1982 Mercedes with a Nissan L28

Is there any info about what version of L28 was it before modifications? Because there was carburated L28 which was used in cars like Laurel, and L28E which was fuel injected, for example Nissan 280Z had one. I’m asking because it would slightly better idea what power this thing could be making.

Something practical, durable, inexpensive, with decent torque, that is an old 4 cylinder, that any backyard jethro bodine shadetree person can fit over the course of a weekend with the help of two buddies and a case of beer.

The ancient 1972 – 1989 MercedesBenz 350SL/450SL/500SL/560SL v8 models as well as the 1981 – 1985 280SL…six cylinder USA market cars HAVE NO VALUE AT THE PRESENT TIME except for those in the most pristine, well kept, original low miles, complete service records and owner history, and original paint and original interior, and with both tops, and with being current on passing emissions in cities where applicable, and always garaged with zero rust or accident damage.
BEYOND THAT any Average 1972 – 1989 450SL to 560SL has a “REALISTIC NEGATIVE VALUE” such that its total maintenance costs for any three year ownership period WILL FAR EXCEED the total market value of the car. (this assumes that an independent qualified service facility services the car and not the local Mercedes Benz dealership.)
Most of these Average condition cars become permanently parked residential “yard cars” never again to see road use again, later going to the junkyard or independent German luxury specialist’s parts yard. The fact is that the cost to maintain and repair these beautiful and nicely constructed cars is way more than is justifiable for those owners of any of these AVERAGE condition, sub $15,000 market value old ’72-’89 SL. A sub $10,000 market value car, even though very presentable and nice looking becomes A DISPOSABLE CAR if it needs anything other than new tires or brakes, as any engine work or transmission work needed would render it a “yard car” for scrap value or parting out. THIS IS WHY THAT IT MIGHT BE PRACTICAL TO IF ONE HAS MINIMAL WRENCHING SKILLS & MINIMAL WELDING & FABRICATION SKILLS, that a crude but effective way to keep the pretty old Mercedes rolling along reliably. The suggested possible substitutes are in no way as powerful as the Mercedes v8, but all will at least be minimally acceptable in producing adequate torque to propel a 4000 pound car at 85 mph Interstate speed and deliver better MPG than the original Mercedes v8. Lets face it, the ’72-’89 SL is not a sports roadster type of sports car, it is a boulevard cruiser as all USA market cars have AUTOMATICS. Though certainly not nearly as refined, you could say that a seventies MustangII with T-tops and a 4 SPEED is much more of a sports car (even with the 90hp, 2.3 liter LIMA four cylinder that was shared with the 1974-1980 PINTO).
Yeah, people might laugh but adequate gearing combined with adequate torque is what is needed.
****INEXPENSIVE FOUR CYLINDER SUGGESTIONS:
1975 – 1985 TOYOTA 20R and 22RE engines from CELICA & Toyota trucks
1980 & later PONTIAC 2.5 liter (151 cubic inches) “Pontiac IRON DUKE”
Earlier ’77-’79 models lack the cross flow head but are still durable.
The PONTIAC IRON DUKE doesn’t make much horsepower, about on par with the FORD LIMA 2.3 pinto/mustangii powerplant that remained in production thru 1991. The IRON DUKE produces about the same 90 hp but delivers greater torque than either the TOYOTA 22RE or FORD 2.3 LIMA. The TOYOTA 20R / 22RE ohc engines are much more refined and more durable than either the FORD 2.3 ohc LIMA engine or the PONTIAC 2.5 liter ohv IRON DUKE engine, but even so both the FORD 2.3 Lima and the PONTIAC 2.5 IRON DUKE are extremely durable for American built four cylinders. Crude but extremely durable, though not oil tight like the old 22RE Celica engine, they aren’t garbage like the VEGA’s chevrolet aluminum 2300cc was, or garbage like Austin-Triumph-MG-Fiat-Alfa Romeo four cylinders were during the sixties, seveties and eighties and thru ’93 for the beautiful but trash mechanicals Alfa Spider.
You may notice that these old 4 cylinders are seen in dirt circle track racing circuits across the country for their durability, effective powerband output, torque, and economy. You may also see that the 3TC (1800cc) and 2TC (1600cc) little toyota hemi that was available in Corolla from 1971 to about 1982. Those are great engines, and extremely lightweight BUT THEY PRODUCE THEIR POWERBAND AT HIGHER REVS, AND DUE TO BEING VERY SMALL, AND NOT PRODUCING THE TORQUE THAT THE OTHER THREE ENGINES MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY ABOVE, WOULD DEFINITELY NOT BE SUITABLE IN A VEHICLE CHASSIS AS HEAVY AS THE MERCEDES 450 SL of 1972-1989.
****Ideally, you’d want to use ELECTRONIC FUEL INJECTION.
GM’s ancient TBI is the most simple.
You can also adapt ancient GM TBI to nearly anything.
Is it great like something from the 21st Century? Well NO, but it works very well, much better than a carburetor and much better than the Bosch D Jet system on that ’72-’75 450 SL v-8.
**************
SIX CYLINDER inline engines that would be affordable simple possibilities:
The FORD 200 inline six
(huge drawback which limits its power output in stock form to weaker than the three four cylinders mentioned above is the stock integral log intake head) You would need to cut and sawzall the intake as Section 8 Motor pool did (see youtube) “Ford Mustang 200cid in an MGB”, or perhaps acquire a Australian head or the Classic Inlines version based on the Australian head with separate intake.
If you were to just add EFI to the stock factory FORD 200, even with the stock integral log head minimally modified, you would be good to go as the smooth operation and amount of torque produced would be good enough to move the heavy MERCEDES 450SL. With the original carb set up, Falcons, Fairlanes, Comets, Mustangs, Mavericks, Granadas,Fairmonts were notoriously sluggish with 200, AUTOMATIC equipped cars trying to build up speed on freeway entrance ramps and passing on hills due to the intake and single barrel carb.
The FORD 200 is compact in size and light for an inline six.
Ordinarily, it has a front sump…sixties, seventies, and when revived as the Ford 3.3 liter(200 cid) six in the fox body FAIRMONTS & MUSTANGS of 1979-1982, it was fitted with a Rear SUMP to fit the fox body.
***THE CHEVROLET 230 to 250cid INLINE SIX first introduced in 1962 for the new compact CHEVYII/nova
+++++Note: the 1962 – 1967 Chevy II Nova had a front SUMP oil pan
The others had a rearward SUMP.
As you’ve guessed why I mentioned this above and here is that swapping oil pans & oil pickups and you might be golden in your particular swap without having to fabricate something on your own.
THE CHEVY 250 inline six was around until about 1979 or so.
IT IS A GREAT ENGINE!! SMOOTH & SUPREMELY DEPENDABLE
LONGER & HEAVIER and with a much better powerband in stock form than the FORD 200. Better than the FORD 250 in power band, though the chevy 250 is longer and still significantly heavier than the FORD 250.
****THE AMC (chrysler) 4.0 LITER INLINE SIX from 1996-2002 was American Motors’ last engine design before Chrysler purchased AMC. Perhaps the finest USA made inline six of all time. This engine was modern and very powerful relative to the others previously mentioned.
AMC developed a succession of fantastic inline six engines beginning in 1965 that were smooth, extremely durable, and torquey. They are long in size.
***The big FORD inline 300 inline 6, introduced in 1965 as the big 240 inline 6 that went into economy, and fleet and taxi, big full size Fords. Big full sized FORD cars no longer were available with the big inline Ford six around 1971. Ford trucks, vans, ambulances had the 300 inline six through about the early nineties.
Supremely Durable and SMOOTH with all the TORQUE you’d ever want. Fuel economy though isn’t great, as 14 to 16 is typical and a FORD 289 / 302 2 bbl carb engine will do 15 to 16 MPG and the 5.0 EFI lowoutput of the 1988-1991 Crown Victoria with AOD transmission will deliver 17 to 20 MPG which is better than all the carburetted sixes mentioned previously.
*****The 225 Chrysler slant 6 is extremely durable, you want the late version with hydraulic lifters…….used in cars to about 1983 and a few more years in trucks. Much better power than the Ford 200, but the fuel economy is almost as good as the Ford.
Much longer than the Ford 200, and about 150 pounds heavier than the FORD 200.
*****The NISSAN L-28 Datsun 280Z engine of 1975-1983 with EFI
*****The TOYOTA CELICA SUPRA six of circa 1984, 1985 with EFI

====Those are the INLINE engines that might be realistically possible assuming that dimensionally they fit the mercedes 450 SL engine bay.
—You should strive to use EFI for best results.
IDEALLY, YOU SHOULD CHOOSE THE AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION THAT BELONGS WITH THE ENGINE MAKE THAT YOU DECIDE ON. Obviously it doesn’t have to be the same one as from the DONOR vehicle but it should be from the same family and mate up perfectly.
OBVIOUSLY, YOU WANT AN AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION THAT IS KNOWN TO BE EXTREMELY DURABLE AND ACCEPTABLE FOR THE SIZE & WEIGHT OF the mercedes 450SL. Overall gearing when combined with the rear end ratio, the transmission gearing, and the powerband of the engine and the size & weight, and tire/wheel diameter of the mercedes 450 SL must be accounted for in total context of the sum of all parts working together.
*****POSSIBLE OLD SIMPLE American V-8 ENGINES that might work well assuming that physical size and weight must be kept reasonable.
—FORD 302 windsor V-8 5.0 LITER
—CHEVROLET 350 or 305 v8
—the 1964, 1965,1966, 1967 BUICK 300 v-8
This is not the oil leaking piece of junk that the aluminum 215-v8 was before the BRITISH significantly improved it.
The BUICK 300 v8 is a cast iron SMALL BLOCK.
1964 has Aluminum head and 4 bbl intake.
THE 1965-1967 are all cast iron and 2 bbl and better quality than 1964.
(1961-1963 Buick aluminum 215 is a hunk of junk, minimally ok in a light weight car if you like oil leaks)
The BUICK 300 was an all new cast iron engine that physically-dimensionally is about the same size as the really lightweight 215 v8.
***The BUICK 300 v8 weighs more than a FORD 302, but less than a Chevy 350.
The BUICK 300 has seen a surge in popularity on the MGB engine swaps forum in the past three years despite being so old. It is a decent, reliable v-8 design right before v-8 cars and engines got really big in terms of cubic inches, size and weight. See the 20 pages of discussion (circa 2020 to present day 20220 on the mgb engine swaps forum). There were a lot of 1965 & 1966 Buick Skylarks that were sold with the BUICK 300 v-8.
***********I won’t go into the other possibilities of v-6 engines and modern engines, including the excellent FORD 4.6 modular v-8, except to say that the physical size and width isn’t going to be easy or probable, without a cutting torch and re-engineering/grafting in different front suspension/subframe,etc.
Obviously plenty of ancient V-6 engines might easily fit, but many of those American v-6 engines are crude and rough, and neither as smooth as those crude 4 cylinders mentioned earlier that are probably at least as durable if not more so, although the v-6 will be more powerful. It depends a whole helluva lot on what old v-6 that you choose to consider. Yes, if certain components are chosen and gearing, trans are selectively chosen, then operational quality, ride quality and durability can be achieved. Many American powerplants are pieces of junk in oem stock form, and only sometimes become acceptable, if they ever do, in later models when and if the problems were worked out. Often the aftermarket and the tinkerers and hot rodders solve these problems that GM, Chrysler, and FORD didn’t. Many still have known potential issues that cause such American make engines to not exceed 130,000 miles while something from HONDA, TOYOTA, LEXUS, HYUNDAI or KIA delivers 230,000 miles.
Certainly most American cars are relatively trouble free for a lot of miles, and some are trouble free for huge number of miles and others
don’t ever make it to 140,000 miles. If you follow Consumer Reports, you know this to be the case, and hopefully get a price that makes it worthwhile over the premium you’d pay for the supremely reliable Honda or Toyota. Folks still seem to get more of their money’s worth with the highest rated cars, even paying a premium, as the car maintains better resale value and it is trouble free for thousands upon thousands more miles. Backyard mechanics that love visiting Advance, Autozone, Napa, O’Reilly’s and contacting ROCK AUTO, can purchase certain lesser quality GM, FORD, Fiat-Chrysler cars USED at favorable prices they couldn’t otherwise afford since they depreciate more than the highest rated cars.
*****NUMBER ONE in a potential engine swap…..do you have the skill…….what is your objective…….what is it gonna cost.
Multiply the estimated cost number by THREE, and multiply the estimated time to complete the project by a factor of FIVE.
REALIZE THAT ANYTHING THAT YOU BUILD OR FABRICATE FROM SCRATCH is not necessarily going to be the quality that any engineering team at any auto manufacturer could and would achieve. So realizing that auto makers do despite having teams of engineers make blunders and release junk, so what thinks that you will do better than teams of engineers that are much more talented than you are.
IF This has you doubting that a DIY engine swap is a good idea, well you just gotta, trust your gut, and say no.
If you like to take on challenges that might not turn out as good as you’d have expected it to, then you might have fun trying such a project, but be prepared for head-scratching and creative problem solving and keeping costs from escalating out of sight. Spending a lot of time and money to build something that ends up being the overall quality of a Corvair, is money and time that was entirely wasted. The basic, simplest, ordinary, practical, cost effective approach with known simple, proven to be durable, mechanicals that fit in size weight and overall driveability power band and torque, might be the best design approach if you decide to tackle such a project.