Just an idle thought, as I looked at the scabs on the back of my hands following one of my little projects: Given how little room there is in these engine compartments, is it safe to assume that the smallest engine available in a given chassis will be the easiest to work on? If so, should that be factored into the buying decision in the first place?

I don't have much data, but the small engine in our Camry is easier to deal with than the 4.2 Litre in the W210. Of course the smaller engines should use less fuel. Are smaller engines generally more maintenance intensive than larger ones?

__________________
1996 C280 289K Traded
1997 E420 167K Traded
2001 S430 240K Traded
2010 E550 4matic 80K
2000 GMC Jimmy 198K Gone to Boneyard
2003 Camry LE 196K
2011 Mazda3 i Sport 31K

I personally like engine bays big enough to sit in... I'm tired of being a contortionist laying on my back under a car only able to get one arm up to change a part one.bolt.turn.at.a.time.

: (

__________________
"Well, once again, we find that clowns and anarchy don't mix..." - The Tick
'94 E320 ~ Wikel
'87 300SDL ~ Frieda
'87 190E ~ Thurmond III
'84 944 ~ Schrickelgruber
'86 535i ~ Joerg

The immortal DIYer Dr. Frahnkensteen might beg to differ.

Enormous Schwanzstucker - YouTube

I have an enormous schwanstuccher , and hate trying to get into the tiny spaces around the little motor in my 190E. My hands were never ment for this.

That goes without saying.

Woof.

It's good that I can remove the transmission rear support and drop the engine and transmission down several inches so I can get to the modulator, etc.

With all the size issues with this car, this is still the best driving car I have ever owned.

__________________
My first Mercedes Benz. 4/6/07.

1984 190E (201 024) 2.3L four.

I will say this. My little mazda with the 2.0 four cylinder engine is crammed into the front of the engine bay. There is a huge gap from the exhaust manifold to the fire wall with nothing in it. I will dread the day I have to even replace the coolant lines. Now the 300sd 3.0 turbo diesel is a joy to work on save for a few pesky items. I think first and foremost you should base the car on what you like and want and can afford. Then choose based on how the engine is laid out if you can. If I had to drive a camry just because it was easier to work on I would go insane. I would save money on gas though because I would never drive it.

__________________
1984 300SD Orient Red/ Palomino
1989 560SEC
2016 Mazda 6 6 speed manual
1995 Ford F-150 reg cab 4.9 5speed manual

Yeah, I didn't mean to suggest a Camry vs. MB decision, but rather an MB with a 320 engine rather than a 420.

But you make a good point - a smaller engine won't necessarily be mounted smack dab in the middle of the engine compartment, which is what I was assuming.

__________________
1996 C280 289K Traded
1997 E420 167K Traded
2001 S430 240K Traded
2010 E550 4matic 80K
2000 GMC Jimmy 198K Gone to Boneyard
2003 Camry LE 196K
2011 Mazda3 i Sport 31K

Well I meant that if I made the sole choice based on how easy the engine is to work I on I dont think I would be happy. Take the W126 for instance. I would only purchase 3 out of the many engine types. Either a 420 or 300SD or a 280. I would never consider the 300se even though the engine might be easier to work on or cheaper,I would not be happy because I dont like that engine.

__________________
1984 300SD Orient Red/ Palomino
1989 560SEC
2016 Mazda 6 6 speed manual
1995 Ford F-150 reg cab 4.9 5speed manual