Whats up guys. I want to buy either a 92-93 400E or 94-95 E420. Which one is faster overall? I am confused about the engines in each car. One site on the web I saw said that the 400E was faster. Please help me decide between the two concerning performance and speed. Thanks!

92 400E is a little slower because it has a little less HP and torque
93 400E - 95 E420 are all the same

The E420 looks nicer IMO but the performance is the same. I would suggest the 2.82 differential mod and also wider tires.

in addition, the E420 has better-performing headlamps, being similar to Euro-spec lamps. If I were to buy a 400E, I would factor in the cost of Euro-headlamps, for decent nighttime illumination. While you are at it, you can instead get the Euro 500E headlamps, which have driving lamps instead of foglamps. You will then have to mount foglamps in the airdam, if you really need them.

also be aware that airbags have a shelf life, so the newer models have more service life in them.

M.B.Doc has posted that 1992 400E's are faster due to fuel enrichment at wide open throttle.

I assume this is due to different or more lax smog regulatioins in 1992.

It is for this same reason that 1992 500E's are also the faster than 1993-1994 500E / E500's.

__________________
Paul S.

2001 E430, Bourdeaux Red, Oyster interior.
79,200 miles.

1973 280SE 4.5, 170,000 miles. 568 Signal Red, Black MB Tex. "The Red Baron".

So the 1992 400E is faster than the 93 400E and 94-95 E420? Do you know by how much?

That is incorrect information they are slower. The reason that the 92 500Es are faster than later models is due to a computer which gives 322 vs 316hp. The reason that the 92 400E is slower is that it has 269HP vs. 275 in 93+ models. I think that this is partially due to a lower compression ratio of 10:1 vs. 11:1 for 93+ models.

From:

http://www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/articles/0-60times.html

1992 Mercedes-Benz 400E 7.6 15.8
1993 Mercedes-Benz 400E 7.2 15.4

I am not going to suggest these numbers are correct but using a G-Tech I consitently get 0-60 times (when the air is < 50deg aka cold) between 5.4 - 5.8 seconds and this would be faster if I could get the car to not spin the wheels till around 30mph. I have done the quarter mile only a few times (and I am not confident in this result at all) in a low of 12.9 seconds and a high of 13.6 seconds.

Granted these times seem unrealistic but even subtracting .5 seconds it is pretty obvious that the 93 400E with 2.82 diff hauls ass.

RE: faster 500e vs. e500

Wondering if the MB Factory data indicates 0-60mph times equal for the 500e & later e500?

Along these lines, wondering if the MB Factory data also suggests that top speed for 500e & e500 are equal, 155mph?

Those are pretty arbitrary times. The 92's are the only model that have the WOT enrichment, which, as was stated earlier, is indeed a feature of the LH fuel injection computer for both the 92 500E as well as 400E's. Its the reason some 93/94 500E owners have swapped out their computers for 92's. The 92's should be more tuneable with a chip. Highway passing and rolling acceleration should be a little better with the WOT enrichment as well. 94/95 models have nicer interiors and a fresher look on the outside but if you don't care about either of those and only speed for a good deal, a 92 can be picked up pretty cheap compared to the 94/95 models and the question of which one is faster is pretty much a draw, especially since the 94/95 models weigh slightly more with the upgrades. Throw in a 2.82 differential from a 400SEL/420SEL from '92-99 or a 350SD and you will shave a second or so off of that 1/4 mi time.

__________________
Mike
-W126C 560SEC 040 Black
*6.0L AMG M117 32v Hammer
-W163 ML320 Brilliant Silver
-W124 300E Pearl Black

At least with the 1992 500E and 1993 500E/E500, we're talking about a measly 7 HP and lb-ft difference in power and torque. This is, in real terms, a negligible difference and can easily be compensated for in terms of driver skill and so forth.

In terms of a 1/4 mile time or 0-60 time, 7 HP isn't even going to make the difference of 1/10 of a second, taken by itself.

On the 400E/E420, the later cars did indeed have a higher HP/torque rating than the earlier cars. Exactly the opposite of the early and later 500E/E500.

Cheers,
Gerry

MB would not have bothered to say that the 93+ model had better specs if in fact there was no difference. Arbitrary times, yes but over time I have in fact seen a pattern of 0-60 numbers that suggest that the 93+ model 4.2L V8 is in fact faster. If in fact the 92 model does have WOT fuel enrichment and the 93 does not then swapping the computer from a 92 model to a 93 model could potentially give you even better performance in a 93+ model.

I would say the most important factor is the temperature of the air coming into the intake. You can lose about .9 seconds 0-60 (6.3 - 5.4) or 50+ HP maybe a lot more (just a guess not dynoed) between two temperature extremes. I think that this tendency is shared with the 5.0L M119 as well.

Agreed. The M119 in the W124 chassis is extremely sensitive to heat, and a hot engine will be down on HP from anywhere in the 30-50 HP range. This is dyno proven.

Intake air temp is only one of several factors that can affect HP generation in the M119, but it is an important factor. The sensor is located in the driver's side plastic intake scoop, behind the headlight.

Cheers,
Gerry

That's the same difference as the 400E/E420 gap. 268hp vs. 275hp. I just figured with the WOT enrichment and a cheap chip you'd be right back there. Sounds like a '93 would be the best alternative for inexpensive and fast combination if you plan on doing nothing to the car performance-wise. I've always read that the chips, i.e. RennTech, Perf Products, etc, don't do much to the '93/'94 cars, and in some cases rob a few ponies in different RPM ranges. They are a little better in the '92 cars with the WOT enrichment but not much. Bottom line, look for a 92/93 car if you want to save a few bucks and don't care about cosmetics.

__________________
Mike
-W126C 560SEC 040 Black
*6.0L AMG M117 32v Hammer
-W163 ML320 Brilliant Silver
-W124 300E Pearl Black

I own a 97 model, pretty damn fast if you ask me, will you miss the 6 hp if you buy the less powerful one?

__________________
With best regards

Al

This thread was run about two years ago - but how did it end?

I'm considering two cars also - one a 1992 400E the other a 1995 E420. As teh E420 has heated seats, it's my first pick now.

Grave - are you around - can you tell us "the rest of the story" - which car did you buy, and how are things now

This is not a private message - cause others may have made the same decision - where did you go.

Many thanks

__________________
Thanks for the help
Bill Fisher

'86 560SL (186K) - Now a 'classic' : Registered as an Historic Vehicle
02 E430 in the stable
'14 LS460 (Lexus)
- - - - -
'95 E420 (198K) found a new home
'99 E320 (80K) (gave it's life for me as we hit a bumper)
'95 E420 (231K) Sold to a happy buyer, new to Mercedes
'90 300E (65K) Sold to an Mercedes Lover
'92 190E (215K) - retired to the salvage yard
'93 500SEL (214K) - Moved to another family, still runs like a young pup

Basically the same car -- both are W124 body E-class cars -- but I'd go with the 1995 model as it's last-year of production, and has the option that you want.

Cheers,
Gerry