Hello everyone! I'm one of those people who thought I'd drive my '83 300D forever, but, as I'm sure you all know, even a pretty small wreck will total a car with a $2,700 "value" (it was the other driver's fault). Sadly, I'm now Benz-less (although my work truck is Daimler Chrysler).

I'm thinking about getting a gasser this time. Basically, I'm trying to decide whether to get a w124 or a w202.

Here's my thoughts, and I'd really appreciate everyone's feedback - you guys know an awful lot!

The 300e's with the m103 (pre '93) seems to be the best value/most bulletproof, but there's no "perfect" year (I think) that avoids the three big issues I've seen on this board
- Head problems: valve guides, on older, gasket on newer

-A/C evaporator (not sure the year range for this)

-Wiring harness (?? to '95?)

As for the w202, I'm just leary in general about the newer build quality. I figure '96 c220 is the optimal year with the m111 and the 4 speed auto, but I'm open to suggestions. I don't want to go to the 190's.

My goal is to own for the long term, with an eye toward safety and fuel economy. The newer style may seem less "dated" ten years from now than the w124, but I'd suspect the 300e will be more durable. I've come to this brand, because I don't want a "disposable" car, but I also don't want another hobby - I'm not doing the work myself. I'm used to the 300d w123, so I don't much care about performance, I just want a car I can feel OK about keeping on the road for the next 10 or 15 years - even if Geico thinks it isn't worth much!

I guess that's probably a lot of information to throw out there in one post. I'm interested in everyone's ideas. Especially the better and worse years, mechanically, for 300e's.

Thanks for helping! - Jim

Have you considered the newer diesels, such as 87-95 300D? They are much faster and quieter than your old 123 was! ..........BB

I liked the diesel well enough, but, here in CA, for whatever reason, the W124 300d's are real rare, and more expensive than the gas ones. That's when I realized I could go to the c220 for the same or less money - have a newer car - and only be a few gallons behind in fuel economy. (we don't do much highway driving).

I always loved my 300d when I drove it, but (and I feel like I'm speaking ill of the dead), I feel a little relief when I think about nice, clean, gasoline and a motor that doesn't resemble the Exxon Valdez! I don't know.....I haven't ruled out the diesels completely - I'm not anti-diesel, but I'm not as devoted to the idea as I was when I used to smell it on my fingers, so to speak.

I had 88 420sel w126 and I bought 90 300E recently. Car has almost 180kml. I bought it cheap because it needs a little work but I have to say that for 15 year old car with such mileage it runs and drives really nice. I beleive if you will find lower mileage in good condition you will have a nice car for many years to come. Despite minor repairs my car needs I drive it almost everyday and so far it never let me down. It doesnt burn oil, everything works, starts everytime, climate control works good and my car wasnt maintained very well as I can see. Its relatively quite, rides soft and has many power options you find in newer cars. I cant say anything about c class.
Good luck with your choice

__________________
1999 ML430 Silver 135k ml
Smoked LED taillights, Alpine in-dash DVD player, 12" sub, Pioneer components, 2 amps, 4200k HIDs, ML55 headlights, 20" rims, mirror LED blinkers

SOLD. 1996 E320 145k ml. Burgundy

SOLD but miss it everyday 1992 500sel Black
Chime buzzer mod,Alpine CD/MP3 player with stock amp,Euro headlights,S600 grill,20" rims, BEST CAR EVER!

SOLD. 1990 300E White
187k ml,smoked tails,Euro headlights,17rims,Intake,12" sub in first aid kit,alarm/autostart,buzzer mod

I'd try to find a '89 or '90 300E.

__________________
Jim

I have owned a 88 300e and own a 89 300e... may be getting an 89 300ce.

I'd say the biggies are the evaporator and head gasket......

but those two expenses alone are in the 3500 range....

other than that the cars are very easy to work on...and just run forever.

I think the styling is timeless...

oh.... I think you could need european headlights.... I need the better vision for night driving...

OK, so then is '93 the "perfect" year for the 300e because of the m104 (if the head gasket is done) and the earlier electronics? And when did mb fix the problem with the evaporator? 94? 95?-Jim

I vote W124

__________________
It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so. Robert A. Heinlein


09 Jetta TDI
1985 300D

The 1993 300E is the one mis-badged car of all the six-cylinder W124's.

It is really an E320, but without the badge.

It has the same mechanicals, electronics, fuel injection and ignition system as '94-'95 E320's. 1993 300E's just didn't get the cosmetic external upgrades as '94-'95's, like Euro-style headlights and the hood / grill revision.

However, in other parts of the world, the 1993 300E was badged as a 320E, so there was never any confusion.

__________________
Paul S.

2001 E430, Bourdeaux Red, Oyster interior.
79,200 miles.

1973 280SE 4.5, 170,000 miles. 568 Signal Red, Black MB Tex. "The Red Baron".

First, thanks for taking the time to give me valuable information and share your experience.

I must take issue with the idea that its silly to ask someone if they feel a certain year and model is the "perfect" (and the quotation marks are from the original question) used car to look for - if condition and service records are equal- to meet someone's stated objectives.

In fact, if I understand your reply, you seem to be saying that the newer years are more desireable than the older because of the continuing refinement from MB. (condition/maintenance being equal)...at least that's what I'm inferring. So, is the newest (e320, w124) the best?

Or are you saying that for every thing they improved over the years, they added a counter-balancing negative (subjectively, of course)? Hence, no one year is best?

Where we live, there are a lot of these cars for sale. It's not going to be a choice, for instance between a dealer-maintained, garaged, 1989, and a questionable 1995 - We can go look at 20 1989's, or 20 1995's. I'm not complaining - more is better - I'm just trying to narrow the search a little before I start bringing cars to my MB mechanic.

Everyone has their own perfect car, I suppose. Personally, I want something that gets decent mileage, doesn't squash my wife and kid if they get in a wreck, and breaks down as infrequently as possible with the lowest repair costs possible. As to that last part, I'm not asking for a crystal ball to know what the future of my $9,000 used car will be - If I had that kind of connections, I'd use them for a lot better things than that! - I'm looking for people's opinions on, let's say, things like the durability of the m103 vs the m104. If they are the same, I can accept that too. I also understand that there are more things to consider than valves and head gaskets when you are talking about the overall durability of a car.

My way of thinking was that simpler is cheaper to maintain. (hence, my last car being an '83 300d) This kind of simplistic assumption however, doesn't get me very far in sorting out the differences in w124's. That's where all of you guys come in!

You seemed to prefer the m104, and I was just asking if it was correct to assume you thought the earlier electronics were a plus. If so, then there was only one year with that combination (if I'm understanding correctly). I suppose that doesn't necessarily pin down that car as your pick for most durable. I respect your opinion that there is no perfect w124, Like I said, I'm just trying to narrow the field down to the smallest range of years.

I guess it was just wishful thinking that it could be just one year!

No decision is ever that easy, I guess.

All things being equal, I'd choose the car with the most meticulous maintenance record.

Other than that, I have a preference for the M104 engine over the M103. It has significantly more horsepower and torque, and gets the same or better fuel economy.

1993 and later cars with the M104 engine (2.8 liter and 3.2 liter) us the HFM-SFI fuel injection system (hot-film mass air flow sensor), which is fully electronic, with integrated electronic ignition and sequential fuel injection.

This system combines fuel injection and ignition control in one module.

HFM fuel injection systems are designed so that idle speed can't be adjusted. Idle speed is completely controlled electronically. This HFM injection system also has adaptive technology that compensates for conditions such as engine wear and unmeasured intake air and is designed to maintain driveability as the engine ages.

HFM-SFI can retard engine knocking to just the knocking cylinders, unlike EZL technology in M103 engines, which retards spark timing across the entire engine. This keeps the ignition timing point as advanced as possible for maximum power output.

The 3.2 liter M104 engines also have variable valve timing on the intake cam, making the torque curve broad and flat, developing HP at a much lower rpm. This makes the power much more useable and noticeable.

The M104 engines also have a superior head design than M103 engines. Valve guide wear has always been a problem on M103 engines. The M104 head design has minimal vave stem/quide side force [ cam-valve swipe] . Mercedes seems to have solved the common M103 valve guide problems with this far superior design and it is not unusual to see them still tight into the 200K figures.

The early 3.0 liter SOHC 12-valve M103 engines are very refined and durable, but the advancement of technology is just so great in the 3.2 liter M104 engine, making these later engines much more desireable, IMHO.

__________________
Paul S.

2001 E430, Bourdeaux Red, Oyster interior.
79,200 miles.

1973 280SE 4.5, 170,000 miles. 568 Signal Red, Black MB Tex. "The Red Baron".

I am 100% sure about the engine management stuff.

Only the 300CE coupes from I think 1990-1992 got the early 104.990 engine.

This was a 3.0 liter version of the M104 engine, and it used the same engine management system and ignition system as the M103 engine.

__________________
Paul S.

2001 E430, Bourdeaux Red, Oyster interior.
79,200 miles.

1973 280SE 4.5, 170,000 miles. 568 Signal Red, Black MB Tex. "The Red Baron".

Tkamiya, sorry if I misunderstood you. Please remember that I am not looking for arguments here and I truly appreciate everyone taking the time to answer my questions - this is a great resource!

I am paying very careful attention to all of those who have suggested that service records/maintenance are THE #1 thing a used 300e/e320 MUST be judged by.

As I said, here in the SF bay area, every third car on the road is a MB (does everyone but me have the money to buy these new?!?) so I absolutely will pass on anything with missing/shady history. I've learned from this forum that what I'd like to find is that the original owners had the major things go wrong (head gasket, evaporator, harness etc) and had them repaired under warranty. If not, I can expect (more likely than not) to do those things and budget accordingly.

Your point is well taken that no two cars are alike. If I find one that is a good color, in mint-looking condition, that's had everything fixed except the harness, for example, I might go ahead and buy that car over one where everything has been replaced, but the paint is gone or the seats are torn or I hate the color. It's more an art than a science.

By the way, does anyone prefer the w202? Or is this contest an easy win for the w124? How about that m111 (non-supercharged)4cyl?

I love the W202's. My mother had a '95 C220, and it was a fabulous car. The styling is nearly identical to a 124, and the modern HVAC controls, center stack design, and armest are very nice.

I would recommend any 4 cylinder W202.

Gilly has posted that perhaps the most reliable Mercedes ever built is the non-supercharged C230.

__________________
Paul S.

2001 E430, Bourdeaux Red, Oyster interior.
79,200 miles.

1973 280SE 4.5, 170,000 miles. 568 Signal Red, Black MB Tex. "The Red Baron".

I may not be an experienced Tech, but I haven't heard of one M104 that didn't have headgasket issues. They all blow.

The wiring harness issues seem to be relative to the M104 with biodegradable materials making up the bulk of the problem.

The air mass sensor goes when it goes on the M104.
The plug wires get brittle over time and break off if you're not careful.

That's about it. Other than the valve guide seal wear and seldom gasket failures of the M103, they're bulletproof and friendlier to look at.

As far as power goes, the earlier 300E's came with a 3.07 differential vs 2.65 for the M104 equipped cars. Also, the early 300E's were more tossable, thus about 2 - 300 lbs lighter than the later versions. Power is negligible. 0-60 in a 300E M103 is about the same as an E320 (about 8 seconds for each).

The later versions of the W124 are still prettier to look at, IMHO.

__________________
1987 300SDL (324000)

1986 Porsche 951 (944 Turbo) (166000)

1978 Porsche 924 (99000)

1996 Nissan Pathfinder R50 (201000)