Author Topic: 6.9 on the dyno >>>>  (Read 5861 times)


  • Classic
  • **
  • Posts: 451
  • Location: Adelaide, South Australia
    • Ezycoat Dog Dryers
Re: 6.9 on the dyno >>>>
« Reply #15 on: 10 August 2006, 03:51 PM »
Hey Mike,
Don't put your 450 down, I would love to have a decent 450SEL (with the 4.5 lt motor) to use as everyday transport. I use a 280SE and I hate getting shutdown by Hyundai Excels off from the lights.
However, above 110kph it turns on and will then blow them off. In fact the acceleration above 110 kph is quite fast. Pity the speed limit is 110!!!!

Long live the 450SELs.
« Last Edit: 10 August 2006, 03:53 PM by Bandolero »
Russell Bond - (Adelaide, South Australia)
1978 450SEL 6.9 .... #5166 .... 12/78 (Sold.)


  • Vintage
  • ***
  • Posts: 721
  • Location: Northern NSW, Australia
Re: 6.9 on the dyno >>>>
« Reply #16 on: 10 August 2006, 04:44 PM »
Pity the speed limit is 110!!!!

I thought that was only for 2nd gear!   ::)


  • W116 Addict
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,730
  • Location: perth, western australia
Re: 6.9 on the dyno >>>>
« Reply #17 on: 11 August 2006, 12:04 AM »
this could be a goer Chris, although for me personally, its a little hectic at present...regardless, if the others were amenable to a time in the near future, im sure i could try and make some time...must wait for my mechanic to return to do a water pump switch from goldy to silver one and then get leaky pump repaired!  oh the financial pain of it!

6.9 79 #6436
6.9 79 #6290
6.9 79 #6181
6.9 78 #4764
6.9 77 #3096
6.9 76 #1741
6.9 76 #0902
6.9 75 #0018


  • Classic
  • **
  • Posts: 433
Re: 6.9 on the dyno >>>>
« Reply #18 on: 12 August 2006, 05:45 AM »

No, my friend, I'm not putting my 4.5 down; I'm trying to say that it's power is quite excellent, and the 6.9 would be even more powerful yet.  Other than "bragging rights" - and the inner satisfaction of owning one of the world's most expensive cars for pennies (and just a couple at that) on the dollar - I'm quite content with my 450SEL relative to the 6.9.  Someday, perhaps, I'll have a 6.9 yet, but until that day I'm very happy with my old girl.

I am actually quite surprised at the performace of my "little" 4.5; after all, that's only 276 cubic inches, which is fairly small by 70's U.S. auto standards.  Yet it actually had both more horsepower AND more torque than my 1990 Cadillac Brougham, which had a 175 h.p 5.7 (350 c.i.) engine.  That on top of the fact that it was running a relatively antiquated and horespower-robbing smog pump/cat converter.  For a car that is as heavy as the 450SEL, with a powerplant that is as relatively small as the 4.5L, these 450SELs really motor.

Now the 6.9 (424 c.i.), that's a pretty big motor by any era's standards, isn't it?

P.S. One of the things I WAS trying to say in my previous post was that these cars seem to perform better than their dyno numbers would indicate that they ought to.  My U.S. 450SEL - back in the day - had 190 h.p., but it sure seems to drive more powerfully than that.  Hey, for those of you who know your childrens' stories, perhaps I have "The Little [4.5L] Engine That Could"!  I shall endeavor to listen for "I think I can, I think I can, I think I can..." the next time I pass somebody by on the grade.
« Last Edit: 12 August 2006, 06:21 AM by michaeld »