190e 2.3 16v or 300e (124 chassis) for an OM606

STD Tuning Engine 190e 2.3 16v or 300e (124 chassis) for an OM606

View a Printable Version

0 Vote(s) - 0 Average

606Power

Unregistered

23

07-30-2009, 12:32 PM #1

Any thoughts or pros and cons for either model? It looks like there will be a good be less engine bay space for the OM606 in a 190E, but it looks like the engine will fit. Feel free to insert pros or cons for either choice.

190E 2.3 16v pros:
factory manual transmission
fairly low mass chassis

cons:
less engine bay space
initial cost?
1:1 5th gear, but could this be overcome easily with a different rear end?

300E pros:
more engine bay space? as compared to a 190E
newer model year perhaps, available?

cons:
more chassis mass
mostly automatics (could be thought of as a pro, however)

Are there better years of either model?

606Power

07-30-2009, 12:32 PM #1

Einar

GT2256V

118

07-30-2009, 05:16 PM #2

Try to find a 190E 2.6 instead, its little room for a straight six in w201, differences in the front(hood-lock etc. ) then suspension and transmission/rearend is ready for a straight six/some power.

Einar

07-30-2009, 05:16 PM #2

Try to find a 190E 2.6 instead, its little room for a straight six in w201, differences in the front(hood-lock etc. ) then suspension and transmission/rearend is ready for a straight six/some power.

2.5-10

Nothing Clever

67

07-31-2009, 09:53 AM #3

not to mention the 2.6 / 2.5 turbo diesels have a front top cross member that actually unbolts for really easy swappage (the 2.3, 2.5D, 2.3-16, 2.5-16, 2.2D, etc. all had welded members)

not to mention that car should already have the springs for a 606.

1976 W115 medium red/tan 240D (undergoing M117 heart transplant)
1989 BMW E30 327iC SETA 5MT
1987 white/black 190D Turbo Diesel - Recaro 16V seats, Monoblocks, 11PSI.
2009 white/black C63 ///AMG
1987 BMW E30 325E M50B25NV 24V swap 5MT. 5 lug.
1999 white/grey ML430
1991 BMW E30 318i 5MT (Beater)
1990 BMW E34 525i 5MT
1997 red/black/black SL600

2.5-10

07-31-2009, 09:53 AM #3

606Power

Unregistered

23

07-31-2009, 11:42 AM #4

Good information, I was not aware of this. Which chassis will be the least in mass?

(07-30-2009, 05:16 PM)Einar Try to find a 190E 2.6 instead, its little room for a straight six in w201, differences in the front(hood-lock etc. ) then suspension and transmission/rearend is ready for a straight six/some power.

Good call about that one Cool

Do you have a photo or example of the cross member?

Does the manual gearbox in the (what 86-87 year(s) only?) 300E have some decent torque capacity, or is it not of a good design? What about the gearbox in used in the diesel 124 chassis?

(07-31-2009, 09:53 AM)2.5-10 not to mention the 2.6 / 2.5 turbo diesels have a front top cross member that actually unbolts for really easy swappage (the 2.3, 2.5D, 2.3-16, 2.5-16, 2.2D, etc. all had welded members)

not to mention that car should already have the springs for a 606.

This post was last modified: 07-31-2009, 11:47 AM by 606Power.

606Power

07-31-2009, 11:42 AM #4

Good information, I was not aware of this. Which chassis will be the least in mass?

(07-30-2009, 05:16 PM)Einar Try to find a 190E 2.6 instead, its little room for a straight six in w201, differences in the front(hood-lock etc. ) then suspension and transmission/rearend is ready for a straight six/some power.

Good call about that one Cool

(07-31-2009, 09:53 AM)2.5-10 not to mention the 2.6 / 2.5 turbo diesels have a front top cross member that actually unbolts for really easy swappage (the 2.3, 2.5D, 2.3-16, 2.5-16, 2.2D, etc. all had welded members)

not to mention that car should already have the springs for a 606.

2.5-10

Nothing Clever

67

07-31-2009, 07:40 PM #5

(07-31-2009, 11:42 AM)606Power Good information, I was not aware of this. Which chassis will be the least in mass?

(07-30-2009, 05:16 PM)Einar Try to find a 190E 2.6 instead, its little room for a straight six in w201, differences in the front(hood-lock etc. ) then suspension and transmission/rearend is ready for a straight six/some power.
Good call about that one

Do you have a photo or example of the cross member?

Does the manual gearbox in the (what 86-87 year(s) only?) 300E have some decent torque capacity, or is it not of a good design? What about the gearbox in used in the diesel 124 chassis?

(07-31-2009, 09:53 AM)2.5-10 not to mention the 2.6 / 2.5 turbo diesels have a front top cross member that actually unbolts for really easy swappage (the 2.3, 2.5D, 2.3-16, 2.5-16, 2.2D, etc. all had welded members)

not to mention that car should already have the springs for a 606.

everything in a 2.3 chassis car will take a L6 except the springs, I have a L5 turbodiesel on L4 springs and its fine, but borderlined.

the differentials are all 183mm gearset, they can all take OM606 power, transmissions are all the same - clutch on a manual should take the power no problem.

the 2.3-16v diff is stronger than the rest as it is a LSD.

here are pics of a 2.6/2.5 turbo cross member;
[Image: SDC10111.jpg]

2.5-10

07-31-2009, 07:40 PM #5

(07-31-2009, 11:42 AM)606Power Good information, I was not aware of this. Which chassis will be the least in mass?

(07-30-2009, 05:16 PM)Einar Try to find a 190E 2.6 instead, its little room for a straight six in w201, differences in the front(hood-lock etc. ) then suspension and transmission/rearend is ready for a straight six/some power.
Good call about that one

Do you have a photo or example of the cross member?

Does the manual gearbox in the (what 86-87 year(s) only?) 300E have some decent torque capacity, or is it not of a good design? What about the gearbox in used in the diesel 124 chassis?

(07-31-2009, 09:53 AM)2.5-10 not to mention the 2.6 / 2.5 turbo diesels have a front top cross member that actually unbolts for really easy swappage (the 2.3, 2.5D, 2.3-16, 2.5-16, 2.2D, etc. all had welded members)

not to mention that car should already have the springs for a 606.

606Power

Unregistered

23

08-01-2009, 11:45 AM #6

2.5-10, thanks for the excellent photos. It looks like there is a nice amount of space in front of the engine as well. Indeed, being able to unbolt the cross member / core support facilitates much easier engine removal and installation.

I nearly picked up an 87 300E with a busted engine yesterday, but, sadly, I just missed out on it. Also given that I am still looking for an M10x based transmission for the 606, the car would have been a good choice it seems.

The 603 IP is just waiting for larger elements, then I will pop off the 606 IP for the swap.

Are the block engine mounting points the same for the inline 6 engine as compared to the 606?

606Power

08-01-2009, 11:45 AM #6

2.5-10

Nothing Clever

67

08-01-2009, 01:38 PM #7

(08-01-2009, 11:45 AM)606Power 2.5-10, thanks for the excellent photos. It looks like there is a nice amount of space in front of the engine as well. Indeed, being able to unbolt the cross member / core support facilitates much easier engine removal and installation.

I nearly picked up an 87 300E with a busted engine yesterday, but, sadly, I just missed out on it. Also given that I am still looking for an M10x based transmission for the 606, the car would have been a good choice it seems.

The 603 IP is just waiting for larger elements, then I will pop off the 606 IP for the swap.

Are the block engine mounting points the same for the inline 6 engine as compared to the 606?

sure thing Smile

the 603 and 606 6-bangers should have nearly identical outer casings - mounts should be no problem (I have a 602 in my car there, and the 603 is a pretty much direct bolt with mounts)

2.5-10

08-01-2009, 01:38 PM #7

(08-01-2009, 11:45 AM)606Power 2.5-10, thanks for the excellent photos. It looks like there is a nice amount of space in front of the engine as well. Indeed, being able to unbolt the cross member / core support facilitates much easier engine removal and installation.

I nearly picked up an 87 300E with a busted engine yesterday, but, sadly, I just missed out on it. Also given that I am still looking for an M10x based transmission for the 606, the car would have been a good choice it seems.

The 603 IP is just waiting for larger elements, then I will pop off the 606 IP for the swap.

Are the block engine mounting points the same for the inline 6 engine as compared to the 606?

sure thing Smile

the 603 and 606 6-bangers should have nearly identical outer casings - mounts should be no problem (I have a 602 in my car there, and the 603 is a pretty much direct bolt with mounts)

Kozuka

I'm_Badass

334

08-03-2009, 01:54 AM #8

Give's 2.5-10 the nod of approval.

Hey man,

If I we're to do it again (I have swapped a OM603 into my W201 2.3-16).

Start with a 190E 2.6 or 190D 2.5 for the reasons stated above and the fact your going to have to rebuild the whole rear suspension because it's SLS and the front sway bar doesn't clear the engine you would need to upgrade to a 2.6 190E or W124 sway bar. But you do get that sweet body kit. That's enough for me but ask if it's enough for you.

Buy a 16v diff (you can change the gear out of any W124 with it for a better range) there are people that can make custom ones for any ratio.

Buy a 300E 3.0 or 190D 2.5 transmission use a flywheel off of a OM602 and clutch disk (spec sells and upgraded one for more power). Throwout bearing that matches the transmission (very important don't make the same mistakes I've made and left me with the project that sits).

Use Cut 500E springs and pads in the front. Take the weight no problems.

Do an inter cooler setup from the get-go cuz the stock flow pipe won't clear the hood and lose the trap oxidizer delete with a W140 exhaust manifold.

Wire it up so the pink/red goes to power (power for ECM) and violet is switched for starter, Hook up all the grounds and the power distribution block. Rig up the glow plug relay. Feed her some fuel and away you go.

Thanks,
Kozuka

Kozuka

08-03-2009, 01:54 AM #8

606Power

Unregistered

23

08-03-2009, 11:07 AM #9

Great information Kozuka! Do you have any photos of your car/project?

The OM606 does not have a crossover pipe, so hopefully, the height of the head should not be a problem. I will also fit the largest intercooler I can depending on the chassis chosen.

I am looking into what manifolds are available, and any links that you can direct me to would be fantastic. I might simply fit a different flange to the factory 606 manifold for now, or use the tiny factory turbo to get it moving if needed. An isometric merge collector type manifold should not be so bad to make for this engine either since there is some room available.

The turbo is looking like it will be a GT4502, largely because I had it in anticipation for upcoming projects like this one. It is a GT45R based turbo, with a T6 flange, and of the VGT type as well.

What about a 1992 300 CE?

Is that car better or worse than a 1988 300D for the swap?

606Power

08-03-2009, 11:07 AM #9

Kozuka

I'm_Badass

334

08-03-2009, 03:14 PM #10

(08-03-2009, 11:07 AM)606Power Great information Kozuka! Do you have any photos of your car/project?

The OM606 does not have a crossover pipe, so hopefully, the height of the head should not be a problem. I will also fit the largest intercooler I can depending on the chassis chosen.

I am looking into what manifolds are available, and any links that you can direct me to would be fantastic. I might simply fit a different flange to the factory 606 manifold for now, or use the tiny factory turbo to get it moving if needed. An isometric merge collector type manifold should not be so bad to make for this engine either since there is some room available.

The turbo is looking like it will be a GT4502, largely because I had it in anticipation for upcoming projects like this one. It is a GT45R based turbo, with a T6 flange, and of the VGT type as well.

What about a 1992 300 CE?

Is that car better or worse than a 1988 300D for the swap?

My Thread.. No Updates Cuz of lack of funding ha!

http://www.superturbodiesel.com/std/kozu...t-205.html

a 300CE has less weight but its also very rare, more engine wiring due to the M104 engine (3.0 DOHC with Variable Valve Timing). Couldn't think of any advantage between the two. But your still rolling 500Lbs more for that longer wheelbase.

Everything is pretty interchangable between W201 and W124 so your just going to have to pick the one and the build it to your liking.

As for the Manifold, for a 606 the your probably might be better off making an adapter plate for the turbo you want to use that bolts onto the stock manifold.

Thanks,
Kozuka

Kozuka

08-03-2009, 03:14 PM #10

(08-03-2009, 11:07 AM)606Power Great information Kozuka! Do you have any photos of your car/project?

The OM606 does not have a crossover pipe, so hopefully, the height of the head should not be a problem. I will also fit the largest intercooler I can depending on the chassis chosen.

I am looking into what manifolds are available, and any links that you can direct me to would be fantastic. I might simply fit a different flange to the factory 606 manifold for now, or use the tiny factory turbo to get it moving if needed. An isometric merge collector type manifold should not be so bad to make for this engine either since there is some room available.

The turbo is looking like it will be a GT4502, largely because I had it in anticipation for upcoming projects like this one. It is a GT45R based turbo, with a T6 flange, and of the VGT type as well.

What about a 1992 300 CE?

Is that car better or worse than a 1988 300D for the swap?

Kozuka

I'm_Badass

334

08-03-2009, 04:40 PM #11

Also remember if your going to use a manual transmission you need to install the release bearing spacer in the engine block. Goes behind the release bearing.

Thanks,
Kozuka

Kozuka

08-03-2009, 04:40 PM #11

Also remember if your going to use a manual transmission you need to install the release bearing spacer in the engine block. Goes behind the release bearing.

Thanks,
Kozuka

2.5-10

Nothing Clever

67

08-04-2009, 09:24 AM #12

Kozuka! long time no see,

I'm about to toss a 85' 2.3 8V manual behind my 602, what is a release bearing spacer? I havent heard of it

-2.5-10-

also, remember the 190D 2.5 uses a 2.3 chassis so it doesn't have the unboltable bar, only the 2.6 and 2.5 Turbo do.

best find a 2.6 chassis due to the rarity of my car Wink

This post was last modified: 08-04-2009, 09:26 AM by 2.5-10.

2.5-10

08-04-2009, 09:24 AM #12

Kozuka! long time no see,

I'm about to toss a 85' 2.3 8V manual behind my 602, what is a release bearing spacer? I havent heard of it

-2.5-10-

also, remember the 190D 2.5 uses a 2.3 chassis so it doesn't have the unboltable bar, only the 2.6 and 2.5 Turbo do.

best find a 2.6 chassis due to the rarity of my car Wink

606Power

Unregistered

23

08-04-2009, 11:06 AM #13

Nice project and photos Kozuka, it should be a lot of fun. The engine appears to fit well enough in the chassis.

Did you mean the pilot bearing in the engine crankshaft, or is there a spacer that fits onto the clutch fork, providing the proper release bearing height?

So, the 300CE will weigh less or be 500lbs more?

606Power

08-04-2009, 11:06 AM #13

Kozuka

I'm_Badass

334

08-05-2009, 04:31 AM #14

(08-04-2009, 11:06 AM)606Power Nice project and photos Kozuka, it should be a lot of fun. The engine appears to fit well enough in the chassis.

Did you mean the pilot bearing in the engine crankshaft, or is there a spacer that fits onto the clutch fork, providing the proper release bearing height?

So, the 300CE will weigh less or be 500lbs more?

A 300CE will weigh more then a 190E 2.6 and have a longer wheel base.

The spacer fits behind the release bearing and it's there because the spacing for the torque converter is different then the pilot bearing on a manual car they call it a spacer and cap. I have a 16V engine with one in it trust me it's ment to be there. I don't think the spacer was used in the dual-mass flywheel since the integration is different (or so chuni from 190rev told me).

Thanks,
Kozuka

Kozuka

08-05-2009, 04:31 AM #14

(08-04-2009, 11:06 AM)606Power Nice project and photos Kozuka, it should be a lot of fun. The engine appears to fit well enough in the chassis.

Did you mean the pilot bearing in the engine crankshaft, or is there a spacer that fits onto the clutch fork, providing the proper release bearing height?

So, the 300CE will weigh less or be 500lbs more?

606Power

Unregistered

23

08-06-2009, 12:11 PM #15

ok, good info to know Kozuka.

Indeed, the release bearing height is critical for proper clutch disk release.

Do you happen to know what the lightest flywheel is available for the om60x or M10x engines is? Also, might there be aftermarket flywheels available? Any twin disk applications? I have one in one of my other cars, and really like it.

I may just end up getting a 300E with a factory 5 speed setup, depending on how things pan out. Although, if a good auto transmission car comes along, that is not out of the question.

606Power

08-06-2009, 12:11 PM #15

Kozuka

I'm_Badass

334

08-07-2009, 10:41 PM #16

(08-06-2009, 12:11 PM)606Power ok, good info to know Kozuka.

Indeed, the release bearing height is critical for proper clutch disk release.

Do you happen to know what the lightest flywheel is available for the om60x or M10x engines is? Also, might there be aftermarket flywheels available? Any twin disk applications? I have one in one of my other cars, and really like it.

I may just end up getting a 300E with a factory 5 speed setup, depending on how things pan out. Although, if a good auto transmission car comes along, that is not out of the question.

www.car-part.com is your friend when it comes to finding the rare and exotic parts we look for. (transmissions, flywheels, linkage, etc. etc.)

The deal is that you need a heavy flywheel on these diesel engines or the rev's will drop too fast. Which is why I recommended the 602 one since its the only one you can actually find that will be heavy enough to work. All of the gasser M10x flywheels will bolt to the 606 engine but they are not right for a diesel engine.

Thanks,
Kozuka

Kozuka

08-07-2009, 10:41 PM #16

(08-06-2009, 12:11 PM)606Power ok, good info to know Kozuka.

Indeed, the release bearing height is critical for proper clutch disk release.

Do you happen to know what the lightest flywheel is available for the om60x or M10x engines is? Also, might there be aftermarket flywheels available? Any twin disk applications? I have one in one of my other cars, and really like it.

I may just end up getting a 300E with a factory 5 speed setup, depending on how things pan out. Although, if a good auto transmission car comes along, that is not out of the question.

View a Printable Version

0 Vote(s) - 0 Average

Users browsing this thread:
15 Guest(s)