How does your W126 ride???
 

Ok here is an interesting queston. I think both of mine ride like Model T's honestly. The SDL has a fresh set of Bilstein comforts all the way around with pretty much all new suspension parts. The SD had the front end gone through by the PO about 5 years ago, has Bilsteins as well. Tire pressure 30 in the SD, 34 in the SDL with 225/55/16 tires.

Both ride very stiff you notice every freaken bump, expansion joint everything!

Compared to a W140, W220, XJ8, W210, G35, 3 and 7 series, they don't soak up the bumps and provide that silky smooth ride.

Also don't give me the stiff ride improves handling line, these cars don't really deliver much of what the suspension promises. A W140 will run circles around one in the corners.

Is it a 1980's thing? I don't remember 80's vintage Jags riding like this?

My 300SE rides exactly as you describe. I really never have been impressed.

My 300D is smoother and feels more solid to be honest. Soaks up bumps around town and I feel less shudder/shock through the steering wheel. Both have rebuilt front ends.

My old 116 was smoother riding than either, and was the most solid of the three. Out-cornered both too.

Don't think I will buy another 126. Keeping my eyes peeled for a 450SEL or maybe a 280E, with a 5 speed. 210 and 140 too flashy and modern. I prefer frumpiness.

Mine wallows. I need new shocks.

My SDL has new shocks on it and I too notice it stiff about town, but it feels fine on the open roads. SD is receiving new ones next week, I'll comment once installed.

My 560 will be getting a suspension upgrade around summer...

purchased the last set of w126 springs sold by Lorinser and hope to find AMG shocks or Koni yellow's to go with them. I hope this will give the car a new tight feel on turns and handling.

420SEL Rides smoothly
 

I don't really get a rough ride in this car; it rides smoothly -- with power in all kinds of normal road situations, as I would expect. (My 99 ML rides a little stiffly, but that is to be expected of that car; and the Corvette is stiff because of its suspension -- as would be expected. (My 68 230S rides very well over the road; again as expected.)
I guess all this is in the minds of the driver ..... so many different opinions of the same car models always come up in the Forum... I think some are super sensitive about little bumps and noises and others seem to accept their cars as normal, probably with exactly the same bumps and noises.
Anyway, we all seem to be fairly happy with our Mercedes, don't we?

300se
 

Mine is terrible. In Minnesota the roads are in tough shape and the heaving of the pavement leaves small breaks in the pavement at regular intervals. The ride is heavy and loud. Every bump is amplified into loud thuds. I had an '85 300D that was a dream. The suspension was so smooth and quiet. I just figured this car needed some suspension work but it looks like there are many that have similar experiences.

Mine (which I passed back to my dad) rides firm but is loud and has lots of body roll. NOTHING and I mean nothing compares to the ride of the W140s that Ive tested out when buying another car. Its incredible.

mine rides like a benz ..1990 350sdl
 

firm but supple.

the 225 tires will be heavier so will contribute to a harsh ride. also you might lower the air pressure a bit. and if you have aftermarket wheels they are prob heavier than the benz wheels. the weight of the wheel tire combo is crucial to good ride.

my best riding benz prob was a 240d with the black alloy wheels and hubcaps with 175 tires. that is a light wheel tire combo.

tom w

My 380SE rides very quiet and smooth but I do feel and hear, what I call that typical Mercedes "thump" when hitting expansion strips and bumps. After new shocks it is much more stable on turns but I'll bet 15 inch wheels would ride and look better vs. stock 14". Not as quiet as my E420 but its 10 years older too.

Sometimes I miss the big old American boats with their numb steering and total road isolation. But all in all I prefer the slightly harsher more connected feel of the MB, which helps keep you alert on long drives.

My 90 sdl with 225/55/16 rides as well as it gets for a 126.
123s have much better curb jumping potential.


Compared to a 94 legend w/ sport suspension, the mb does better w/ bigger bumps but the legend absorbs all the small imperfections. The 126 is a 70's design (I know they came out in the 80's but they must have designed them in the 70's) and for that they are great.

My '85 380SE has aftermarket 15" light alloys, and I hate the way this car 'bangs' over every hole and bump around town, most of this coming from the front end. All my front end ball joints are less than 5 years old, the shocks are good. Not my idea of a nice riding sedan. OK on the highway, but most heavy cars are.

I think the only way to compare is to drive another non-Benz car, then drive the 126. I felt the same way until I drove another car and then my 420SEL. It makes a big difference.
I agree. The W140 has the best ride of any vehicle I have ever driven.

Sadly my 190 2.6 and 1993 Range Rover ride better than the 560sel.

I don't have any of that in my car. I wonder if its caused by the 15" wheels, since I still have the 14"s and probably won't be making any changes at this point.

donbryce
 

how did you determine that your shocks are good?

it sounds like they may be past their prime to me.

and the aftermarket wheels might be heavier than stock too.

tom w

Spent Sat afternoon in an S320, when I got back in the SD I was like man big step down ride wise.

Happens to me every time I'm in a modern one, when you get back in the old W126 you need to re adjust.:D

I need to not spend time in W140/W220's as long as I stay away from them my W126's feel like the top dog. :D

My 1985 380SE has a soft and supple ride, but it still has the original shocks at every wheel, but handling is still good. I too can however feel those larger expansion bumps, but only from the front suspension. My front suspension is not as soft as the rear. Probably to most people the ride of my car may be too soft to the point that they may want to change the rear shocks, but they seem fine to me, because I like a softer ride. On the "bounce test" if I press down on my rear bumper, it will rebound a couple of times and stops. On the freeway, the ride can get a bit floaty if you will. It does press down quite a bit though if I put a little weight on the bumper. Front goes down once then rebounds as normal, but it not overly firm.

I have test drove a few W126's in the past and most have felt about the same. The 84' 300SD and 83' 300SD I tested was about the same as my 85' 380SE. I also test drove a 90' 300SEL and while it seemed firmer than my 85' 380SE, it still felt supple - perhaps due to the longer wheelbase. I also test drove an 83' 300D years ago, but I do not recall its ride.

I do not plan on changing any shocks. I do however think I need some front suspension bushings or something, as I occasionally have that front suspension "thunk" over some bumps.

Now talk about a soft riding car - my 1969 Chevrolet Caprice is cloud-like and that is saying a lot, because I have owned a lot of big, American sedans, known for soft and supple rides. Most every bump in the road is not even noticed in my Caprice, especially considering that the interior is still 100%+ squeak and rattle free. It has amazed me. My 73' Pontiac Grand Ville is also pretty cloud-like. My dads 69' Camaro is truck-like though, but he has HD shocks on it. :rolleyes:

Most people don't give the tires on their cars enough credit for how they affect the ride. Performance tires in general will result in a harsher ride due to the stiffer sidewalls and carcass. The tires are what comes into play on expansion joints and small abrupt road imperfections. I look toward Grand Touring tires as the best choice for a Benz and select for ride quality within that class. Also as tires get old and tread starts to wear down they tend to get harsh. I'm presently looking at the Conti Contac pro's as a good next tire.

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=4&article_id=10252&page_number=12

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/co_nextgen_grandtour.jsp

Jorg

Right On!! Tires, wheels and tire pressure
 

There is no questions that what is on the wheels affects the ride quite a bit and that should be obvious, I guess ..... I like to use the best and biggest size tires that fit on the original size wheels for each car and it seems to provide a pretty good ride ..... BC

Mercedes switched back to 6.5J 15 inch wheels from the 7J due to ride quality issues. I think that happened around model year '89.

My SDL is definitely more punishing than either the 350SD or 300SE.

Body roll is annoying in these cars, as when you fling it around a right-leaning corner, you are nearly tossed out the driver's side window.

Seems to buckle down better at higher speeds. More control, perhaps thanks in part to inertia, and thanks in part to the nature of recirculating ball steering.

Riding in a well tuned 500SEL from 1984 with the 14" wheels is like riding on a cloud.

I have run my W126's with 14in Bundt's with Mich's, 15in 15 holes with Firestones, and 16in Bellos with Yoko V4S's. The ride only stiffens up very slightly going to the 16in wheels with performance tires and higher pressure.

Actually the greatly improved tracking, and handleing the 16in wheels offer offsets any small ride lose.

I love how my 126s ride..firm yet not at all punishing. I run H&R's in the two 91's, AMG springs in the 89. All have Bilstein HD's up front and the standard SLS in the rear. I find the best set up is w/ 17's as the 18's like to tram line/transmit a bit too much road noise. Riding in stock cars I find them a bit uncomfortable...the lean is what really gets me..I know I can trust it but I don't much care for how it feels.

My S600 is much quieter/composed even on 18's..to be honest I find the handling SO vauge in the 600 that I don't enjoy pushing that car in corners etc.. The 126's are far more confidence inspiring.

Jonathan

Well, the car passes the 'bounce' test (push down with all my weight on the front corner, car goes down and up, stops dead), and certainly doesn't wallow or dip in cornering, so I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that the front shocks are OK. It may indeed be a stiffness or binding in the shocks that is affecting the ride quality. How do I test this?

I doubt the alloys are significantly heavier than the originals, only one of which I have (the spare), but an additional 1" in the diameter could be I guess. The tires are Michelin All Season Rain Force MX4 P205/65 R15 set to recommended pressure.

When you press your weight on the front corner, does it go down quickly, or slowly? If slowly, it sounds like your shocks are overly firm. Also, it should go down quite a bit (if you weigh more than 150 lbs.) My dad 88' Nissan 4x4 has very heavy duty shocks (put on my my uncle when he had it) and it barely goes down and does not bounce at all. Ride is extremely harsh. Sad, considering this truck had a supple ride when new with the factory shocks. I remember riding in it in 1988 when it was new. I was suprised at the supple ride. I hate the shocks he has on that truck now.

Anyway, back to your car- when you place your weight on the bumper, it should go down fairly quickly and easily, but still come rebound back up and stop - which yours does.

Yeah and that seems even more unusual considering that the SDL has a longer wheelbase than the SD or SE. Typically LWB models have a smoother ride, but still depends alot on the shocks.

Ride expectations
 

I have a friend with a brand new Lexus LS430. It rides very nicely but you get a lot of the bumps and sounds that the 126 suspension gets rid of. I think the design of the 126 suspension is to be more communicative than more common marshmellow luxo boat. Its not ultra smooth like a caddy or a lexus but it does move over the road well and is quite comfortable.

If you look at the time period that the 126 was built for it was probably quite good for its time. Luxury cars have evolved over time and people expect different things from their cars. I like to think of it as the "lexus effect". BMW and Mercedes cars were cupholder devoid teutonic autobahn cruisers before the American motoring public wanted a softer ride and the common luxury features. Technology has evolved as well to make cars lighter and quieter. If you drive vintage cars regularly the whine of a rear differential or road noise or suspension stiffness does not bother you really.

Additionally as the fleet of 126's ages the rubber that isolates our suspensions ages differently depending on the part of the country that your in. Unless your driving on a freshly overhauled suspension with new bushings its difficult to compare the 126 to other cars. Even a 1991 model now is a 15 year old car. My 1982 model is over 24 years old. I have done several upgrades in my car such as engine mounts and other small old rubber with amazing results. I grew to accept my diesel engine being a bit on the "rough" side at idle until I replaced my engine mounts. After the replacement the only difference between my car and a gas car smoothness wise is the distinctive clatter under the hood.

Another thought
 

Another thing to consider is the condition of the drivers seat. It has its own suspension thats designed to work with the car. A worn out seat bottom is likely to communicate more road feel into your posterior.

the bounce test doesn't work with bilstein shocks

long before they fail that or start leaking they will lose the abiliity to do their job correctly and you will have a bouncy ride.

when the ride gets bouncy it is time for new shocks.

also for the fellow who has aftermarket wheels... take one of your wheels and tire and weigh it. then take your spare with the original wheel and weigh that. if the one is say ten pounds heavier you will have noticably harsher ride. and the handling wont be as good on anything other than glassy smooth roads.

the principal is called unsprung weight. briefly, anything attached to the chassis is called sprung weght. anything that is attached to the suspension and will move in relation to the chassis is called un sprung weight. for good handling and ride you want less of the unsprung in relation to the sprung weight.

ie high performance cars will have aluminum in the wheels, perhaps brakes and perhaps suspension. think of porsche and ferrari and you will note aluminum brake calipers and suspension parts. excellent ride and excellent handling at the price of more expensive cost.

now think of a one ton pickup. very heavy axle heavy brake drums and very heavy dual steel wheels and big tires. very poor unsprung weight ratio...unless you put a big load in... then it will ride like a caddy. but it wasnt designed to ride well empty and price had to be kept low.


now take my old 53 caddy. the only aluminum in it was used for trim, but the chassis was so heavy that the steel wheels axles etc were light in comparison, so it rode very well, but of course with the massive weight overall cornering was not a plus.

well i guess that was not all that brief.

and bottom line is heavier wheels and tires increases unsprung weight and makes the ride harsher and the handling on rough surfaces worse.

tom w.

My $.02
 

As I recall, MB really took a beating over ride quality when they introduced the 126 cars and had to make several changes to spring rates and shock damping over the production run. I noticed this first hand when we imported a 1983 380SE at the end of 1984 and also owned at the time a Euro 1979 450SEL. The 450 handled better and rode better than the 380---less lean on corners and the shock damping was "just right". Not too firm, not too soft. All 126's that I have driven (including SLS and full hydraulic systems) seem to suffer from rear shock damping that is too stiff in compression, causing the rear end to hop over bumps. I have noticed the same thing with the first couple years' production of 203 240 engined cars, the 163 ML's and the 2001 and up steel springed AMG cars. Although the AMG engineers are clearly tuning their suspensions for performance and not ride, I think the difference in road conditions in Germany vs. the USA has something to do with it. I took delivery of a 2001 E55 at the factory and had the opportunity to drive it approx. 2000 miles in Germany and Italy on highways, secondary roads and back roads. I was very impressed with the suspension and never thought of it as harsh. Once home, the harshness of the rear suspension on our roads became annoying to the point that I considered swapping out the rear shocks for adjustable KONI's. I find the same to be true with with my wife's SLK32. Over the years I have driven and owned a number of MB's. Of the vehicles I have owned, the vintage air suspension vehicles (1965 300SE, 1970 300SEL 6.3 and 1972 300SEL 4.5) had the best ride and handling compromise, the SLS equipped vehicles (1983 300TDT and 2001 E320 wagon) are next, the steel springed 116 bodies are next, and the 126 bodies (380SE and 500SEL) are last (as stated before, too much body lean, too much hop, not enough control). The SLS equipped 124 bodies (1991 300TE and my father's 1995 E320TE) are too much like the stereotypical US boat---undersprung and underdamped. Oh, I almost forgot, the Grosser 600 sedans (short body) of the 60's and 70's that I had the opportunity to service rode and handled phenomenally given their weight and size. The title should have read "My $.01". Mark

Well considering probably about 80% of the rubber parts in the suspension of my SDL are under a year old I think it represents pretty well what they should ride like.:D


You cannot use the bounce test on these cars, with shot shocks they will pass that test just fine. If it does bounce then the shocks are far past shot.

With recent Bilsteins if you do say press down the rear bumper it just rises right back to level.

It really isn't fair to compare these cars to newer cars because they are a late 70's design. But the newer ones just soak up the imperfections of the road so much better and still don't lean in corners. I love the W220's with air suspension. Slam on the brakes it stays perfectly level, hustle around the corner still level...:D

For there day they were good, but I think a similer vintage XJ6 was probably a better riding car.

I have also noticed that the SWB W126 is a much better around town car, seems to almost edge the LWB version out ride wise as well. But its close.

oh yeah
 

jags and bimmers ride better, in my experience.

tom w

I wish I recall how my 1982 BMW 733i was, but honestly, I can say for sure, but I think it was not as soft as my 1985 Mercedes 380SE. Now, my uncles 1984 Jaguar XJ6 sedan was like riding on a cloud.

Maybe I'm spoilt rotten or just lucky, but I like the ride of my 300SD. But then, my previous 3 years were spent in a 325i, and it's lively but stiff as hell -- make that firm.

Jags and BMW's
 

I have to agree with the Jaguar and BMW comments. A friend of mine was looking for a cheap used car and we drove a 90's vintage BMW 318. While most of the car was ready for the junkyard it still handled and rode quite well. I test drove a late model Jaguar XJ6 and it was wonderful as well would have bought it if the center pillar for the door did not interfere with my elbows.

I think in a lot of cases the Engineers are too Analyitical on Mercedes cars. A good example is why I own a Volvo Station wagon. While I would absolutely love to have an MB wagon the engineers were too obsessed with design that the strut towers for the wagon and full sized spare interfere with the cargo space. I can get amazing things into the back of the Volvo wagon that just won't fit in a Mercedes.

There's probably a reason for the suspension to be the way it is. We have to keep in mind as American drivers that we are only privy to half of the speed capabilities that the suspension was designed to endure. I notice my car rides much better at higher speeds. Perhaps a sacrifice was made for mid to low speed ride quality for high speed stability and comfort.

Additionally a lot of handling and ride is subjective. American drivers in general are used to the marshmellow ride of our domestic luxury cars. Cars that ride well but have absolutely no handling or saftey at high speeds. Mercedes designs their cars to be driven on the Autobahn at 100% throttle for many hours on end and still be safe and make emergency lane changes at speeds that would result in a loss of control in many domestic cars.

Considering all these factors and that I am driving around in a 24 year old car I think it handles and rides pretty darn well. Although one has to take my opinion with a grain of salt since the perceptive will notice Im shopping for a 140 in another post. :)

yeah
 

i think you are right on about the suspensions and what they are designed for. excellent points

those volvo wagons lean a lot but once they get leaned over they corner quite well.

if you like the room in a volvo you should take a look at the old eighties peugot wagons. i had one for a few months one time. drove really nice, had about 50% more room than a volvo but wow! impossible to get parts for.

the benz wagons with their more aerodynamic back end just dont hold stuff like the volvos.

and on the 140? maybe you are looking for something complicated and fussy to offset the simple and reliable volvo.

tom w

Friend of mine had an 80s Peugeot wagon. It was some kind of freight hauler. My dad had an 80s Peugeot diesel sedan -- forget the model number -- we drove it from Wa. state to San Diego and back once. Nice running car, smooth and fast.

I can only assume they quit importing them cause sales were insufficient.

I drove my 123 car this weekend to compare the rides between the two. Gotta say, its a better driving car until about 50mph than the 126. Goes around corners faster, feels more solid, and has a better turning radius (or it seems to).

After 60mph, the 123 car runs out of power (non turbo) which tends to make it feel maxed out.

I also prefer the big steering wheel in the 123 car.

Again, bit cars have rebuilt suspensions and recent shocks all around.

i like
 

the 123 or 124 around town better than the 126 but the 126 i s nicer on the road. though the 124 is very close on the road.

tom w

Drove the 140 I was looking at
 

Hmmm,

I drove the 140 I was looking at. While it was much smoother and quieter than my 126 I did not get the "big let down" from steping back into my 126 to drive home to think about the deal a bit. The 140 had a really really solid low speed feel to it and seemed to ooze over the roads effortlessly in an almost surreal way like the car was sitting still and the earth was doing the moving rather than the car. It had an even more tank like feel than my 126. The 126 does ok in comparison to the 140 though considering its rolling around on 1979 suspension technology and is a smaller car.

If I had to pick just one thing to keep out of the 140 it would be the sound deadening. The 126 suspension seems ok but my car is quite noisy (probably more noisy than you gassers out there since I have an OM-617 diesel).

In some ways I think the whole road feel issue is a number of different factors. Noise, Vibration, handling and suspension feedback all come into play. The 140 puts them all together in a great package. I wonder what some extensive sound deadening and on the car wheel balancing would do for some of the psychological elements of ride quality. Tires certainly have a major impact on ride feel as well. I have owned cars that have had night and day changes with a different brand of tires.

Has anybody tried additional sound deadening and an on the car wheel balance????

First, do you have a hood pad? They're not too expensive and apparently make a vast difference in sound levels at cruise RPM. Only my 420SEL has one currently.

Deadener on the doors is a good idea, just use some Peel and Seal from the home improvement center. Cheaper by a long shot than Dynamat, B-Quiet, etc.

The floors of the W126 have pretty thick carpet and the sheet metal is coated already with something. I do not know if I'd spend the time coating it.

One of my 300 SEL's has Monroe Sensa-tracs on it that the previous owner had put on right before I bought it. Those paired with some Kumho ASX 225/60/15's give it quite a bit smoother ride than my other 300 SEL which has ---

Stock suspension with BFG Traction T/A V rated 225/60/15's... around town at low speeds the thing can be quite punishing on the rough streets, but I believe a lot of that is from the tires. Those BFG will let you feel any tiny variance in the terrain. Once you get the thing up to 65 mph+ it all smooths out. I use this as my highway traveling machine so it works out well.

Tire pressure has a huge effect on the ride quality in these cars. When I first got the car with the Monroes on it, the owner was running the old Michelins at 28psi all around. It felt like it oozed around at that pressure, so I pumped it up to 32/34 and it turned it into a totally different machine.

The thing that's really lacking in the 126 suspension is the sub-frame mounting design. It does a terrible job of isolating road chop and chatter. This may actually be desired by some as road feel. Personally, I don't need it. Here in California we have little warning bumps separating the lanes. These little nubs can rattle your teeth in a 126. While in a notoriously overly-stiff 94 Saab 900s these lane bumps are barely there. Little bumps and road chop are not really handled by shocks and springs; it's almost completely up to the rubber between the body and subframe to absorb and quiet these choppy little bumps. I love my 300sd, but honestly the 126 is completely sub-standard in this area.

350 SDL Rides like a Benz
 

I have a '91 350 SDL, and was driving a '97 BMW 740iL before that, so I was spoiled.

Well, I sold the BMW! The MB rides big and heavy, but tight like a precision watch. Of course as a diesel, it is no rocketship, but man, it drives not too stiff, not too loose. All original suspention 208K miles!

90 420 Sel
 

My 90' 420 SEL rides solid and fairly tight of course after I have the front end work done the mechanic assured me she will drive like a dream. My 94' Cadillac Fleetwood on the other hand is like driving a recliner on wheels...it floats along on the highway.

Mine is in dier need of an alignment.


It's decent, until you hit 55mph. Front end rattles violently.

It's too bad the 126 doesn't have a subframe mounting design on par with a Fleetwood. Cadi certainly did have MB beat in this area.

i guess i will bite.

why is a caddy subframe superior to a benz?

tom w

LuxoBoats
 

Hmmm,

Too bad at a 100mph cruising speed the Fleetwood would completely loose control because of an emergency lane change. Keep in mind that Mercedes and Caddilac's engineering goals were totally different. The GM engineers were designing a car for a country with a 55mph speed limit thats comfortable at low speed and some low speed highway cruising. The Mercedes Engineers were designing a car for a country with no speed limit and an electronic limitation of 155mph which many European owners disable. Contrary to popular belief I don't think the Germans had the concept of "luxury car" in mind when they designed the 126. The S class concept is a large car thats capable of high speeds for extended periods on an open superhighway. The big luxoboat is a distinctly American concept and only works in the American market and on our roads. I read and article that stated 98% of the world's government and diplomatic motorpools exclusively use S class cars. I wonder why they don't use Fleetwoods like we do here in America?

http://beostar.paunix.org/newmbzpics