Looking at Getting a W124. Which Has the Best Highway MPG? - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

babymog · #16 02-26-2016, 10:07 AM

Best mileage, '87 190D 2.5 5-speed (EPA rated 37mpg). Turbo not far behind (34mpg), but only automatic. Both rare. The 201 body cars are great on your wallet in maintenance also, lots of used parts available, good build quality, solid chassis, easy to maintain, and reasonably simple. Watch for jack-hole and rocker rust on these, and the early 602 head had some cracking issues, solved by the newer castings in the '90s.

If you are tall, or carry back-seat passengers regularly, I would bypass the 201 series, regardless of its good qualities. I made it work for a couple of years as a daily, but often needed more space or more comfort and left it home.

The bigger brother was the 124, available with gasoline engines in the 300E & 260E, the rare 5-speed was decent on fuel, but not as good as the '94/'95 E320 (M104) which got much better mileage and much better power, and many creature comfort improvements. I found that these M104s start to become maintenance hungry when they get older. Mine always returned upper 20s on the highway, as good as my '87 300TD wagon. In the wagon you will lose about 2mpg, on the highway it is the poorer aerodynamics, city it is the extra ~300lbs over the rear wheels. Worth it if you like them or need the hauling space.

Diesel 124s: The '87 is good for around 30 in good tune (EPA rated 30mpg), getting that good at 75-80mpg is a pipe-dream though unless you have everything in good tune, which includes proper cam and IP timing, good injectors, a tight transmission, etc. I have returned mid-30s on a trip but it takes a lot of attention to detail. The later 300D 2.5 Turbo is a great car also, better mileage, but less power. Jumping right ahead to the '95 is good for mileage, about the same power with a different curve, but you need to watch the early-mid '90s cars for wire-harness problems. If it has had the engine wire harness replaced (IIRC around $700 if still available, just the part) then you should be fine. The '95 has more creature comforts and refinement, but also the biodegradable wire harness and poorer quality, and lots of body rust issues over the earlier zink-dipped 124s. You also get the facelift in '95 with the much improved headlamps (without standard wipers though).

The W210s are great cars also, but I'm not impressed with how they age. Some say to jump to the 211, but from what I read you're getting into a more expensive car to buy and maintain, I don't know if it fits your budget, and I had sworn off new Mercedes by that time / have no direct experience.

shertex · #17 02-26-2016, 10:17 AM

FWIW I've never been able to get mid 30's mpg on a 90-93 300D. 31 or so is the best I ever see (which, coincidentally, is also the EPA figure).

vstech · #18 02-26-2016, 10:23 AM

if you want to get a feel for the 190's... there is a turbo not far from you in the hands of a member... ya might give benhogan a PM, and ask to play with his car. if you are comfortable with the cramped quarters in it... the POWER and SPEED is amazing in these cars. the high fuel economy is a bonus. ( I have two of them and flat love them, but I'm not a large man) he was having minor issues with acceleration recently, and he may have fixed it, as he's not been on lately.

I've got his phone number if you feel like giving him a call... or I could ask him to call you, if you PM me your number.

I have two 5 speed versions of the 190D also... a 2.2, and a 2.5 as slow around town as the 2.5 is, I dread driving the 2.2, but I'd LOVE to get over 50mpg... my 2.5 hovers around 40 depending on how I drive...

vstech · #19 02-26-2016, 10:44 AM

for that matter, the 99 W210 E300 Diesel is an extrememly powerful car, with minor frailties, and the 5 speed locking TC automatic returns good mid 30MPG numbers...

sneaky98gt · #20 02-26-2016, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by babymog

Best mileage, '87 190D 2.5 5-speed (EPA rated 37mpg). Turbo not far behind (34mpg), but only automatic. Both rare. The 201 body cars are great on your wallet in maintenance also, lots of used parts available, good build quality, solid chassis, easy to maintain, and reasonably simple. Watch for jack-hole and rocker rust on these, and the early 602 head had some cracking issues, solved by the newer castings in the '90s.

If you are tall, or carry back-seat passengers regularly, I would bypass the 201 series, regardless of its good qualities. I made it work for a couple of years as a daily, but often needed more space or more comfort and left it home.

The bigger brother was the 124, available with gasoline engines in the 300E & 260E, the rare 5-speed was decent on fuel, but not as good as the '94/'95 E320 (M104) which got much better mileage and much better power, and many creature comfort improvements. I found that these M104s start to become maintenance hungry when they get older. Mine always returned upper 20s on the highway, as good as my '87 300TD wagon. In the wagon you will lose about 2mpg, on the highway it is the poorer aerodynamics, city it is the extra ~300lbs over the rear wheels. Worth it if you like them or need the hauling space.

Diesel 124s: The '87 is good for around 30 in good tune (EPA rated 30mpg), getting that good at 75-80mpg is a pipe-dream though unless you have everything in good tune, which includes proper cam and IP timing, good injectors, a tight transmission, etc. I have returned mid-30s on a trip but it takes a lot of attention to detail. The later 300D 2.5 Turbo is a great car also, better mileage, but less power. Jumping right ahead to the '95 is good for mileage, about the same power with a different curve, but you need to watch the early-mid '90s cars for wire-harness problems. If it has had the engine wire harness replaced (IIRC around $700 if still available, just the part) then you should be fine. The '95 has more creature comforts and refinement, but also the biodegradable wire harness and poorer quality, and lots of body rust issues over the earlier zink-dipped 124s. You also get the facelift in '95 with the much improved headlamps (without standard wipers though).

The W210s are great cars also, but I'm not impressed with how they age. Some say to jump to the 211, but from what I read you're getting into a more expensive car to buy and maintain, I don't know if it fits your budget, and I had sworn off new Mercedes by that time / have no direct experience.

Wow, lots of good info.

So the M104 option. Does it require premium gas? Or is that more of a suggestion? If an M104 can get mid-upper 20s on the highway with regular gas, then that's about the same from a cost point of a diesel getting low-mid 30s with the way prices are now, and quite a bit more power, too. And from the little bit of looking around I've done so far, it seems that the diesels command a bit more money than the gas burners.

Yea, I'm sure the W210s and newer are much nicer cars, but I'm not at all convinced that they can last 250k miles like a Honda or Toyota or older MB can, and that is a requirement for me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shertex

FWIW I've never been able to get mid 30's mpg on a 90-93 300D. 31 or so is the best I ever see (which, coincidentally, is also the EPA figure).

Yea, that's more in line with what I was expecting and what I've read about from the 90-93 cars. And if a 95 really does get mid 30s, then that's a pretty strong advantage for me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vstech

if you want to get a feel for the 190's... there is a turbo not far from you in the hands of a member... ya might give benhogan a PM, and ask to play with his car. if you are comfortable with the cramped quarters in it... the POWER and SPEED is amazing in these cars. the high fuel economy is a bonus. ( I have two of them and flat love them, but I'm not a large man) he was having minor issues with acceleration recently, and he may have fixed it, as he's not been on lately.

I've got his phone number if you feel like giving him a call... or I could ask him to call you, if you PM me your number.

I have two 5 speed versions of the 190D also... a 2.2, and a 2.5 as slow around town as the 2.5 is, I dread driving the 2.2, but I'd LOVE to get over 50mpg... my 2.5 hovers around 40 depending on how I drive...

Hmm, I may take you up on that. I'm out of town from this afternoon through the middle of next week. I may contact you about it then.

thatguy · #21 02-26-2016, 12:31 PM

I wasn't aware of any quality or rust issues with the 95 W124, but then again I'm not exactly in the rust belt either. Still, the quality seems to be excellent and is far better than my CLK or my much newer 4runner.

In any case, mine is in great tune and has been well maintained since before I had it, and obsessively maintained since. I typically get ~35mpg on highway trips out in the desert at 75mph with the A/C off, maybe a little less with it running. Not bad for a 21 year old rig with nearly 200k.

I like that the later W124 has a Denso A/C system, aside from the potentially leaky evap that all W124's suffer from (and W210's of a certain vintage), the system is a lot better than the ones found in the W123 and W126, at least in my experience. YMMV.

Mine did need a new wiring harness, about $400 from parts.com a couple years ago IIRC, so not nearly as expensive as the E320 or E420. I think the tricky glow plugs have also been mentioned, not sure if the one-off 95 E300 monovalve has been mentioned, but that's another thing to factor into your buying decision. It's important to keep the coolant fresh in any aluminum-headed diesel, Zerex G05 is the right stuff for the job and should be changed every 2-4 years depending on your level of OCD.

The 95 E300 gets my vote, it's my favorite MBZ ever, but it definitely loves the highway over the town, kind of a dog off the line, but great above 65mph.

dude99 · #22 02-26-2016, 12:49 PM

I'm going to start off with, if you want any kind of decent fuel mileage, AVOID THE M103.. I don't care what other people say, my M103 powered wagon got 20mpgUS on a 100% highway commute, I hear the m104 is a little better, but if you want decent fuel mileage, I wouldn't buy any w124 gasoline mercedes. The w210 v6 is a much more fuel efficient engine, and doesn't have any of the head gasket issues. The e320 w210 can also be found for dirt cheap in excellent condition. All gasoline Mercedes require premium fuel, which adds another chunk onto your fuel bill. I would advise sticking with a diesel... but thats just me.

Quote:

Had you considered a W126? Mine is a 1982 300SD but it runs pretty much like new with 186K on the clock.

MPG not as good since longer wheel 23MPG base but not boring to drive at all!

Engine is 5 cylinder and supposed to be one of the better ones. Turbo sounds great.

Quote:

Be careful swapping longer legs into an older Diesel. The revs might dip into the stall range in high gear and you won't realize mpg benefits.

I'm going to combine a response to both of these. The 300SD w126 can return excellent fuel mileage, but you need to get the 1985 model. The higher stall speed torque converter and the shorter rear end put it into the 27-30mpgUS range. They also react well to even lower gearing than the 2.88 that the 1985 model had. The 300sd that I had started life as a 380se and the fellow that did the swap left the 2.47 rear end in it. Acceleration was fine as far as I was concerned and it returned and average of 27mpgUS during my ownership (with a high of 31 and a low of 25 if memory serves). The 27mpg was averaged over many tankfuls during the 3 years I owned it (probably should have kept that one) It was also quiet and effortless on the highway.

Deplore · #23 02-26-2016, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sneaky98gt

Wow, lots of good info.

So the M104 option. Does it require premium gas? Or is that more of a suggestion? If an M104 can get mid-upper 20s on the highway with regular gas, then that's about the same from a cost point of a diesel getting low-mid 30s with the way prices are now, and quite a bit more power, too. And from the little bit of looking around I've done so far, it seems that the diesels command a bit more money than the gas burners.

Yea, I'm sure the W210s and newer are much nicer cars, but I'm not at all convinced that they can last 250k miles like a Honda or Toyota or older MB can, and that is a requirement for me.

I'm almost offended by your comment about the W210, if it wasn't partially true.

I currently own two W210, one with M104 engine, the other with OM606 TD engine.

The M104 W210 regularly gets over 25 mpg. On 100% freeway travel, I've seen a best of 29 MPG....but then again, that was on Nevada gas, not the gimped down california gas. Gas tank range was about 450 miles on CA gas, mixed driving. 25 mpg, plus minus a couple depending on my driving habit.

It currently has 160k miles, and is still on the original engine/transmission. I have no reason to feel that it will die anytime soon.

The OM606 has 290k miles on the clock....and it's original. I bought it with 260k mile two years ago. I haven't spent a single dime on it except for replacing the AC compressor and dryer. Beside the fluid maintenance and replacing the tires, it still drives very strong. Engine, transmission both original. The transmission still shifts like butter. The PO religiously maintained it, as I do. I get about 28-29 MPG, and that's probably due to the age of the head -- I may need to take off the head and machine it. On a well maintained W210 diesel, it'll get 30+.

I regularly get 600 miles per tank, irrespective of how much I drive in the city or freeway. And on the freeway, the passing power is very impressive. I've had it up to 130 MPH and it was perfectly stable. No loss of power.

Now about the partially true comment -- MB at that time made the claim that 722.6 transmission fluid was a lifetime fluid -- so it never needed changing. And many owners believed that, so they were greatly surprised when the transmission grenade itself at around 100-150k miles due to low fluid, contaminated fluid or just plain crud. That, plus the fact that W210 is extremely susceptible to rust made prices drop like a rock. I would never, ever buy a W210 from the rust belt. Both of my car are california cars, and they have zero rust.

martureo · #24 02-26-2016, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vstech

for that matter, the 99 W210 E300 Diesel is an extrememly powerful car, with minor frailties, and the 5 speed locking TC automatic returns good mid 30MPG numbers...

Biggest problem with the w210... butt ugly styling compared to the w124.

I personally couldn't stand looking at an E class beyond 1995 because of the w210. I finally liked the w212 and because of that the w211 has grown on me.

shertex · #25 02-26-2016, 04:32 PM

Yeah, you certainly don't want to dismiss the W210. The diesels can last a LONG time....300-400k miles very realistic. OBVIOUSLY the tranny needs to be regularly serviced. The ONLY issues with the W210 that I'm aware of are rust related.

Chris W. · #26 02-26-2016, 10:00 PM

Another vote for a '95 E300. But I'm biased. Easy to get 700 miles per tank in the winter and 800 in the summer, record is 858 miles on one tank.

Rgds,
Chris W.
'95 E300D, 460K

vstech · #27 02-26-2016, 11:08 PM

if you wish to drive a 210 diesel that's in great shape, JayBob has one in great shape high miles, getting around 32+mpg average...he's in columbia SC, but does a LOT of traveling and might arrange a visit on it to try out...

if you want to try out a 2.5 5 speed, drop me a note, or if you want to feel out a 190D turbo, and ben's not available or hasn't worked out the acceleration kinks, let me know when you're in the charlotte area, and come play with one of mine.

vstech · #28 02-26-2016, 11:08 PM

size, comfort, power, and range... it's hard to beat the 95.

gatorblue92 · #29 02-27-2016, 07:05 AM

If you are looking for fuel economy then the gas W124 is not the place to look. My 91 300TE wagon has a lifetime MPG of 19 however since I converted it to a manual its gone up to 24. Manual transmissions are exceptionally rare in the US. I would average around 20 MPG in my 400E with mostly city driving and in my new 2015 F150 I'm also averaging around 20 MPG in mostly city driving.

I would only look at a diesel or stick with the Honda and Prius types of the car world if fuel economy is your goal. You also mention you don't want to have to work on your car every few weeks. I had a W124 DD for 2 1/2 years until I bought my truck and while they are exceptionally wonderful to drive they are all now over 20 years old and generally needy cars. I found it was easier to have two so that when one was down for whatever reason I had another on hand to get to work. It was fun while it lasted but I got tired of always having to work on a car seemingly every weekend so I had a way to work on Monday. With my current batch of cars I can work on them when I want to and not when I have to.

I'm not trying to steer you away from these cars but just trying to share my experience and let you know that having a 20+ year old DD isn't for everyone.

babymog · #30 02-27-2016, 12:07 PM

I drive my TD daily when there isn't salt on the roads. They're very low maintenance if properly sorted (no deferred maintenance), mine gets fluid and filter changes and that's it in the last 50k miles. Wagons aren't the mileage kings though, and the '87 probably the lowest fuel mileage 124 diesel. Probably a later / lower power sedan for mileage (wagon Cd=0.35, sedan 0.31, gas sedan 0.30). The 124 is designed and built to go the distance (hello, taxis?), but no car will be reliable if neglected or abused long enough.