Parts Catalog Accessories Catalog How To Articles Tech Forums
Call Pelican Parts at 888-280-7799
Shopping Cart Cart | Project List | Order Status | Help



Go Back   PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum > Mercedes-Benz Tech Information and Support > Tech Help

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-02-2008, 09:11 AM
seo seo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Maine
Posts: 213
Four Questions About E300/e320

I'm looking at trading my W123 300d for a newer E300 or 320, and have four questions that I'd very much appreciate some guidance on.
1) Is there a best year for these cars? I've looked at everything from a '90 E300 to a '98 E320.
2) Which years had the problem with bad wiring harnesses?
3) What kind of fuel consumption can you look for in normal highway driving?
4) Is the 320 twin cam engine with variable cam an improvement over the 300 SOHC. In other words, does the added complexity pay for itself?
Thanks for any comments.
SEO

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-02-2008, 09:31 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Topeka, Ks
Posts: 203
Lately, it seems as though your old 300D may have almost as much value as an E320. The prices I see on ebay, wow!

The wiring harness problem is generally thought to affect 92-95 model years. I have heard of a few '96's being affected as well. '93 to '95 I believe are ALL affected guaranteed.

On the highway, you can expect around 25 mpg.

The '97 and '98 6-cyl E's use a v-6. Your 4th question is almost religious in nature
I have both and think they are both good. The E320 M104 (twin cam straight six) does make more horsepower than the M103 and has about the same fuel consumption.

Good Luck,

-GH
__________________
For Now:
1992 Mercedes Benz 500SL
1998 BMW 528i
2003 Honda Element
2002 CBR600F4i
1977 Coachmen Motor Home
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-02-2008, 10:14 AM
BENZ-LGB's Avatar
Strong, silent type
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by nissanzx1 View Post
Lately, it seems as though your old 300D may have almost as much value as an E320. The prices I see on ebay, wow!

The wiring harness problem is generally thought to affect 92-95 model years. I have heard of a few '96's being affected as well. '93 to '95 I believe are ALL affected guaranteed.

On the highway, you can expect around 25 mpg.

The '97 and '98 6-cyl E's use a v-6. Your 4th question is almost religious in nature
I have both and think they are both good. The E320 M104 (twin cam straight six) does make more horsepower than the M103 and has about the same fuel consumption.

Good Luck,

-GH
I agree with your answers except for one thing.

The 1997 E320 W210 class has an I-6 engine.
__________________
Current Benzes

1989 300TE "Alice"
1990 300CE "Sam Spade"
1991 300CE "Beowulf" RIP (06.1991 - 10.10.2007)
1998 E320 "Orson"
2002 C320 Wagon "Molly Fox"

Res non semper sunt quae esse videntur

My Gallery

Not in this weather!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-02-2008, 06:38 PM
seo seo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Maine
Posts: 213
I'm very fond of my 123, but it is rusting out. I live in Maine, about 200 yards from the ocean, where they wildly salt the roads all winter. And to add injury, the car rides back and forth to islands on the ferry service, which are veritable salt baths.
A couple years ago I bought an '84 300TD wagon with a shot engine. The idea is to transplant the 5cyl NA engine and 5-speed manual out of the rusted sedan into the wagon. Seems like a car that my teen-age kids won't be likely to get into TOO much trouble in, and good for family trips.
The other day I wind down to the "local" Mercedes dealer (only two hours away) and drove a '98 C240. Nice enough car, but too small inside, and they aren't reported to get that much better mileage.
SEO
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-02-2008, 10:43 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 73
The '92 300E was IMO the last of the great MBZ 300E cars. New type steering wheel, all the nice wood inside the car, upgraded trans which starts out in first gear, simple yet efficient M103 engine with all the upgrades from previous years. 93 was the real start of the wiring harness problems. After this, MBZ tried to cheapen their product to compete with Lexus, which looks great on the outside but has styrofoam and cheap plastic behind all the panels. Starting in 96, MBZ set out to build a cheaper car with less build time and started down the wrong road. Only in the last two years have they finally gotten their act together. Talk with several MBZ mechanics to get further opinions.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-03-2008, 07:01 AM
seo seo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Maine
Posts: 213
Thanks for that opinion. It does seem that MB went through a spell of not being able to build a car with all the servo-gizmo that the Japanese are so good at.
I'm interested by your comments on Lexus. A friend of mine has a 91 Lexus SC300 which is a good looking car to my eye, and quite comfortable. People rave about them for reliability, but there sure are a lot of wires in there...
SEO
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-03-2008, 07:55 AM
G-Benz's Avatar
Razorback Soccer Dad
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Dallas/Fort-Worth
Posts: 5,711
I think if you visited a Lexus forum, you would see as many complaints as you do on this site...after all, people don't sit around posting about "how great my car runs" on a "Tech Help" forum...grass is always greener, I suppose.

I will contend that Lexus does bend over backwards as far as customer service is concerned, and they've got MB beat on that one!
__________________
2009 ML350 (106K) - Family vehicle
2001 CLK430 Cabriolet (80K) - Wife's car
2005 BMW 645CI (138K) - My daily driver
2016 Mustang (32K) - Daughter's car
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-03-2008, 08:54 AM
seo seo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Maine
Posts: 213
My lifetime of car brand ownership:
Triumph TR 4
Volvo 122S
Cadillac ambulance (tow vehicle)
*Triumph TR4A
Volvo 122s
Ford 700
Cadillac hearse (tow vehicle)
*Volvo 122s
*Volvo 122s
Dodge 100
Toyota Corolla
Datsun diesel pickup
Dodge 150
Ford 250
Mercedes 240 D
*Mercedes 300d
*Chev 2500HD
*Mitsubishi Expo
*Ford LN8000
(* means I still own the car, in some state of operability)

Based on that list, I'd say the winner in the value-for-dollar contest is either the Mitsubishi or the Datsun. The Volvo was the most likeable and best to look at, and the 300 would be my choice to either drive across country or to hit a telephone pole with.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-03-2008, 01:19 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 3,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilles Kay View Post
The '92 300E was IMO the last of the great MBZ 300E cars. New type steering wheel, all the nice wood inside the car, upgraded trans which starts out in first gear, simple yet efficient M103 engine with all the upgrades from previous years. 93 was the real start of the wiring harness problems. After this, MBZ tried to cheapen their product to compete with Lexus, which looks great on the outside but has styrofoam and cheap plastic behind all the panels. Starting in 96, MBZ set out to build a cheaper car with less build time and started down the wrong road. Only in the last two years have they finally gotten their act together. Talk with several MBZ mechanics to get further opinions.
I wouldn't disagree that a 92 300E is one of the best 124s but you're throwing out the baby with the bath water. The 104 motor problems is no reason to throw out the whole chassis. 93 to 95 124s are still very good cars especially with 4.2 119 motors, which actually get better mileage (slightly) than the 103 motors, have an extra hundred horsepower and very reasonable maintenance costs.

Last edited by deanyel; 05-04-2008 at 10:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-03-2008, 06:37 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: New Castle County, DE
Posts: 1,080
we purchased the 95 wagon about 1-1/2 years ago, wouldn't go back to the earlier M103 versions (unless there was a 5 spd involved). Its faster, more refined. etc. Based upon that we just got a 95 E320 sedan with 78K miles on it for my mom. Air is ice-cold, runs like a top. As soon as I do the engine wiring harness and tires all should be well with the world.
__________________
Hanno
'79 6.9 Sold (after 27 years)
'83 280SL, 5 spd.
'94 E320 Sdn. 5 spd conversion
'02 E320 Sdn.(on loan to mom!)
'87 300E (5 spd. conversion) Sold
'05 E500 Wagon
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-04-2008, 10:09 AM
seo seo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Maine
Posts: 213
Compare wagon and sedan

Does the 300TE wagon have the hydraulic rear suspension?
Anybody have an opinion about whether the wagon drives as well as the sedan?
Does the wagon have more rear seat legroom?
Can teenagers sit in the third row seat? Say for an hour?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-04-2008, 10:41 AM
seo seo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Maine
Posts: 213
Also,
there's a '93 E-series sedan with a 2.8 straight six in Ebay. Is this a smaller-displacement version of the 3.0. In the pictures it looks like a twincam. Any opinions on whether this is a good engine?
And here's an idiotic question...Could the 5-speed Getrag from my 300d bolt to that 2.8? What was the manual transmission they used in the early E300's?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180237826771&_trksid=p2759.l1259#thumbsArea
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-04-2008, 11:03 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 3,726
1993 2.8 is a smaller version of the 3.2 HFM 104 motor, only one year in the E-class in the U.S. but several years in the C-class. It is generally a good motor but does have the same problems as the 3.2.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-04-2008, 08:54 PM
seo seo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Maine
Posts: 213
I don't want to seem like a complete idiot, but what are the problems with the 3.2? I keep reading about timing chains, and I worry about variable valve timing. There's a lot to be said for a gear driven camshaft, even if it means push-rods.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-04-2008, 09:14 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Florida / N.H.
Posts: 8,804
< >>

Is this a Tech question???
You want an answer from a Teenager, not a Tech Forum.

As far as ASR goes...you live in Maine and being from the NE, I can tell you that you want a 4WD vehicle for winters b/c ASR does not cut it.
ASR is simply a controlled traction device, in the sense that it is opposite an ABS systems..that's all.. if one wheel spins, the asr brakes that wheel and throttles the engine down...not a true TRACTION drive system

__________________
A Dalton
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2024 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page