What is absolute best gas W124 for reliability & durability - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

pawoSD · #16 03-01-2010, 06:52 AM

My 1990 300E has been very trouble free for me. It has needed repairs of course, but overall less maintenance than my '82 300SD. And, its fast! I took it up to 115mph yesterday.

(effortlessly!

)

deanyel · #17 03-01-2010, 07:05 AM

The 119 motor oil tube change did not take place at the beginning of the 1994 model year, but earlier. The vast majority of the cars of this era have a 104 motors which do not even have oil tubes. In the bigger picture oil tubes are an infrequent inexpensive and insigificant DIY repair. Anyone wishing to argue that quality declined specifically at the beginning of the 1994 model year should be able to point to mechanical and/or interior part numbers that changed. Both HFM and LH engines and engine management systems were virtually the same in 1994 as in 1993. The very few changes in the era were often enhancements - such as a vastly superior DIY diagnostic system.

400Eric · #18 03-01-2010, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pawoSD

My 1990 300E has been very trouble free for me. It has needed repairs of course, but overall less maintenance than my '82 300SD. And, its fast! I took it up to 115mph yesterday.

(effortlessly!

)

I took my 89 300E up to 136 MPH when it had 214,000 miles on it.

I got 150 MPH out of my 400E last summer but I had to let off before it was done due to coming up on traffic.
Regards, Eric

400Eric · #19 03-01-2010, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deanyel

The 119 motor oil tube change did not take place at the beginning of the 1994 model year, but earlier. The vast majority of the cars of this era have a 104 motors which do not even have oil tubes. In the bigger picture oil tubes are an infrequent inexpensive and insigificant DIY repair. Anyone wishing to argue that quality declined specifically at the beginning of the 1994 model year should be able to point to mechanical and/or interior part numbers that changed. Both HFM and LH engines and engine management systems were virtually the same in 1994 as in 1993. The very few changes in the era were often enhancements - such as a vastly superior DIY diagnostic system.

I did say in my post that the rot BEGAN in the last half of the 93 model year and that I think the plastic oil tubes showed up in about 3/93.

It points to the mindset of the company and how they were losing their commitment to quality. Who knows how many other hidden corners were cut. The fact that they would pull such a rotten cheap stunt to save a few bucks speaks volumes! Now our poor O.P. has an issue looming in his future that he shouldn't have to deal with at all because some bastard put profits ahead of building a quality product. It's not insignificant when you are the one stuck with the problem. I don't know about you, but it enrages me to have to deal with a problem that could have very easily been prevented by doing it right the first time especially when they already had it right to begin with! I already have enough on my plate! How can anybody justify the existence of those little plastic turds? It is downright evil to create this misery for ones customers and for what? To save a few bucks? Cost cutting! Trimming corners! We spend the bigger money for what we think is the better car so we don't have to deal with crap like this! It's just wrong and again, points to the company's changed priorities under that idiot Jurgen Schremp. How ironic it is that now that he is gone, quality is shooting back up again!

Here's another one: The tires prior to 94 were higher dollar "V" rated (155 MPH) and the cars were governed to 155 MPH. Starting in 94, the tires were downgraded to a poorer quality, cheaper "H" rating (130MPH) and the cars, even the E420, were limited to only 130 MPH. Even my knappy 12 valve M103 can do 136 MPH! And even it came from the factory with "V" rated tires!

Don't forget the weaker, open deck blocks that we also got starting in about 3/93!

Do you not see a pattern here? And again, this is just the stuff we know about!

The vastly superior DIY diagnostic system that you speak of was federally mandated was it not? It's not something they did cause they wanted too. They much preferred for that rich plum to remain the exclusive property of their "stealerships".
Regards, Eric

babymog · #20 03-01-2010, 10:53 AM

There is little question whether M-B had some quality issues in the mid-late 90s in their design. Whether the V-8 in '94 was also a lesser design than the earlier one I also won't debate.

However.

The '94/'95 E 320 is unchanged in quality from '93, or '91, or '86. The car was nearing the end of production, to be replaced by the 210, and Mercedes didn't spend any money on tooling and engineering to try and cheapen the car at the end of the run. The M104 in the '93-'95 cars was well designed and built, up to '80s M-B standards and left nothing on the table either.

It's my opinion that we should probably try to keep this thread on-subject and answer the OP instead of discussing M-B quality and leadership issues. BTDT as an Engineer and supplier to Mercedes Benz, it's why I'd rather have a 124 than a 210, a 126 than a 140, ... but I'd take any year 124 as long as it wasn't seriously neglected or abused as they're THE SAME QUALITY, except for wire harnesses. Again I have no direct experience in the V-8s and the M104 will give the early V-8s a good run.

777funk · #21 03-01-2010, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by babymog

There is little question whether M-B had some quality issues in the mid-late 90s in their design. Whether the V-8 in '94 was also a lesser design than the earlier one I also won't debate.

However.

The '94/'95 E 320 is unchanged in quality from '93, or '91, or '86. The car was nearing the end of production, to be replaced by the 210, and Mercedes didn't spend any money on tooling and engineering to try and cheapen the car at the end of the run. The M104 in the '93-'95 cars was well designed and built, up to '80s M-B standards and left nothing on the table either.

It's my opinion that we should probably try to keep this thread on-subject and answer the OP instead of discussing M-B quality and leadership issues. BTDT as an Engineer and supplier to Mercedes Benz, it's why I'd rather have a 124 than a 210, a 126 than a 140, ... but I'd take any year 124 as long as it wasn't seriously neglected or abused as they're THE SAME QUALITY, except for wire harnesses. Again I have no direct experience in the V-8s and the M104 will give the early V-8s a good run.

Don't the 210s have an M104 series engine (in most of them anyways)?

Is it a different quality engine than the M104 in the W124 car?

MAG58 · #22 03-01-2010, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 777funk

Don't the 210s have an M104 series engine (in most of them anyways)?

Is it a different quality engine than the M104 in the W124 car?

I think they're a little less "finished" but they're still good motors. M104's only came in the 90-97 (well 89 technically) cars. All the other 210's had the V6's. Post 95 M104's lost the oil squirters and have re-designed rods amongst other things. But the heads, cams, etc, are all the same as the earlier M104's (well the 93-95 cars)

777funk · #23 03-01-2010, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAG58

I think they're a little less "finished" but they're still good motors. M104's only came in the 90-97 (well 89 technically) cars. All the other 210's had the V6's. Post 95 M104's lost the oil squirters and have re-designed rods amongst other things. But the heads, cams, etc, are all the same as the earlier M104's (well the 93-95 cars)

That seems like a big deal to me. I like the look of the 210s. I like the 124s better. I guess the 124 is probably a better model to stick with.

MAG58 · #24 03-01-2010, 07:51 PM

They also got rods that were re-designed to flow as much oil to the pistons as the squirters. But they weren't priority on the main galley as the squirters are. In a stock motor, this doesn't make much difference and both will probably outlive you (kidding, but they're pretty hard to kill). I'm turbocharging so the oil cooling is more essential than lubrication, I'm going with a 91 motor.

Bob I · #25 03-01-2010, 09:08 PM

I wouldn't be so sure the Mercedes engineers had a cost factor in mind when they went to the plastic oil tubes. About five years ago while exploring this subject, I talked to an experienced Mercedes parts man about the oil tube history. He said they had problems with the metal tubes plugging up but he hasn't seen that happen with the plastic ones. It would seem that the oil change intervals would have to be seriously ignored to plug the tubes. Maybe the plastic is slicker inside.

deanyel · #26 03-01-2010, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 400Eric

I did say in my post that the rot BEGAN in the last half of the 93 model year and that I think the plastic oil tubes showed up in about 3/93.

Here's another one: The tires prior to 94 were higher dollar "V" rated (155 MPH) and the cars were governed to 155 MPH. Starting in 94, the tires were downgraded to a poorer quality, cheaper "H" rating (130MPH) and the cars, even the E420, were limited to only 130 MPH.

Don't forget the weaker, open deck blocks that we also got starting in about 3/93!

The vastly superior DIY diagnostic system that you speak of was federally mandated was it not? It's not something they did cause they wanted too.

My comment was in response to the suggestion by someone that quality declined after the 1993 model year. There just wasn't any meaningful event at that point in time - not engines, not transmissions, nothing. 1994 model year was a cosmetic body change, and huge price decrease in list price, which some association with cost cutting. But 93 124s had rebates up to $7500. Cars weren't selling and lower prices were necessary.

To me H rated tires were the correct tire for the car in the U.S. from the beginning, better ride, longer life, etc. Varying U.S. cars to U.S. needs was and is a long term trend.

I have no idea what a weaker open deck block is but have neither seen nor heard about any practical implication of it, positive or negative.

Late 124 diagnostic enhancements had nothing to do with the government. Government mandated OBDII started on the E-class in 1996 model year. HFM diagnostics were much improved over CIS and 94 was the first year that it was fully in place. Not all 93s had a built in LED/DM and 1993 300E 2.8 diagnostic systems are a mess.

All things considered I don't see any cheapening of the 94-95 models. The car was a class act to the very end. As someone said it just doesn't make sense to engineer a significant downgrading of a car on its way out of production.

emerydc8 · #27 03-02-2010, 12:17 AM

In my book, any 124 with the 119 engine is superb. I think these were the best cars Mercedes ever made. They are truly timeless.

400Eric · #28 03-02-2010, 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by babymog

It's my opinion that we should probably try to keep this thread on-subject and answer the OP instead of discussing M-B quality and leadership issues. BTDT as an Engineer and supplier to Mercedes Benz, it's why I'd rather have a 124 than a 210, a 126 than a 140, ... but I'd take any year 124 as long as it wasn't seriously neglected or abused as they're THE SAME QUALITY, except for wire harnesses. Again I have no direct experience in the V-8s and the M104 will give the early V-8s a good run.

I am staying on topic. I am answering to OP's question which was/is "What is absolute best gas W124 for reliability & durability" I'm telling him to avoid the 94-95 and I'm telling him why. Can't be more OT than that. Yes, I agree, I'd still take a 94-95 W124 over most anything else...... except an older W124.

400Eric · #29 03-02-2010, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deanyel

My comment was in response to the suggestion by someone that quality declined after the 1993 model year. There just wasn't any meaningful event at that point in time - not engines, not transmissions, nothing. 1994 model year was a cosmetic body change, and huge price decrease in list price, which some association with cost cutting. But 93 124s had rebates up to $7500. Cars weren't selling and lower prices were necessary.

To me H rated tires were the correct tire for the car in the U.S. from the beginning, better ride, longer life, etc. Varying U.S. cars to U.S. needs was and is a long term trend.

I have no idea what a weaker open deck block is but have neither seen nor heard about any practical implication of it, positive or negative.

Late 124 diagnostic enhancements had nothing to do with the government. Government mandated OBDII started on the E-class in 1996 model year. HFM diagnostics were much improved over CIS and 94 was the first year that it was fully in place. Not all 93s had a built in LED/DM and 1993 300E 2.8 diagnostic systems are a mess.

All things considered I don't see any cheapening of the 94-95 models. The car was a class act to the very end. As someone said it just doesn't make sense to engineer a significant downgrading of a car on its way out of production.

The LED/DM was mandated here in California which is why some 93s had it and some didn't. All Cali cars had it and at some point, it was federally mandated that all cars sold in the U.S. had to have on board diagnostics. That's why all cars sold in the U.S. did have OBD even before OBD II came along. Maybe that's why OBD II was called OBD II, because it was the second generation, not the first.

It's true it doesn't make any sense to engineer a downgrading of any part of a car. Which is why it's so madding that they did just that. And while the W124 may have been on it's way out of production, the M119 wasn't. Not quite anyway. For all the reasons already stated in my earlier post, and NOT because of the price reduction, I DO see a cheapening of the 94-95, I stand by my statement that the OP is better off with an early 93. I don't like plastic oil tubes and downgraded tires. There are lots of posts on the net from folks that have troubles with plastic oil tubes. I've already posted a link to one of them. Show me ONE post from a person who has a problem with the aluminum tubes. And on the subject of tires, for the record, not all manufacturers downgraded to "H" rated tires in the U.S. market. It's unforgivable the M.B. did. And there are many "V" rated tires that have very good wear ratings.

Again, I'm not saying that the 94-95 W124 is bad, I'm just saying that a pre-94 is better from a reliability and durability point of view.
Regards, Eric

babymog · #30 03-02-2010, 09:09 AM

You have noted that the spec for tires was downgraded to H-rated tires, which many consider appropriate with a maximum sustained speed rating of 126mph IIRC. This change was made possible largely by the new engines' ability to have a speed limit built in and had nothing to do with quality. Speed limits were being pushed hard in Germany as well as here to limit speeds on the autobahn (to prevent the government mandating it, the manufacturers were doing it, a political move). In the mid-'90s I found it annoying that Tire Rack made me sign a waiver to buy H-rated tires for my TE (because they were below the spec. speed rating). Most of us never see any sustained speed above 126mph.

You have also mentioned that the new series V-8 was changed. However, is there any other part of the 124 that was "downgraded"? The seats were better, the lights were MUCH better, the M104 a better version of the dependable M103, brakes upgraded from single-puck floating calipers to 4-piston units, minor hood and trunk changes, added the power-adjustable driver's mirror, body color bumper strips, new 8-hole wheels for the sedan and wagon, new OM606 engine for the diesels, same transmissions, re-designed R-134a A/C system, ... I'm trying hard to find something that wasn't UPGRADED in '94 but downgraded. Oh, they did make the headlamp wipers optional in '95 instead of standard, so you can add that to the tires and new V-8, but quality changes? None. Sorry, I was a supplier to that and other chassis through the '90s and later, no changes for us in Engineering nor content on existing models.