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

<weelliott@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:093f2703-99f7-4f7d-8516-2cb238770440@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Jan 2, 2:18 pm, "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 3525 lbs.
> E420 3745 lbs.
> E320 Coupe 3550lbs.
>
> On W126 for 1990 models...
> 320SEL 3785 lbs.
> 350SDL 3820 lbs.
> 420SEL 3915 lbs.
> 560SEL 4100 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.

If I recall correctly, there used to be a seperate shock absorber attached

to the diesel engines to compensate for torque.

Looking atthe numbers though I think you are correct and I doubt there is 
enough of a difference to require any change in spring rate