Some thoughts on the M110 engine(s)

[Des]

Well I've been giving my cars a bit of sorting out the last few days, have found some interesting obversations, firstly

0-100 in the '72 280CE, 8.5 seconds
0-100 in the '74 280S, 9.8 seconds


quite a difference!

The 280CE seems to want to rev more, hard to tell how much, (no tachometer) but you get that lovely BURRRRRR noise when you give it the beans. You feel it wanting to pull away effortlessly, while the 280S is more sluggish and blows white smoke under full throttle. Cannot seem to get the 280S to kick down into first on take off, but the 280CE loves it!

It just wants to push on and take off, I think it might be running a bit rich, although no black smoke you get the smell of petrol when you floor it. Really impressed with the power of that car actually!, took on and dragged off a fraud falcon this morning, can't complain against a 4.0 motor


I guess another power difference is the weight of the cars, CE around 1400KG's, w116 would be a few hundred KG's heaver and lacks fuel injection.


One limiting thing that is slightly annoying with the w114 is the huge steering wheel, it is quite a handful when trying to corner fast, really need something a bit smaller, that's where the w116 wheel is much better, and better grip on the wheel.


Cars seem to be running better now with more use and blowing the cobwebs out of the motors and exhausts.

 

[oscar]

0-100 in the '72 280CE, 8.5 seconds
0-100 in the '74 280CE, 9.8 seconds

Des, I thought you bought another CE for a moment. I assumed the second to be the S after reading your post.

They're pretty good figures IMO. Just when I was about to log off you post an M110 thread so I have to bite. I think the 280S is around 1700kg. Whether 300kg's could make up 1.3sec I don't know. Any lighteneing obviously helps but I was more concerned about the white smoke and unable to get the S to start in first. One would tend to think it's a problem with the kickdown but I can't remember if it's the kickdown switch or the kickdown lever that selects first. The white smoke would sound like the vacuum modulator intially but I thought perforated modulators leak more at idle when manifold vacuum is at its highest, not necessarily at full throttle. Needs further investigation as to the cause.

 

[Des]

ah whoops sorry yes meant the 280S verses the 280CE

someone else here mentioned the white smoke could be valve stem seals

 

[WGB]

300kg is a major weight difference and the fuel injected motor was always much sprightlier than the the carburetor one.

The 1976 ADR's killed off the 110 motor in Australia and made it a pale imitation of the earlier years.

In 1972 a 280E (and hence CE) was considered quite a fast car.

Bill

 

[Michel]

You get that 280S 116 to kick down in first and you'll be Kicking Some Ass my dear Des...

 

[Des]

In 1972 a 280E (and hence CE) was considered quite a fast car.

Bill

You got me thinking and I went to look for the power output figures:

for mine:

Power output of .981: 185 hp (136 kW) at 6000rpm.


Looking at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_M110_engine

 

[Styria]

Hi Des, as WGB has already indicated, there is a major difference in power between an early 'dirty' fuel injected engine and the later model carbie/user friendly power unit.

In addition, an extra 300kgs. is a MAJOR weight penalty and the 116 would be hopelessly outgunned in the power stakes. I would love to have a 6.9 that would be 200kgs. lighter - it would then achieve the same, if not better, 0-100 time of 6.5 seconds. That's the figure for the 6.3. Regards Styria

 

[GreaseMonkey]

My experience with these is that my 1975 W116 280SE, without 'smog' gear is way better than my 1984 W123 280E which should be a fair bit lighter. Both average kms, both kept in good tune. But both are a lot slower than the last Euro-spec 1980 W123 280E I had in UK. That used to smoke tyres if you gave it a heavy foot!
Chris

 

[Des]

I would love to have a 6.9 that would be 200kgs. lighter - it would then achieve the same, if not better, 0-100 time of 6.5 seconds. That's the figure for the 6.3. Regards Styria

Perhaps I can recommend the 450SLC 6.9!



under the bonnet of a normal 450SEL 6.9



The 450SLC 6.9

 

[Des]

 

[GreaseMonkey]

Des, sure we would all like a 6.9, but YOU started this thread on M110 motors!
If anyone has any thoughts on how to get the best out of the straight six, share it here. Meanwhile, if Des - or anyone else - has a spare 6.9 lying around, send it to me, I'll find a good use for it.
Meanwhile keep those photos coming Des, gives us more to think about.
Thanks,
Chris

 

[Des]

ah yes, I get easily distracted......

moving right along...

so yes you want more power from your M110?

try this:

http://www.mbspares.com.au/Information/ModifyyourMercedesBenz.aspx

 

[GreaseMonkey]

Thanks Des, I should have thought of asking JG. That W114 looks a real nice job, but I am not sure that sort of high-revving grunt is what Wasabi needs. Maybe I will stick to a sedate stock M110, it probably will not be working too hard.
But there are a couple of Crayfords - in Germany and UK - rumoured to be getting the 6.9 treatment.
If they come off, I - or OBH - will post them here.
As I said, the M110 in my '75 280SE wagon is fine now, but I was wondering how easy it is to convert a later motor back to earlier, more powerful, spec.
Ditch the air pump, and what?
Were they higher compression, if so, is that heads, or pistons, or both?
And a different camshaft?
Just interested to know the differences.
Chris

 

[oscar]

Thanks for that MBSpares link, a great job and some real food for thought there. Though what's the go with cam grinds? I always thought race or performance cams were taller, (is that correct) if so, how does grinding a stock cam make things perform better or allow a higher rev range?