You got that right! I loved my 84 Subie 4WD wagon, that thing was reliable as hell, got great MPG and was pretty easy to work on.

Who'd have thunk that wrapping some sheet metal around the cooling fins would have made the heater work so well

__________________
-justin

1987 300TD, 1987 300TD
2008 R32, 2000 Passat Wagon

You have to admit....having an engine setup that complex (or messy ) can be viewed as a DIY super-challenge!

Personally I am a technology addict...and if I had a detailed shop manual and some time I could probably do ok working on one....thats my guess.....if I can afford one I want to get a ML cdi at some point in the next 5-6 years....we'll see how they do in terms of reliability.

__________________
-diesel is not just a fuel, its a way of life-
'15 GLK250 Bluetec 118k - mine - (OC-123,800)
'17 Metris(VITO!) - 37k - wifes (OC-41k)
'09 Sprinter 3500 Winnebago View - 62k (OC - 67k)
'13 ML350 Bluetec - 95k - dad's (OC-98k)
'01 SL500 - 103k(km) - dad's (OC-110,000km)
'16 E400 4matic Sedan - 148k - Brothers (OC-155k)

Simple rule: Never, ever buy a car new enough to have a check engine light.

BTW, I wouldn't even consider buying a liquid cooled VW, porsche, or BMW motorcycle either.

I'm certainly not "afraid" of the technology. Personally, I build things that are more exacting than the CDI. And, I have no problem sucking it up and being cool with the fact that complication does not equal evil.

However, when it comes time to do the wrenching on the CDI, you've got to ask yourself a question? Who's going to do it? Do you really believe that you're up to that task? I can tell you that I'm not.

If you don't wrench on it, you're at the mercy of the dealer and it's going to cost you a small fortune.

Naturally, you can always lease it for three years and turn it in..........costs you about $20K for that privlege (not counting insurance).

I can take my OM616 turbo through water if I have to as long as I keep the intake and exhaust working, question is can that be done to an engine like CDI with all its complex array of electronics, we all know electronics and water are sworn enemies for life no matter what.

__________________
99 Gurkha with OM616 IDI turbo

2015 Gurkha with OM616 DI turbo

2014 Rexton W with OM612 VGT

The real issue is the modern engines have traded lots of complexity for gains in efficiency and emissions. As a result, I'm afraid that these cars will all be disposable. I can't imagine that it will be worth preserving one of these cars for 20 or 30 years. Even if the parts were available, the cost would be prohibitive. I'm just not interested in disposable cars.

The only way I would drive one of these is on a lease with a fixed residual, which is a horrible financial deal, and I certainly wouldn't want to own one past it's warrantee. Besides, I just don't think they are very interesting cars.

I definitely agree with the former.

But, on the latter, I must admit that they are quite interesting. To get 50% more power from a similar sized engine and provide better driveability and fuel economy is definitely interesting.

If I had nothing but time, I might consider getting sufficient knowledge to own one........but........that's highly unlikely.

They're probably OK, but they just don't interest me very much. For $60K I could buy about 4 much more interesting older cars.

You are looking at the cost and making the decision that they are uninteresting.

I submit that they are interesting vehicles from an engineering standpoint.

Whether we would purchase one for anywhere near the asking price is a completely different discussion.

Actually both; the cost is silly for a mid-level sedan, and I don't find them very interesting at any price.

I'm just not impressed by electronic engine controls, I'm just a mechanical type of guy. I'm certainly not interested in anything with air-bags, ABS, traction control, or (of course) a check engine light. I'll just keep driving the oldest car I can afford.

I still think that you're not impressed by them because you know the pain that you'll suffer if you have to fix 'em.

Sure that's part of it, but I just don't find electronic control designs very elegant.

Just for the sake of arguement let us look at the big picture, Mercedes has always been at the forefront of diesel technology, so roll your clock back 30 years, there was the 240D manual, as simple and primitive as it gets, now compare the 240D to a 98/99 turbodiesel, more power more performance with an order of magnitude more complexity.
Now compare the 98/99 turbo to a current CDI, side by side with hoods open the E300 looks almost as primitive as a 240D next to the CDI, again an order of magnitude more complexity.
I am not against progress but this level of complexity combined with Mercedes' miserable reliability history makes the CDI a 100K/warranty period car. For me paying $60K for 100K miles service is a bit too much, soooo, thanks but no thanks.

Vahe
240D 77 350K
E320 97 73K

I'm pretty sure that if I were to so much as try and pull an injector on that engine (on which I couldn't even see the rail or the injectors) I'd have a record number of bolts and nuts left over after reassembly .

__________________
1982 300TD 210K miles ("The Replacement" aka "The Anvil") - SOLD
1979 300SD 245K miles (never ending project)
2007 Pinarello F3:13
1995 Ducati 916 (SOLD, sniff)
1999 Ducati 900SSie (SOLD)

While I agree with the conclusion, your numbers are a little simplistic. After 100K miles, this car will have some residual value, maybe $15-20K, so the actual cost of depreciation is more like $.40/mile. Assume about $5K more for maintenance over 100K miles, and a fuel cost of about $.07 gets you to a total of about $.50 or .55/mile. The other question is if you want to tie up $60K of capital in a car, that's not a good investment. If you can't pay cash, it's an even worse investment.

I can drive my 300D indefinitely for about $.25 or .30 mile and I could probably run one into the ground for about $.15/mile. I could also drive some late model ricer POS for about $.15/mile.