500E vs. E500 - what's the diff besides cosmetics
 

I've shrunk my choice, I believe, to two cars. One is a 92 500E w/120000, recently reconditioned, about $3800 in service. The other is a 94 E500 w/107,000m. Has yet to be PPIed. Other than cosmetics and a \slight drop in HP, are there any other qualitative differences?
TIA
Tom

Big difference is the motor-early cars were a closed-deck design which was dramatically more expensive for MBZ to build. These blocks are coveted by the aftermarket since they can be puched out to 6.5 litres. Also, the fuel mapping was slightly different, with a big blast at fuel at WOT that's not regulated by the O2 sensor. I've never raced a later car, but frankly I can't tell the difference with my butt dynamometer.

Later cars had a powered LH outside mirror, and a 2 piece armrest. And most importantly, bigger brakes front (directionally vented) & rear from the SL600.

92 v 93 v 94 Differences
 

Michael,
Are the engine, brakes, and less importantly LH mirror and armrest differences based on the build month or were they "eased" into production over several build months?
Greg

The engine was Model Year 92 only, although I've heard some early '93s had the early-style motor-you'd have to check the motor #.

Bigger brakes came at some point late in '93-don't know about the interior bits.

Michael,

I can confirm based on Renntech's pricing based on motor number on their website for the 6.0 conversion, that my '93 had the early motor. Motor numbers lower than 8760 were the early motors according to Renntech which mine is. :D

My car was built 09/92 but considered a '93 with both powered mirrors.

Only if I also had the '94 upgrades too. :p

Blue

So it sounds like the 92 is preferable to the 94, all things being equal. By the way, the 94 is chipped, although I do not know by whom. (Also has first gear start and ASR defeat).
Tom

The grass is always greener. '92 owners are busy installing '94 style hood and headlamps and SL600 brakes, while '94 owners yearn for the extra kick of the '92 and wonder if their 6.0L dreams will come true. Can't we all just get along? ;)

I think that the 94 is more deseriable. Not only dose it have the updatede looks, but those mods you have listed will cost you some cash if you do them your self.
The only reason to get the 92 would be if you were planing a displacement (which would be awsome). I am not sure but I belive that the 92's had some issuses w/ the break capilers.
Subman

'92s had Brembo aluminum front calipers. Many owners complained of chatter & noise, and had their calipers direct-exchanged for 500SL Iron ones. A few lucky folk in the US got 600SL brakes, but all europeans did (fade issue from Autobahn travel?)

'94's had upgraded stereo and Neil has indicated in another thread that the front struts on the '94's appear to be softer sprung..

...Daesun- I've observed pre '94 owners yearning for the '94 aesthetic upgrades ...AND observed a common yearning of more power/speed/handling/performance across '92-'93- & '94 500e/e500 owners

I'm happy with the performance inherent in my '94 version and will most likely/eventually do (5) EVO II 17' w/ S-03's, trans/oil cooler, renntech airbox, & timevalve y-pipe.

-fad

afd/all,

Actually, the softer struts were integrated early in '92 (likely 3/92 or 4/92)-not a lot of US-delivered cars had the early, stiffer units. My 6/92 car has the later, softer struts.

92'
 

Tom

92' s kick it out...

The first year in the US of A with the highest stock HP....and low serial numbers in relation to the 10,000 they made...last one (silver with red) going to the driver of the original 'Silver Arrow'... or so the legend goes.

You want the un-tamed motor...all that other stuff (lights, hood, stereo, etc. can be added later if you so desire)

Of course, I'm biased... and a damn ol' Wasp of a Yankee... :D