Re: [MBZ] W210 Crankshaft Position Sensor - 1998 E320 Wagon

[Allan Streib via Mercedes]

On Sun, Jan 28, 2024, at 21:40, Rick Knoble via Mercedes wrote:
>> Amazing what driving in the Tri-State area (Chicago) can do to a car, even 
>> though it was kept clean. Rick knows this all too well, I’m sure.
>
> Yep. A heated garage just catalyzes the rusting process.

Correct. If you drive in salt best to leave the car in the cold until you can 
give it a thorough rinsing. Even then you won't get all of it, capillary action 
draws the salt into every crevice.

___
http://www.okiebenz.com

To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

Re: [MBZ] W210 Crankshaft Position Sensor - 1998 E320 Wagon

[Rick Knoble via Mercedes]

> Amazing what driving in the Tri-State area (Chicago) can do to a car, even 
> though it was kept clean. Rick knows this all too well, I’m sure.

Yep. A heated garage just catalyzes the rusting process.


Rick
___
http://www.okiebenz.com

To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

Re: [MBZ] W210 Crankshaft Position Sensor - 1998 E320 Wagon

[Buggered Benzmail via Mercedes]

I can’t even remember rusty cars. It’s such a treat getting under a car and it 
looks basically new

--FT
Sent from iFōn

> On Jan 28, 2024, at 6:53 PM, dan penoff.com via Mercedes 
>  wrote:
> 
> Well. it wasn’t a complete “win” today. I went at the 2003 E320’s front 
> brakes without any luck. The retaining screw on the driver’s rotor was 
> buggered up. I tried my best after letting it soak for 30 minutes with the 
> majik elixer but to no avail. I gave it another spritz to keep it soaking and 
> I’ll take another swing at it later.
> 
> Amazing what driving in the Tri-State area (Chicago) can do to a car, even 
> though it was kept clean. Rick knows this all too well, I’m sure.
> 
> -D
> 
> On Jan 28, 2024, at 6:46 PM, Buggered Benzmail via Mercedes 
>  wrote:
> 
> I ran into that with the 99E320, ordered one and it didn’t fit so dug into it 
> and found the serial number aspect. Got the right one and all was good
> 
> --FT
> Sent from iFōn
> 
> On Jan 28, 2024, at 3:26 PM, dan penoff.com via Mercedes 
> mailto:mercedes@okiebenz.com>> wrote:
> 
> Swapped out the offending part this afternoon, which took all of maybe 10 
> minutes, if that. I’ve done plenty of these in the past, but this one was the 
> worst due to one of the connector release tabs being right up against the 
> back of the block.
> 
> Beware if you are a W210 owner: There are at least two different CPS’ used by 
> Mercedes with the M112/W210, and pre-facelift, with a serial number break 
> based on engine number, have a different CPS than later models. That said, 
> they look identical on the outside, but the inside of the connector housing 
> on the CPS is different, that is, they are “keyed” differently inside:
> 
> 
> [CPS Early.jpg]
> 
> 
> If you look closely, you’ll see three “keys” inside the connector hood. The 
> arrangement of these keys determines whether it is the “early” or “late” CPS. 
> The part number for the early CPS (the one shown here) is 003-153-96-28. I 
> believe the later part is a 003-153-28-28, but always verify with the EPC or 
> a trusted parts supplier before ordering using your VIN. The later part is 
> keyed similarly, but the keys are in a mirror image to the early part, that 
> is, their orientation is reversed. I’ve kept the later part on the shelf with 
> several M112-powered cars in the fleet, not realizing there were variants.
> 
> I would be willing to bet that in a pinch either would work after you cut or 
> scraped the keys out of the connector hood or just cut it off completely (not 
> advised.)
> 
> As for the post-mortem, this is what we found:
> 
> The CPS installed in the car was an OE part but was not original. I say that 
> because someone took the trouble to schmear (and yes, that’s a technical term 
> as you’ll soon discover) anit-seize on the barrel of the CPS. I used the term 
> “schmear” because the amount of anti-seize they used was, to put it bluntly, 
> excessive. These are held and centered in the bore drilled into the bell 
> housing with three small ribs that are molded into the case of the part. The 
> barrel of the CPS never touches the bore. Worse, upon closer inspection, as 
> one would expect, the anti-seize, which as we all know is mostly grease with 
> aluminum powder mixed into it among other things, had leaked down the length 
> of the CPS, covering the end and no doubt dripping into the bell housing and 
> onto the flywheel.
> 
> Being very familiar with similar devices used for monitoring speed on 
> industrial engines, I would point out that any foreign material on the end of 
> the CPS is a Bad Thing, Even Worse when it's something metallic, even 
> aluminum. Essentially, that mess on the end of the CPS “shorts” out the 
> magnetic circuit that the CPS uses to work, either disabling it or making the 
> signal marginal or intermittent.
> 
> I suspect this was the issue with this failure. Interestingly, it never 
> occurred a second time. That and it failed late at night on a cold evening 
> after the car had been parked for several hours, so it certainly wasn’t heat 
> that caused the failure, which is what I have experienced with these failures 
> in the past.
> 
> Finally, to give you an idea of how critical the signal this device provides 
> is, my son reports that it drives like a different vehicle. He said the 
> engine runs smoother, shifts are crisper and timely, where they had been 
> occasionally wonky, and in general, the car just runs better. While I’m sure 
> there’s some placebo effect here, I believe him in what he describes. I have 
> to believe all the crud on the end of the CPS was seriously degrading its 
> output.
> 
> While I wouldn’t use my findings as a determination for the CPS to be 
> replaced regularly, it can’t hurt to pull it and inspect the end to make sure 
> it’s clean. That was an inspection item for an industrial engine when I 
> worked on them. Why? Because something as simple as a shaving from a flywheel 
> toot

Re: [MBZ] W210 Crankshaft Position Sensor - 1998 E320 Wagon

[dan penoff.com via Mercedes]

Well. it wasn’t a complete “win” today. I went at the 2003 E320’s front brakes 
without any luck. The retaining screw on the driver’s rotor was buggered up. I 
tried my best after letting it soak for 30 minutes with the majik elixer but to 
no avail. I gave it another spritz to keep it soaking and I’ll take another 
swing at it later.

Amazing what driving in the Tri-State area (Chicago) can do to a car, even 
though it was kept clean. Rick knows this all too well, I’m sure.

-D

On Jan 28, 2024, at 6:46 PM, Buggered Benzmail via Mercedes 
 wrote:

I ran into that with the 99E320, ordered one and it didn’t fit so dug into it 
and found the serial number aspect. Got the right one and all was good

--FT
Sent from iFōn

On Jan 28, 2024, at 3:26 PM, dan penoff.com via Mercedes 
mailto:mercedes@okiebenz.com>> wrote:

Swapped out the offending part this afternoon, which took all of maybe 10 
minutes, if that. I’ve done plenty of these in the past, but this one was the 
worst due to one of the connector release tabs being right up against the back 
of the block.

Beware if you are a W210 owner: There are at least two different CPS’ used by 
Mercedes with the M112/W210, and pre-facelift, with a serial number break based 
on engine number, have a different CPS than later models. That said, they look 
identical on the outside, but the inside of the connector housing on the CPS is 
different, that is, they are “keyed” differently inside:


[CPS Early.jpg]


If you look closely, you’ll see three “keys” inside the connector hood. The 
arrangement of these keys determines whether it is the “early” or “late” CPS. 
The part number for the early CPS (the one shown here) is 003-153-96-28. I 
believe the later part is a 003-153-28-28, but always verify with the EPC or a 
trusted parts supplier before ordering using your VIN. The later part is keyed 
similarly, but the keys are in a mirror image to the early part, that is, their 
orientation is reversed. I’ve kept the later part on the shelf with several 
M112-powered cars in the fleet, not realizing there were variants.

I would be willing to bet that in a pinch either would work after you cut or 
scraped the keys out of the connector hood or just cut it off completely (not 
advised.)

As for the post-mortem, this is what we found:

The CPS installed in the car was an OE part but was not original. I say that 
because someone took the trouble to schmear (and yes, that’s a technical term 
as you’ll soon discover) anit-seize on the barrel of the CPS. I used the term 
“schmear” because the amount of anti-seize they used was, to put it bluntly, 
excessive. These are held and centered in the bore drilled into the bell 
housing with three small ribs that are molded into the case of the part. The 
barrel of the CPS never touches the bore. Worse, upon closer inspection, as one 
would expect, the anti-seize, which as we all know is mostly grease with 
aluminum powder mixed into it among other things, had leaked down the length of 
the CPS, covering the end and no doubt dripping into the bell housing and onto 
the flywheel.

Being very familiar with similar devices used for monitoring speed on 
industrial engines, I would point out that any foreign material on the end of 
the CPS is a Bad Thing, Even Worse when it's something metallic, even aluminum. 
Essentially, that mess on the end of the CPS “shorts” out the magnetic circuit 
that the CPS uses to work, either disabling it or making the signal marginal or 
intermittent.

I suspect this was the issue with this failure. Interestingly, it never 
occurred a second time. That and it failed late at night on a cold evening 
after the car had been parked for several hours, so it certainly wasn’t heat 
that caused the failure, which is what I have experienced with these failures 
in the past.

Finally, to give you an idea of how critical the signal this device provides 
is, my son reports that it drives like a different vehicle. He said the engine 
runs smoother, shifts are crisper and timely, where they had been occasionally 
wonky, and in general, the car just runs better. While I’m sure there’s some 
placebo effect here, I believe him in what he describes. I have to believe all 
the crud on the end of the CPS was seriously degrading its output.

While I wouldn’t use my findings as a determination for the CPS to be replaced 
regularly, it can’t hurt to pull it and inspect the end to make sure it’s 
clean. That was an inspection item for an industrial engine when I worked on 
them. Why? Because something as simple as a shaving from a flywheel tooth when 
it meshes with the starter Bendix could short out a CPS - and that metal core 
in the center of it *is* magnetic!

And now to the front brakes on the 2003 E320...

-D

___
http://www.okiebenz.com

To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http:/

Re: [MBZ] W210 Crankshaft Position Sensor - 1998 E320 Wagon

[Buggered Benzmail via Mercedes]

I ran into that with the 99E320, ordered one and it didn’t fit so dug into it 
and found the serial number aspect. Got the right one and all was good 

--FT
Sent from iFōn

> On Jan 28, 2024, at 3:26 PM, dan penoff.com via Mercedes 
>  wrote:
> 
> Swapped out the offending part this afternoon, which took all of maybe 10 
> minutes, if that. I’ve done plenty of these in the past, but this one was the 
> worst due to one of the connector release tabs being right up against the 
> back of the block.
> 
> Beware if you are a W210 owner: There are at least two different CPS’ used by 
> Mercedes with the M112/W210, and pre-facelift, with a serial number break 
> based on engine number, have a different CPS than later models. That said, 
> they look identical on the outside, but the inside of the connector housing 
> on the CPS is different, that is, they are “keyed” differently inside:
> 
> 
> [CPS Early.jpg]
> 
> 
> If you look closely, you’ll see three “keys” inside the connector hood. The 
> arrangement of these keys determines whether it is the “early” or “late” CPS. 
> The part number for the early CPS (the one shown here) is 003-153-96-28. I 
> believe the later part is a 003-153-28-28, but always verify with the EPC or 
> a trusted parts supplier before ordering using your VIN. The later part is 
> keyed similarly, but the keys are in a mirror image to the early part, that 
> is, their orientation is reversed. I’ve kept the later part on the shelf with 
> several M112-powered cars in the fleet, not realizing there were variants.
> 
> I would be willing to bet that in a pinch either would work after you cut or 
> scraped the keys out of the connector hood or just cut it off completely (not 
> advised.)
> 
> As for the post-mortem, this is what we found:
> 
> The CPS installed in the car was an OE part but was not original. I say that 
> because someone took the trouble to schmear (and yes, that’s a technical term 
> as you’ll soon discover) anit-seize on the barrel of the CPS. I used the term 
> “schmear” because the amount of anti-seize they used was, to put it bluntly, 
> excessive. These are held and centered in the bore drilled into the bell 
> housing with three small ribs that are molded into the case of the part. The 
> barrel of the CPS never touches the bore. Worse, upon closer inspection, as 
> one would expect, the anti-seize, which as we all know is mostly grease with 
> aluminum powder mixed into it among other things, had leaked down the length 
> of the CPS, covering the end and no doubt dripping into the bell housing and 
> onto the flywheel.
> 
> Being very familiar with similar devices used for monitoring speed on 
> industrial engines, I would point out that any foreign material on the end of 
> the CPS is a Bad Thing, Even Worse when it's something metallic, even 
> aluminum. Essentially, that mess on the end of the CPS “shorts” out the 
> magnetic circuit that the CPS uses to work, either disabling it or making the 
> signal marginal or intermittent.
> 
> I suspect this was the issue with this failure. Interestingly, it never 
> occurred a second time. That and it failed late at night on a cold evening 
> after the car had been parked for several hours, so it certainly wasn’t heat 
> that caused the failure, which is what I have experienced with these failures 
> in the past.
> 
> Finally, to give you an idea of how critical the signal this device provides 
> is, my son reports that it drives like a different vehicle. He said the 
> engine runs smoother, shifts are crisper and timely, where they had been 
> occasionally wonky, and in general, the car just runs better. While I’m sure 
> there’s some placebo effect here, I believe him in what he describes. I have 
> to believe all the crud on the end of the CPS was seriously degrading its 
> output.
> 
> While I wouldn’t use my findings as a determination for the CPS to be 
> replaced regularly, it can’t hurt to pull it and inspect the end to make sure 
> it’s clean. That was an inspection item for an industrial engine when I 
> worked on them. Why? Because something as simple as a shaving from a flywheel 
> tooth when it meshes with the starter Bendix could short out a CPS - and that 
> metal core in the center of it *is* magnetic!
> 
> And now to the front brakes on the 2003 E320...
> 
> -D
> 
> ___
> http://www.okiebenz.com
> 
> To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/
> 
> To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
> http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
> 

___
http://www.okiebenz.com

To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com