the MB Buyer's Guide says that from 1993, the transmission was improved to start in 1st gear, and features ignition timing modulation to smoothen shifts.

I'm not really an expert on the M104 and its drivetrain, but I also know that the overall gearing of these newer cars is higher. This could come from a combination of ratio differences in the transmission and rear axle, compared with the previous models. Someone who is familiar with these ratio differences should be in a better position to advise you on whether or not you can use the 94-95 transmission alone (i.e., using your existing rear axle).

I had a '90 300E from 100K to 175K, my current '92 300E Sportline from 113K to now 220K, and I have a '93 300E Sportline. I rarely drive the '93.

The '92 has first gear start. My engine comment is that the M103 in more linear up the RPM curve. The M104 has the variable timing and the Hot Film sensor in the intake stream. Now my sensor may be dirty or else something is wrong because when you depress the accelerator there is a slight delay before the engine accelerates. I must say the M104 is fun and it cruises at a much lower rpm on the highway, but I actually prefer the M103.

Steve

Actually, when you look at the graphs, it is the opposite. The M104 is much more linear than the M103. Variable valve timing makes the torque curve much more linear across a broad rpm range.

__________________
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".

Why so? You prefer the way the 103 performs or that it's easier to take care of? Just curious.

I have to tell you guys, I am just beside myself with the anti-M104 bias.

I don't get it.

It gets much more horsepower, more torque, all over a flatter and broader torque curve, and gets better gas mileage to boot.

It doesn't have a distributor, cap and rotor, so you don't have that maintenance item to take care of.

It has a head gasket problem with the early headgaskets, but the M103's have head gasket issues, too. Both engines can leak oil at the timing chain cover, too.

Both of my MB mechanics, Enrique at Mr. MB Motors (do a search on all the posts on this guy), and MB Stars (they contribute here under the name MB Stars), loooooove the M104.

Steve brotherton, Stevebfl, of Continental Imports in Gainesville, Florida, loves the M104. He has posted a number of times on the superior nature of this platform, especially compared with the new M113 (or M112?) V6.

Listen fellas, I'm not bashing the M103. I never have. I've driven in more M103's than I can count, and I like the engine. It is refined and will surely last longer than any of us will ever keep our cars.

I just don't get the "I don't like M104" mentality when it doesn't resonate with reality.

__________________
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 would you buy the transmission that was already in the car originally, the 722.358 and have it modified to be a 1st gear start instead of the 2nd, or would you buy the 722.369 that came on the 1993 300E (3.2) and '94-'95 E320's?

__________________
1989 300CE Astralsilber/Schwarz
1992 300CE Schwarz/Schwarz

Question 1: the ignition timing modulation that smoothen shifts...is this something inside of the transmission?

Question 2: do you nayone here on the forum that might be knowledgeable about the gearing of the M103 and M104 an the differences?

__________________
1989 300CE Astralsilber/Schwarz
1992 300CE Schwarz/Schwarz

Do you know how it changes the ignition timing slightly when it shifts? Is this in the transmission?

__________________
1989 300CE Astralsilber/Schwarz
1992 300CE Schwarz/Schwarz

it is just my opinion, that the central computer control unit effects the timing retardation during shifts. This (semi-educated) guess comes from the belief that it is central computer control that acts on engine power via timing retardation when implementing traction control (in addition to brake control). This would mean that the transmission is only responsible for indicating to the computer that it is about to perform a shift.

i believe that this was in response to the Lexus LS400 that implemented exactly the timing retardation strategy to smooth out upshifts.

the M104 is the last of the MB gasoline inline-sixes. Being a purist, no V6, however counter-balanced, is a substitute for an inline-6 for me.

Given that, I am willing to put up with the head gasket and wiring harness problems of the M104. These are items that you replace once, and they are good for another 100k or so.

The only thing missing is a manual transmission.

If there were no issues with using the newer 722.369 issues with your car, I'd use it.

Otherwise, I'd use the original the transmission and have it modified for first gear start.

__________________
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".

Thank you Paul for your input. I appreciate that.

__________________
1989 300CE Astralsilber/Schwarz
1992 300CE Schwarz/Schwarz

I've driven the M103 and M104, both in W124 form. The cars are stock and both engines pull strongly, with a nice growling sound.

As mentioned in other response, the M104 is more powerful while more fuel efficient. It is also mated to different gearing resulting in lower rpm at speed. Not to say the M103 is harsh or busy -- in fact it is smooth and quiet, making freeway cruise a great riding experience.

Either engine, you've got a winner.

I think that the consensus is that both engines are winners so my advice would be to go out and find the best deal on which ever way you go and don't get a headache trying to micro analyze it. The head gasket and wire harness are a one time deal so just factor it in. I agree with Lino about tires and batteries, etc. If you open the hood you don't want to see a battery from Kame Apart. Don't worry about maintenance costs of one over the other. Buy the one you want, because you are still driving for cheap when you are paying $5000 for a fine ride. If you want to throw money away, go buy a brand new entry level car for $12,000. That car will cost you $30,000 in the first five years of ownership. I can document that. A few hundred dollars here or there is peanuts when you look at the big picture.

Happy hunting,
Peter

__________________
Auto Zentral Ltd.

Just as a thought....

Beyond the engine differences in the W124 body. The later ones have a styling change and a big plus of bigger brakes. I've seen some really nice 100k 95 models which are tempting.
When I was gifted the 86'- I knew exactly all the problems and work ahead regardless of how nice the car looked. It would require radiator, wp, headlight upgrade, suspension, new horsehair pads and cruiz control!!


Michael

__________________
Michael McGuire
83 300d
01 vw A4 TDI
66 Chevy Corsa
68 GMC V6 w/oD
86 300E