The Forum

Garage => Test Drive => Topic started by: WGB on 20 July 2008, 09:04 AM

Title: 116's and particularly 6.9's are supposed to be driven
Post by: WGB on 20 July 2008, 09:04 AM
I have spent the last 10 months fettling my 6.9 and driving it to work one day per week but this weekend I put it to some more serious work for the first time and drove it for about 300km with 100km on the open road above 100km/hr.

When I purchased it, Herbert from The Star Shop said "Don't park it - It must be driven" (In a German Accent).

Apart from the fact that the car drove and handled beautifully the high speed running settled a single noisy lifter which had bugged me all the time to the point where I was going to replace it.

And yes the 6.9 just gets better the faster it goes and yes the suspension tightens up with speed and yes it averaged 20.9 litres/ 100km and yes I am becoming more fond of it as time goes on.

Bill
Title: Re: 116's and particularly 6.9's are supposed to be driven
Post by: nathan on 20 July 2008, 09:10 AM
Bill,
how fast were you going if you got 21l/100!  if you had >100km open road driving, you shuold get about 16-17 per 100 if at 100kmh! ;)
Title: Re: 116's and particularly 6.9's are supposed to be driven
Post by: Mforcer on 20 July 2008, 03:34 PM
I notice the improvements with my car after a good run on the open road. Not that it is running poorly otherwise but everything just seems to run more smoothly. The car loves to be driven and rewards for being driven.
Title: Re: 116's and particularly 6.9's are supposed to be driven
Post by: WGB on 20 July 2008, 08:11 PM
Quote from: nathan on 20 July 2008, 09:10 AM
Bill,
how fast were you going if you got 21l/100!  if you had >100km open road driving, you shuold get about 16-17 per 100 if at 100kmh! ;)

I chose my words carefully as I was in a 110 area most of the time but of the 300 km - 200km was Metro Driving with only 100km at speed (and I was passing a lot) so 21 is about what I would expect.

My ML 500 averages just under the 15L/100km for metro driving and can get as low as 11.8L/100 km on a run if I am careful with the passing manoeuvres.

Tends to average low 12's on a normal run and I can neither confirm nor deny my true cruising speed.

My wife's ML320 CDI averages 10.3 Litres/100km in metro running with 9.0 and lower at cruise and unlike the older ML270 she had before it has enough grunt to pass at speed.


Bill
Title: Re: 116's and particularly 6.9's are supposed to be driven
Post by: Bandolero on 20 July 2008, 08:49 PM
I feel sorry for people that can only drive their 116's now and again.  ;D

My everyday "hack car" is the 280SE which I have done 57,000 kms in 31 months.
(Average of over 400kms per week.)

I've done 20,000kms in the 6.9 over a period of 28 months.
(Average of over 160kms per week.)

I use 98 octane in the 6.9 and found that the more I drive it, the better economy I get.
I have got up to 16.6 litres/100kms, but I average about 18.8 litres/100 kms.
(The 280 gets 14.6 litres/100kms.)

The reason I have done higher mileage than normal is because I live rural and every drive is a blast down the freeway to Adelaide........Love it!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: 116's and particularly 6.9's are supposed to be driven
Post by: GreaseMonkey on 21 July 2008, 05:30 AM
Gotta get me one too!
Next on the list for sure.
Chris M.
Title: Re: 116's and particularly 6.9's are supposed to be driven
Post by: s class on 21 July 2008, 09:55 AM
MY w116's are in the extreme -

280SE - 240 000km in 9 years
trusty rusty - about 90km since I've owned it.   :-\
Title: Re: 116's and particularly 6.9's are supposed to be driven
Post by: 500eguy on 21 July 2008, 02:30 PM
My poor 116 is down due to a noisy rear axle and my 500 is down i think due to a ignition module and my 190 is down due to a transmission rebuild, so once they are all running again i am going to be one happy man with a heavy foot!  I want a 6.9 badly though!
Title: Re: 116's and particularly 6.9's are supposed to be driven
Post by: SELfor50 on 22 July 2008, 06:38 AM
You're on a winner there Bill..  These puppies love the open road, and as pace picks up they feel more and more sturdy on the road.

The 450 loves long trips and good rev's.  I've been told by many people that just sedate driving / idling in these car's fouls things up and once in awhile they need a good 'cylinder burn'.


As for petrol consumption I never add it up, but on my recent long trip to melbs (bout 700km's) I just make sure I fill up at 400km on the tacho and then again on arrival.. drive around for a few days, race at the track, then fill up again twice before getting home.  Needless to say, I don't actually eat when i make long trips.. the fuel bill alone is not one that's nice to add up.  :-\
IT'S FUN THOUGH!!  ;D

Just quickly Bill, on the ML500 fuel consumption.. I'm thinking of leasing one as a towe vehicle for the track car, would you recommend them?
Probably a 2002-2004 model (somewhere in there).  It would also be used as a daily driver.  Or would you suggest the 320?
And final question, Diesel or Petrol (i'm inclined to go petrol).

Cam. :)
Title: Re: 116's and particularly 6.9's are supposed to be driven
Post by: oscar on 22 July 2008, 08:04 AM
Quote from: SELfor50 on 22 July 2008, 06:38 AM
Just quickly Bill, on the ML500 fuel consumption.. I'm thinking of leasing one as a towe vehicle for the track car, would you recommend them?
Probably a 2002-2004 model (somewhere in there).  It would also be used as a daily driver.  Or would you suggest the 320?
And final question, Diesel or Petrol (i'm inclined to go petrol).

I started a thread like this on the NSWMBC site coz we're going to replace the Terri sooner or later and there's only one choice - ML55 ;D ;D ;D  Then I found out as a govt employee we can't lease V8's >:( so it's likely going to be an ML 350 eventually, same year build 2002-04.  I hate diesels for no particular reason at all  8) 

The best thing about using a tow vehicle for the track car is that they wont go too fast and attract radars.   Though you'll probably prove me wrong ;D    Of the same importance is that if you do go ML as a daily, your going to appreciate the w116 drive days more and the w116 fuel bill wont be a problem.  You'll just plant the foot and be happy since it wont be your daily.

Title: Re: 116's and particularly 6.9's are supposed to be driven
Post by: WGB on 22 July 2008, 09:36 AM
Quote from: SELfor50 on 22 July 2008, 06:38 AM


Just quickly Bill, on the ML500 fuel consumption.. I'm thinking of leasing one as a towe vehicle for the track car, would you recommend them?
Probably a 2002-2004 model (somewhere in there).  It would also be used as a daily driver.  Or would you suggest the 320?
And final question, Diesel or Petrol (i'm inclined to go petrol).

Cam. :)

Hi Cam,

If you buy a 163 make sure you buy the second series with the foglights in the bumpers - they almost totally rebuilt the car and the second series is much more reliable. Having worked on my wife's previous 270 CDI they are a delight to work on - take off the front wheels and remove the plastic inner guards and you have total and complete access to both sides of the motor. The 163 - ML500 has the same 3 valve motor as mine has and I would imagine would be at the limit of power vs handling. Nathan's dad has one so ask him what he thinks of it. I found the 270 a bit slow for me but quite usable and incredibly economical for what it was - ours had a lifetime fuel consumption over 125,000 km on the trip computer of 9.9 litres/100km.

The 164 is a whole new breed and apart from the name there is little in common. My 500 ML has the off road-pro pack with height adjustable air suspension, adjustable damping and a seven speed auto with full manual override and although it only has the 302HP motor as opposed to the newer 5.5 4 valve 368hp motor that 7 speed really lets it fly off the mark and the traction on wet or dry will make sure very little keeps up in the traffic light drags. On the open road when passing it is quite scary how fast it gets to those hand-cuff type speeds the other side of 1-6-0 for such a big car. First 30,000 km average consumption 14.7 litres/100km - usually driven in a spirited fashion.

The ML 320 CDI is also surprisingly quick off the mark and lively to drive. The 7G-tronic auto was really designed for Diesel power delivery characteristics and it shows when driving it. Unlike the 270 it has real performance on the open road and I often feel ashamed that a mature sensible person like me drives the V8 everyday and he should be using a diesel that has averaged 10.3 litres/100km since new and has similar real world performance at legal speeds.

They all tow beautifully just watch your total towing weight but there is now a new hitch system that extends the towing weight upwards by an extra 800kg. But then unhitch the load and nothing beats a V8.

Bill
Title: Re: 116's and particularly 6.9's are supposed to be driven
Post by: nathan on 22 July 2008, 09:08 PM
As Bill noted,
dad has the 1st gen (163) preupdate 430...he was one of the first to have this delivered when the ML was brand new...he thought it would have the same ability and durability as the Gwagen, without the impracticality!  luckily he got the extended 5 year warranty as it needed quite a few expensive warranty things including roof lining of all things!  not up to par in many respects but very good in others.  as Bill states, the updated 163 was a much nicer machine without as many flaws as i understand. 
only driven a 164 a couple of times and these were very very nice!

Id recommend at least a test drive in the diesel before you make up your mind - these oel burners are now very very nice.

what about a 6.9 to tow it around!
Title: Re: 116's and particularly 6.9's are supposed to be driven
Post by: SELfor50 on 23 July 2008, 08:18 AM
Quote from: oscar on 22 July 2008, 08:04 AM
Quote from: SELfor50 on 22 July 2008, 06:38 AM
Just quickly Bill, on the ML500 fuel consumption.. I'm thinking of leasing one as a towe vehicle for the track car, would you recommend them?
Probably a 2002-2004 model (somewhere in there).  It would also be used as a daily driver.  Or would you suggest the 320?
And final question, Diesel or Petrol (i'm inclined to go petrol).

I started a thread like this on the NSWMBC site coz we're going to replace the Terri sooner or later and there's only one choice - ML55 ;D ;D ;D  Then I found out as a govt employee we can't lease V8's >:( so it's likely going to be an ML 350 eventually, same year build 2002-04.  I hate diesels for no particular reason at all  8) 

The best thing about using a tow vehicle for the track car is that they wont go too fast and attract radars.   Though you'll probably prove me wrong ;D    Of the same importance is that if you do go ML as a daily, your going to appreciate the w116 drive days more and the w116 fuel bill wont be a problem.  You'll just plant the foot and be happy since it wont be your daily.



Hahahah.. i'm right there with ya.  I just can't f*kn stand diesels, probably to do with the rattly sound under the hood.  :-\  Being a lease, the petrol will be included, so not like I won't be paying for it - but i'll be aiming to clock up km's.  Would love the 55..  8)

Quote from: WGB on 22 July 2008, 09:36 AM
Quote from: SELfor50 on 22 July 2008, 06:38 AM


Just quickly Bill, on the ML500 fuel consumption.. I'm thinking of leasing one as a towe vehicle for the track car, would you recommend them?
Probably a 2002-2004 model (somewhere in there).  It would also be used as a daily driver.  Or would you suggest the 320?
And final question, Diesel or Petrol (i'm inclined to go petrol).

Cam. :)

Hi Cam,

If you buy a 163 make sure you buy the second series with the foglights in the bumpers - they almost totally rebuilt the car and the second series is much more reliable. Having worked on my wife's previous 270 CDI they are a delight to work on - take off the front wheels and remove the plastic inner guards and you have total and complete access to both sides of the motor. The 163 - ML500 has the same 3 valve motor as mine has and I would imagine would be at the limit of power vs handling. Nathan's dad has one so ask him what he thinks of it. I found the 270 a bit slow for me but quite usable and incredibly economical for what it was - ours had a lifetime fuel consumption over 125,000 km on the trip computer of 9.9 litres/100km.

The 164 is a whole new breed and apart from the name there is little in common. My 500 ML has the off road-pro pack with height adjustable air suspension, adjustable damping and a seven speed auto with full manual override and although it only has the 302HP motor as opposed to the newer 5.5 4 valve 368hp motor that 7 speed really lets it fly off the mark and the traction on wet or dry will make sure very little keeps up in the traffic light drags. On the open road when passing it is quite scary how fast it gets to those hand-cuff type speeds the other side of 1-6-0 for such a big car. First 30,000 km average consumption 14.7 litres/100km - usually driven in a spirited fashion.

The ML 320 CDI is also surprisingly quick off the mark and lively to drive. The 7G-tronic auto was really designed for Diesel power delivery characteristics and it shows when driving it. Unlike the 270 it has real performance on the open road and I often feel ashamed that a mature sensible person like me drives the V8 everyday and he should be using a diesel that has averaged 10.3 litres/100km since new and has similar real world performance at legal speeds.

They all tow beautifully just watch your total towing weight but there is now a new hitch system that extends the towing weight upwards by an extra 800kg. But then unhitch the load and nothing beats a V8.

Bill

So is the ML500 the second series??  Is the foglight bumpers the main tell?
Total towing weight will be a bit over 2 tonnes i think...reducing all the time.

Ideally i'd love to get a 6.9, but all these people in the western land KEEP BUYING THEM ALL!!  :P  This time next year i'll have one..  Also would like to get an older gelanderwagon 500 - but too old too lease they say...   :(

Gonna try get some test drives in on saturday, will post the results..


PS. Oscar, is that deadset?  Govt employees can't lease a V8??  Do you have to use Ethanol fuel too?  ???  Contracting has it's bonuses i guess.  :)
Title: Re: 116's and particularly 6.9's are supposed to be driven
Post by: oscar on 23 July 2008, 09:27 AM
Quote from: SELfor50 on 23 July 2008, 08:18 AM
PS. Oscar, is that deadset?  Govt employees can't lease a V8??  Do you have to use Ethanol fuel too?  ???  Contracting has it's bonuses i guess.  :)

Well actually, that was a NSW govt rule so not sure about Fed.  When you talked of leasing I thought it must have been a novated lease arrangement that we're doing now.  Guys at work have done it and noticed no difference in take home pay.  Of course, the best part is just handing over that fuel card rather than a credit card.

The V8 rule is ridiculous.  You can get a 4WD, you can get a car that weighs well over two tonne, but you can't get a V8 sedan.  ??? Our Terri uses way more fuel than a V8 Statesman.  :-\

No mention of Ethanol.  You should be able to stipulate the fuel that the fuel-card or motocard for the car accepts, whether it be 91ron,98 ron or diesel.  I haven't heard of anyone being limited to anything other than what their cars should take.   However, if the leased car is on 91ron as per manufacturer and the card is for 91unleaded only, you might have to foot the bill if you use 98.  I accidentally put 95ron isntead of 91 into a work commodore years ago and the caltex card wouldn't work, I had to fork out the $ >:(  but later I got reimbursed ;D

EDIT:  Another rule change that came in for us is that we can lease used cars up till 9YO.  Hence why a 2002-04 ML is appealing rather than comitting to a new car price.  Is that what you can do too?
Title: Re: 116's and particularly 6.9's are supposed to be driven
Post by: WGB on 23 July 2008, 10:28 AM
Quote from: SELfor50 on 23 July 2008, 08:18 AM

So is the ML500 the second series??  Is the foglight bumpers the main tell?
Total towing weight will be a bit over 2 tonnes i think...reducing all the time.

Ideally i'd love to get a 6.9, but all these people in the western land KEEP BUYING THEM ALL!!  :

PS. Oscar, is that deadset?  Govt employees can't lease a V8??  Do you have to use Ethanol fuel too?  ???  Contracting has it's bonuses i guess.  :)

Standard Towing capacity has been 2000kg up until about three months ago when a new hitch set up which can be retrofitted has apparently raised this to 2800kg.

Yes the second series of 163 is distinguised by the foglights in the bumpers but watch for people who may have retrofitted these.

(http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh219/WGB_album/dsc00578.jpg)

Here is a picture of my wife's ML taken some years ago showing the foglamps, body coloured trim and wheels.

Usually the bumpers are also body colour and wheel size went up an inch and styles of wheel changed. There are so many detail changes as would fill a book but significant ones include extra internal strength in Automatics. The only real hassle with them is that they like rear brake pads which is not a big deal if you don't pay the $350 for the genuine ones and are happy to fit them yourself.

2002 to 2004 seem to have had firmer springing and handle more securely with less body roll but the last couple of years production seem to have had softer springs and roll around a bit. Bilstein front shocks improved the ride and the handling at the same on my wife's 2003 270CDI.

We had no significant repairs in 125,000 km other than tyres and brakes except after replacing the leaking front shocks I replaced the battery and then promptly sold the car for the 320CDI.

Bill
Title: Re: 116's and particularly 6.9's are supposed to be driven
Post by: SELfor50 on 24 July 2008, 08:34 AM
Quote from: oscar on 23 July 2008, 09:27 AM
Quote from: SELfor50 on 23 July 2008, 08:18 AM
PS. Oscar, is that deadset?  Govt employees can't lease a V8??  Do you have to use Ethanol fuel too?  ???  Contracting has it's bonuses i guess.  :)

Well actually, that was a NSW govt rule so not sure about Fed.  When you talked of leasing I thought it must have been a novated lease arrangement that we're doing now.  Guys at work have done it and noticed no difference in take home pay.  Of course, the best part is just handing over that fuel card rather than a credit card.

The V8 rule is ridiculous.  You can get a 4WD, you can get a car that weighs well over two tonne, but you can't get a V8 sedan.  ??? Our Terri uses way more fuel than a V8 Statesman.  :-\

No mention of Ethanol.  You should be able to stipulate the fuel that the fuel-card or motocard for the car accepts, whether it be 91ron,98 ron or diesel.  I haven't heard of anyone being limited to anything other than what their cars should take.   However, if the leased car is on 91ron as per manufacturer and the card is for 91unleaded only, you might have to foot the bill if you use 98.  I accidentally put 95ron isntead of 91 into a work commodore years ago and the caltex card wouldn't work, I had to fork out the $ >:(  but later I got reimbursed ;D

EDIT:  Another rule change that came in for us is that we can lease used cars up till 9YO.  Hence why a 2002-04 ML is appealing rather than comitting to a new car price.  Is that what you can do too?

Yeah mate, I think they go up to about 6-7yrs old with our lease company.. It's a novated one too.  I mentioned the fuel, cause with the work car's it stipulates that we must use ethanol.. But that's mainly cause of the stink caused in the media bout climate change / renewable energy etc... Bloody greenies.

Thanks for the advice Bill, much appreciated.  I'll post my results after the test drive's.

Cam. :)
Title: Re: 116's and particularly 6.9's are supposed to be driven
Post by: kolin on 05 August 2008, 02:59 AM
Quote from: WGB on 20 July 2008, 08:11 PM
Quote from: nathan on 20 July 2008, 09:10 AM
Bill,
how fast were you going if you got 21l/100!  if you had >100km open road driving, you shuold get about 16-17 per 100 if at 100kmh! ;)

I chose my words carefully as I was in a 110 area most of the time but of the 300 km - 200km was Metro Driving with only 100km at speed (and I was passing a lot) so 21 is about what I would expect.

My ML 500 averages just under the 15L/100km for metro driving and can get as low as 11.8L/100 km on a run if I am careful with the passing manoeuvres.

Tends to average low 12's on a normal run and I can neither confirm nor deny my true cruising speed.

My wife's ML320 CDI averages 10.3 Litres/100km in metro running with 9.0 and lower at cruise and unlike the older ML270 she had before it has enough grunt to pass at speed.


Bill

well if you lived here in good ol' RSA, you would be able to confirm the speeds you drove at without fear of reprisals from the thought police
Title: Re: 116's and particularly 6.9's are supposed to be driven
Post by: WGB on 23 August 2008, 06:32 PM
Filled my tank again yesterday in the 6.9 and it what has been mainly metro running it returned 17.9 litres/100km.

Seems to be improving.

Bill
Title: Re: 116's and particularly 6.9's are supposed to be driven
Post by: kolin on 25 August 2008, 01:27 AM
improving hey??
not bad at 17.9/100
what does it do when towing??
well things are improving here, a new act just been passed last week, says that if you are caught doing over 30kmh over the speed limit in urban areas your license will be suspended for a year, and if its on the highways and your doing 40 over the speed limit, then its also suspended for a year.
this is great news for a country that has no public transport.
Title: Re: 116's and particularly 6.9's are supposed to be driven
Post by: Big_Richard on 07 September 2008, 06:32 PM
.
Title: Re: 116's and particularly 6.9's are supposed to be driven
Post by: s class on 08 September 2008, 12:09 AM
Due to the 280SE being incapacitated for a week due to rear brake repairs, last week I ran trusty rusty daily.  It was good fun, despite the 23l/100km. I'm sure it could be better as I know the valve timing is off, and the injectors need replacing. 
Title: Re: 116's and particularly 6.9's are supposed to be driven
Post by: WGB on 08 September 2008, 04:03 AM
Quote from: kolin on 25 August 2008, 01:27 AM
what does it do when towing??

Dont know - don't tow except for a 6x4 trailer and I use my Falcon for that.  8)

Quote from: Patrick Bateman on 07 September 2008, 06:32 PM
I havent driven or run my 6.9 for any serious length of time since february, yesturday i started it for the first time in over 2 weeks. I for the first time ever heard the sewing machine sound of a seized lifter. It did disapear and correct itself after 2 minutes, but i wonder if its a sign of it being left sitting for months at a time.


I have one lifter that a year ago was loud enough to hear from outside the car.  Every time I take it for a decent drive and get it good and hot it get's quieter and now I only hear it as a slight noise at certain speeds from the driver's seat.

My Go-No go gauge arrived from the US today so will order a few new hydraulic lifters from Autohausaz and then go for broke with a check of all static clearances, replacement of any dodgy hydraulic limiters and fitting of the two degree cam off-set keys and then hopefully seal it up and forget about the valve train for a few years.

Quote from: s class on 08 September 2008, 12:09 AM
Due to the 280SE being incapacitated for a week due to rear brake repairs, last week I ran trusty rusty daily.  It was good fun, despite the 23l/100km. I'm sure it could be better as I know the valve timing is off, and the injectors need replacing. 

But if you don't use up that fuel someone else will Ryan. I am tempted by a new set of injectors as they are not all that expensive.

Bill
Title: Re: 116's and particularly 6.9's are supposed to be driven
Post by: TJ 450 on 08 September 2008, 06:53 AM
Regarding new injectors, they are highly recommended... when my 6.9 was running, with the new injectors, seals and serviced airflow meter (sealed with genuine MB sealant), it was running extremely smoothly even when absolutely cold. PB now has my old ones (unless he threw them out)... they were crap.
My 450 still has the originals installed, which are leaking... Nathan has seen the smoke followed by the smell of unburnt fuel when I start the car when warm, on a slope. ;D
Regarding noisy lifters... I'm with the ATF movement. ;D 
'Twas a success on my 450, along with many oil changes.

Tim
Title: Re: 116's and particularly 6.9's are supposed to be driven
Post by: WGB on 08 September 2008, 09:03 AM
I'm not putting ATF in my 12 litres of Red-line 20-50 Synthetic :o
Title: Re: 116's and particularly 6.9's are supposed to be driven
Post by: TJ 450 on 08 September 2008, 11:24 AM
Ah yes, that would be shocking in your case. That Redline synthetic should be doing a better job than even the ATF at keeping the lifters free of deposits. IMHO the ATF is good if you know they are gummed up due to lack of maintenance at some point in the car's life, which is certainly not applicable to your situation, Bill.
As for my 6.9, I'm quite certain it will need new lifters as they all seem to be stuck from lack of use. I get the impression they are beyond the help of things like ATF too, but the moment of truth will be when I start driving the car.

Tim
Title: Re: 116's and particularly 6.9's are supposed to be driven
Post by: s class on 08 September 2008, 11:26 AM
Trusty rusty has been on a 1000km treatment - its just completed the first 800km on SHeel Rotela diesel lube oil, and last night I added 1 litre of ATF for the next 100 to 200km, whereafter I will do an oil change. 
Title: Re: 116's and particularly 6.9's are supposed to be driven
Post by: John Hubertz on 08 September 2008, 05:25 PM
ATF IS oil you know.  It is basically a light machine oil with significant additives to improve high-temp/antivarnish qualities.  Anyone with suspect lifters might consider even a more extreme ATF remedy - .50 motor oil/.50 ATF for about 50 miles.  Use at least a 30W straight or 20-50 so you don't have the watery oil syndrome.

This will make a difference.

JH
Title: Re: 116's and particularly 6.9's are supposed to be driven
Post by: koan on 09 September 2008, 01:04 AM
Quote from: TJ 450 on 08 September 2008, 11:24 AM

As for my 6.9, I'm quite certain it will need new lifters as they all seem to be stuck from lack of use. I get the impression they are beyond the help of things like ATF too, but the moment of truth will be when I start driving the car.


If I don't drive or at least do a warm up once a week the one lash adjuster that leaks down makes an enormous racket for about 10 seconds when started up from cold. It's not just tick, tick, tick, more like a big end bearing rattle, but that would continue and not fade out.

Sometimes it happens, sometimes not, depends if the engine stops with that adjuster compressed.

No idea which adjuster it is, I have a new set which will go in when my heads are ready.

The top of my engine as always seemed to noisy, too much general clatter, I hoped the "basic position adjustment" procedure done when rocker arms where replaced would fix it but didn't.

This time when I put the heads back together I expect things to be much quieter with the new adjusters.

koan