News:

www.W116.org - All about the Car!

Main Menu

My 450SE is a rocket!

Started by entresz, 17 August 2012, 09:07 AM

entresz

For the last two weeks or so my 116 has been out of action due to the fuel pump dying. In the meantime I have been driving a 1999 Ford Falcon. Now that my 450SE is back in action again, I can't believe how responsive (and quick) is really is. I really forget that it's a 30+ year old car...... it has the handling and punch of many cars 20 years newer. The Falcon (despite being more powerful, and obviously a lot newer), just does not have the sheer punch that the 450SE has. Anyone else feel the same way ? I truly think that these W116s are some of the best cars of all time.... nothing comes close....
1975 Mercedes-Benz 280SE
1981 Mercedes-Benz 300D
Previous cars:
1979 Mercedes-Benz 450SE
1982 Mercedes-Benz 280E

r5149

I agree 100%!!! I also feel that the w116's are beautiful works of art. I have several newer cars in my family & they just don't compare, on any level.
I know I will NEVER part with mine!!!!!!!!!

Big_Richard

#2
..

oversize

I have a 2001 Series 2 Fairmont Ghia and the brakes are crap!!!  And even though it's a V8 I wouldn't call it a rocket.  It's hampered by a duel fuel (LPG) system too, but adding extractors and a sports exhaust system definitely helped.  And it sounds much nicer too!

The AU would use far less fuel than a 450, but if you added an aftermarket EFI system to the old 450, I'm sure it would be vastly better.  And you may also find it goes even harder....  So if you have the $$, ditch your D or Kjet and look at a quality timed EFI system with good customer support.  Oh and add extractors with a performance exhaust, plus cold air and watch the scenery turn to a blur!
1979 6.9 #5541 (Red Bull)
1978 6.9 #4248 (Skye)
1979 6.9 #3686 (Moby Dick)
1978 6.9 #1776 (Dora)
1977 450SEL #7010 white -P
1975 450SEL #8414 gold -P

Big_Richard

#4
.)

Tony66_au

OI!

Nothing wrong with D jet Mark, it is Electronic fuel injection mate!

oversize

Yeah but I'm sure the new ECUs would be better than one from the 70s.  And isn't the whole thing triggered by points?  Past time for an upgrade....
1979 6.9 #5541 (Red Bull)
1978 6.9 #4248 (Skye)
1979 6.9 #3686 (Moby Dick)
1978 6.9 #1776 (Dora)
1977 450SEL #7010 white -P
1975 450SEL #8414 gold -P

Casey

Quote from: Tony66_au on 20 August 2012, 06:26 AM
Nothing wrong with D jet Mark, it is Electronic fuel injection mate!

The problem with D-jet is poor fuel economy.  I'd be worried about losing performance characteristics with a replacement EFI setup, but have absolutely know knowledge or experience to base that worry upon.  And it's a bit silly anyways, since my D-jets are so badly out of tune that they run at maybe 1/2 power.

oversize

I believe many good performance modifications should make the engine perform more efficiently resulting in less fuel + fewer emissions + more power.  A new ECU should provide adjustability for all parameters and with a dyno tune by an experienced operator you should achieve significant gains.  However your local regs may not allow such mods; it'll probably depend on the build date of your vehicle
1979 6.9 #5541 (Red Bull)
1978 6.9 #4248 (Skye)
1979 6.9 #3686 (Moby Dick)
1978 6.9 #1776 (Dora)
1977 450SEL #7010 white -P
1975 450SEL #8414 gold -P

Tony66_au

Quote from: Casey on 21 August 2012, 07:35 PM
Quote from: Tony66_au on 20 August 2012, 06:26 AM
Nothing wrong with D jet Mark, it is Electronic fuel injection mate!

The problem with D-jet is poor fuel economy.  I'd be worried about losing performance characteristics with a replacement EFI setup, but have absolutely know knowledge or experience to base that worry upon.  And it's a bit silly anyways, since my D-jets are so badly out of tune that they run at maybe 1/2 power.


Be careful here Casey as the US versions are smogged to death.

Aussie D jets are not much more thirsty that the later K jet variety when properly tuned, I heard all the negative D jet Blah blah when i bought my first 450 (A K jet) and when the next one came along (A D jet it was a great car to drive returning 7 ish km per litre, compared to my 2.3 lt Benz wagon which returned between 8 and 9.8 km per lt or my 740 Volvo wagon (B230F 2.3lt) which returns 10 to 11.1 km per litre.

The D jet cars are also more spirited than their later K jet equivalents and IMO easier to repair and tune.

That said they are also a far less smogged engine too.

An aftermarket Fuel injection setup will give you tuning at the touch of a keyboard or click of a mouse, they will also give you stats and ability to change ignition timing on the fly as well as always running optimal timing for the fuel type, altitude/O2 available and will have the ability to lean off or rich up the mixture at will with feedback data for extra tweaks if you really know what you are doing.

Sure it depends on the aftermarket system you buy and how far into it you want to go but should you choose to go the whole hog it is all good.

Or... Adapt a TPI system from a late 80's Camaro using their twin butterfly 750 CFM intakes grafted to the original manifolds and you will still have a very smart fuel injected engine for peanuts.

TJ 450

Speaking of D-Jet, I recall seeing some NOS parts on ebay, including an ECU, from Argentina if I remember correctly... I might suggest checking it out.

Tim
1976 450SEL 6.9 1432
1969 300SEL 6.3 1394
2003 ML500

Casey

Quote from: Tony66_au on 22 August 2012, 06:29 AM
Be careful here Casey as the US versions are smogged to death.

In 1973 they weren't, and I have a 1973 - rusty but low mileage. Furthermore, my later K-jets with more smog equipment are much more potent cars, though they would be less than the D-jets if the D-jets are in tune with air leaks fixed and everything set right from what I understand. We're stuck with lower compression than euro cars (not sure how it compares to Oz cars), though. A 1973 US 450 unmodified was a 200hp car originally.

I'd like to believe my economy will get better with proper tuning...we'll see in time. :)

The problem of K-jet as I've heard is that CIS lacks the ability to keep up with aggressive driving. Maybe D-jets are easier to retune, but the K-jets seem to inherently stay in tune better once there.

Tony66_au

For me fuel economy is purely a rough guide to how my car is going, Im not actually fussed about how much fuel the car actually uses when im enjoying it and i know it will be using more fuel than my daily but then im happy to pay the price to enjoy the vehicle.

Even at near $1.60 per litre (Roughly $7.20 per US Gallon) for Premium unleaded Im happy to do daily runs at or around 5 to 7 km per litre.

I think the worst fuel guzzler I ever drove daily was a 440 Cu inch Chrysler powered (Twin 4bbl 750's) Valiant Utility (Ute) which was a real eye opener and probably cured me of being a tightarse when it comes to Fuel lol

Im not sure about compression on my D jet or if there was any difference back then BTW

oversize

K jet is CONTINUOUS injection and D jet is sequential!  Hence in theory D jet should be more economical.  And a new EFI system should be more so
1979 6.9 #5541 (Red Bull)
1978 6.9 #4248 (Skye)
1979 6.9 #3686 (Moby Dick)
1978 6.9 #1776 (Dora)
1977 450SEL #7010 white -P
1975 450SEL #8414 gold -P

entresz

I have never driven a D Jet 450, but performance aside, I like how parts for the K Jet engines are not too hard to find. I recently had to get a fuel pump for my K Jet 450, and it was really a cheap job. As far as I'm aware it's very difficult to find parts for the D jet motors.
1975 Mercedes-Benz 280SE
1981 Mercedes-Benz 300D
Previous cars:
1979 Mercedes-Benz 450SE
1982 Mercedes-Benz 280E