WTB diesel: 1992 W124 or 1992 W140? Which car to choose? - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

JeffreyNMemphis · #1 05-18-2009, 12:18 PM

Hello Friends,

I am gathering information to make a purchase decision on a diesel. My father had a 1977 300d that served him well and had 350,000 miles when he sold it. I am active on the vintage forum with my V8 4.5 gas guzzler.

I need a car to make sales calls in with good air conditioning. The summer heat in Houston is oppressive. Also, Houston is large geographically so that a trip across town could be 40 miles each way. Gas mileage is a factor in selecting a diesel.

I am considering a 1992 W124 that is very clean for $4500. Then someone told me about a 1992 300SD for $7000 that has 140k mileage. Both cars seem to be clean well cared for garage kept types.

Is the W140 with 603 as reliable as the W124 with 602 motor? Will the maintenance of the two cars be similar or more expensive? Is the luxury of the W140 worth the $2500 difference? I hear the fuel consumption is similar, is that true or a myth?

Thank you for your experience, wisdom, and opinions!

Jeffrey

Oracle12345 · #2 05-18-2009, 12:21 PM

I would go with the w124. The w140 is know for electrical problems and plus the engine is known to bend rods.

As a complete package I would with the w124.

pawoSD · #3 05-18-2009, 12:49 PM

Probably the W124 unless you have lots of extra Ca$h to keep the W140 going properly...

compress ignite · #4 05-18-2009, 01:40 PM

The W140 Chassis is an "Entertainment" (Electrically) by itself...
Adding the "Rod-Bender" engine makes it certain you'll drop your present job
to become an employee of your new auto shop (with only yourself as customer).

Then there's the question of how to pay for all the parts?

JeffreyNMemphis · #5 05-18-2009, 05:20 PM

Thanks for the information... I have read that the 350SDL motor is risky. Are all of the 3.5 motors considered risky? Is there some point in time where MB made a significant change? Are the 1995-99 diesels considered risky?

TMAllison · #6 05-18-2009, 06:02 PM

95-99 all have the 606 engine, very reliable.

95 was a W124 NA
96-97 were W210's NA
98-99 were W210's Turbo'd.

a2t · #7 05-18-2009, 07:07 PM

stick with the 300d to avoid rod bending issue.

87 is creme of the crop at 3L 6 cyl vs 2.5 5 cyl, power wise. but the 87 did use the early style #14 head which some say is prone to cracking (although Ive never had that problem in 288k)

2 tank wvo good option for either (i just netted 106 mpg on last fill up D2) but i wouldnt try that trick on 606. if wvo is not to be used, 606 turbo diesel is most refined (and expensive) option.

my opinion : if no wvo, doesnt make sense to buy an old diesel, being that fuel mileage increase is negligible and cost of d2 is typically higher, which will offset the slight increase in fuel mileage.

WhoWhat · #8 05-18-2009, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a2t

my opinion : if no wvo, doesnt make sense to buy an old diesel, being that fuel mileage increase is negligible and cost of d2 is typically higher, which will offset the slight increase in fuel mileage.

Today I filled up for $1.99/gal with ULSD. RUG at the same station was $2.29, premium $2.49.

a2t · #9 05-18-2009, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhoWhat

Today I filled up for $1.99/gal with ULSD. RUG at the same station was $2.29, premium $2.49.

sweet! i fill up pretty infrequently

but 2 weeks ago d2 was about .20 more per gal, and we all know its been dollars higher not too long ago. guess i would expect it to be higher in the long run.

Skippy · #10 05-18-2009, 09:55 PM

124 for the win. I wouldn't mess with a rod bender for several reasons, rod-bending being one of the more serious ones. I also just plain dislike the W140 styling.