That's what I used to believe until I heard from quite a few sources that
the 103 is way better on timing chains because the camshaft does not
'vibrate' as much as the 102 camshaft. Of course I have no definitive proof
of this (as in factory technical literature), so I am not going to dig my
heels in on this.
Suffice to say MB dropped the ball on this design both in early 102 and 103
motors. I am not sure about the 103 motor but the 102 went to double row
towards the end of it's production run. I also fail to understand why it
took MB so long to finally upgrade the timing chain, how much money where
they saving by putting in a single row (this applies to other motors as
well)? Of course these chains never failed while the car was under warranty,
much to the owners delight.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Frederick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mercedes Discussion List" <mercedes@okiebenz.com>
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: [MBZ] sluggish running 300Se.
They are not misadjusted, they are opening and closing late in relation
to crank/piston position and ignition timing. This interferes with air
flow quite a bit at low charge density/low velocity. The effect is
much less as the charge density goes up and the velocity in the intake
runners increases.
The M103 chain is a weak sister -- they only last 100,000 miles under
the best conditions (synthetic oil) and will wear sooner if you use
dino oil.
It is exactly the same chain as the M102 and is pulling four more
valves...
Peter
_______________________________________
http://www.okiebenz.com
For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/
For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.11/497 - Release Date:
25/10/2006
