Hello friends:

Well, it has been quite some time since I have posted here, and I do hope that everyone is doing well. Best wishes for a great New Year!

I surely miss my '93 190e which was decimated by a deer about a year ago. After that mishap, I got a deal on a Ford Taurus. Reluctantly, I purchased it. It's been a good car, but the gas mileage is beyond disappointing - it gets about 22-23 miles on average on the highway, and it's the plain old 3.0 V6 (not dual cam).

I do a lot of driving every year - between 17-25k, and I'm wanting to sell the Taurus later on this year so it doesn't lose all of its value.

I'm seriously considering a 90-93 300d 2.5 diesel, but these cars are very new to me. I did some searching on the forum here, and for the most part, and most of the comments about these cars have been positive. I'm 6'4, and I CHERISH the thought of having a big car with 33-35mpg. Since I'm new to diesels, I wanted to ask some questions to see if a car like this would be a good fit for me:

1. Are these cars fairly maintenance intensive? (I am not really a DIYer, but I have 3 great Mercedes dealerships where I am - Knauz, Motorwerks of Barrington and Zimbrick European in WI). I don't mind maintaining a car - my 190e required some initial maintenance when I purchased it, but it was a great car after all was taken care of.

2. About what mileage should I look for when shopping around? It seems that anywhere between 100k - 150k is the average for these types of cars that are for sale. Would that be about right? How long can these cars be expected to go?

3. Do the chasses of the 300d and the 300e share a lot of the same problems? For instance, I remember reading several posts about 300e evaperaters biting the dust and causing mucho $$ to repair. Can I expect similar problems on the 300d as well?

4. How often does the oil need to be changed in a diesel engine?

5. Can diesels be driven pretty much like gas engines - get in, start them up, drive, turn them off...............

6. What would be a fair price range for a car like this?

7. Is there a particular year (90, 91, 92 or 93) that was a better year for these cars? Is the latest year the best?

8. Is it better to buy cars like these at dealerships, or is it better to buy them privately? I've heard arguments for both, but am wondering what your thoughts are.

=================

I realize that these are probably very basic and somewhat stupid questions, but I admit that I don't know much about cars - I wish I had your expertise!! But I LOVE Mercedes and always have since my 190e experience, and would really like to drive one again. Any help, opinions or advice you could give to me would be GREATLY appreciated.

Thanks friends.

Take care,
Michael.

I don't know that much about those years as I'm quite biased to the 1987 300D. It is more powerful than all of the ones you just listed, it also has much less computer control on things which seem to help keep the cost of maintenance down.

When it comes time for me to buy one I'll be looking in the 100-150k area, that is probably low mileage as average would be a little bit higher. I've seen some well over 300k but I'm not sure if they'd get the 500k untouched like the older w123s often can.

Depends on which oil you use, synthetics can run around 10k but only try this if you do oil analysis to see how your vehicle does with it.

Myself, I wouldn't consider buying one at a dealership as they like to make some good money off of them.

__________________
Jeff M.
Mercedes W123 DIY pages are now located here.
1983 / 1984 300D Sold
2000 CLK430 Cabriolet ~58k Sold
2005 Avalanche 4x4 ~66k

There is alot of info on the 2.5 turbo in the archives. Do a search on OM602 or OM603 and settle in for some long reading sessions.

The 2.5 turbo does indeed have a computer managing turbo boost, this could cause troubles as time passes but I don't think there have been any reports of 2.5 computers failing to date. I disagree with the 300D being more trouble free - have you replaced your cylinder head yet? The OM602 turbos don't seem to suffer cracked head problems at all.

I've driven a 2.5 turbo for about 90K miles - I've had great luck with mine but there have been people on the board that have had more than a few problems with their examples. I get 31-33 MPG in city driving and 35-36 on the highway, power is OK but not nearly as good as the 300D with the OM603.

Problem areas are timing chains (recall issued for specific VIN's in the 92 model year) and vacuum pumps. Injection pumps also seem more prone to leakage than earlier OM616 and OM617 versions. All the virtues and problems of the W124 would also apply.

These cars can be hard to find - I would expect to pay 5 to 10K and anything with under 150K miles should be considered a low mileage car - people that buy diesels do so to put miles on them!

Tim

This is the last year of the cast iron head diesel engine by Mercedes, correct? I also see a lot of those out on the road as well, and they too have a great look to them.

What are folks' experiences with these cars? Do they compare in terms of roominess with the 300e chassis?

Thanks for the posts thus far - much appreciated!

Michael.

I'm in agreement with BoostnBenz...I'm biased towards the '87 300D Turbo...plenty of power for me. I just sold me 190D recently and it is a huge step up in both terms of luxury and power. I'm not so much a DIYer yet either, but after reading all of the posts here I'm definitely going to try some of the maintenance on my own. Sorry I can't offer much help yet, I've only had my 300d for about a week!

Michael,

If you like you can drive out to me in McHenry sometime and test drive my 87 300d.

You can private message me and I can give you the tour of my 87 300d. I bought it with 103K and she needed some work, which is still in progress.

see ya

bob c

I don't own a W124 yet Tim, yes the heads did have a problem in cracking which can be debated from being overheated or as the cause of the overheating. After a certain serial number I believe the problem was caught and a new head was designed. While this would surely be a thing to look for in a "new" 87 300D it wouldn't be enough to turn me away from one. I do like the looks of the 90-93 300Ds better as well, but none the less with the extra power, less computer control, and the better proved motor I still favor the 87 300D.

Yes our 85 US model was the last year of the cast head in the 300Ds (the european 85 model is the same style as our 87).

__________________
Jeff M.
Mercedes W123 DIY pages are now located here.
1983 / 1984 300D Sold
2000 CLK430 Cabriolet ~58k Sold
2005 Avalanche 4x4 ~66k

My 300D 2.5T handles well, has ample power and gets between 28 and 33 mpg on CA fuel. Very stately and comfy machine. Oh...and it has about 125 hp and 165 lbs. of torque at 2400 rpms.

__________________
'91 300D 2.5 Turbo 330K
'00 VW TDI Golf, 190K
'67 BMW R50/2
'73 Norton Commando Interstate

I have a 1991 300D and I get about 42 MPG. I find it very easy to work on. I have ever single reciept for the car in a big 3 ring binder in plastic sleeves....call me anal retentive. I absolutely love the car and often thought about selling it for a truck that I much need for work, but I would not be able to get the moeny I want for it. I would consider selling mine for an obscene price, just because I have all the records, books, garged kept, etc...

I bought my '91 300d 2.5 turbo with 99K miles and all records from an independent MB only shop. The seller was private, but the shop had worked on the car for 5+ years and had carried out a 50point inspection, and all records were with the car. All servicing had been done as scheduled.

I have put 40k miles on the car since I bought it. I have replaces belt shock, alternator and injectors. All to be expected with this many miles (well, not many for this engine). I have been very happy with the car's performance and manners; a pleasure to drive on the highway, economical, adequately powered and comfortable. I also have a '79 300SD with 360K miles (my purchase of the 300D 2.5 was the result of 16 years ownership of the SD); the '79 still runs great and seems to have a bit more oomph -even after 360K miles- but the 2.5 is quieter, smoother, more economical and well, just more civilized.

And yes, it is a turn it on and go car. As someone else said, these cars are hard to find, but since they share most of the same parts as the gas 300E's parts aren't a problem. Great car if you can afford to maintain a 'benz... But pass it by if you don't know that it hasn't been looked after (i.e. if the service records aren't with the car)
Good luck

One thing that I have learned here is that a car to purchase should always have EXTENSIVE records - I learned that the hard way when I bought the 190e. Repairs weren't excessive, but there were some.

In terms of maintenance and parts availability, what would be better - an '85 300d, or the earlier 90's models. It seems that the 87 model year is also a strong contender, too! I really like that old style - ageless appeal I guess.

Well, I got fogged in at the darn airport if you can believe that - have to drive 90 miles tomorrow to try again! ECK! The joys of air travel.................

An 85 300D would be better for maintenance & parts hands down. Parts for the W123s are so much cheaper than for the W124s, also the W124s have known to break parts shortly after replacing them in cycles where as the W123 typically is a fix every 25years or so. Most people looking into the mid 90s 300Ds wouldn't be very appealed to the mid 80s 300Ds as they don't have "as much power." Yes they have 125hp but I believe they are a bit heavier, they also get upper 20s for average all around mileage versus the 30s the 87+ would get (because of aerodynamic drag and gearing), and they don't have all the nifty features (things to break) like the newer ones do.

__________________
Jeff M.
Mercedes W123 DIY pages are now located here.
1983 / 1984 300D Sold
2000 CLK430 Cabriolet ~58k Sold
2005 Avalanche 4x4 ~66k