both still benefit greatly on crankcase pressure management without triggering any codes.

superpop

Please keep us posted if you do hear of an aftermarket solution for this. Cheers.

I.T. Guy

HBerman

I don't believe that the efficiency of the current separators is in question. To my knowledge, there has not been a part number change for the assembly through 2023. The problem is that the filter eventually gets clogged and the crankcase pressure exceeds specifications and blows out the RMS. Even if there is a aftermarket "fix", it would have to go through emissions certification for compliance which is not too likely on a low volume engine. A TMS from Mercedes would cost them millions of $$$ to rectify/replace the parts. Might exceed the capabilities of all of the service departments combined for the resulting labor.