Ronnie's New Toy - off topic (Mercedes)

[DPS.01]

They also have a turbo version … the Red Line. 
 

Nice little cars. 

Edited November 15, 2023 by DPS.01

[Ronnie]

Spent some time this weekend with my friend Gary who has owned Mustangs all his life. He drives them and races them. He has convinced me that my next "weekend car" should be a '99-'04 Mustang,. They are reasonably priced and super easy to get new, used, or aftermarket parts for. They are simple cars compared to a Reatta, both mechanically and electrically. Gary knows Mustangs like the back of his hand and he's willing to help me work on one if that's what I get. That means a lot since Gary has a lift in his garage and a barn full of Mustang parts. 🙂 

 

I've never been a Ford man but now I've got my eye pealed for something like this to replace my Reatta.

 

 

 

[2seater]

You had ‘Stang wheels on your Reatta once before, so you dipped your toe in that water previously 😎

[Ronnie]

3 hours ago, 2seater said:

You had ‘Stang wheels on your Reatta once before, so you dipped your toe in that water previously 😎

Yeah, I'm wishing now that I had kept those wheels. I polished on those things until they looked like chrome.

 

[DAVES89]

On 1/7/2024 at 10:37 PM, Ronnie said:

Spent some time this weekend with my friend Gary who has owned Mustangs all his life. He drives them and races them. He has convinced me that my next "weekend car" should be a '99-'04 Mustang,. They are reasonably priced and super easy to get new, used, or aftermarket parts for. They are simple cars compared to a Reatta, both mechanically and electrically. Gary knows Mustangs like the back of his hand and he's willing to help me work on one if that's what I get. That means a lot since Gary has a lift in his garage and a barn full of Mustang parts. 🙂 

 

I've never been a Ford man but now I've got my eye pealed for something like this to replace my Reatta.

 

 

 

Glad to hear you're getting back into the game Ronnie! My BIL has a "fox" Mustang convertible. He likes it a lot. Also my first car was a '66 Mustang...

[Ronnie]

I'm going to have to make a decision on this one. I went to look at my friend's SLK280. I got to look it over good and get in an out of it a few times to check it out inside. Then it started sprinkling rain so I didn't get to drive it. I'll have to go back again to do that, but I'm not sure I will.  I don't think it's the car for me.

 

PROS:

Absolutely beautiful car. Flawless as far as I could tell.

Looks like a little race car. 228 horsepower V6.

He made me a great price that's hard to turn down.

62,000 miles.

It's a hardtop convertible that works great.

Roomy inside once you get in it. I had to move the seat up for me to touch the pedals.

Power everything. Even the steering wheel goes in and out, and up and down, electrically.

Neck warmer built into the headrests. ???

 

CONS:

Hell to get in and out of for an old man like me.

It's an extremely complicated car that would be hard to work on.

The mechanism that puts the top down scares me.  Lots that could go wrong. (video below).

Very little trunk space. One medium suitcase fills it up if you intend to put the top down.

Would require a special kind of buyer if I decided to sell it. Much like selling a Reatta.

It's not a Mustang, which is what I'm really wanting. 🙂 

 

 

[2seater]

It kind of depends on the type of driving experience you want. I am pretty sure the SLK would be a more exclusive club than a Mustang one as far as finding like minded people on the road, or online. The getting in and out is becoming more of an issue for me as well, at least doing so gracefully, and I am a little guy. I have a friend with an Austin Healy Sprite and he can't get in unless the top is down😖 I must admit my bias regarding convertibles and I am not a fan of them, at least as a drivers car. They just aren't as rigid as a car with a roof. They are most excellent as a cruiser on a warm summer night. The deal breaker for me would be the color, which appears to be black. Another bias of mine, the lazy car owner. They are lovely when clean and polished, but show everything and are too hot as a summer car IMHO😎

[Ronnie]

33 minutes ago, 2seater said:

The deal breaker for me would be the color, which appears to be black. Another bias of mine, the lazy car owner. They are lovely when clean and polished, but show everything and are too hot as a summer car IMHO😎

I'm with you one the black. Here in East TN  pollen is a real problem on black cars in the spring and summer. An hour after you wash a black car it will have a yellow tint to it. I have a charcoal colored truck right now that's not too bad, but pure black is really hard to keep clean.

[Ronnie]

I found out this morning that an old friend of mine, Robert, had slipped and fell on the icy pavement during the snow we had and couldn't get around. I called him up to see how he was doing and see if I might be able to help.  He said an MRI shows he has two fractures in his pelvis and he thought he was going to need surgery to fix one of them.

 

While we were talking he mentioned his son-in-law had lost his job and thought he was going to have to sell one of his four vehicles. I asked what he would be selling. He told me it would be a 2004 Mustang that is hardly ever driven. I told him I might be interested if it was a GT. Robert called his daughter and asked her if it was a GT. She said it was not a GT. She said it was a 3.9 V6 convertible. Robert knows Fords pretty well and he asked if she was sure it wasn't a 3.8 V6. She said no, she was sure it was a 3.9 V6. She said it was a special Anniversary Edition and only has about 17,000 miles on it.

 

She emailed me the photos below. Even though I'm not a fan of convertibles I think it is a beautiful looking car. I find it odd that it doesn't have a rear spoiler. Maybe that was standard on this special edition? Or maybe there was a spoiler delete option? She said she thought he would be asking $11,000 for it. That's a little out of my price range and I'm not a fan of convertibles, but with that low milage and the way the photos look, I think I will go look at it when the weather clears up. Anyone know anything about a 3.9 V6?

 

[ship]

Ronnie, here's a little diddy on Ford's 3.9L V6.

 

2004 3.9L Mustangs (ford.com)

 

[2seater]

I read that article a couple of times and couldn't really get a handle on what that engine is, so I looked on a couple of forums and it appears it is a slightly stroked 3.8 liter engine. The introduction of the text about the European 60* design kind of confused me. That would be like the engines in the Mercury Capri and others, and somewhat similar to the GM 60* V6's, like the 2.8 and 3.1 in lots of small GM cars in the 90's. Even though the Buick 3800 is a 90* V6, it uses the bellhousing pattern of the 60* V6's for a bolt in swap into things like the Fiero and even some older Jeeps.

 

Good looking car with infinite headroom when needed🙂

[Ronnie]

Ship, thanks for the link to the article about the 3.9. It was the best at explaining differences in the 3.8 and 3.9 I've seem so far but I'm still a little confused as to why they built the 3.9. I'm still trying to decide if it's an oddball engine which I wouldn't want. I'll go see my buddy Doug that has worked in an automotive machine shop that his father started all his life. I'll bet he will know what the deal is on the 3.9 and if it's an engine to avoid.

[ship]

I believe the old 3.8L V6 was at 60* when Buick sold it to Jeep.  When Buick re-acquired it sometime later, they eventually designed it to 90* (to reduce engine vibration? among other things) and labeled it 3800. 

[2seater]

6 hours ago, ship said:

I believe the old 3.8L V6 was at 60* when Buick sold it to Jeep.  When Buick re-acquired it sometime later, they eventually designed it to 90* (to reduce engine vibration? among other things) and labeled it 3800. 

The Buick 3.8 was always a 90* V6, but it was an odd fire design where it was simply a V8 with two cylinders missing. I don't remember exactly when, but in the late seventies or early 80's, they redesigned the crankshaft by splitting and offsetting the crankpins 15* to create an even fire design within the same block. This caused the rods to be slightly off center relative to the cylinder bore. The GN engines are an off center design. Somewhere around the time the engine was redesigned for fwd applications, or when the 3800 was created, the block was reconfigured by increasing the offset in the cylinder banks to center the cylinders on the crankshaft, an on center engine, so the 3800 is somewhat longer than the preceding designs. Somewhere in the redesigns for fwd and then 3800, the bellhousing pattern was changed to the metric pattern used on the Chevy 60* 2.8/3.1 and maybe others. 

[Ronnie]

I've been comparing parts for the 3.8 and 3.9 Ford V6 on RockAuto's website. The only parts that are different that I can find are the crankshaft, pistons and probably the rods. I couldn't find any info on the rods. The rest of the parts seem to be interchangeable, including aftermarket parts. The only Mustangs that had a 3.9 were the 2004 models. They were used a few years in some minivans. I'm at a loss to understand why Ford would slightly increase the stroke on a 3.8 and call it a 3.9.

[2seater]

8 hours ago, Ronnie said:

I've been comparing parts for the 3.8 and 3.9 Ford V6 on RockAuto's website. The only parts that are different that I can find are the crankshaft, pistons and probably the rods. I couldn't find any info on the rods. The rest of the parts seem to be interchangeable, including aftermarket parts. The only Mustangs that had a 3.9 were the 2004 models. They were used a few years in some minivans. I'm at a loss to understand why Ford would slightly increase the stroke on a 3.8 and call it a 3.9.

From what I found on a Mustang forum, the piston height or crown was changed to take up the difference in stroke. The rods are the same. It does seem curious when the economies of scale dictate otherwise? I found conflicting information also about power output with some claiming hp. was similar but just a bit more torque?? The other rumor, or fact, was that they ran out of 3.8's for the Stang, the only car that used the engine, and they filled in with the 3.9 which was used in trucks and vans? Maybe why they appear in the Special Edition?

[ship]

10 hours ago, 2seater said:

The Buick 3.8 was always a 90* V6, but it was an odd fire design where it was simply a V8 with two cylinders missing. I don't remember exactly when, but in the late seventies or early 80's, they redesigned the crankshaft by splitting and offsetting the crankpins 15* to create an even fire design within the same block. This caused the rods to be slightly off center relative to the cylinder bore. The GN engines are an off center design. Somewhere around the time the engine was redesigned for fwd applications, or when the 3800 was created, the block was reconfigured by increasing the offset in the cylinder banks to center the cylinders on the crankshaft, an on center engine, so the 3800 is somewhat longer than the preceding designs. Somewhere in the redesigns for fwd and then 3800, the bellhousing pattern was changed to the metric pattern used on the Chevy 60* 2.8/3.1 and maybe others. 

Thanks, 2seater.  Great info.  I did not know that.  I was misinformed. 

[Ronnie]

1 hour ago, 2seater said:

I found conflicting information also about power output with some claiming hp. was similar but just a bit more torque?? The other rumor, or fact, was that they ran out of 3.8's for the Stang, the only car that used the engine, and they filled in with the 3.9 which was used in trucks and vans? Maybe why they appear in the Special Edition?

In my experience with installing a stroker crank in motorcycle engines, it did increase torque according to my seat-of-the-pants dyno I was using at the time.  When you twisted the throttle, you could feel it lift the front wheel off the ground a lot easier at lower RPMs. It makes sense because the extra stroke gives a better mechanical advantage when the piston is pushing down on the throw of the crank.

 

The difference in stroke is so small between the 3.8 and the 3.9 that it just doesn't make sense to go to all that trouble to make new cranks and pistons for a 3.8. Maybe it was just enough extra stroke that it got the heavier vans and trucks accelerating better at low speeds? OR, maybe the 3.9 crank and pistons were used in an entirely different engine and they just happened to work in the 3.8 so they were just using parts on hand to fill out the 2004 Mustangs knowing they were going to use the OHC 4.0 V6 in 2005 Mustangs? I'm glad to find that the engines are basically the same. There aren't enough changes to discourage me from buying a 2004 mustang with a 3.9 V6.

[2seater]

10 hours ago, Ronnie said:

In my experience with installing a stroker crank in motorcycle engines, it did increase torque according to my seat-of-the-pants dyno I was using at the time.  When you twisted the throttle, you could feel it lift the front wheel off the ground a lot easier at lower RPMs. It makes sense because the extra stroke gives a better mechanical advantage when the piston is pushing down on the throw of the crank.

 

The difference in stroke is so small between the 3.8 and the 3.9 that it just doesn't make sense to go to all that trouble to make new cranks and pistons for a 3.8. Maybe it was just enough extra stroke that it got the heavier vans and trucks accelerating better at low speeds? OR, maybe the 3.9 crank and pistons were used in an entirely different engine and they just happened to work in the 3.8 so they were just using parts on hand to fill out the 2004 Mustangs knowing they were going to use the OHC 4.0 V6 in 2005 Mustangs? I'm glad to find that the engines are basically the same. There aren't enough changes to discourage me from buying a 2004 mustang with a 3.9 V6.

My 2011 Subaru Forester, now a winter car, is a somewhat similar head scratcher. The beloved EJ series 2.5 liter engine in Subaru circles, was the standard in both N/A and turbocharged (WRX or STI) form for many years. Belt driven OHC and DOHC design. The Forester was, and I believe still is, built in Japan. In 2011 the Forester alone received a redesigned 2.5 liter engine, the FB series, with chain driven DOHC. Apparently, the chain drive allowed the valves and camshafts to be moved closer together for a more compact combustion chamber and consequently the cylinder bore was decreased slightly along with a slight increase in stroke. It did gain a few cc's of capacity, but still just under 2.5 liter. Rated hp was a wash but just a touch more torque. It seems manufacturers will go to great lengths for obscure reasons? In this case it would seem the chain drive and head changes could have been installed on the existing short block, but everything was changed. Go figure. All Subaru's received the new design engine the following year and beyond. 

 

One detail that sprang from something in the new engine design was a sometime greater oil usage problem. It got bad enough that there was a class action lawsuit where the result was all warranties were extended to 100k miles, and if it was already over 100k, we had a limited time to bring the vehicle in for an oil usage test, which consisted of a dealer performed oil change and then customer to drive the vehicle for 1000 to 1200 miles and bring it back to measure the usage. Mine failed the test at over 180k miles on the clock so eventually I got a brand new short block at 183k miles. The only class action suit I know of that was more than just a token or a warning or other paperwork victory. It also got an airbag replacement later in the Takata air bag recall but that wasn't a lawsuit.