SL500 - different engines? - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

LeaUK · #1 03-25-2003, 12:24 PM

Whilst looking through some data I notice that the 500 had three engine codes over the 129 era. These were:

Year Eng. No.
89-93 119.960

92-94 119.972

95-02 119.982

I know all three had different electronic ignition systems starting with the KE Jetronic and ending with the MI, but why was the reign of the 972 so short?

Anyone know the major differences between these engines?
Any engine to be avoided (I suspect not, but just wondering)?

Cheers
Lea

jjrodger · #2 03-25-2003, 03:14 PM

There are two major differences in engines fitted to R129 500SL/SL500 cars between 1989 and 2002. Any other differences are very minor.

From 11/89 until 6/98 the car was fitted with the 4-valve per cylinder V8 (also seen in the W140 S-Class cars and a few 463 series G-Wagens and, in modified form, in the W124); this motor produces 326bhp.

From 6/98 until 7/01 (the last production month) the car was fitted with the 3-valve per cylinder V8 (still used in the S163 M-Class, W209 CLK, W211 E-Class, C215 CL Class, W220 S-Class and new R230 SL); this motor develops 306bhp.

Both motors produce similar torque, but the 3-valve engine develops it much lower in the rev range (approx 460Nm at 2,700rpm to 4,250rpm for the newer engine as against 450-470Nm at 3,900rpm for the older). The newer motor is also more fuel efficient and significantly lighter.

Both engines are bullet proof unless subject to serious neglect. Mercedes-Benz has never had to replace either engine under a warranty claim (and there must be close on half a million of each). With regular oil and filter changes and less regular spark plug changes, there is no reason why either motor will not last forever. I suspect the older motor is the best, but have no real evidence to substantiate that feeling (the technical brilliance of late-80s MB design is my only guide).

FYI, my new (to me) R129 SL500 gives better fuel economy than my C240! How is the search going?

LeaUK · #3 03-25-2003, 06:04 PM

Hi JJ

How did I guess you would know the answer

I still don't quite understand the 92-94 period though? My data came from AutoData (one of the biggest garage databases) and so I believe it to be accurate. Strange - but true!

So, at 4 valves per, am I correct to assume 2 cams per bank (quad cam) ?? - oooooooh....how sexy is that

Quote:

FYI, my new (to me) R129 SL500 gives better fuel economy than my C240

- now that's what I like to hear - sorry, already been here in another thread

The search is going slow, really only because I'm not pursuing hard at the moment as a want a little extra time to save a few pennies more. But I do realise that as summer looms prices may too and interest in these cars will grow - but that's life

I'm seeing some lovely looking (haven't visited any yet) examples with sellers promoting their cars on their own web space (or sometimes that of their company) http://www.russellspencer.co.uk/SL.htm for example (hope your don't mind Russel). This appears a great way to really show off the vehicle by way of multiple pics etc and also gives some background in to the seller too - if you look a little harder

BTW - Do you know where I can obtain a manual, something preferably a little more professional than Haynes would be nice (ah, I notice they haven't written one anyway - hardly surprising!) so I can get familiar with the cars systems beforehand?

Cheers
Lea

#4 03-25-2003, 10:42 PM

I'd be interested in knowing what kind of mileage you're getting with your 99; I've been very happy with my mileage, considering that I drive with a bit of a heavy foot. With my '97 with the m120 I get between 14 and 16 mpg around town---depends on how much I "yah-hah" it---and pretty consistently around 21 to 22 mpg on the road at 70-75 mph.

I don't know if the m119 gets better than this or not, but I wouldn't expect it to be much better.

Travis

suginami · #5 03-25-2003, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jjrodger

From 6/98 until 7/01 (the last production month) the car was fitted with the 3-valve per cylinder V8 (still used in the S163 M-Class, W209 CLK, W211 E-Class, C215 CL Class, W220 S-Class and new R230 SL); this motor develops 306bhp.

Just for the record, the engine code for the engine from 6/98-7/01 is M113, so the info on Autodata must be in error.

LeaUK · #6 03-26-2003, 02:33 AM

Thanks Suginami,

but perhaps that engine is US only? The AutoData info is UK based so perhaps they don't include non-european? Although I would have thought that a significant limitation if true

jjrodger · #7 03-26-2003, 03:37 AM

Learoy,

I don't have the detailed information you require. You are right that there were several manifestations of the M119 engine in the SL (according to my big Mercedes tome, Mercedes-Benz Opera Omnia). However, it is fundamentally the same engine throughout.

As you suspect, there were probably changes to the fuel injection system, there may have been emissions set up changes, and there may have been other small variations to the engine spec. But it is definitely the same basic 119 engine.

Suignami is also right that after 6/98 the engine used in all 500s is the M113. This is the 3-valve per cylinder engine I was talking about.

Regarding your search, MB presently has two 1996 cars at GBP20k, which suggests that if you stay patient, you will find older cars for less.

I don't know where you could get a technical manual. There is probablya workshop manual available from somewhere but they tend to be expensive. If you are after a vehicle handbook, these can be purchases for about a tenner (I think) from the dealer, but there is nothing extraordinary about operation of the vehicle. I get my information from a couple of Mercedes books I own and the original sales brochures.

Travis,

I've filled the tank three or four times so far. Yesterday I used pretty much three quarters of a tank on a mixed drive. This was made up of about 120 miles highway (70-100mph), 120 miles rural roads (40-70mph), 20 miles urban (stop/start-30mph). The car gave approximately 25mpg (Imperial gallons, not US).

I have used one tank doing my commuting (each day being about 20mins heavy traffic, 30mins rural roads and 20mins highway). The car gave approximately 21mpg.

And my first tank was very mixed driving but gave 23mpg.

I haven't really ragged the car, but I have given it big licks a couple of times and I generally drive quite rapidly.

#8 03-26-2003, 04:29 AM

That sounds great; 1 Imperial gallon = 1.2 U.S. gallon, so you're figures translate to 19 and 20.8 respectively. There's no way to make a direct comparison since we can't control for speeds or driving style, but your experience thus far is close enough to my own to reinforce my thinking that there isn't a significant difference in the two car's mileage figures (depends on how you defince "significant" I guess...)

It seems reasonable to me to expect similar results, since both are doing essentially the same amount of work. I don't flog mine, but do enjoy a spirited burst now and again. I very rarely have an opportunity to go any distance at a cruise speed, since I rarely travel. The first year I had mine I drove it nearly 15,000 miles; last year it was just over 5,000. I wish I had more time to enjoy it!

On a related note, has there been any talk of offering the R230 with the bi-turbo 12 as in the current S600? I understand that they're claiming just under 500hp from it; should be quite a combination. You'd have performance rivalling the SL55 but the smoothness of the V12.

Travis

jjrodger · #9 03-26-2003, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Travis129
there isn't a significant difference in the two car's mileage figures

On a related note, has there been any talk of offering the R230 with the bi-turbo 12 as in the current S600? I understand that they're claiming just under 500hp from it; should be quite a combination. You'd have performance rivalling the SL55 but the smoothness of the V12.

I wouldn't expect any real world mileage difference between the two motors.

The R230 SL is now available with the bi-turbo V12 from the S, in Europe at least. It develops bang on 500bhp and more torque than the SL55. I gather the idea is smoothness rather than sledgehammer, as you suppose.

AMG previewed a CL65 at the Geneva Salon, featuring a bored and stroked bi-turbo V12 giving 615bhp and 719lb/ft torque!!! I'm sure if you asked nicely (and handed over the GNP of a small African nation) they'd drop in the R230 for you!

I've no idea how you would put that power on the road...

http://mbspy.bacosys.be/c215cl65amg.htm

#10 03-26-2003, 04:55 AM

Ye gods! I didn't realize that they were getting that kind of power from production cars! Where will it end? I guess I need to read more...

Thanks for the info.

Travis

#11 03-26-2003, 03:37 PM

Just a FYI, someone at MBWorld.org recently dynoed a 03' S600 Bi-turbo V12 and the rear wheel Hp was 481!

Now if you take into account the driveline losses at a conservative 20% with a auto tranny, you can see Mercedes is serioulsy UNDER rating there newer supercharged and turbo engines.

If you love power and you can afford it, you cannot loss buying a car with a optional 100k mile warranty, basically a service life of 300-400k miles and the build quality to go who knows how long...

#12 03-26-2003, 07:37 PM

Makes me want to go buy a lottery ticket or something! I guess I could get to liking that! What a grocery-getter that would be.

Whew, that's remarkable. Thanks for the info.

Travis

Momo · #13 03-27-2003, 05:36 AM

Re the CL65 at the Geneva show, a salesman on the stand told me it was AMG's proud reaction to Brabus. The Brabus stand was some way away from the MB stand, for the first time. There are no plans to homologate the CL65 in Switzerland, and I suspect this will be the case in a number of other countries too.

Momo

jjrodger · #14 03-31-2003, 08:54 AM

My two most recent tankfuls have given the following mileage:

over fastish (70-100mph) 315 highway miles, 28.5 mpg;
over 300 fast (lots of acceleration) back road and town miles, 24.5 mpg.

Amazing from a 5 litre, 2 tonne car.

Gilly · #15 03-31-2003, 11:37 AM

What I have listed for V8 SL's is:
119.960, 119.972, 119.982, and 113.961.
The first version would be the CIS 119 motor, NOT sequential fuel injection.
The next 119 motors I know whould be sequential fuel injection. I can't remember this exactly, but they did use a couple different injection systems, one was called LH-SFI, the other was HFM-SFI.
LH is "Luft-Hotwire", usually just called Hotwire in the shop, and HFM Is "Hot Film". The only real difference is the mass airflow sensor itself. I believe the 119.972 motor may be for both the LH and HFM versions. Then I believe the 119.982 motor is probably the 119 motor with ME.1 injection system. ME is very similar to the HFM system, except that the ignition system is integrated into the fuel injection control module. Prior to that there was a seperate ignition control unit.
The of course the 113.961 is the "modular" V8 engine, the 3 valve engine which has been discussed.