Re: Diesel Lowering S****t Springs?

On Jan 2, 2:18=A0pm, "Tiger" <tiger0...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> I just took a look on the vehicle weight. I don't see any problem.
>
> On W124 for 1995 models...
> E300D 3485 lbs.
> E320 =A0 =A03525 lbs.
> E420 =A0 =A03745 lbs.
> E320 Coupe =A0 =A03550lbs.
>
> On W126 for 1990 models...
> 320SEL =A0 =A03785 lbs.
> 350SDL =A0 =A03820 lbs.
> 420SEL =A0 =A03915 lbs.
> 560SEL =A0 =A04100 lbs.
>
> With 20% strong spring rate... it should be of no problem at all for any
> model. I am not sure why H&R is so adamant for no diesel.. I can seee
the
> engine is slightly heavier but not when you compare to the V8
engines....

Wow-I really thought the diesel would be heavier than the 320. I don't
see how the motor mounts would have an effect on the springs. They
aren't that close are they? It would seem odd to me for a car comapny
to make a chassis to take both engines, but have a different spring
mounting for each engine since the spring mounting point is somethign
that woudl be easy to make standard for all engines. It goes against
the philosophy of having the fewest necessary parts. It isn't really a
philosophy that MB is all that great at, but that would be strange.

As far as torque causing the car to roll to one side on acceleration,
I don't think they would change spring rates for that. Maybe sway bar
thickness, but not spring rates.