I prefer the pre-85 cars, with the 617/5 cyl. all-iron engine. MUCH more durable and idiot-proof. The SD's all had turbos, and I think the TD got a turbo in 81, and the D got one in 82. Someone correct me if that's wrong. The turbocharged engines always had better mileage than the non-turbo.

If you do get a car with the 603 with the aluminum head, don't EVER run it hot!!! You'll be sorry...

Let us know what you end up with! :)
Mike

Mike, I completely share your sentiments. Iron is our friend :D, and no matter what the die-hard GM guys are trying to tout about the "advantages" of aluminum heads in the new Isuzu engine that Chevy's using, I won't have anything other than cast iron for a cylinder head.

And I'll definitely let you guys know what I get...you certainly haven't seen the last of me. :) I haven't posted all that much (relatively speaking), but I try to get here every day...in fact, after Ford-Diesel.com (I'm first and foremost a trucker at heart), this is my second stop on my daily online routine. These forums, in general, are one of the best creations one could imagine. Before the Internet, there's just about no way you could have gotten this level of resourcefulness...if I hadn't found this site, I'd probably still not know the difference between a 300D and a 300SD *lol*

I can't speak to the SD but I can give you some general advice on the '85 TD turbo vs. '87 D-Turbo. They are really very different cars. For pure reliability go with the earlier iron head cars. They may have little niggling maintenance items but will almost never leave you stranded at the side of the road. Our wagon has hauled all sorts of stuff and we love it. (incidently, you can install a cheapo third seat - just look in Hemmings for ads....it works just fine) The only knock I have on the wagon is it is a bit noisy at highway speed and if you're doing the hills of S.F. much you'll find it marginally light on power too. Here is where the '87 comes into its own. It is a much more modern body design, quiet and smooth compared to the earlier car, with power to spare. Sometimes I forget I'm driving a diesel. However the tradeoff is reliability. While not a big difference, I do think the later engine is more complicated and needs a bit more attention to maintenance. Plus, I find the engine compartment on the later car has lots more plastic parts that seem to break as they get older. Not major stuff generally, but annoying and not as solid a feel as the '85 and earlier cars. Also, the '87 has loads more fancy options that are great when they work but still lend this feeling of lacking the bullet proof simplicity. One plus, though of the '87 is slightly better fuel mileage (appx. 25-26 mpg vs. 24 mpg on the wagon) and a slightly bigger tank that allows for 400 mile range...useful here in CA. where it pays to be able to wait to fill up at the cheaper stations. You might do slightly better 'cause I have a bit of a lead foot but I doubt you'll see 30 mpg on either of these.
Whatever you choose, spend some time looking for the right car and buy the best example you can afford. A little more $$ up front for a better car, in my experience, almost always pays off in the long run. I think all 3 of your choices are potential winners. Good luck!

I bought an '84 SD last June that the previuos owner had just put a brand new motor in, as well as had the front end rebuilt. I heard he put about 7Grand in the car, then found something newer he traded it in for. Anyway, I picked it up for $6500.00, and have put about another $1000 since. I get a pretty consistant 26 mpg, with combined city & hiway driving, with about 20,000 miles on the engine.
LOVE THE CAR!!!!!!!!!!!:D :D It's an awesome hiway car, but I enjoy it around town too. Has enough power to keep up with traffic, ect. And ya look sharp driving the thing to the relatives;)

Sheesh, about two years ago when I first got into diesels there was this white 1981 300SD near my friends house. 310K miles, but he had a BRAND NEW mercedes engine and tranny put in it, front end work, and then some. Something like $12,000 worth of work from the local benz dealer.

The interior was pretty beat but I am kicking myself because I could have bought that car for $2500 with a 5,000 mile old drivetrain in it. DAMN DAMN DAMN.

if you ever are in Cincinnati, you are welcome to try my cars. I have an '83 300D and an '87 560SEL (granted not a diesel, but at least you get a feel for the 126 body. From a handling standpoint, the 123 beats the 126. of course the 126 has a 120 inch wheelbase and weighs about 600-800 lbs more than the 123. Plenty of room in a 123, just not much rear legroom if you move the front seats back too much. Wife wanted me to get those little diplomatic flags for the fenders when I got the 126. Said it was so big it looked like an embassy car. Wagon and 126 have the fancy rear $uspension. I keep telling my kids I ought to rig up something to take advantage of the hydralics and make the rear jump. They tell me they can't wait to move out! 300 gets 23-24 mpg summer and a bit less in winter. Steady 65mph cruise on speedway would probably yield better, but I don't get much chance for that. It also gets less now that high school daughter is its daily driver. (should be better since it is now sound propelled). For my money and what you want to do with it, get the 123. Cheap, solid, tons of parts available at the salvage yards, just be sure the timing has less than 100k miles on it no matter which diesel (or any Benz) you get.

Not in my eyes! IMHO, the 126 is a superior handling car to the 123.

if you want a great ride and more luxury items go with the SD ..if you want nimbleness and speed go with the 300D....I think they are both pretty realiable....but getting used to the SD in regards to acceleration can be an issue ...especially if you live in a warmer climate where you will need the AC most of the time and you carry passengers/cargo often


Warren
1992 300SD
Columbus Ohiohttp://images.prosperpoint.com/images/1628/82440-5.jpg

A 300 by any other name
 

Hello:

I have a 300CD and I love it. Just a little hard to get a few interior and chassis parts. Not as common as the 300D.

Personally, as I window shop for a new (used) 300, I am really attracted to the 300SD with the 116 body type. Very Nice. My second choice is the 123 body style. I still haven't quite warmed up to the 126 style, but I am getting there.

Perhaps some of the 126 owners can give me a quick compare and contrast btn the 123 and 126.

I keep searching the forum to find the best year for the 300s with out luck. Maybe someone can throw that opinion in this thread.

Good luck in your search. Be critical, cause there are lots of these sweet babies around.

About mpg's.
 

I wan't enter into the discussion: for me it is the W124-300TD(turbo)!
I drove a W140 420SEL for some thousands of miles and I would like
to drive it forever but the MB guys made it impossible with really absurd
bill's!!
So only some numbers-mpg's:
best untill now: 27 mpg (I try for 29 mpg without changing into a granny);
worst : 25mpg ( I DON't try to get worse!);
normally steady at 26.5 till 27
This in all kinds of traffic, AC on and only partly loaded.
Hopes this helps you!
Danny M.

300td vs sd vs d!
 

There aren't as many 300tds out there as 300ds and 126 body SDs, so some wagon-specific parts can be pricey. The previously mentioned rear-end is the biggest possible money problem. I've had no problems with mine in the brief time I've owned it, and intend to keep it regularly maintained to insure future reliability. Like the 300CD, there are a lot of parts common to all 123 body cars, but there are others (some interior pieces and exterior trim and rear lights) that are coupe or wagon specific and a bit more costly and hard to find used.

I love the way the tds look, though and often get compliments about ours despite the fact that it's not 'pristine'.

For highway driving, the td beats our other vehicles (a Nissan pickup and a Toyota Camry wagon) hands down. It's louder (engine and wind noise) than the Camry but feels like it's locked to the road. Actually, I'd rather drive the td over any of the other vehicles...though I love my truck.

We don't have the 3rd seat in the MB but the Camry does and I wouldn't want to spend any more time than absolutely necessary back there. It's fine for kids (and they love riding in the back!) but unless you're out to alienate a friend (or inlaws), it's no place to put a someone for long.

I'm trying to decide on getting another 123 diesel (most likely a sedan) or 126SD to replace the Camry. I've driven an SD and liked it quite a bit, but don't like the looks as much as the 123 cars. My wife, however, is lobbying for the SD. We'll see...

Good luck...I don't think you'll go wrong no matter what. Maybe your best strategy is to go for the best deal. Apparently, there are fans in all three camps!

Joel

I really like my 300SD for a daily driver. I drive between two towns and drive about 5 miles in each town then 30 miles on the highway between them. Am getting about 24mpg with the A/C running (most of the year in Oklahoma/Kansas). The ride is very smooth. And diesel is much cheaper than gasoline around here.

I also like the handling. It certainly does not corner like the Jaguar, but once the turbo kicks in the 300SD really accelerates out of the turn. Not at all like the Cadillac, which is plenty fast and smooth but takes time to get up to speed.

Regarding the all iron engines, unquestionably a great idea. Jaguar have gone to an all-aluminum engine since 1998 (and a V-8 replaces the straight 6 configuration). Time will tell if this lasts as long as an all-iron engine. The aluminum head Jaguar is the only car I have had to replace the head gasket in (which was the reason I decided to buy the 5-cylinder Mercedes).

Well, guys I own one of those rod benders as you call them. 350 sdl. I will say this you are right the original engine sucked, but the 2nd generation is much different. I have to say if they had put out the 2nd generation engine in the car to start with you would not have a discussion with the 3.5 l; the long body, hp and torque are incredible and I average 29.6 mpg. That being said I must say that more than 95% of my driving is on the highway at 80 mph cruise. I will not attest to the city as I cannnot honestly even commment. I find this car to be the perfect marriage between power and efficiancy. Just my .02 worth.

Best Regards

Only an opinion
 

I have a 124 300 TD 1987 and a 1991 125 560 SEL.
The self leveling suspension is a non issue for most. As for the head, make sure the the cooling system is i good order ie make sure that the radiator neck isn't cracked and don't let it overheat. Insidence ofHead failure on the 603.96 is very law.

The 124 with all new bushings, steering samper, and new Michelins handles like a F1 car compaired to either the 126 or 123. The 140+ HP is very responsive. The 123's have a timeless quality.
Depends on what you prefer.

All of these cars are worthy. Get a good example and you will be happy with either.

Only my opinion.

lion