92 2.5L 300d w124 or 1984 3.0L 300d w123 ? HELP!!! - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Hip001 · #1 03-06-2011, 03:54 PM

I just wrecked my 1984 300d

I loved that old beast!

Looking to replace it and found a 92 & a 95 300d (2.5 w124). Can you guys give me some advice please??

What are the pro's and cons? of going to w124 or the w123 chasis?
I''ve had 2 w123 300d's and love the car but i admit i like the sleeker look of the w124. Are the 2.5L as durable as the 3.0L? are the injection pumps as robust? problem areas?
Thank you for any help or advice!!
Hip

Hip001 · #2 03-06-2011, 08:09 PM

bump

ashedd · #3 03-06-2011, 08:13 PM

I cannot comment about the two w124's BUT I like w124's over w123's. Night and day difference.

babymog · #4 03-06-2011, 09:58 PM

To me it's like an air-cooled beetle to a modern car.

The 123 is a great car, but the seating, handling, creature comforts, power, fuel mileage, etc. are all lacluster at best. A dependable and great looking car.

The 124 diesel is so much more refined; quieter, more powerful, more comfortable, safer, better handling, better mileage, less maintenance, more creature-comforts, it's hardly a comparison.

It comes down to two basic decisions:

Are you a 123 guy? If you love the sound and look of these cars, stick with them. There's no reason to change.

If you want something more but still a Mercedes diesel, the 124 can be an affordable step up. Which brings us to the next part of the decision, which is based on the condition and history of the 124. Is it in very good shape? If it's questionable, walk away. The cars are good solid low-maintenance cars if properly maintained during their last 20 or so years, but if not, ... read the forum and see what you can spend on any old-neglected Mercedes.

The '92 has the 2.5L 602 turbo which is every bit as dependable and robust as the 617. The '95 has the 3.0L 606 NA engine which is also as dependable, about the same performance unless you live at high altitudes. Either must be looked over to be sure that there isn't a maintenance problem lurking beneath.

Hip001 · #5 03-07-2011, 03:10 PM

Babymog,
Thank you so much for the reply! I had no idea that the 300d w124 had two different motors. I am/was very happy with the w123 but I do also appreciate the features of a modern car! Funny but I've owned two 1966 Beetles and loved them but now owning a 2001 Beetle TDI it would be hard to think of a 1966 Bug as a daily driver!
I think my decision will depend on what condition I can find my next car in. I did enjoy the mono-wiper on my 190 2.3 16v!! I think the w124 is similar, right?

I'm excited about my new quest for the right car!!

Oldwolf · #6 03-08-2011, 09:28 AM

I like my W124 2.5 Turbo. What questions do you have?

Hip001 · #7 03-08-2011, 12:47 PM

Is the 2.5L diesel as durable as the 3.0L? what years was the 2.5 produced and are parts harder to get?

Oldwolf · #8 03-08-2011, 01:20 PM

Lot's of good information here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_W124

Part's are easily obtained from internet sources. Reasonably priced imo.

Be sure to check out the engine links while you are in Wiki.

ashedd · #9 03-08-2011, 01:23 PM

The 2.5 is the om602 and is considered a modern replacement to the om617 that your old 300d had. Yes it is just as reliable/durable. And YES w124's have mono wipers. And YES the w124 is a nicer car than the w123. Go find one you like, drive it, and buy it. And YES babymog knows w124's like the back of his hand. Listen to EVERYTHING he says. YES

vstech · #10 03-08-2011, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hip001

Babymog,
Thank you so much for the reply! I had no idea that the 300d w124 had two different motors. I am/was very happy with the w123 but I do also appreciate the features of a modern car! Funny but I've owned two 1966 Beetles and loved them but now owning a 2001 Beetle TDI it would be hard to think of a 1966 Bug as a daily driver!
I think my decision will depend on what condition I can find my next car in. I did enjoy the mono-wiper on my 190 2.3 16v!! I think the w124 is similar, right?

I'm excited about my new quest for the right car!!

actually, the 124 300D is available in the US in 3 engines...
86-88 3.0L 603, 88-94 2.5L 602, 95 3.0L N/A 606 24valve engine...
the 95 has issues along with it's slightly underpowered due to the lack of turbo, but it's got the most fuel efficiency, and the nicest interior options, lights, hood, etc...
the 86/87 3.0 has the most power, but it's kinda plain interior, plasticky dash etc.
the 88-94 2.5L turbo is really nice...really decent power, and a decent set of options.

Hip001 · #11 03-09-2011, 02:14 PM

Thanks so much for your replies. I'm leaning toward a w124. Going to look at a 1995 today.

winmutt · #12 03-09-2011, 03:01 PM

95 is non turbo. Deal breaker for me. I think I like the 87's the best, most power, fewer things to go wrong. There is the head/gasket issue but the 2.5 has hg issues as well. The 2.5 is not so bad either but the EPA crap is a headache to say the least.

I am a sworn w124 convert now.

panZZer · #13 03-09-2011, 03:25 PM

96 has got the look.

babymog · #14 03-09-2011, 10:06 PM

I remember mistaking the '96 for a Toyota from the rear when it came out. Nice to drive, but the looks do nothing for me (plus the spring perch issues of the W210).

babyjames · #15 03-09-2011, 11:30 PM

I will never sell the 1983 W123 Euro. Everything else is just a car.

Jay.