'90 350SD/SDL (126) also "rodbender."
Wilton
----- Original Message -----
From: "Donald Snook" <dsn...@mtsqh.com>
To: <Mercedes@okiebenz.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 9:13 AM
Subject: Re: [MBZ] Rodbender ?
Howard wrote: "My knowledge, and experience, of MB's is fairly limited -
can someone
explain what a 'Rodbender' is ? I've seen the term used often on here, and
I know it's re: a particular
engine - someone educate me further!"
I don't know if someone else has already answered this but, the term comes
from tendency of certain MB diesel engines to bend the rods. This occurs
on the 126 diesel in 1991 and then on 140 Chassis diesels. The 126 is
called the 350SDL (it has the 3.5 diesel engine). I think the 3.5 is a
bored out version of the 3.0 diesel that was in the 87 300D. The 140
Chassis is called 300SD or 350SD depending on the year. Regardless of its
nomenclature, the 3.5 diesel engine is the rodbender - even if the car is
called a 300SD in the 140 Chassis. Don't get that confused with the 126
300SD. That was a fantastic engine and a great car.
Many (including folks on this list) theorize that the real cause of the
problem is the head gasket which fails at #1 cylinder. Then, when coolant
gets into the cylinder it causes hydropressure which bends the #1 rod.
Others believe that the rods are the problem and the head gasket problem
is a separate failure and is not the cause of the rod problem. Dr.
Marshall Booth was a previous lister who said that the only way to correct
the rodbender problem was to have a total factory rebuild. Others have
said that you can just replace the rods with the new beefier versions if
you have not already worn the bore/cylinders to an oval shape. Rodbenders
are characterized by increasing oil consumption and eventually failure of
pistons if the problem is not corrected. It is possible to replace the
rods, sleeve the cylinders and probably correct the problem.
We will know more when Kaleb gets his car figured out because I think he
is just going to do the headgasket and replace #1 rod.
Speaking of this, Kaleb, I have some anecdotal evidence to support your
theory. I was asking my indy about your idea. He said he had a customer
that did the same thing. He replaced only #1 rod and it worked fine.
Now, the data is limited because the customer ended up trading the car off
after 40,000 miles. But, in the 40,000 miles, he had no catastrophic
failures. He did have some oil consumption, but nothing too bad.
Donald H. Snook
_______________________________________
http://www.okiebenz.com
For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com
To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/
To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
_______________________________________
http://www.okiebenz.com
For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com
To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/
To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
