Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Photobucket
Welcome to Mercedes-190.co.uk

We are the Mercedes 190 owners forum, the place to be for all owners and fans of the Mercedes 190E, 190 and 190D cars. Including Cosworth (2.3 16v and 2.5 16v), EVO 1 and EVO 2 models. Modified and concourse, track cars and daily drivers, all are welcome.

This free UK based forum was started back in November 2005 to serve the Mercedes 190 W201 community and now has over 9000 members from all around the world and 600,000 + posts.

The members welcome you and encourage you to stay a while and have a look around.
We offer you friendly chat and access to some very useful information as well as tutorials with photos and videos for many common repair and maintenance jobs.
Whatever your needs there is a good chance you will be able to find what your looking for. Such as our Mercedes 190 buyers guide

Sign up to gain access to all areas including for sale / classified areas and country wide meetings and events. Many forum features and sections are only available once you sign up.

Join our forum at mercedes-190.co.uk!

If you're already a member please log in to your account:

**New members signing up**
please check your junk mail for the email authorization email
otherwise we cannot verify your new account.
I have noticed a lot of unauthorized accounts in the system.
Regards
Admin

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Hydraulic bottom washer-which one?
Topic Started: Sat Apr 28, 2012 7:49 pm (938 Views)
mchell
Part of things
[ *  * ]
Hello

I'm about to change the hydraulic tappets on my 1990 2.6 auto but would like also to change the bottom washers between the lifter and the top of the valve. The problem is that the Russian parts site indicates two measures: 3 mm and 3.5 mm. Which ones should i want?
Being half a millimetre difference that would reflect in the travel action of the hydro lifter. Would there be a negative effect in case i would chose one or the other thickness? Besides, at the MB dealer, they only have the 3.5mm. Could the 3 mm be for a kind of first version of the m103 engine?

cheers
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerry Lloyd
Member Avatar
Monsieur
[ *  * ]
It might improve performance a tad as the valves will open by an extra 0.5 mm if yours were the 3.0 type - extra fuel compsumption too.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mchell
Part of things
[ *  * ]
So, from a fitting point of view, the 3mm ones wouldn't be a problem?
I'm not looking for improving performance and even less more fuel consumption.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerry Lloyd
Member Avatar
Monsieur
[ *  * ]
.
Edited by Gerry Lloyd, Sun Apr 29, 2012 10:55 pm.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mchell
Part of things
[ *  * ]
Ok cheers mite!
;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daliscar
Member Avatar
Always On The Ball
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Saw this post title late last night and thought someone was looking to buy some sort of bidet :S ............
Must have been a bit tired last night, y'know not thinking properly .............. :ehh: ...............
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerry Lloyd
Member Avatar
Monsieur
[ *  * ]
Gerry Lloyd
Sun Apr 29, 2012 12:35 pm
.
If you can only get the 3.5 mm ones then it won't concern you whether the 3.0 mm are a problem to fit, or have I missed something?

@daliscar - sounds like a Wallace invention: The Grommit hydraulic bottom washer.
Edited by Gerry Lloyd, Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:17 pm.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mchell
Part of things
[ *  * ]
Decided that will leave the old ones there as they hardly get worn anyway, so....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerry Lloyd
Member Avatar
Monsieur
[ *  * ]
...that's true the camshaft lobes and inlet rocker lobes were vey worn on my 100 000+ mileage 2.0 litre, so 0.5 mm on the bottom washers would be insignificant.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Engine · Next Topic »
Add Reply


Email me if anyone replys