Best year for a 300E - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

joshhol · #1 12-25-2003, 08:53 PM

I'm sure this subject has been beaten to death, but my question hopefully elicits more specific answers to this age old discussion.

I'm thinking about an 89 model year specifically. I've ruled out the 90 year as being stated as the slowest year. I don't want an M104 due to the increased complexity and higher price of the newer year car, so that leaves the 86-88 and 91-92 cars a question mark in my mind.

The thing that concerns me about the early years is the valve guide issue. Is that not something to worry about once it has been corrected, and is that an issue in '89 models?

Basically, how do the 86-88 models stack up against an 89?

Do 89's have cylinder head and wiring harness issues?

I'm aware they all have evaporator problems, what are other common problems associated with the 86 to 89 year cars?

Thanks in advance!

blackmercedes · #2 12-25-2003, 09:41 PM

Wiring harness issues did not come along until the M104 was installed in 1993.

In my opinion the 1992 300E is the best year simply because the M103 was so well sorted out at that point and they are the newest W124 M103 equipped car you can buy. You have the best chance of finding a good example in a 1992. The 1986 cars are really getting on now, and time takes as big a toll as mileage.

Without a doubt find the newest, best cared-for example that you can. Saving money on an older well-worn car in need of TLC is false economy with a Mercedes. Spend the money up front and you'll have much lower overall costs.

zeronero · #3 12-25-2003, 11:41 PM

I would go for a '90 or later. As for '90 being the slowest year I think that '90 thru '92 should be the same since the slow down was due to the 1st generation face lift which made the car look 100% better. As blackmercedes said, if you want the M103 engine you should get a '92. Personally I prefer the new engines such as the M104 and M119.

deanyel · #4 12-25-2003, 11:43 PM

I don't think you can go wrong in the say 88 to 92 timeframe. The 90 to 92s are a little more refined, automatic down windows, windows controlled by the key, wood on the door, leather standard on the 3 liter, etc. I think it's basically a luxury versus utility question - if you're really looking for utility go with an 88 or 89. They are lighter, no airpump, MB tex on most 3 liters, etc. I would say stay away from pre-1990 leather.

suginami · #5 12-26-2003, 01:53 AM

I with blackmercedes on the 1992 300E in that it is the last year of the M103 in the W124 chassis.

I wouldn't necessarily avoid a 1993 300E (3.2) / 1993 300E 2.8, 1994-1995 E320, but I would make sure that the head gasket has been replaced to the updated style and that the engine wiring harness had been replaced.

joshhol · #6 12-26-2003, 03:35 AM

Thanks for the replies.
I think a 93 year would be out of my price range. Therefore a utilitarian 89 would be okay for me. But, what year was the first facelift? It is better.

According to this: 300E Performance Throughout the Years and Comparisons

86-89 had a 3.07 rear axle and 2.89 thereafter. What does this mean to the driving characteristics and which one will have the better fuel economy? 91 and 92 had first gear start but, what did an 89 have?

Ultimately I need to drive some to see how they handle, but I want to stay away from years that are more problematic than others, I don't need auto this and auto that. I think engatwork said something about 89's having fewer emission controls too.

Thanks again

gerryvz · #7 12-26-2003, 04:29 AM

The post-refresh 300Es would be your best bet, and anything from 1990-1992 would be preferred. Only major issue is the head gasket, which I had to deal with on my wife's 1992 300TE at around 100,000 miles.

Just about any MB motor is going to have valve guide/seal issues at some point. If this hasn't been done or isn't (yet an issue), the time to do it is when (not if, but when) the head gasket goes and the head is off the car.

The seals can be done with the head still on the car if that is the only issue there. Only problem with that, is that it's preferable to do guides and seals at the same time just to take care of the whole problem.

Good luck!

Cheers,
Gerry

deanyel · #8 12-26-2003, 10:50 PM

Prior to 91 would be a second gear start, which I actually prefer. The higher number ratio is geared "lower", would be quicker off the line but use more fuel (other things equal). The reality is there aren't that many strong, well maintained cars of this vintage out there. I'd say find the best one you can and don't worry too much about what year it is, i.e. in the 88 to 92 timeframe.

engatwork · #9 12-27-2003, 07:25 AM

My choice would be a 1989 model because it does not have the egr on it (based on my experience with a 1989 300SE which I am assuming is the same engine).

#10 12-27-2003, 10:00 AM

You're talking about buying a USED car here. It would be nice if you could get a car built in the desired year, but don't overlook the issue that is TEN TIMES MORE IMPORTANT, and that is CONDITION.

When buying a used car, the criteria that is absolutely PARAMOUNT is CONDITION. I have run into a similar problem in the past when buying a used car for my wife and my daughter. They want to select it based on color.

If you find a car in top condition from any of these years, that is the one you should buy. There were not that many of these cars imported to the US to begin with, so if you limit yourself to one particular year, you are narrowing your choice dramatically.

CONDITION IS EVERYTHING!

My $0.02,

joshhol · #11 01-21-2004, 04:17 PM

Quote:

They are lighter, no airpump,

What function does the airpump perform, and how troublesome is it?

I drove my friends 93 300E yesterday, what a car! While I don't think it looks as nice as the old ones, it is just an awesome driving machine. I'd have to part with my Fintail and 108

, but it really is nice to keep up with traffic flows and do so in a quiet interior. I was not at all fatigued from my commute, whereas I always am.

I'm leaning towards a later model, I really would like the added pep of the first gear start, combined with the lazier highway revs. After 11 years of the 300D, I feel like I have a pent up thirst for speed going here.

Here in the Bay Area, there are 300E's for sale all the time, so I should be able to find a good condition model in the year desired.

brewtoo · #12 01-21-2004, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by joshhol
I'm leaning towards a later model, I really would like the added pep of the first gear start, combined with the lazier highway revs.

The later models do rev lower on the highway BUT, I would not classify any of their highway revs "lazy".

They tach up pretty high...about 3000RPM at 70MPH, or so.

joshhol · #13 01-21-2004, 09:06 PM

brewtoo,

Interesting, the 93 300E I drove yesterday was at 3000 revs at 80mph.

brewtoo · #14 01-21-2004, 10:21 PM

Doesn't the '93 have the 104 engine? If so, it may have different gearing.

blackmercedes · #15 01-21-2004, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tkamiya
If your budget is tight that it would rule out 1992 models, you should really consider, if buying a E class Mercedes are right for you. (I mean no disrespect here - just doing reality checks)

I agree. The problem with an older MB is that the purchase price is high for a 10-12 year old car. That means that the budget for repairs is often tight thanks to the relatively high upfront investment. Many people become frustrated when buying a 10+ year old MB.

When buying many other 10 year cars, many wear items have been replaced at 6-7 years. Not so with an MB. Many items last 12 years, maybe longer. That means a 10 year old car is just coming due for some bits to be replaced, and owners have to be prepared for that.

For someone looking for a superb driving experience on a fraction of the budget required for buying a new Mercedes, a 7-10 year old model can work well. However, for someone expecting a purely economical means of transportation, a 10-12 year old MB is not going to be it. For the same dollars, a much newer Honda or Toyota can be bought that will cost much less to operate over a 3-5 year period.

Example? A 1993 E320 in my area is still a nearly $20K car. That's for one with 150K-km's and good records. $20K buys a 2002 Accord with nearly no km's and factory warranty. I'd pick the E320 myself, but that's me. If it's a decision pased purely on the economics of the car based on the next three years or so, the Honda wins.