So got a quick question I wanted to put out there about Mercedes diesels. I lived overseas for a couple years and owned a 1997 mercedes diesel wagon...I really loved the car. I have also driven older diesel 190s, 300s, etc. and just love the experience of driving these cars. I guess I caught the bug

Needless to say, I am now really missing having a Mercedes diesel. At this point I am considering buying a 1987 wagon turbodiesel or a 1996-1999 diesel E300 sedan (turbo-diesel, non-CDI). I realize a wagon is a different animal from a sedan...and understand the pluses of having a wagon. Essentially though I want a car that will be easier/cheaper to maintain, more reliable/durable, as well as one decent for towing, and not bad for snow (assuming I have snow tires, and yes, I realize I am talking about a mercedes here), and suitable for biodiesel/alternatives fuels.

Any thoughts/hunches?

Among US models, only the 98-99 E300s have a turbo. IIRC, '99s have rear side airbags.

Than what? Do you plan to maintain it yourself or pay someone to maintain and repair it?

Than what?

Towing what? From what I've read, hitches available in the US for MBs leave much to be desired.

I get lost with the new terms but there's a basic level of traction control with all 210s and an optional enhancement. You probably want all the bells and whistles since 4Matic Diesels weren't available in the US in those years. I don't think any form of traction control was available in US 300TDs. 210s are notorious for losing front upper spring perches to corrosion. It's not difficult for a body shop to weld in new perches as body shop work goes. Check carefully any candidates even ones that haven't seen salt. It's not a deal breaker but make sure what you pay reflects the condition of the perches.

Prepping the car for commercial biodiesel should take all of replacing rubber parts in the fuel system with viton or whatever material stands up to biodiesel. If alternative fuels includes WVO, I'll say nothing since I can't say anything nice

Sixto
83 300SD

Actually, prepping the car for WVO only requires driving to a scrap yard and parking it in the crusher.

__________________
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/l...aman/Fleet.jpg

Peach Parts W124.128 User Group.

80 280SL
85 300SD
87 300TD
92 300D 2.5 Turbo
92 300TE 4Matic

1987 and 1996-1997 have the same HP on paper but '96-'97 are NA and lack the "immediacy" of the turbo '87. They are decent performers if you keep your foot in it.

The '98-'99 are beasts in comparison. Only about 22 more HP on paper but much more rush.

'87 is W124, a car many people consider the last "true" Mercedes, built to an engineering spec. rather than to a budget. I have a '98 and have no complaints about performance or build quality.

__________________
-Evan


Benz Fleet:
1968 UNIMOG 404.114
1998 E300
2008 E63


Non-Benz Fleet:
1992 Aerostar
1993 MR2
2000 F250

Having only owned N/A MBz deisels, I can say that the N/A cars are very similar to the older 5 cyl turbo cars in terms of acceleration. The 98-99 will be much snappier.

Given the mileage of the older 124s and even 210's, you really ought consider a CDI 05-06. It may in fact give you a lower cost of ownership due to mileage. And they make the turbo 606s feel like slugs.

BTW, even though the motor lost a vacuum pump eventually ( due to low oil ), when I pulled the head off a '95 606 that had been run on B100 from 225-255K, we couldn't believe how clean everything was inside. BioDiesel is excellent stuff. Can't comment on WVO, as our feedstock comes from many chicken wing joints ( hence WINGAS) and I wouldn't run it without "brewing" it.

All the rubber O rings will eventually fail. So buy a complete Viton O ring set. ( does Jim still sell these??) The only PITA is the IP DV seals, as you have to be uber careful, like surgically careful doing that.

If you're stritctly choosing between 97 and 87, go for the 97. I own both, the 97 is easier to work on and cheaper to maintain. Yes the 87 is quicker but its also my project car. I keep it around to tinker with and modify. The 97 has much better ergonomics, larger interior, quieter, better climate control, its an improvement in almost every way. The downside to the W210 is lack of power (theres a lot of little things you can do to make the car quicker), more prone to rust and some interior bits feel cheap. If you can live with those, go for the W210.

__________________
CENSORED due to not family friendly words

I made a slight error, it was a 98 which I had overseas. Damn things are so plentiful in Germany, but in the US cant get your hands on one. Definitely not a wagon

I would like to do as much work as possible on the car myself...its not important for me to have a turbo-diesel 202...diesel is just fine, and performance is not the most important thing for me, just as long as I can tow a thousand pounds or so fairly easily without any serious problem with power (towing my small boat around). Is fuel economy [relatively] equal on a 202 diesel and the 1987 turbo wagon?

Other options I looked into were the 1994-1995 W124 which a friend of mine owns and loves. So that is also in the running I guess, since their economy is slightly better than than pre-1994 diesels, and probably close to the 202, but with the added plus of having a "solid" body.

Anyhow, I saw one 1987 Turbo in the classifieds and it seems the guy took pretty decent care of it...needs back ball bearings, but other than that seems good...the wagon factor is the wow factor for me, since we dont have diesel wagons stateside

As far as body type, not sure if both the 124 and 202 are uni-body, but I am thinking the wagon is probably slightly better for towing because of body shape and the rear hydraulic suspension, but then again worse in the snow because it is elongated, which on a RWD could increase the change of slipping on ice snow a bit more. And over course the rear hydraulic suspension on a wagon could be a pain to fix ($$$) if something goes wrong...something I understand sedans dont have.

The 87 300TD is a good car. If you can find a good example, I would get it, unless you are willing to go to a 2005/6 CDI.
I live in the midwest, and every single 210 i looked at had rust. They may be an option down south, but not worth considering in the rust belt.
The 211 seems much better protected from corrosion. It is just a bonus to get the mileage, power, and safety features.

__________________
1959 Gravely LI, 1963 Gravely L8, 1973 Gravely C12
1982 380SL
1978 450 SEL 6.9 euro restoration at 63% and climbing
1987 300 D
2005 CDI European Delivery
2006 CDI Handed down to daughter
2007 GL CDI. Wifes

I owned an '87 300TDT. Very nice car. The problem you will have is finding one in decent condition and with acceptable mileage. And price, did I mention price? These cars are highly sought after.

I also had a '99 E320 wagon from new. I keep reading here that the W210 was "great", but no, it wasn't. It may be that I live where there's lots of snow and road salt. I see that most of the W210 boosters are in warm weather places. The Diesels obviously have a different motor, but the motor was never a problem with my car. It was the body, a/c, electrical wiring, window lifters, chassis mechanicals, electronic transmission control, etc. I wouldn't touch another one. Not if it was given to me.

well to tell you the truth, while abroad I actually was living in north italy, where snow wasn't a factor...so yeah, maybe I should be carefully since I'm certainly in the rust belt. Come to mention it I only had the car for a year or so, but it also had some issues with power windows, electronics.

What would "acceptable" mileage be on a 1987 Turbo? Also, price, if condition is good and mileage is acceptable? Yeah, definitely dont like cars with too much computerized stuff in them. Need a good car, with a good trani, and good durable motor. The simpler the maintence and service, and the cheaper the parts, the better.

For a 124 I would look at condition more than mileage, but there are still ones with 200,000 - 250,000 to be had. I sold mine with 266.000 on it last year.
Look for one that was loved by an owner for a long time, not one that was bought for "alternative fuels"

__________________
1959 Gravely LI, 1963 Gravely L8, 1973 Gravely C12
1982 380SL
1978 450 SEL 6.9 euro restoration at 63% and climbing
1987 300 D
2005 CDI European Delivery
2006 CDI Handed down to daughter
2007 GL CDI. Wifes

I wouldn't fool w/ a WVO conversion today, since bio-diesel fuels that are fully compatible w/ existing engines are coming out. For a year we have been able to buy "Diesel HPR" in CA, at 10c/gal cheaper than regular D2.

Parts cost equates with how many you see in the junkyards. My 1985 300D parts used to be outrageous, but now I see them in the junkyards regularly, as well as a few later M-B diesels starting to show up.

__________________
1984 & 1985 CA 300D's
1964 & 65 Mopar's - Valiant, Dart, Newport
1996 & 2002 Chrysler minivans

hmmm...well there is this 1987 turbo which apparently has 250k on it which I am considering taking the trek to go and see. Not outrageously far, if it is something to consider. Guy said he took care of it very well...

If the 1996/1997 diesel is complete junk, then of course I would consider this car. Like I said, I had a 1998 Turbo for a short period of time, and I liked it. But again, rain/snow/salt were not a big factor when I owned it. And I did hear from people that the same car in a rougher climate would not fare too well in the long run.

As far as fuel economy, are we talking a big difference between 87 turbo and 96/7 diesel sedan? And how about a 1994, 1995 W124 series (sedan). Are they also worth a look?

From my experience with both a 1987 300D Turbo and a 1996 E300D (not turbo), the 1996 has slightly better fuel economy. The 1996 car, as a W210, is more electronic and needs an OBD-II reader so you can figure out and reset trouble codes should they pop up. My '96 has been rather boringly trouble-free even though it is now over 300,000 miles. It has spent its entire life garaged in the West and so has no rust.

The 1987 300D Turbo is a W124 and is less electronic and hence a little easier to work on without fancy electronic diagnostic tools. That doesn't necessarily mean it's better than the later W210s, just different. A lot depends on whether you like to do your own work, tinker with the car, etc. W124s are more "tinkerable" than W210s but W210s are probably a little more reliable. That statement, however, is very much dependent on the care the car has received in the past.

I recommend buying the car with the best service records and the fewest current things that need fixing. My rule is that for every problem admitted by the seller there's another one they "forgot" to disclose. My '96 E300D was bought at 250,000 miles with a complete set of service records going all the way back to mile #1. OTOH, my '95 E300D came with almost no service records but I got it from a fellow enthusiast who knew the car and who I trusted. Both cars have been great—the 1995 for 3+ years and the 1996 for 8 years. The 1995 is, of course, basically a "newer" 1987.

Jeremy

__________________

"Buster" in the '95

Our all-Diesel family
1996 E300D (W210) . .338,000 miles Wife's car
2005 E320 CDI . . 113,000 miles My car
Santa Rosa population 176,762 (2022)
Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 627,762
"Oh lord won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz."
-- Janis Joplin, October 1, 1970

You're signature doesn't say where you are in the rust belt. That info might help a member direct you to a potential car.

__________________
'89 260e (212K Mi.), '92 400e (208K Mi.), '92 400e (not a misprint) (146K Mi.), '95 C220, '81 240D--Sold