i am in the market for a car now and need a little advice.
i dont want to go newer than 1992.
ive seen a few 1987 300td that are 6cyl. i think it was the last year for these. they look real tempting, but im not sure of how strong they are or how easy they are to work on.
the 123's with the 5cyl i know are almost bulletproof but its hard to find a real nice 1 w/o rust [ im in the east rust belt]
the 350sd/sdl dont know anything about that engine
the 300sd/sdl i think that is the 5cyl like the 123's
also any comments on the rest of the car would be welcome

1 last note i will be running WVO in the new car just like i do with my 240 [7,000 miles all is well ]
thanks in advance

__________________
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u116/OC03/240d.jpg
Current Car:
1985 300DT 55K miles

5-cylinder.

Are you looking for a wagon, correct when you say td? Or do you mean turbo diesel?? '87 was the only year for the diesel W124 6 cylinder wagons, so they command a premium. Super high quality cars, long lasting and easy to work on. (But watch out for the "Biodegradable" wiring harnesses and the air conditioning systems).

They are not hard to work on , but the W123's are easier.

Very true, the W123 cars are not as well rustproofed as the W124 cars, so get a rustfree W123 to start. Oregon, California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas are good places to find them, but the desert cars can have cooked paint and interiors, and sandstorms can sand blast them.

Check under the wheel arches, carpets, and trunk mat, around the jack points and around the bottoms of the front and rear windows, and everywhere else you can, for rust.

Check the vacuum locking, instrument panel lights, airconditioning system (and self leveling system if it's a wagon) for sure.

If you like to turn a wrench, these are good cars to work on. You'll be very pleasantly surprised at how much they are engineered to make working on them a pleasure for the mechanic. Changing break pads are a snap, for starters. They will run to star trek mileages, body integrity in the end is what could put them off the road...look for a nice, tight, unrusted one.

AVOID these!! They are the infamous Rod Bender engines with the sunlight seeking connecting rods. They have a basically incurable enginering/design flaw. Search the words "ROD BENDER" for more information, in the archives.
A few people have owned good ones with no problems, but many, many people have not. A pity, because the 1990-1991 was the last and best of the W126 body cars.

NO, the 300SD is a 5 cylinder car only from 1981 through 1985. The 300SD and 300SDL
are the W126 cars with the 6 cylinder engine, sold in the US in 1986 and 1987 only. Buying tips for that chassis can be found in the "Buyer's Guide" at www.mbcoupes.com. I co-wrote that back in 1999, so it is dated now, and was directed more for the SEC coupes
but it is still worth a look for its relevance to the W126 chassis.

The W123 and W124 and W126 diesels (except the Rod Benders) are wonderful cars, assembled to the highest Mercedes standards and with the greatest of care.

Get a good one and in the best possible condition possible, rather than a cheap fixer. Service records and stamped books are a huge plus. The W123 cars are the easiest to work on, but they won't have ABS and airbags like some of the later ones will. Obtaining parts for any of them will not be a problem.

Avoid Lovecraft conversions and single tank setups, seems to go the wisdom around here.

__________________
1991 560 SEC AMG, 199k <---- 300 hp 10:1 ECE euro HV ...

1995 E 420, 170k "The Red Plum" (sold)

2015 BMW 535i xdrive awd Stage 1 DINAN, 6k, <----364 hp

1967 Mercury Cougar, 49k

2013 Jaguar XF, 20k <----340 hp Supercharged, All Wheel Drive (sold)

W124's were not up to MB's highest standards as the W123's by any means.

__________________
DJ


84 300D Turbodiesel 190K with 4 speed manual sold in 03/2012

Highest standards? What are these "standards"? I would hate to think MB didn't put their all into a $50,000 flagship model....

As far as WVO goes, I would look at the w123. 617 motors are bulletproof and the IP seems to be more robust.

It depends on what you want. The 123 body (300D through '85) is an antique, and it drives like one. Very robust cars, their lack of some of the later features and amenities make it more simple and robust, a little easier to work on but requires valve adjustments etc. like many antiques will.

The 124 body (300D '86-'95) are a stiffer and more responsive chassis & body, more modern handling and safety features, better seats, zinc dipped to prevent rust, and much better power. Yes, this additional refinement came with additional complexity which if neglected can cost money and time to sort out. A good one is very dependable and low-maintenance, a matter of taste.

The 6-cylinder 300D turbo was available in '86/'87 had the 603 turbodiesel engine, and if tuned properly will burn rubber on dry pavement, runs 0-60 around 9seconds and top-speed around 130mph stock.

The 5-cylinder 300D 2.5turbo is the '90-'93 car is the 602 engine, essentially the 603 engine minus one cylinder. A very good performer also but not quite the power of the '87. Surprisingly the 5cyl and 6cyl seem to get similar fuel mileage on the highway, low to mid 30s.

__________________

Gone to the dark side

- Jeff

The 124 was not their flagship model, the 126 was.

__________________
DJ


84 300D Turbodiesel 190K with 4 speed manual sold in 03/2012

Have you ever worked for MB? You seem to know a lot about marketing and quality control. Let me in on the inside scoop

No, just owned examples of both 123 and 124 models.

__________________
DJ


84 300D Turbodiesel 190K with 4 speed manual sold in 03/2012

wow thanks to all , i'm learning alot
and i am looking for a turbo sedan 300dt. something that my 240 isn't, you know like able to cruise at 80+mph, pass cars, gain speed up an incline. you get the picture lol
i still like my 240 alot don't get me wrong i just cant take long trips w/family or business trips, strictly an around town car

__________________
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u116/OC03/240d.jpg
Current Car:
1985 300DT 55K miles

yay! 123 elitism!

to the OP, I say get a 124! Yes it's a little harder to work on if you're used to a 123, but the 123 is *easy* to work on so it's an unfair comparison.

try a search and check out the countless threads on this very subject, lots of lively debate (yes and even some 123 elitism )

__________________
-justin

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

Having had a long term relationship with both models, I have formed a few opinions.....

I've owned at least one W115 or W123 diesel with the OM61X family engine for almost twenty years.

I owned a 87 300TD with the OM603 engine for 13 years, and currently have a 87 300D with the OM603.

It's a natural inclination for a person to champion the style of vehicle they own. For each diesel owner, the particular characteristics of the car, and the circumstances of ownership, fit the individual. But... what's right for me may not be right for you, and fortunately we live in a land with choices....

General percieved thruthisms:

1. A W123 is a simpler car.

Well, yeah it is. If for nothing else other than it can be had as a hair shirt version if you choose the 240D with a manual trans and no options. Again, depends upon what level of comfort you are looking for.

2. A W123 is a better built car.

In what sense? Many owners of W114/W115 cars looked at the arrival of the W123 as the end of MB quality. Each successive version is cast as being inferior to the (beloved) previous one. The W124 brings to the table more modern assembly and material ideas, but is that neccessarily bad? W124s are now 21 years old, and I'll hazrd an opinion that they have proven to be pretty durable cars.

3. The OM617 is a better engine than a OM603.

Again, in what sense? In terms of being able to neglect it and the engine keeps on running, well that's pretty easy to determine. But pit a well maintained engine of either stripe against each other and you see that the 603 is smoother, faster, and gets better mileage. Both engines have adequately demostrated an ability to go the distance, with the OM603 being more sensitive to abuse.

4. The W124 handles better than a W123.

Really, there is no comparision. Just as the W114/W115 was light years ahead of the swing axle, kingpin cars of the 50s-60s, the W124 suspension is positively sublime. The W123 was great in it's day, but it's maturity is obvious when driving the two chassis back to back.

5. The W124 is harder to work on than the W123.

Again, simplicity is the W123's advantage. I've been working on my W124s for over fifteen years now, and I'm quite comfortable doing so, just as I am on my older MBs. It's not intimidating, you still have the typical MB logic and pattern of design. Just a few more creature and safety comforts.

Summary:

Personal preference is key, buy what you feel comfortable in. But almost as important is the particular car you find. W123s are as old as 30 years, W124s are slightly over 20. Condition is key when playing in this age bracket. These cars have the potential for long lives, but by 30 and 20 years, most of the 9 lives have been used up.

There are decent survival rates because of the cars inherent robustness, but the quest for a top ten percenter W124 300TD is going to be hard and/or expensive. There were very few imported, and even fewer that have had continous good care. It's very easy to get a turkey, and you should be well versed in the weak areas of the OM603 before going to look at one.

MB imported many more varieties and years of the W123, which makes a search for this model much easier. BUT, you're dealing with a car that is essentially 10 years older than the W124, and has many of it's own little pecadillos which you need to be aware of. Finding a W123 with full documentation and no deferred maintenance is rare, and expensive when you do come across one.

I love my W123 turbo diesel, my wife absolutely adored her W124 turbo diesel wagon. If youre intimidated by the more complex W124, go to the W123. But drive an example of each before making a decision, only then will be able to make your own choice as to which car is best suited for you! Neither is a bad choice.

Coda: Another choice I have not mentioned is the 81-85 300SD. I had one last year and I liked it better than the W123. Essentially the same mileage, with a lot of the W124 comfort features, similar suspension to the W123, and they were big money when new, so consequently seem to show up in better condition than the W123 cars.

Just my opinions, and like certain body parts, everybody has one.....

Jim

__________________
14 E250 BlueTEC black. 45k miles
95 E320 Cabriolet Emerald green 66k miles
94 E320 Cabriolet Emerald green 152k miles
85 300TD 4 spd man, euro bumpers and lights, 15" Pentas dark blue 274k miles

oh 1 more car i forgot about is the 190D with the 2.2L engine. it seems to be almost as big as the 87 300D, but i'm sure not as fast.
i have been looking around me for a good car but i'm not having any luck.

__________________
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u116/OC03/240d.jpg
Current Car:
1985 300DT 55K miles

No the W124 was the bread and butter model, 300D was the cheapest of said series.

MB's flagship of the period was the 560SEL/SEC followed closely by the 560SL.

Get the 87 unless you really like W123's, they are a bit tight inside for my taste. Drive nicely though.

__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

before 84/85 you don't have to worry about the complex temp control system. Are you looking for simple to fix or fancy to impress your friends. the 5 cly is the best engine same power with one less cly to worry about but in smaller bodies. Do not buy anything latter than 90, too complex, materials not as good. with MB, the older the better.