W210 - 1997 E300 Diesel Really that bad? - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Brian Carlton · #16 08-24-2006, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vstech

I was under the impression that the motor only failed under problematic circumstances. yes, it is nearly impossible to rebuild once it fails, but prevention should keep it running strong. and this nice car should be available cheap due to the "rodbender" reputation.
John

It fails under random circumstances. Nobody has been able to document any specific driving patterns that cause it to fail. Some have a theory that city driving kills the rods........some think that the EGR causes accumulation in the manifold that subsequently breaks off and gets ingested........some, including myself, believe that it's fatigue failure. The specific engines that fail due to fatigue would be entirely random.

In any case, the engine is at the opposite end of the spectrum from what would be characterized as an "excellent engine".

Brian Carlton · #17 08-24-2006, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markg612

CLEARLY I AGREE AS WELL, yes it bends rods, and 603.960s crack heads like crazy, but in both cases, It has a huge propensity to be owner related.

You continue to provide false information.

There is no data to show that the 603.970 rod failures have anything to do with the owner or the driver.

Even the suggestion that the 603.960 cracks heads due to the behavior of the owner is simply a theory..........however, at least this theory has some basis in engineering principles.

dieseldiehard · #18 08-24-2006, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

You continue to provide false information.

There is no data to show that the 603.970 rod failures have anything to do with the owner or the driver.

Even the suggestion that the 603.960 cracks heads due to the behavior of the owner is simply a theory..........however, at least this theory has some basis in engineering principles.

I think its possible in some instances to connect owners habits (not necessarily DRIVING habits!) with failed #14 heads.
I have seen factors like the lack of receiving notice of factory recalls or failing to act on such notices if they were received may well play a role, for example the Nasty Trap Oxidizer has been seen to cause a cracked head from overheatinig when they plug up (not to mention damage the turbo when they disintegrate) so there may be human factors that affect whether a head will crack or not, as to why people never service a car, or take their car to someplace that doesn't know anything about an Open Campaign on the NTO.

Driving like a little old lady a short distance and never doing the Italian tune ups that diesels need will let crud build up in the intake manifold and that stuff may come off in chunks and destroy an engine. Is that due to the driver? Maybe.

I believe the 350 rodbender is another story. Is there any similarity to the Oldsmobile diesel? Well, just a little. Rods are one thing, the GM fiasco was that the entire engine was fubar. If the 350 diesels were as bad as Detroits mess it would have been more than just a blemish on the company's image, instead the factory has managed to replace many of them under warranty - I guess that's over now though. I sure don't want one! I've got two 603.960s with #14 heads to worry about!

jnyost · #19 08-24-2006, 08:31 PM

Thanks to all!!! I value your input.

I was looking at

this car on ebay but don't think I'm going to get it. I just don't see spending over retail value ($11.7k) on a car that is listed on ebay and too far for me to inspect. I don't mind the ebay scene. I've already purchase two vehicles from ebay but both were low enough that I could risk some unknowns.

Thanks and I guess I'll keep looking. Maybe I'll just settle for a rock-solid but less refined VW TDI.

Thanks!!
Jared

TMAllison · #20 08-24-2006, 11:45 PM

Thats too mcuh for that many miles. I almost bought a 97 with 100K 2.5 years ago for less than the $12K that car is at now.

Bought the 99 turbo instead for $16K a month later with 109K. Has 184K now. Love it. Would only trade it for a CDI.

Your logic about buying on eBay is correct. Be patient, bid once, and assume you will have some buggers to resolve when you win. Buy cheap enough you are happy to resolve the buggers and then enjoy.

The OM606.96x is a good engine. Most of it's buggers have been unearthed. The electronics require a different set of skills than older diesels need to repair. That is very daunting to some here, but, with the hlep of the forum is able to be understood and worked upon by the average joe if they are willing to adjust.

jnyost · #21 08-25-2006, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMAllison

Thats too mcuh for that many miles. I almost bought a 97 with 100K 2.5 years ago for less than the $12K that car is at now.

Bought the 99 turbo instead for $16K a month later with 109K. Has 184K now. Love it. Would only trade it for a CDI.

Your logic about buying on eBay is correct. Be patient, bid once, and assume you will have some buggers to resolve when you win. Buy cheap enough you are happy to resolve the buggers and then enjoy.

The OM606.96x is a good engine. Most of it's buggers have been unearthed. The electronics require a different set of skills than older diesels need to repair. That is very daunting to some here, but, with the hlep of the forum is able to be understood and worked upon by the average joe if they are willing to adjust.

Thanks. I feel good about the decision I made then.

Thanks
Jared

markg612 · #22 08-25-2006, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

You continue to provide false information.

There is no data to show that the 603.970 rod failures have anything to do with the owner or the driver.

Even the suggestion that the 603.960 cracks heads due to the behavior of the owner is simply a theory.........however, at least this theory has some basis in engineering principles.

It would be nice if you would provide empirical data that there is no empirical data next time you slam me, or at least offer the caveat of IMHO, because without the data, the blather that is written anywhere in this forum is little more than one persons opinion.

I drove a 1982 GM 4.3L diesel 141K over 14 years and never blew it up, yet my 603.960 crack its head like an egg shell 10 yrs. back due to my spouse not understanding an instrument scan was part of driving a vehicle with gauges. She understood idiot lights very clearly, i.e., if the overheat light ever came on in the GM car, she knew to shut it off immediately, but with the MB, aside from the gas gauge, temp and oil and tach meant nothing. The engine overheated due to operator/owner neglect and cracked the head.

In my case this theory is $5000 worth of empirical fact.

Unless we are talking about Chrysler 4 speed OD front drive transmission that all the owner care and maintenance in the world would prevent the design flawed grenade from eating itself, the likely plausibility that the good majority of 970 failures were impacted by owner behavior is not unreasonable or false, especially considering the manufacturer AND without making an overly inflammatory generalization your typical MB owner that purchases new and not used, IMHO. The survey I would like to see would be 970 rod failures in cars owned by the typical poster here (presuming of course, the poster here would have been able to renew the engine and care for it properly as most here do) vs. the owner that bought the car new from MB. I believe the results would prove my point.

Mr. Carlton, I have no clue as to the depth or extent of your expertise, and at the same time, while I know you have status as a senior member and respect that fact, I am not, but along with this, you haven't a clue as to the extent of my expertise either. Unless you have proof to validate the assertion my opinion is false, In the future, I would appreciate that you assert that IYHO, you would disagree with MHO and nothing more. Thank you.

IMHO, the 970 shouldn't bend rods, nor should the 960 crack heads. Both are design flaws. But I would be willing to bet a knowledgeable and tech savvy owner could make either of these examples last a very long time with proper use and care in spite of the design issues, no different than the GM diesel. I sure did.

tolive31 · #23 08-25-2006, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markg612

One might look at a 2004-2006 Passat TDI. Hummmm. I think the 04 is the best choice of the 3 as it was sill based on the A4/A6 chassis. the 05/06 is Jetta based. The Passat would give you the upgrade over the Jetta and still give you zip AND comfort. It comes with a 2.0L turbo TDI, an outgrowth of the proven 1.9L TDI installed in about a cajillion VW vehicles world wide in as many VW brands and models.

Actually, there is no 2006 Passat TDI in the North American market. The Passat was available with the 2 litre TDI in 2004 and 2005, both years being the B5.5 body style (similar to the Audi A4 chassis, not the Jetta).

markg612 · #24 08-25-2006, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tolive31

Actually, there is no 2006 Passat TDI in the North American market. The Passat was available with the 2 litre TDI in 2004 and 2005, both years being the B5.5 body style (similar to the Audi A4 chassis, not the Jetta).

Take a look at this link, I was surprised by the Passat/Jetta comment here, maybe the writer was wrong? I had always thought the Passat to be B5.5 chassis based until I read the link below. I monkey-ed up the years. I did mean 04/05, but I guess I didn't realize the no NA TDI 06--Thanks!

http://www.automobilemag.com/features/four_seasons_logbook/0606_2006_volkswagen_passat_20t/

Ya know what, I re-read the article, the body change was accurate, but I got tripped up with the 2.0L Turbo--not a 2.0L TDI. Oops, we're both right.

Brian Carlton · #25 08-25-2006, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markg612

It would be nice if you would provide empirical data that there is no empirical data next time you slam me, or at least offer the caveat of IMHO, because without the data, the blather that is written anywhere in this forum is little more than one persons opinion.

Mr. Carlton, I have no clue as to the depth or extent of your expertise, and at the same time, while I know you have status as a senior member and respect that fact, I am not, but along with this, you haven't a clue as to the extent of my expertise either. Unless you have proof to validate the assertion my opinion is false, In the future, I would appreciate that you assert that IYHO, you would disagree with MHO and nothing more. Thank you.

You made this statement:

Quote:

Originally Posted by markg612

The 140 is a venerable chassis and the 603.970 is SOHC and excellent engine.............

Then you made this statement:

Quote:

Originally Posted by markg612

CLEARLY I AGREE AS WELL, yes it bends rods, and 603.960s crack heads like crazy, but in both cases, It has a huge propensity to be owner related.

The 603.970 is not an excellent engine. It has nothing to do with my experience or my opinion. There is ample evidence that the engine is designed poorly and suffers from bent connecting rods.

You make a claim that the propensity to bend rods is owner related. You offer no evidence whatsoever to support this conclusion when there is ample evidence to show that the failures are random.........happens to folks who use the vehicle for extensive highway runs.........happens to folks who hardly drive the vehicle.

So, as the moderator of the forum, I have an obligation to prevent dissemination of false information to other members. I'm sorry if it's personal for you, but, without some data to support your argument, I've got to call it what it is. Others depend on what we write in this forum, and I certainly would not want a member to purchase a 603.970 based upon your unsubstantiated claims.

markg612 · #26 08-25-2006, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

You made this statement:

Then you made this statement:

The 603.970 is not an excellent engine. It has nothing to do with my experience or my opinion. There is ample evidence that the engine is designed poorly and suffers from bent connecting rods.

You make a claim that the propensity to bend rods is owner related. You offer no evidence whatsoever to support this conclusion when there is ample evidence to show that the failures are random.........happens to folks who use the vehicle for extensive highway runs.........happens to folks who hardly drive the vehicle.

So, as the moderator of the forum, I have an obligation to prevent dissemination of false information to other members. I'm sorry if it's personal for you, but, without some data to support your argument, I've got to call it what it is. Others depend on what we write in this forum, and I certainly would not want a member to purchase a 603.970 based upon your unsubstantiated claims.

--That is, IYHO.

Otherwise, your concern has been noted and point respectfully taken. I still disagree.