should I go with the w124 5 cyclinder diesel or the w123 5 cyclinder diesel
 

I was wanting to see what everyone had to say about the w124 5 cyclinder turbo diesel and the w123 5 cyclinder turbo diesel......
which one will last longer if equally taken care of and which one cheaper to drive and maintain???????
also which car has better resale ........the w123??? i have contemplating selling my extremely nice w124 for a very nice w123. :confused:

any thoughts..........:confused::confused:
thanks for reading and any info.

W123 is cheaper to maintain. Better resale is probably W123 as it hit bottom a long time ago. W123 will certainly last longer.

Take the opportunity
 

to drive a 300D for a couple of days...The two are like Night and Day.

2nd that!

The 123 is like a fancy version of a go-kart compared to the 124. It's no where near as smooth or modern feeling of a ride.

But go-karts are a fun ride. More people are willing to pay $10 for a 5 minute ride in a go-kart than in an ordinary car;) Just two different worlds.

It continues to amaze me how anybody that has spent time behind the wheel of a W124 could even consider going back to a W123.

To answer your other question the I have way over 200K miles of direct of direct ownership experiences in both the OM602 and the OM617 series of engines. Based upon my experiences the OM602 is superior in EVERY way (including long term reliability) to an OM617.

I like the w124 five cylinder turbo diesel car alot but own/drive a non turbo
'81 300D.

The OM602 in a 124 is quite rare. I believe only @12,000 were imported to the US. The 602 is a superb motor and IMHO the only one that is generally as 'bulletproof' as the 616/617. The 124.128 300D 2.5 (90-93) are great cars.

Unfortunately, the majority of diesels in the 124 class are the 603.96x head-crackers and the 603.97x rod benders.

Also, if you drive a 123 with a good tight suspension you'll find there is little difference between it and a 124. The only real difference I've noticed is the 124 takes potholes a little quieter, but not much.

Keep in mind that the average 123 is about 5-10 years older than the average 124. But the 123 with a stock suspension in good shape is an excellent handling car with superb low and high speed handling and braking at 80+ mph. What little difference one may perceive in handling is not worth playing russian roulette with a motor and your wallet.

The only real difference I've seen in handling between the 123 and 124 is in the wagons. The 124 wagon is much nicer, not so much as quieter, but smoother.

The 60x engines in the W124 cars are smoother, quieter, and more powerful than the 61x engines in the W123 cars. In a 123, the noise and vibration never lets you forget that you're in a diesel (and some people like it that way).

As an owner of a 123 and a 124 (and a 210), I find it interesting that I'm selling my 123 and keeping the 124, even though the 123 is in better shape and worth more.

I'd like to keep the 123 just for fun but don't have storage space for three cars and hate to leave one car out in the weather. The 124 is so much more enjoyable to drive.

Jeremy

my two cents....I have a '85 190d 2.2...like the size and it is simple 178k miles...

Car#2 is my '87 300TD that has been my daily driver for two years, 286k miles....oil&filter changes...and front brakes...

Car#3 is '99 300TD that I have had for one week, 179k...I like the refinements, but it handles like my old SHO ('86 & '93 Fords)....the power steering is very light and the car just does not feel as solid and heavy as the '87....I'm I nuts or what???? I think I like driving the the '87 better than the '99 and that is why I drove it to work today...

Speedster,

Having had an excellent '82 123 for many years and now an excellent '92 124 2.5 for three, I concur with the majority that the 124 is in every way a superior automobile. Aside from the age (because both of mine were fully reconditioned) the 124 is a quieter, smoother, faster, safer (anti-lock brakes and airbag) automobile. There are many reasons but certainly superior sound insulation--remember the 123 doesn't even have underbody encapsulation--and much taller gearing contribute greatly.

Now I'll admit that there are a few interior finishes in the 123 that are more durable; the ceiling liner and pillar covers come to mind. And I will admit that I prefer the rounded lines of the 123 over the "squarer" 124 style, but for a daily driver there is really no comparison.

Small flaws in my cars bother me so I would only get a 123 if money was no object and I had all the time in the world for a full off-frame restoration. How many of those hose connections are you really willing to chase down and how many components are you willing to have crumble in your hands? Think about all those vacuum controlled air pots behind the dash and that heat-activated floor insulation beneath the carpet that requires several hundred degrees to fuse to the chassis and those water ducts in every corner pillar of the roof that are prone to rust through, etc. etc.

Good luck, and let us know your decision please.

One huge benefit to the w123 as I see it:
Parts are cheap and plentiful if you're willing to look.

A w124 rides nicer, it's true (even after doing much of the suspension work in my '84 300D), but if you find a good example of an older 300D turbo, it's got a ton of personality. A w124 feels like driving a Lexus (or any of the other manufacturers that borrowed liberally from the w124 line) to me.

if fuel mileage is a concern, go with the w124. I own both and despite the 2.88 rear and a manual transmission in the w123, it gets 27 mpg which is much less than the 33 mpg the '92 puts out.