Mercedes-Benz Metris Forum banner

Metris passenger -turbo maintenance

22K views 48 replies 26 participants last post by  whiteyjfm 
#1 ·
Hi All,
I want to know is there a special maintenance required for turbo that comes along with 4cyl gas engine in metris passenger usa version ?
I heard alot of things that turbo needs special attention beside your regular oil maintenance ?

Please share any thoughts/opinions.
 
#2 ·
For the most part, that predates today's modern computer controlled turbos. Your car has a computer that monitors your stuff. If it tells you to add fluid, add it. If it tells you to service it, take it to an MB van dealer and tell them to service it. That's all you have to do for service.

Follow that religiously. Especially the "use your dealer" part!
 
#4 ·
Sorry for bumping up an old thread. Regarding gasoline DI engines, I am very concerned about its carbon buildup.
Can anyone point out whether MB Metris engine, which is M274, has EGR? From my understanding, carbon buildup is due to re-circulation of unburned exhaust gas back into the cylinder and DI does not spray gas behind the intake valve.
I've read "The new 2.0l turbo engine from the MercedesBenz 4-cylinder engine family", and "THE NEW
FOUR-CYLINDER GASOLINE ENGINES FROM MERCEDES-BENZ", and found no info.


Further research on forum points out that the intake stroke does get sprayed (see https://mbworld.org/forums/c-class-w204/430780-new-di-engines-excessive-carbon-buildup-6.html)

Does anyone know anything about this carbon buildup issue?
 
#6 ·
Always use the best quality (Top Tier (no-ethanol)) fuel and use 91 as it is recommended. 87 being acceptable is just to get you to the next set of pumps with ideal fuel. When 87 is used, the computer adjusts and long term use will encourage carbon build up as it will dump extra fuel to offset detonation. That in turn will decrease overall performance.

Even though I have B200 Turbo it does best with Shell V-Power 91.
 
#7 ·
I ididnt see anywhere MB recommends non-ethanol 91+? thee price difference between non-e and e surely can't be worth it performance wise.
 
#10 ·
Turbo Failure

We have a 2016 Metris which has 110K miles routine maintenance have always been done on schedule. We have our techs pump 91 octane. Our tech calls us stating the van would lose power at higher RPM (4K+). Took our van to a shop that specializes in German vehicles. They could not figure out what was causing the problem and referred me to a Mercedes specialist shop. They replaced a couple of sensors. Checked correct voltage on sensors, grounds, pressure on turbo, checked hoses, vacuum lines, ect. His prediction was the turbo is faulty and needs to be replaced. We took it to the dealership for a second opinion and he was right it is the turbo. We are going to replace the turbo in house with a genuine turbo (dealership quoted $8k USD) But we have another metris which is a 2017 approaching 70k and also waiting for the 2019 sprinter with the petrol engine. my concern is since all three vans have the same engine should I be worried around the 100k mile mark and expect turbo problems?
What can we do to prevent turbo failure?
 
#16 ·
I don’t think turbo failure is common... that being said:

Most M274s and the related M270 are installed in CLAs, GLAs, GLCs, C-class, and E-class sedans. And most of those are leased to people for somewhere under 40k miles. High mileage Benz owners are not extremely common in the US ; high mileage Benz owners elsewhere tend to buy diesels which are totally unrelated. The leased cars are usually then sold or re-leased CPO and are also not likely high mileage cars.

I’m not saying that the above is evidence of failure, or poor design by MB due to short term owners. I’m saying that I don’t think enough time and mileage data has been adequately assembled to make a fair assessment yet.

That being said, MB was one of the first companies to use forced induction (500k/540k, 770k) and an early pioneer with turbocharging diesels in trucks, and the first to turbocharge a passenger diesel (1978 300SD). I had a several of those 5-cylinder turbos with over 300k miles on them, so I think they should be able to competently design and set up a turbo engine.

An alternate point of view is that they obviously screwed up the fuel lines on the M274, and leaking fuel return lines is a hallmark of several benz diesels including especially the OM616/617, no example of which I owned that didn’t weep fuel (and I owned many examples). That motor is legendary for its durability, btw.

I suspect Robbs failure was contributed to partially by his tuning, btw.
 
#18 · (Edited)
I don’t think turbo failure is common... that being said:

Most M274s and the related M270 are installed in CLAs, GLAs, GLCs, C-class, and E-class sedans. And most of those are leased to people for somewhere under 40k miles. High mileage Benz owners are not extremely common in the US ; high mileage Benz owners elsewhere tend to buy diesels which are totally unrelated. The leased cars are usually then sold or re-leased CPO and are also not likely high mileage cars.

I’m not saying that the above is evidence of failure, or poor design by MB due to short term owners. I’m saying that I don’t think enough time and mileage data has been adequately assembled to make a fair assessment yet.


That being said, MB was one of the first companies to use forced induction (500k/540k, 770k) and an early pioneer with turbocharging diesels in trucks, and the first to turbocharge a passenger diesel (1978 300SD). I had a several of those 5-cylinder turbos with over 300k miles on them, so I think they should be able to competently design and set up a turbo engine.

An alternate point of view is that they obviously screwed up the fuel lines on the M274, and leaking fuel return lines is a hallmark of several benz diesels including especially the OM616/617, no example of which I owned that didn’t weep fuel (and I owned many examples). That motor is legendary for its durability, btw.

I suspect Robbs failure was contributed to partially by his tuning, btw.

Love Ya GML, but you're working way overtime on speculation here. Ford. That's right, plain ol' Ford is producing reliable efficient twin turbo ecoboost engines by the hundreds of thousands each year. There are no data as in zero, zip, nada, that properly designed boosted engines can't be long-lived and reliable. As I like to remind my kids on certain "modern" physics problems, the B29's that genocided the Japanese with incendiaries and nukes (whether they "had it coming" is another question) were running turbos, say 73 years ago? Not exactly new technology.

Now, I don't disagree that all things being equal, a big heavy diesel or gasser for that matter will be more durable than an undersized mill. Problem is our species can no longer afford to motivate a 5,000# vehicle to transport a 160# pound man or woman. We are energy wastrels. Who said it is OK to pay the artificially low price of Arabian crude oil to ship Cambodian shrimp to Costco in Dubuque? Subsidized energy has made for irrational decisions, like suburbs where you have to drive 60 miles to work and any American car built before about 1985.

My generation effed up by not coming up with a scarier moniker than "hole in the ozone layer" back in the 70's. "Climate change" isn't much better as it kind of sounds like a trip from Florida to somewhere humans actually want to live. The real name of what's going on is human extinction by fiery death. If you know anything about biology, you know that our big brains aside, we still eat, breed and sh*t inside a contained vessel. We will inevitably meet the same fate as yeast in a wine bottle as long as we behave like them. That is nature's plan. But we can slow it down with efficient vehicles like the Metris or all the truly awesome aluminum F series trucks with twin turbos.

I wouldn't want a Mercedes oil burner. I live near a transit line and the diesel particulates are harmful to children and other living things, if you know what I mean. And I don't want a Urea injection system to further complicate an engine that should be reserved for big rigs and ocean freighters that need the range and intense energy stores of liquid fuel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1681
#19 ·
First of all you read me wrong; I’m not assuming the M274 is unreliable or undersized; I simply consider the data available not good for educated specific speculation. The only data I have is that the vast majority of non-luxury MB power plants (read- less than 8 cylinders) have a well deserved reputation for durability... and an equally well deserved reputation for having annoying issues (e.g. leaking fuel lines).

A further truth is that while both the forced aspiration system in a B29 and a M274 are both called “turbocharging” the differences between the actual systems is night and day. A turbo is an insanely simple device at its core- a windmill driven by fast moving exhaust gasses turning a co-axial impeller which draws air into the intake.

Furthermore it is true that all things being equal a larger engine will be more durable than a smaller engine making the same power. However all things are not equal; metallurgical technologies have changed massively, computers allow for engines that will not overstrain themselves, and our ability to design and build complicated electronics that can withstand heavy use has improved markedly.

I think the aversion to a small turbo four being used to power a large van like this is a dinosaur mentality. Small turbo fours are actually less likely to suffer from certain kinds of wear, and are more powerful than their direct numbers suggest, because they have vastly lower reciprocating mass.

But to move to a more controversial area; the idea of the clean gas engine and the dirty diesel is a great news soundbite. It creates a regulatory mess to distract from more important (but much harder to solve) issues. It is also completely wrong headed.

It doesn’t matter what fossil fuel you burn- gasolene, kerosene, diesel, natural gas, or whatever. They are ALL dirty. Just in different ways- diesel produces far less CO, considerably less CO2, and more of NOx. If we wanted the ideal pollution situation for a world with ICEs only we would mandate smog fed versions of all of the above be produced in a proportion that wouldn’t excessively favor one over the other; fortunately Elon Musl has solved that particular issue going forward.

What is a pollutant? That’s the central question, which is totally misunderstood. CO2 is not an inherent pollutant; without it all the plants would die and so would our planet. All of the emissions of ICE engines exist naturally in our atmosphere... and they SHOULD. Pollutants are, in fact, any molecule or item introduced into the system in a quantity that is outside of what is normally there.

Thus if we figured out a way to extract hydrogen without using water and used it to power a fuel cell, it’s emissions of “pure water” would be pollution. Furthermore, even if we were to assure that only as much water was electrolized as was put out by a hydrogen powered car, i would still be polluting if I generated that hydrogen from a readily available water source and powered a car in the desert.

When the real answer is “too late, no real answer exists that will solve the problem in time” we like to instead confuse motion with accomplishment. The only real solution to solving transportation is to increase as much as possible the efficieny of moving people from A to B. Which generally means moving people closer together and then moving them with mass transportation.

However that’s not going to happen in these United States- or much anywhere else really- and even if it did, it is too late- and probably has been for the better part of a century, and the amount to which our personal choice of vehicle will effect how quickly that will come is too little for anything but apathy about it.
 
#21 ·
Great response! Maybe with people as thoughtful as you, GML, we can make a difference! My only quibble - who cares whether CO2 is an "inherent" pollutant if it's killing us?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CyberHippy
#20 ·
If you look at the exhaust ports on the back of a modern gasser vs a modern diesel, the gassers are covered with black ash and soot, and the diesels are clean! My GLK250 has zero soot, I can put my finger in the openings of the exhaust and there's nothing there....try that on any "clean" gas powered vehicle!
 
#23 ·
Agreed. Alcohol is not necessarily a pollutant unless you are a yeast or NFL fan.
 
#30 ·
I work at a Mercedes Benz dealer and I tell you that it's pretty rare to see turbos fail. As for your concern about carbon buildup with direct injection motors, your concern is justified. But unlike popular belief, running the best premium high-detergent fuel will do absolutely nothing how about the carbon build-up issue as the fuel in port-injected usually washes away any potential build up. This isn't the case with DI motors. It's recommended that you run a fuel injection cleaner directly through the intake manifold to clean up any carbon that may be building up roughly every 30000 miles. That's probably the best way to avoid it. Manufacturers and petroleum companies are still trying to figure out way to alleviate this issue so far without success. Although I believe Ford and possibly Toyota are using occasionally systems with port and direct-injection on the same engine.
 
#34 ·
Charlie horse, yes Toyota and maybe some others have started putting a small port injector. I don't know if it cycles of runs parallel with the primary injector.

I would like to see some type of port on the throttle body that would Allow easy access to injecting valve cleaner.

The way you have to clean them now is a PIA. Removing the intake manifold and blowing crushed walnut shell particles in the area, while vacuuming them at the same time. There is a tool for this. I've actually put off buying another Beemer for travel because of this problem. If I didn't drive a lot of miles it wouldn't be a big deal. I would be doing this every 1.5-2 years.
 
#36 ·
I can tell you from having 10 Mercedes metris vans that when they are new, they are great. When they reach 150,000 miles, they are piece of crap. My guys put over 100,000 miles on these a year. And after having a fleet of these, sell them fast after 150,000 miles. The turbos lag in all of them. They sputter when the gas is pressed hard. You have to shut the engine down and restart until you hit the gas hard again. Repeat the process again and again. I’ve had one engine throw a piston right out the bottom of the block. Two months to wait for a new engine from Germany. Headlamp assemblies corrode when the light inserts and new new assemblies. Don’t carry an enclosed trailer...every van fills up with carbon monoxide. I have the hospital visits to prove blood level testing a on my guys. The exhaust forms a swirl between the van and the trailer and somehow gets inside the the rear. Although I get the vans back from the dealership with engine lights still on, I think that is more of my crappy dealership in VA. They change the clusters in them year to year. And now with the pandemic, forget trying to get fast service done in them. But my only pro is they pay for themselves with 10 more miles to the gallon than any other service vehicle I can buy. So what’s my option for the size of cargo and still fits in parking garages. I did get bamboozled on the new sprinter with the same 2.0 turbo gas. The fuel mileage sucks on those. More of driving a billboard down the road.
 
#39 ·
Don’t carry an enclosed trailer...every van fills up with carbon monoxide. I have the hospital visits to prove blood level testing a on my guys. The exhaust forms a swirl between the van and the trailer and somehow gets inside the the rear.
Wow - that's not good. So even while towing (e.g. on interstate) the exhaust gets in the van, not just when stopped at a light or something like that? I don't suppose you found a solution to the problem?

I sometimes tow a small open trailer and plan to tow a small enclosed trailer (6x10 or smaller) I need to preserve what limited brain function I have left!
 
#37 ·
@Vaprotection Welcome to the forum.

100 000 miles per year is a lot of miles.

How are/were the vans doing when it comes to tires and brakes?
Are the vehicles assigned to one driver?

Reason I ask is that at a previous employer, we had multiple shared vehicles, and while some of the vehicles held up pretty well; there was an excessive amount of brake and tire wear due to a number of people driving the vehicles ... as if they were rental cars. Something to test drive and toy around with for a few hours. They wouldn't drive their personal car that way. But, hey, don't have to pay for gas, don't have to pay for maintenance, fast acceleration, fast through the turns and late moment stopping ...

As far as alternatives. In my limited research, it is the only vehicle in its own little class really, in NA.
Comparable length, there was the Dodge / RAM Caravan CV. Less interior height and length. No longer made.
All other cargo vans are taller, that I looked at were too tall when it comes to residential garages ... and possibly parking garages that have a no commercial vehicle parking height bar.
 
#38 ·
my vans jane the same crews driving them. Two drivers that switch per van for long road trips. Tires wore qucker on the vans pulling trailers. Rear tires replaced every 40K with trailer. 60K without. Replaced with hancock tired with hard sidewalks because they are low profile. Brakes about the same. Really like the maintenance intervals of 15K. Normal service A and B done switching back and forth. But when they get 150K plus, service becomes 4K plus with everything that’s starts going wrong with them. Headlamps corrosion, headlamps go out, sensors start failing, tons of recalls performed, rear shocks replaced, steering rack in 2 vans went out. im not trying to be all negative. We do drive these all over the country. and the gas savings do pay for these vans. But sell them before the engine blows, turbos start failing and every van has sputtering issues on acceleration between 180k-220K. And I mean every van. So 8-10 more mpg still out weighs buying a dodge, Ford or Chevy van when you do that many miles. 3K miles a week average saves me 60-65gallons of gas per week which pretty much pays for van payments. But when I try to get 200,000 miles out of one, eventually I’m selling a van with a broken motor of some sort for 2500-3000 dollars.
 
#40 · (Edited)
Check the pressure valves at the rear underneath the bumper.

I just drove across country. I noticed one carrier carrying new van bodies meant for panel trucks. Didn't notice the brand. What I noticed was that on the back of the cab the pressure vents flapped on each bump.

In another thread a member wanted to repurpose the vent to an air duct with fan. My concern was pressure at the rear forcing exhaust etc into the van.

I can totally imagine a collision of physics with the right van, right trailer, speed and use or non use of the hvac and windows in the van creating a problem. I'd be super curious to see the configuration and know if it's 100% repeatable. Easy enough to put a sensor in the back.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top