92-95 SD Series - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

PJF · #1 10-30-2005, 09:43 PM

I'm a newbie (to the forum) and I have a question about 92-95 3.5l turbo-diesel S class. Given their history of engine problems associated with rod design, is there such a thing similar to (for lack of a better term) infant mortality? Stated differently, after x number of miles on the engine, is there no longer the concern that the engine will self destruct as I have read about in numerous articles. Assume that recommended service shall be preformed.

The reason I am asking is that my job puts me on the road 40K per year and I have just seen too many fatalities. I need more sheet metal around me and I need good fuel economy. The S class is a stout vehicle and having owned diesels in the past, I know and understand them. I am also considering an E-Class/ 300 Turbo Diesel.

Thanks for the advice.

Pete

andmoon · #2 10-30-2005, 09:55 PM

Look for one that has already bent the rods. I bought my 3.5 because the motor was rebuilt with updated rods (although some say the updated ones bend too).

Brian Carlton · #3 10-30-2005, 10:17 PM

Since the cause of the bent rods has not been fully determined, there cannot be a point beyond which the vehicle can be considered safe from the problem.

The 3.5L engine can bend a rod at any point in its life. When you purchase one, you are taking an $8K crapshoot.

If you want a lot of steel around you, consider a W126 gasser.........either a 300SEL or a 420SEL. Sure they burn more gas, but, you would need to drive over 100K miles to finally make up the difference in the purchase price. With the cost of diesel fuel currently at 20% over the cost of RUG, you might need to drive 200K to finally break even. The 350SD and SDL make no economic sense.

t walgamuth · #4 10-30-2005, 10:55 PM

a lot of sense.

however if you buy it cheaply enough and service it diligently and drive it mostly on the highway, you may be one of the lucky ones who doesnt have the dreaded rod problem.

i have a 126 body 90 350 sdl. i paid 4000 for it needing a head gasket. i have done that and many other smaller things like tires and shocks. it drives really nicely and gets good economy. if i get a bent rod, i will rebuild with a 3 liter short block since they dont have the rod problem. and at that time will have essentially a new motor.

and eventyually the price of diesel will, i believe, settle back between regular and super where it usually stays for the last ten years or so.

tom w

Hatterasguy · #5 10-31-2005, 09:49 AM

You can buy a heck of a lot nicer S320 for the same money as a 100k+ mile S350D.

Californian · #6 10-31-2005, 02:36 PM

I bought mine to run veggie oil. 100K miles means I save $15K in diesel. money.

POS · #7 10-31-2005, 02:48 PM

The safety issues concerns me because of time on the road, but not enough to make it #1 priority in purchasing decisions. MPG was my main priority in purchasing decisions.

And since I also drive 40k a year (and for the past 5 years), the E-class got better mpg than the larger S-class, but I don't think much has been compromised in the safety department.

In other words, I compromised a little size in exchange for better mpg, and I wouldn't change a thing.

MonsieurBon · #8 10-31-2005, 07:41 PM

Is the 92-95 300SD different from the 350SD? All of the 300SDs I've seen claim to be 3.5L engines.

So 92-95 300SD's should be avoided as well?

Brian Carlton · #9 10-31-2005, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsieurBon

Is the 92-95 300SD different from the 350SD? All of the 300SDs I've seen claim to be 3.5L engines.

So 92-95 300SD's should be avoided as well?

It's just M/B confusing you, again.

In 1992, they came out with the W140. It still has the venerable 3.5L engine, but, for a reason that I cannot fathom, they badged the vehicle as a 300SD.

MonsieurBon · #10 10-31-2005, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

It's just M/B confusing you, again.

In 1992, they came out with the W140. It still has the venerable 3.5L engine, but, for a reason that I cannot fathom, they badged the vehicle as a 300SD.

How irritating. I have been considering buying a newer MB and had my sights on these until I noticed that they all had 3.5L engines.

That double-paned glass sure is sweet. An ex-girlfriend's parents had one, possibly a later model year. It had the double-paned glass and doors that assist in latching themselves. Oh, and an adjustable rear bench. Cooooool.

DslBnz · #11 10-31-2005, 10:21 PM

It's a shame for W140 lovers that the S300TD never made US shores. That engine was the old 3.0 liter, as you know, with a 24-valve cylinder head(AKA the 606).

The perfect solution!

Hatterasguy · #12 11-01-2005, 02:09 PM

In 1992-93 they were called the 300SD, really should have been 350SD though.

In 1994-95 MB changed their badgeing so they became the S350D.