There's been some reference here to old Mercedes of the ponton and
heckflosse (pintail) era as classic cars. I worked for an ad agency
where we were given the products of our clients and while Daimler-Benz
were our client I drove some of those when they were new. I had the
280SE 3.5 in fourseater coupe and the 300SEL 6.3 which came only in
saloon form. All Mercedes of that period were well made--the pillarless
280 coupe for instance sealed better around the windows than the
contemporary American pillarless designs -- and the two I had were
adequately powerful as well. Virtually all others were desperately
underpowered. I wouldn't fancy trying to keep up with modern traffic in
a 190 or 220. Nor were the powerful ones I had necessarily cars for
flinging around on their power.

As performance cars they had a very serious misfortune. Until after the
war Mercedes had a swingaxle rear end, as on early VW. This was great
for flinging underpowered cars around on loose Central European roads.
It wasn't so great with adequate power on any surface and on tarmac was
a disaster because the inside rear wheel would dig under in a corner
and flip the car. By the time of the pintails, Mercedes had added a
levered arm with a helper spring across the top of the differential.
This helped but not enough. The contemporary Jaguar rear suspension
(like the Corvette rear suspension in principle though more
sophisticated in execution) was far superior in roadholding, handling,
safety and comfort. You wouldn't necessarily discover the difference at
the speeds at which the middleaged men who could afford such cars
cornered but I was in my early twenties and my "personal" car was
usually a Porsche (also on the company), which I never drove at
anything less than the limit. At the limit the Jaguar (XJ6, not the
dangerous XKE with its narrow rear track) had a smooth transition and
was easily recovered. In the Mercedes you ****ed off the accountants
every time you tried to discover the edge because there was no
transition: one moment it cornered nowhere nearly as fast as a Jag, the
next moment you took a close view of a field beside your face. Once, on
the private roundabout in front of our office, I wrote off not only the
Merc but the Bentley belonging to the chairman of an insurance company
as well. This last named, a cousin of mine, made such a fuss about it
that my mother told me to apologize for this dumb cluck double-parking
his car when he had seen me in his club lunching on martinis and knew
that next, my driver belted into the back seat, I would give a
demonstration of powersliding my car into my reserved spot.

By the way, the fastest GT cars of the mid-1960s to mid-1970s were not
Italian, German, British or American. They were Australian, the Ford
GTHO and Holden Monaro GTS, which were like American muscle cars with
added roadholding and less wasted bulk. I routinely set ton-up averages
between Adelaide and Darwin, and Adelaide and Melbourne, in those, and
I wasn't the only one. (Hello Peter P, antisocial grain farmer and
clayshooting champion.)

Okay, back to the Mercedes because you guys consider yourselves too
sophisticated for hot Ford Falcon, which is essentially what the Ford
GTHO was. The next generation of Mercedes, much developed and refined
in the suspension, were genuine supercars, the 450SEL of the mid-70s
being a fine transcontinental grand tourer almost as good for crossing
Europe as the 7 litre Ford Galaxie and LTD of a few years earlier. I
wasn't the only one to love that theoretically crude but very relaxing
and fast Ford: Stirling Moss also had one for European journeys. Many
of the supercar Anglo-Americans of the period were also far from as
sophisticated as the Mercedes but I preferred them, once setting a time
of ten hours flat between Rome and Bonn in a Jensen FF (sorry
Mark--he's the guy it belonged to, who said the car was never the same
again after my epic journey, playing Bach's Cantata 199 all the way
because it was the only decent music in the car: Mein Herze Schwimmt im
Blut - - appropriate, as I shall explain after the mouthfoamers had
their turn). In my own Jensen I averaged over 90mph from Rome to Vienna
when the air traffic controllers went on strike and my girlfriend would
have lost her position at the Wiener Staatsoper to her understudy if
she didn't turn up for the show. The opera singers in the car
entertained me all the way, though they later said they sang for Dutch
courage because in the snow on the mountains they couldn't see where I
was going, except possibly a long way down. The only one of the
Italian supercars of the age that serious journeymakers (as distinct
from boulevard poseurs (1)) would consider, the Maserati Ghibli, also
was in conception very much American with its big V8 and solid rear
axle (2).

To summarize, if you're going to buy an old Mercedes for driving
pleasure rather than to pose in (or because you couldn't afford it when
new and you want the status before you die), get a 350SE (not sure if
this was sold in the States) or 450SEL from the mid 1970s forward, not
the fintails or pontons. The SLC and SEC were also genuine four seater
supercoupes and are now very reasonably priced though the service is of
course very, very expensive. My brother-in-law loved his 450SLC so well
that he kept it for many years, selling it only when he got a service
bill for more than the car was actually worth as trade-in...

Andre Jute
Cyclist. God, give me again a (non-executive, of course) directorship
with any car of my choice attached...

(1) I had a Ferrari 250 once. In the eight weeks I owned it, I had the
use of it for two days. It was in the shop for the rest of the time.
Then I lost patience and hauled the distributor up by his tie and
choked him until he repaid me every penny, plus an overage for wasting
my time with an inadequate car. On another occasion I went with a
friend who bought a Lamborghini. The salesman asked him who he wanted
to rebuild this brandnew car to meet British expectations, and said
that after mechanical rebuilding he'd send it Hooper for a proper
respray and retrimming because Italian cars of the period were built
with ye olde cow gum and painted with rust, and all that would cost
half again. My Ghibli was well built but the Kyalami I had a few years
later (a De Tomaso Deauville with a Maserati V8 engine) was trimmed by
chimpanzees; an old 3500GT I kept for several years at our office near
my mother's home was built like a truck and trimmed like a Rolls. Every
time I look at the most beautifully styled car of all time, the Ferrari
365GTB/400/412, and think I wouldn't mind a genuinely elegant car, I
remember the appalling quality of the Ferrari I once owned and come to
my senses right smartly.

(2) The sophisticated Maserati of the next period have Citroen
mechanics. You don't want to know. I had a Citroen SM with the Maserati
V6 engine from the Merak and it was a wonderful car when it worked, but
nobody has that much patience (from Cambridge I had to drive to Duxford
to have the suspension serviced and then to London to have the engine
serviced, two days gone each time plus time to wait for parts) and the
engine is essentially not repairable because the timing chain has no
adjustment. Read that again, and consider what happens to an overhead
cam engine every ten or twenty thousand miles (or less if it is
Italian). I'd have a Citroen SM again if I could work out how to
shoehorn a supercharged V6 GM engine into it. (For those who don't
know, in a proper Citroen the engine sits behind the front axle, not in
front of the headlights as on other frontwheel drive cars.) But then I
don't mind being considered weird for wanting the most hedonistic
engineering, like Citroen and 300B. See, my post is not off-topic at
all.

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
There's been some reference here to old Mercedes of the ponton and
heckflosse (pintail) era as classic cars.

(snip)

Virtually all others were desperately
underpowered. I wouldn't fancy trying to keep up with modern traffic
in
a 190 or 220.

I used to drive a 1990 MB190 2.6 liter until a few years ago - loved
it! Not a rocketship but quite fast enough to keep up with any traffic
and it had the nicest in-line six I have ever had the pleasure of
revving to just under the red line. It would cruise all day at 100
mph (160 kph) but we're not allowed to do that up here in Canada, so
I didn't.
My present 1998 E320 is certainly a bit quicker but the V-six is just
not as smoothe.
I agree the old 220's were very slow.
Cheers,
Roger

(snip)

My father in law drove his E190 for 1.600.000 Km, or equivalently
1.000.000 miles, until one day the engine literally fell off on the
ground. It did however fix it but sold it shortly.

Who can beat that?

Engineer ha escrito:

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
There's been some reference here to old Mercedes of the ponton and
heckflosse (pintail) era as classic cars.

(snip)

Virtually all others were desperately
underpowered. I wouldn't fancy trying to keep up with modern traffic
in
a 190 or 220.

I used to drive a 1990 MB190 2.6 liter until a few years ago - loved
it! Not a rocketship but quite fast enough to keep up with any traffic
and it had the nicest in-line six I have ever had the pleasure of
revving to just under the red line. It would cruise all day at 100
mph (160 kph) but we're not allowed to do that up here in Canada, so
I didn't.
My present 1998 E320 is certainly a bit quicker but the V-six is just
not as smoothe.
I agree the old 220's were very slow.
Cheers,
Roger

(snip)

izozaya wrote:

My father in law drove his E190 for 1.600.000 Km, or equivalently
1.000.000 miles, until one day the engine literally fell off on the
ground. It did however fix it but sold it shortly.

Who can beat that?

We have terrible service centres like you do.

But in Oz, if the old car you bought for $20 stops, you just park, leave it,
and
hitch hike home.
But always you must take a large bottle of water, since it may be 3 days
before
someone drives along to give you a lift.

Patrick Turner



Engineer ha escrito:

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
There's been some reference here to old Mercedes of the ponton and
heckflosse (pintail) era as classic cars.

(snip)

Virtually all others were desperately
underpowered. I wouldn't fancy trying to keep up with modern traffic
in
a 190 or 220.

I used to drive a 1990 MB190 2.6 liter until a few years ago - loved
it! Not a rocketship but quite fast enough to keep up with any traffic
and it had the nicest in-line six I have ever had the pleasure of
revving to just under the red line. It would cruise all day at 100
mph (160 kph) but we're not allowed to do that up here in Canada, so
I didn't.
My present 1998 E320 is certainly a bit quicker but the V-six is just
not as smoothe.
I agree the old 220's were very slow.
Cheers,
Roger

(snip)

Andre Jute wrote:
There's been some reference here to old Mercedes of the ponton and
heckflosse (pintail) era as classic cars. I worked for an ad agency
where we were given the products of our clients and while Daimler-Benz
were our client I drove some of those when they were new. I had the
280SE 3.5 in fourseater coupe and the 300SEL 6.3 which came only in
saloon form. All Mercedes of that period were well made--the pillarless
280 coupe for instance sealed better around the windows than the
contemporary American pillarless designs -- and the two I had were
adequately powerful as well. Virtually all others were desperately
underpowered. I wouldn't fancy trying to keep up with modern traffic in
a 190 or 220. Nor were the powerful ones I had necessarily cars for
flinging around on their power.


They are grossly underpowered. However later Benz engines and
transmissions can be fitted, wich ****es off the purists, and also
provides reasonable performance.

The swing rear axles are a less than great feature, but for hobby car
use in the United States it is not a deal-killer. I don't plan on
drifting my Heckflosse- I have a Modified dirt track chassis I intend
to set up for that purpose, with a full roll cage, full-floater 9" Ford
rear end and regulation fuel cell.

I used to drive a 1990 MB190 2.6 liter until a few years ago - loved it! Not a rocketship but quite fast enough to keep up with
any traffic and it had the nicest in-line six I have ever had the pleasure of revving to just under the red line. It would cruise
all day at 100 mph (160 kph) but we're not allowed to do that up here in Canada, so

The 2.6 MB190 is an autobahn cruiser, 240km/h all day, with proper gearing. My brother had the bigger benz w124 that he did
powerslides in and that thing would go almost 200km/h up the biggest mountain passes in British Columbia. My friend had the same 190
2.6 as yours and this guy was a race driver, according to him, the 190 2.6 is definitely a rocket, 160km/h is peanuts for this car.

cp

They are grossly underpowered.

I have a 1966 200 Heckflosse fintail as well and I definitely do not thing the 105HP is underpowered, unless you consider anything
that can't do powerslides underpowered. What 2L 4cyl cars in the 60's had 105HP? My friend has a 1967 with the original engine as
well and that thing goes 160km/h.

cp

The 2.6 MB190 is an autobahn cruiser, 240km/h all day, with proper gearing. My brother had the bigger benz w124 that he did
powerslides in and that thing would go almost 200km/h up the biggest mountain passes in British Columbia.

I meant to say that the bigger w124 had the same 2.6L engine, with 5spd transmission. The automatic didn't compare of course.

cp

ws wrote in news:43939d82$0$19064$c3e8da3
@news.astraweb.com:

Found on rec.audio.tubes.

Interesting.

WS

Andre Jute wrote:
There's been some reference here to old Mercedes of the ponton and
heckflosse (pintail) era as classic cars. I worked for an ad agency
where we were given the products of our clients and while Daimler-Benz
were our client I drove some of those when they were new. I had the
280SE 3.5 in fourseater coupe and the 300SEL 6.3 which came only in
saloon form. All Mercedes of that period were well made--the pillarless
280 coupe for instance sealed better around the windows than the
contemporary American pillarless designs -- and the two I had were
adequately powerful as well. Virtually all others were desperately
underpowered. I wouldn't fancy trying to keep up with modern traffic in
a 190 or 220. Nor were the powerful ones I had necessarily cars for
flinging around on their power.

As performance cars they had a very serious misfortune. Until after the
war Mercedes had a swingaxle rear end, as on early VW. This was great
for flinging underpowered cars around on loose Central European roads.
It wasn't so great with adequate power on any surface and on tarmac was
a disaster because the inside rear wheel would dig under in a corner
and flip the car. By the time of the pintails, Mercedes had added a
levered arm with a helper spring across the top of the differential.
This helped but not enough. The contemporary Jaguar rear suspension
(like the Corvette rear suspension in principle though more
sophisticated in execution) was far superior in roadholding, handling,
safety and comfort. You wouldn't necessarily discover the difference at
the speeds at which the middleaged men who could afford such cars
cornered but I was in my early twenties and my "personal" car was
usually a Porsche (also on the company), which I never drove at
anything less than the limit. At the limit the Jaguar (XJ6, not the
dangerous XKE with its narrow rear track) had a smooth transition and
was easily recovered. In the Mercedes you ****ed off the accountants
every time you tried to discover the edge because there was no
transition: one moment it cornered nowhere nearly as fast as a Jag, the
next moment you took a close view of a field beside your face. Once, on
the private roundabout in front of our office, I wrote off not only the
Merc but the Bentley belonging to the chairman of an insurance company
as well. This last named, a cousin of mine, made such a fuss about it
that my mother told me to apologize for this dumb cluck double-parking
his car when he had seen me in his club lunching on martinis and knew
that next, my driver belted into the back seat, I would give a
demonstration of powersliding my car into my reserved spot.

By the way, the fastest GT cars of the mid-1960s to mid-1970s were not
Italian, German, British or American. They were Australian, the Ford
GTHO and Holden Monaro GTS, which were like American muscle cars with
added roadholding and less wasted bulk. I routinely set ton-up averages
between Adelaide and Darwin, and Adelaide and Melbourne, in those, and
I wasn't the only one. (Hello Peter P, antisocial grain farmer and
clayshooting champion.)

Okay, back to the Mercedes because you guys consider yourselves too
sophisticated for hot Ford Falcon, which is essentially what the Ford
GTHO was. The next generation of Mercedes, much developed and refined
in the suspension, were genuine supercars, the 450SEL of the mid-70s
being a fine transcontinental grand tourer almost as good for crossing
Europe as the 7 litre Ford Galaxie and LTD of a few years earlier. I
wasn't the only one to love that theoretically crude but very relaxing
and fast Ford: Stirling Moss also had one for European journeys. Many
of the supercar Anglo-Americans of the period were also far from as
sophisticated as the Mercedes but I preferred them, once setting a time
of ten hours flat between Rome and Bonn in a Jensen FF (sorry
Mark--he's the guy it belonged to, who said the car was never the same
again after my epic journey, playing Bach's Cantata 199 all the way
because it was the only decent music in the car: Mein Herze Schwimmt im
Blut - - appropriate, as I shall explain after the mouthfoamers had
their turn). In my own Jensen I averaged over 90mph from Rome to Vienna
when the air traffic controllers went on strike and my girlfriend would
have lost her position at the Wiener Staatsoper to her understudy if
she didn't turn up for the show. The opera singers in the car
entertained me all the way, though they later said they sang for Dutch
courage because in the snow on the mountains they couldn't see where I
was going, except possibly a long way down. The only one of the
Italian supercars of the age that serious journeymakers (as distinct
from boulevard poseurs (1)) would consider, the Maserati Ghibli, also
was in conception very much American with its big V8 and solid rear
axle (2).

To summarize, if you're going to buy an old Mercedes for driving
pleasure rather than to pose in (or because you couldn't afford it when
new and you want the status before you die), get a 350SE (not sure if
this was sold in the States) or 450SEL from the mid 1970s forward, not
the fintails or pontons. The SLC and SEC were also genuine four seater
supercoupes and are now very reasonably priced though the service is of
course very, very expensive. My brother-in-law loved his 450SLC so well
that he kept it for many years, selling it only when he got a service
bill for more than the car was actually worth as trade-in...

Andre Jute

There was nothing available until fairly recently that could approach the
handling of the 6.3 (known for controlled 100mph hairpin turns), and the
other air suspension models were certainly world beating. The 300SL
roadster was the overall best up till that time.

I have driven all of the hechflosse models far faster and harder than any
sane person, and have NEVER SPUN OUT! That only happens in the older models
(controlled).

At the racetrack, the conventionally suspended models consistently
outhandle the non-motorsport BMW's. Their wheel size and slightly soft
springrate are their only real weaknesses.

George Mann wrote:

snip

There was nothing available until fairly recently that could approach the
handling of the 6.3 (known for controlled 100mph hairpin turns), and the
other air suspension models were certainly world beating. The 300SL
roadster was the overall best up till that time.

I have driven all of the hechflosse models far faster and harder than any
sane person, and have NEVER SPUN OUT! That only happens in the older models
(controlled).

At the racetrack, the conventionally suspended models consistently
outhandle the non-motorsport BMW's. Their wheel size and slightly soft
springrate are their only real weaknesses.

The small saloons were definitely underpowered and upgrading to later
Mercedes engines provides for an overall better motoring experience and
frustrates the purists, all to the better. The mechanical jerk pump
Bosch indirect FI is unmaintainable and conversion to aftermarket EFI
or carbs is desirable.

I have driven all of the hechflosse models far faster and harder than any
sane person, and have NEVER SPUN OUT! That only happens in the older models
(controlled).

I've got a '66 200 w110, any opinions on those?

cp

"cp" wrote in news:Sxulf.140521$S4.100307@edtnps84:

I have driven all of the hechflosse models far faster and harder than
any sane person, and have NEVER SPUN OUT! That only happens in the
older models (controlled).

I've got a '66 200 w110, any opinions on those?

cp




A very fine car. I have driven, repaired and upgraded several. Bigger
tires and wheels are a must for aggressive driving.

My first W110 was a '63 190D with manual tranny on the fly. Been in love
ever since.

Apologies, George. I didn't mean to rain on your parade. The headline
was chosen to put down an impertinent lout on a tube audio conference;
it didn't occur to me that genuine Mercedes enthusiasts would read it.
I think Daimler-Benz made exceptionally good cars for their purposes up
to about 1996 when the management deliberately cheapened their cars.
Now that I am growing too old to fling anything around I may return to
them. I have in fact been eyeing the R129 as a suitable midlife-crisis
cafe racer/shopping trolley and wondering whether, if I remove the tail
identifier, I can get away with the 5 litre engine without losing my
green credentials, built up in years of assidious cycling and
scratching any car that came too near my pedal bike.-

Andre Jute
PS I said nothing about Mercedes with the swing axle rear end spinning
out. The problem is precisely that the rear end of those at the limit
does not slide (as a solid axle for instance does, and a de Dion, and
the more thoughtfully designed SLA and other multilink rear ends) but
digs in. What I described is how the wheel digs in, folds under and
flips the car over. You're clearly too sane to have discovered this.
Daimler-Benz gives you that big steering wheel as a hint to stop you
driving the car fast around corners, and as a means of preventing you
from doing so. So what is fast in a Mercedes of that age would be very
slow indeed in, say, a Jaguar Mk II. But I don't (well, now I don't)
see what is wrong with gliding along in the dignified manner Mercedes
of that age encourage.

George Mann wrote:
ws wrote in news:43939d82$0$19064$c3e8da3
@news.astraweb.com:

Found on rec.audio.tubes.

Interesting.

WS

Andre Jute wrote:
There's been some reference here to old Mercedes of the ponton and
heckflosse (pintail) era as classic cars. I worked for an ad agency
where we were given the products of our clients and while Daimler-Benz
were our client I drove some of those when they were new. I had the
280SE 3.5 in fourseater coupe and the 300SEL 6.3 which came only in
saloon form. All Mercedes of that period were well made--the pillarless
280 coupe for instance sealed better around the windows than the
contemporary American pillarless designs -- and the two I had were
adequately powerful as well. Virtually all others were desperately
underpowered. I wouldn't fancy trying to keep up with modern traffic in
a 190 or 220. Nor were the powerful ones I had necessarily cars for
flinging around on their power.

As performance cars they had a very serious misfortune. Until after the
war Mercedes had a swingaxle rear end, as on early VW. This was great
for flinging underpowered cars around on loose Central European roads.
It wasn't so great with adequate power on any surface and on tarmac was
a disaster because the inside rear wheel would dig under in a corner
and flip the car. By the time of the pintails, Mercedes had added a
levered arm with a helper spring across the top of the differential.
This helped but not enough. The contemporary Jaguar rear suspension
(like the Corvette rear suspension in principle though more
sophisticated in execution) was far superior in roadholding, handling,
safety and comfort. You wouldn't necessarily discover the difference at
the speeds at which the middleaged men who could afford such cars
cornered but I was in my early twenties and my "personal" car was
usually a Porsche (also on the company), which I never drove at
anything less than the limit. At the limit the Jaguar (XJ6, not the
dangerous XKE with its narrow rear track) had a smooth transition and
was easily recovered. In the Mercedes you ****ed off the accountants
every time you tried to discover the edge because there was no
transition: one moment it cornered nowhere nearly as fast as a Jag, the
next moment you took a close view of a field beside your face. Once, on
the private roundabout in front of our office, I wrote off not only the
Merc but the Bentley belonging to the chairman of an insurance company
as well. This last named, a cousin of mine, made such a fuss about it
that my mother told me to apologize for this dumb cluck double-parking
his car when he had seen me in his club lunching on martinis and knew
that next, my driver belted into the back seat, I would give a
demonstration of powersliding my car into my reserved spot.

By the way, the fastest GT cars of the mid-1960s to mid-1970s were not
Italian, German, British or American. They were Australian, the Ford
GTHO and Holden Monaro GTS, which were like American muscle cars with
added roadholding and less wasted bulk. I routinely set ton-up averages
between Adelaide and Darwin, and Adelaide and Melbourne, in those, and
I wasn't the only one. (Hello Peter P, antisocial grain farmer and
clayshooting champion.)

Okay, back to the Mercedes because you guys consider yourselves too
sophisticated for hot Ford Falcon, which is essentially what the Ford
GTHO was. The next generation of Mercedes, much developed and refined
in the suspension, were genuine supercars, the 450SEL of the mid-70s
being a fine transcontinental grand tourer almost as good for crossing
Europe as the 7 litre Ford Galaxie and LTD of a few years earlier. I
wasn't the only one to love that theoretically crude but very relaxing
and fast Ford: Stirling Moss also had one for European journeys. Many
of the supercar Anglo-Americans of the period were also far from as
sophisticated as the Mercedes but I preferred them, once setting a time
of ten hours flat between Rome and Bonn in a Jensen FF (sorry
Mark--he's the guy it belonged to, who said the car was never the same
again after my epic journey, playing Bach's Cantata 199 all the way
because it was the only decent music in the car: Mein Herze Schwimmt im
Blut - - appropriate, as I shall explain after the mouthfoamers had
their turn). In my own Jensen I averaged over 90mph from Rome to Vienna
when the air traffic controllers went on strike and my girlfriend would
have lost her position at the Wiener Staatsoper to her understudy if
she didn't turn up for the show. The opera singers in the car
entertained me all the way, though they later said they sang for Dutch
courage because in the snow on the mountains they couldn't see where I
was going, except possibly a long way down. The only one of the
Italian supercars of the age that serious journeymakers (as distinct
from boulevard poseurs (1)) would consider, the Maserati Ghibli, also
was in conception very much American with its big V8 and solid rear
axle (2).

To summarize, if you're going to buy an old Mercedes for driving
pleasure rather than to pose in (or because you couldn't afford it when
new and you want the status before you die), get a 350SE (not sure if
this was sold in the States) or 450SEL from the mid 1970s forward, not
the fintails or pontons. The SLC and SEC were also genuine four seater
supercoupes and are now very reasonably priced though the service is of
course very, very expensive. My brother-in-law loved his 450SLC so well
that he kept it for many years, selling it only when he got a service
bill for more than the car was actually worth as trade-in...

Andre Jute

There was nothing available until fairly recently that could approach the
handling of the 6.3 (known for controlled 100mph hairpin turns), and the
other air suspension models were certainly world beating. The 300SL
roadster was the overall best up till that time.

I have driven all of the hechflosse models far faster and harder than any
sane person, and have NEVER SPUN OUT! That only happens in the older models
(controlled).

At the racetrack, the conventionally suspended models consistently
outhandle the non-motorsport BMW's. Their wheel size and slightly soft
springrate are their only real weaknesses.

"Andre Jute" wrote in
oups.com:

Apologies, George. I didn't mean to rain on your parade. The headline
was chosen to put down an impertinent lout on a tube audio conference;
it didn't occur to me that genuine Mercedes enthusiasts would read it.
I think Daimler-Benz made exceptionally good cars for their purposes
up to about 1996 when the management deliberately cheapened their
cars. Now that I am growing too old to fling anything around I may
return to them. I have in fact been eyeing the R129 as a suitable
midlife-crisis cafe racer/shopping trolley and wondering whether, if I
remove the tail identifier, I can get away with the 5 litre engine
without losing my green credentials, built up in years of assidious
cycling and scratching any car that came too near my pedal bike.-

Andre Jute

The R129 is a very capable perfomance car.

PS I said nothing about Mercedes with the swing axle rear end spinning
out. The problem is precisely that the rear end of those at the limit
does not slide (as a solid axle for instance does, and a de Dion, and
the more thoughtfully designed SLA and other multilink rear ends) but
digs in. What I described is how the wheel digs in, folds under and
flips the car over. You're clearly too sane to have discovered this.
Daimler-Benz gives you that big steering wheel as a hint to stop you
driving the car fast around corners, and as a means of preventing you
from doing so. So what is fast in a Mercedes of that age would be very
slow indeed in, say, a Jaguar Mk II. But I don't (well, now I don't)
see what is wrong with gliding along in the dignified manner Mercedes
of that age encourage.


I have driven these cars well beyond their limits, and have never, ever
seen one flip. They either drift off the road, or in extreme
circumstances spin out.

The problem with the rear-axel camber changes were largely alleviated by
the stabilizer links, and are nearly eliminated by using larger wheels
and tires.

The big Mercedes steering wheel has absolutely nothing to do with their
handling potential, and everything to do with their double-quick steering
ratio.

A very fine car.

I likes it too. Very solid.

I have driven, repaired and upgraded several. Bigger
tires and wheels are a must for aggressive driving.

Nah, this thing is a work horse, not something for aggressive driving, especially 2L engine, but it is definitely sufficient.

My first W110 was a '63 190D with manual tranny on the fly. Been in love
ever since.

Mine's on the column as well, I prefer my friend's '67 200 with the floor shift. Love that thing. How was the diesel? Is it severely
underpowered or is it sufficient for city driving? If I end up selling the 200 then what I want to get is a '67 or '68 200D w110, I
understand (perhaps wrongly) there were many changes to the engine and the rest of the car.

cp

"cp" wrote in news:G3Plf.138577$y_1.51684@edtnps89:

A very fine car.

I likes it too. Very solid.

I have driven, repaired and upgraded several. Bigger
tires and wheels are a must for aggressive driving.

Nah, this thing is a work horse, not something for aggressive driving,
especially 2L engine, but it is definitely sufficient.

My first W110 was a '63 190D with manual tranny on the fly. Been in
love ever since.

Mine's on the column as well, I prefer my friend's '67 200 with the
floor shift. Love that thing. How was the diesel? Is it severely
underpowered or is it sufficient for city driving? If I end up selling
the 200 then what I want to get is a '67 or '68 200D w110, I
understand (perhaps wrongly) there were many changes to the engine and
the rest of the car.

cp




The 190D's were the right weight and geared properly for adequit
acceleration.

The 200D had the same engine, but got progressively heavier with each
passing year.

The 190D's were the right weight and geared properly for adequit
acceleration.

The 200D had the same engine, but got progressively heavier with each
passing year.

Same engine? Are you sure? I'm looking at a '65 190D currently. Let's say you had to choose between a '65 190D and a '67/'68 200D,
which one would you choose, and why? As for getting heavier, what was it that they added? Modified frame, suspension?

(BTW can you reply to the mercedes group? I doubt the radio tube people appreciate this crossposting)

Thanks for your advice,
cp

George Mann wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in
oups.com:

Apologies, George. I didn't mean to rain on your parade. The headline
was chosen to put down an impertinent lout

He means someone who isn't buying his hot steaming turd laid on my
sidewallk.


I have driven these cars well beyond their limits, and have never, ever
seen one flip. They either drift off the road, or in extreme
circumstances spin out.

The problem with the rear-axel camber changes were largely alleviated by
the stabilizer links, and are nearly eliminated by using larger wheels
and tires.

The big Mercedes steering wheel has absolutely nothing to do with their
handling potential, and everything to do with their double-quick steering
ratio.

IOW Andrew McCoy is a bull****ter, a mountebank, and a con artist.

"cp" wrote in news:0iQlf.138800$y_1.104915@edtnps89:

The 190D's were the right weight and geared properly for adequit
acceleration.

The 200D had the same engine, but got progressively heavier with each
passing year.

Same engine? Are you sure?

Same 55hp motor, yes.

I'm looking at a '65 190D currently. Let's
say you had to choose between a '65 190D and a '67/'68 200D, which one
would you choose, and why?

They are all basically the same car. The only differences are the options
and amenities. The w110 series was upgraded with front disc brakes
starting August-1963.

'65 may have been the best year overall (just a bit heavier), although
I'm partial to the earlier cars weight balance and character. The later
cars were to weight-laden.

In any case, I would do a full disc brake conversion, and upgrade it to
14inch rims and tires. Replace the rear control-arm mounts (vital).

As for getting heavier, what was it that
they added? Modified frame, suspension?

It was the increasing options/amenities that accounted for the weight.
Here is a site that will tell you more.

http://www.heckflosse.nl/HistoryHome.htm


(BTW can you reply to the mercedes group? I doubt the radio tube
people appreciate this crossposting)

This post originated in R.A.T, where many "old world" enthusiasts
lurk!;o)


Thanks for your advice,
cp

On 7 Dec 2005 23:09:22 -0800, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:


George Mann wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in
oups.com:

Apologies, George. I didn't mean to rain on your parade. The headline
was chosen to put down an impertinent lout

He means someone who isn't buying his hot steaming turd laid on my
sidewallk.


I have driven these cars well beyond their limits, and have never, ever
seen one flip. They either drift off the road, or in extreme
circumstances spin out.

The problem with the rear-axel camber changes were largely alleviated by
the stabilizer links, and are nearly eliminated by using larger wheels
and tires.

The big Mercedes steering wheel has absolutely nothing to do with their
handling potential, and everything to do with their double-quick steering
ratio.

IOW Andrew McCoy is a bull****ter, a mountebank, and a con artist.

We knew that, plus of course he's once again demonstrated his
technical ignorance by claiming that swing-axle suspension digs in and
flips cars. Anyone who actually understands suspension geometry is
well aware that this is not what happens. The real effect is that the
rear of the car jacks up as the axle swings, lifting most of tread
away from the road and thereby turning that nice fat 185 section tyre
into a skinny 115 section tyre. As a result, you lose rear grip and
spin out. There is absolutely no way that you 'dig in' and roll. I
regret to say that I have demonstrated this effect in two such cars,
one Triumph and one Porsche. An expensive lesson in the real-word
effects of suspension geometry, to be sure! :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

hmmmmm looks I'll get the '65 190D and restore it instead of getting it for parts, you definitely changed my mind, though I'll have
to get some second opinions on the Heckflosse list :-)

(BTW can you reply to the mercedes group? I doubt the radio tube
people appreciate this crossposting)

This post originated in R.A.T, where many "old world" enthusiasts
lurk!;o)

=)

Thank you again!

cp

BTW Can the glow plug "system" in the 190D be updated? I really don't want to wait 2 minutes to heat up....

cp

"George Mann" wrote in message ...
"cp" wrote in news:0iQlf.138800$y_1.104915@edtnps89:

The 190D's were the right weight and geared properly for adequit
acceleration.

The 200D had the same engine, but got progressively heavier with each
passing year.

Same engine? Are you sure?

Same 55hp motor, yes.

I'm looking at a '65 190D currently. Let's
say you had to choose between a '65 190D and a '67/'68 200D, which one
would you choose, and why?

They are all basically the same car. The only differences are the options
and amenities. The w110 series was upgraded with front disc brakes
starting August-1963.

'65 may have been the best year overall (just a bit heavier), although
I'm partial to the earlier cars weight balance and character. The later
cars were to weight-laden.

In any case, I would do a full disc brake conversion, and upgrade it to
14inch rims and tires. Replace the rear control-arm mounts (vital).

As for getting heavier, what was it that
they added? Modified frame, suspension?

It was the increasing options/amenities that accounted for the weight.
Here is a site that will tell you more.

http://www.heckflosse.nl/HistoryHome.htm


(BTW can you reply to the mercedes group? I doubt the radio tube
people appreciate this crossposting)

This post originated in R.A.T, where many "old world" enthusiasts
lurk!;o)


Thanks for your advice,
cp

cp wrote:
BTW Can the glow plug "system" in the 190D be updated? I really don't want to wait 2 minutes to heat up....



Same engine? Are you sure?

Same 55hp motor, yes.

I'm looking at a '65 190D currently. Let's
say you had to choose between a '65 190D and a '67/'68 200D, which one
would you choose, and why?

They are all basically the same car. The only differences are the options
and amenities. The w110 series was upgraded with front disc brakes
starting August-1963.

'65 may have been the best year overall (just a bit heavier), although
I'm partial to the earlier cars weight balance and character. The later
cars were to weight-laden.

In any case, I would do a full disc brake conversion, and upgrade it to
14inch rims and tires. Replace the rear control-arm mounts (vital).

As for getting heavier, what was it that
they added? Modified frame, suspension?

It was the increasing options/amenities that accounted for the weight.
Here is a site that will tell you more.

http://www.heckflosse.nl/HistoryHome.htm

I'm sure an OM 616 swap-with the later box-would be possible and
desireable. The OM 617-the five cylinder version-might and might not,
I'm not sure.

I want the chassis size originally available with an inline six gas
engine, which obviously will work lengthwise with the OM 617. I have an
engine but as yet no transmission. A friend bought several for a
planned Jeep conversion and then it sunk in the front sump was not
going to work in a Jeep. He's since decided a Mits or Isuzu would be a
better idea.

The 180 and 190 used the pushrod diesel found in ThermoKing reefers in
great quantity, I think. So cores should be available, but, the power
output is simply unacceptable in American highway driving.

I'm sure an OM 616 swap-with the later box-would be possible and
desireable. The OM 617-the five cylinder version-might and might not,
I'm not sure.

Yes, that's what I was thinking, an ample supply of those around here.

I want the chassis size originally available with an inline six gas
engine, which obviously will work lengthwise with the OM 617. I have an
engine but as yet no transmission. A friend bought several for a
planned Jeep conversion and then it sunk in the front sump was not
going to work in a Jeep. He's since decided a Mits or Isuzu would be a
better idea.

Jeep conversion? Interesting. There's a guy around here selling a Ford van with a 300SD engine

The 180 and 190 used the pushrod diesel found in ThermoKing reefers in
great quantity, I think.

Do you mean the Ponton diesels?

output is simply unacceptable in American highway driving.

Ah, American highway driving is too slow anyways, 80-90mph puts me to sleep =)

cp

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 7 Dec 2005 23:09:22 -0800, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:


George Mann wrote:

"Andre Jute" wrote in
egroups.com:


Apologies, George. I didn't mean to rain on your parade. The headline
was chosen to put down an impertinent lout

He means someone who isn't buying his hot steaming turd laid on my
sidewallk.



I have driven these cars well beyond their limits, and have never, ever
seen one flip. They either drift off the road, or in extreme
circumstances spin out.

The problem with the rear-axel camber changes were largely alleviated by
the stabilizer links, and are nearly eliminated by using larger wheels
and tires.

The big Mercedes steering wheel has absolutely nothing to do with their
handling potential, and everything to do with their double-quick steering
ratio.

IOW Andrew McCoy is a bull****ter, a mountebank, and a con artist.


We knew that, plus of course he's once again demonstrated his
technical ignorance by claiming that swing-axle suspension digs in and
flips cars. Anyone who actually understands suspension geometry is
well aware that this is not what happens. The real effect is that the
rear of the car jacks up as the axle swings, lifting most of tread
away from the road and thereby turning that nice fat 185 section tyre
into a skinny 115 section tyre. As a result, you lose rear grip and
spin out. There is absolutely no way that you 'dig in' and roll. I
regret to say that I have demonstrated this effect in two such cars,
one Triumph and one Porsche. An expensive lesson in the real-word
effects of suspension geometry, to be sure! :-)

The M151 A1 jeeps would flip very easily with that type of rear axle.
That is why they had to be cut in half before they could be sold. I
think the Corvair was that type too. I think the book "Unsafe at any
speed" was about that problem.

cp wrote:


Jeep conversion? Interesting. There's a guy around here selling a Ford van with a 300SD engine

The 180 and 190 used the pushrod diesel found in ThermoKing reefers in
great quantity, I think.

Do you mean the Ponton diesels?

output is simply unacceptable in American highway driving.

Ah, American highway driving is too slow anyways, 80-90mph puts me to sleep =)

The top end is acceptable. The acceleration, particularly the 30-70
merge, isn't.

Ah, American highway driving is too slow anyways, 80-90mph puts me to sleep =)

The top end is acceptable. The acceleration, particularly the 30-70
merge, isn't.

Are you saying the w110 190D will go 70mph? Eventually? Does the engine really strain at that speed?

cp

cp wrote:
Ah, American highway driving is too slow anyways, 80-90mph puts me to sleep =)

The top end is acceptable. The acceleration, particularly the 30-70
merge, isn't.

Are you saying the w110 190D will go 70mph? Eventually? Does the engine really strain at that speed?

My guess is it will, if the downhill slope is great enough.

The point isn't the top speed but the rate it willl get there. Many
Americans on the highway are stupid and traffic is intense, so the
ability to accelerate precisely is valued. The much later 220D I had
was abysmal in this department and the Ponton 180D my uncle owned which
I was given on his death was much worse-it was actually very scary on
the freeway. I never even titled it, I gave it to a Peruvian kid at my
mother's church. He repainted it-Fender candy apple red- and converted
it to gas because I guess in Peru you could not have a diesel car, or
there was no diesel fuel, or something. He sent my mother a letter a
couple of years ago-the car was still running.

Are you saying the w110 190D will go 70mph? Eventually? Does the engine really strain at that speed?

My guess is it will, if the downhill slope is great enough.

:-)

The point isn't the top speed but the rate it willl get there. Many
Americans on the highway are stupid and traffic is intense, so the
ability to accelerate precisely is valued.

Of course.

The much later 220D I had was abysmal in this department

What was different between the 190d and the 220d engines? My friend is putting the 220D engine into his w110, he says with the stick
shift it should go good. Can't be as slow as the 1976 300D engine and its auto transmission that my dad put into a Ford Econoline
camper, though on the highway it would go almost 90mph.

and the Ponton 180D my uncle owned which
I was given on his death was much worse-it was actually very scary on
the freeway. I never even titled it, I gave it to a Peruvian kid at my
mother's church. He repainted it-Fender candy apple red- and converted
it to gas because I guess in Peru you could not have a diesel car, or
there was no diesel fuel, or something. He sent my mother a letter a
couple of years ago-the car was still running.

:-)

cp

"cp" wrote in news:Tosmf.202510$Io.79440@clgrps13:

Are you saying the w110 190D will go 70mph? Eventually? Does the
engine really strain at that speed?

My guess is it will, if the downhill slope is great enough.

:-)

The point isn't the top speed but the rate it willl get there. Many
Americans on the highway are stupid and traffic is intense, so the
ability to accelerate precisely is valued.

Of course.

The much later 220D I had was abysmal in this department

What was different between the 190d and the 220d engines? My friend is
putting the 220D engine into his w110, he says with the stick shift it
should go good. Can't be as slow as the 1976 300D engine and its auto
transmission that my dad put into a Ford Econoline camper, though on
the highway it would go almost 90mph.

and the Ponton 180D my uncle owned which
I was given on his death was much worse-it was actually very scary on
the freeway. I never even titled it, I gave it to a Peruvian kid at
my mother's church. He repainted it-Fender candy apple red- and
converted it to gas because I guess in Peru you could not have a
diesel car, or there was no diesel fuel, or something. He sent my
mother a letter a couple of years ago-the car was still running.

:-)

cp



A 190D with manual tranny is quick enough to keep up with traffic. The
difference between it and the 220D is 5hp. The 220D is +/- 500 pounds
heavier if I remember right, and with a manual tranny, it can just manage
to get out of its own way!

The 190D's top speed is rated at just over 80mph(130kph), and it will do
so on a level surface all day long without breaking a sweat!

A 190D with manual tranny is quick enough to keep up with traffic. The
difference between it and the 220D is 5hp. The 220D is +/- 500 pounds
heavier if I remember right, and with a manual tranny, it can just manage
to get out of its own way!

:-) So a 220D in a w110 would be much better then, 5hp more and ~500 pounds lighter.... we'll see how my friend's engine change
goes, he stripped the engine and painted it red, hopefully it'll go as fast as it looks

With the current 2L 4cyl engine the w110 goes about 115mph or so, not bad, so he says.

The 190D's top speed is rated at just over 80mph(130kph), and it will do
so on a level surface all day long without breaking a sweat!

130kph? That's MORE than enough for me, assuming it reaches that speed before the off ramp. It's not too taxing on the engine to
keep it going that fast?

Thanks for your info, very helpful!

cp

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:34:05 -0500, Jerry Sommer
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 7 Dec 2005 23:09:22 -0800, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:


George Mann wrote:

"Andre Jute" wrote in
legroups.com:


Apologies, George. I didn't mean to rain on your parade. The headline
was chosen to put down an impertinent lout

He means someone who isn't buying his hot steaming turd laid on my
sidewallk.



I have driven these cars well beyond their limits, and have never, ever
seen one flip. They either drift off the road, or in extreme
circumstances spin out.

The problem with the rear-axel camber changes were largely alleviated by
the stabilizer links, and are nearly eliminated by using larger wheels
and tires.

The big Mercedes steering wheel has absolutely nothing to do with their
handling potential, and everything to do with their double-quick steering
ratio.

IOW Andrew McCoy is a bull****ter, a mountebank, and a con artist.


We knew that, plus of course he's once again demonstrated his
technical ignorance by claiming that swing-axle suspension digs in and
flips cars. Anyone who actually understands suspension geometry is
well aware that this is not what happens. The real effect is that the
rear of the car jacks up as the axle swings, lifting most of tread
away from the road and thereby turning that nice fat 185 section tyre
into a skinny 115 section tyre. As a result, you lose rear grip and
spin out. There is absolutely no way that you 'dig in' and roll. I
regret to say that I have demonstrated this effect in two such cars,
one Triumph and one Porsche. An expensive lesson in the real-word
effects of suspension geometry, to be sure! :-)

The M151 A1 jeeps would flip very easily with that type of rear axle.
That is why they had to be cut in half before they could be sold. I
think the Corvair was that type too. I think the book "Unsafe at any
speed" was about that problem.

The Corvair did not flip, it spun, just like the Beetle and early 911
with similar swing axles, because the engine was in the wrong place
rather than because of the rear suspension - although that sure didn't
help! The Jeep of course flipped - like any other tall skinny 4x4 -
because the centre of gravity was too high for the track width.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:34:05 -0500, Jerry Sommer
wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 7 Dec 2005 23:09:22 -0800, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:



George Mann wrote:


"Andre Jute" wrote in
glegroups.com:



Apologies, George. I didn't mean to rain on your parade. The headline
was chosen to put down an impertinent lout

He means someone who isn't buying his hot steaming turd laid on my
sidewallk.




I have driven these cars well beyond their limits, and have never, ever
seen one flip. They either drift off the road, or in extreme
circumstances spin out.

The problem with the rear-axel camber changes were largely alleviated by
the stabilizer links, and are nearly eliminated by using larger wheels
and tires.

The big Mercedes steering wheel has absolutely nothing to do with their
handling potential, and everything to do with their double-quick steering
ratio.

IOW Andrew McCoy is a bull****ter, a mountebank, and a con artist.


We knew that, plus of course he's once again demonstrated his
technical ignorance by claiming that swing-axle suspension digs in and
flips cars. Anyone who actually understands suspension geometry is
well aware that this is not what happens. The real effect is that the
rear of the car jacks up as the axle swings, lifting most of tread
away from the road and thereby turning that nice fat 185 section tyre
into a skinny 115 section tyre. As a result, you lose rear grip and
spin out. There is absolutely no way that you 'dig in' and roll. I
regret to say that I have demonstrated this effect in two such cars,
one Triumph and one Porsche. An expensive lesson in the real-word
effects of suspension geometry, to be sure! :-)


The M151 A1 jeeps would flip very easily with that type of rear axle.
That is why they had to be cut in half before they could be sold. I
think the Corvair was that type too. I think the book "Unsafe at any
speed" was about that problem.


The Corvair did not flip, it spun, just like the Beetle and early 911
with similar swing axles, because the engine was in the wrong place
rather than because of the rear suspension - although that sure didn't
help! The Jeep of course flipped - like any other tall skinny 4x4 -
because the centre of gravity was too high for the track width.

The later model A2 jeeps had trailing arm suspension and that fixed the
problem. I put over 50,000 miles on a couple of them. Jerry

Nothing stupid about this one. :-)

http://www.villaurpo.com/kokoelma/waxenb/wax_fin.htm

Only the people who fail to appreciate it are stupid.

Cheers,

Margaret

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 02:14:01 GMT, "Margaret von B."
wrote:

Nothing stupid about this one. :-)

http://www.villaurpo.com/kokoelma/waxenb/wax_fin.htm

Only the people who fail to appreciate it are stupid.

On that at least we can agree. The original SuperSaloon.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering