1991 E300D vs 1983 300SD - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

300sdToronto · #1 03-01-2010, 03:43 PM

Guys

I'm currently the proud owner of a 1983 300SD, low mileage. About 91K if the ODO is to be believed. Previous owner records more or less confirm the mileage.

I've done a reasonable amount of work to the car - new timing chain, rebuilt injectors, new Bilsteins, brake re-build (rotors, pads, parking brake pads), rebuilt CCU & monovalve fix, cruise control amp. Vac locking system works, cruise works, sun roof works. Upgraded lights and excellent quality tires.

The bad - erratic fuel sensor, seat pads on front seats need to re-done, rear window glass on the way out and rear window requires replacement, new seal and probably some mild corrosion repair as part of the job. A/C is half hearted at best and could need anything from a recharge to a new compressor.....

I now have a chance to buy a 1991 E300D with 140K miles on it. Totally rust free, garaged all its life, in a salt-free region, one owner, service records, timing chain, rad, water pump and all hoses just replaced.

The upsides to me are a slightly higher performance car and one that is better suited to mountainous, twisty roads. The w126 is a beaut on the freeways, less so on twisty roads. ABS for winter is a clear advantage.

What do you think - how does the 1991 E300D stack up against the tank like w126/617 combination? Reliability, durability, etc. My questions are really around if the newer car is harder to work on and more or less reliable than the old 1983 workhorse.

Thanks for your comments in advance

Skid Row Joe · #2 03-01-2010, 03:59 PM

My bottom line is; newer is better - if the newer diesel is proven to have a good general reputation.

Do I miss my '83 300SD with 305K miles on it? Yes.
Do I want it back instead of my '99 E300TD? Not one chance in h$%#.

I'd buy the '91 immediately - if you like it, can afford it, and it checks out.

babymog · #3 03-01-2010, 04:22 PM

I agree with Joe.

If you are happy with the size of the 124. The only thing that the 126 has over the 124 is its size with the carrying capacity and ride that comes with it.

The 124 is a huge advance in Engineering, better in almost every way (sorry 126 buffs), and with the 2.5l turbodiesel it is substantially quicker and quieter, handles much better, and gets fuel mileage in the 30s.

There are a few issues in '91. I think that it is the beginning of the wire harness problem, the turbo wastegate is dependent on electronics, the vacuum pump can disintegrate and destroy the engine, and A/C can be a problem (evaporator). The rest of the car is pretty much the same caveats as your SD.

BTW, in 1991 here in the US we received the 300D 2.5 Turbo. Is the car that you're considering a true E 300 (3.0L 6-cylinder)? Is it a turbo then, or NA?

123Guy · #4 03-01-2010, 04:32 PM

We bought my wife's 300SD, new in 1982 and we haven't replaced it because Mercedes hasn't made a better car since.

300sdToronto · #5 03-01-2010, 04:50 PM

To be correct it's a 300D 2.5 Turbo, sorry.

DslBnz · #6 03-01-2010, 04:58 PM

The W126 can withstand more of a belt in a major accident. Even if it doesn't handle as well as a W124. Also, the interior materials, especially the 2nd gen, W126 are on a different level.

The W124 is more of a driver's car. And, imho, even though newer is usually better....It feels more livable day to day in tight quarters due to it's tight turning radius, light weight, narrow width, and overall road feel compared to the bulbous W210. BTW, why is every car so wide these days?

babymog · #7 03-01-2010, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DslBnz

The W126 can withstand more of a belt in a major accident. Even if it doesn't handle as well as a W124. Also, the interior materials, especially the 2nd gen, W126 are on a different level.

Based on what test? Granted, the 126 weighs about 300lbs more than the 124, but the 124 is a generation beyond the 126 in engineering, better testing and engineering might well have eclipsed the additional 10% in weight.

The interior materials of the 2nd gen 124 are also very nice. Both cars have zebrano or burlwood, both cars have perforated leather seats and both cars have vinyl dashes. The carpet in the 2nd gen 126 are nicer though, if you lift the floormats.

I like the 126 a lot, but prefer the 124. A matter of preference is all that separates them IMO.

DslBnz · #8 03-01-2010, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by babymog

Based on what test? Granted, the 126 weighs about 300lbs more than the 124, but the 124 is a generation beyond the 126 in engineering, better testing and engineering might well have eclipsed the additional 10% in weight.

The interior materials of the 2nd gen 124 are also very nice. Both cars have zebrano or burlwood, both cars have perforated leather seats and both cars have vinyl dashes. The carpet in the 2nd gen 126 are nicer though, if you lift the floormats.

I like the 126 a lot, but prefer the 124. A matter of preference is all that separates them IMO.

Based on what I've seen at junkyards and what my family has experienced in several, what should have been fatal, collisions where the MB saved lives. Not saying the W124 is unsafe at all. The passenger safety cage seems not quite as rigid as the S-Class, is all. I grew up around nothing but Mercedes.

ashedd · #9 03-01-2010, 11:19 PM

I own both.

My W124 is a rocket ship compared to the SD. But on the other hand I would not hesitate to "floor" my SD up mountain roads for long periods of time, I have done it before. Do that stuff in my W124 and the temp gauge starts moving on up... and being an '87 I have to slow down and stop having fun.

W124 is tighter but the SD is a proud... and very nimble for such a large car. Try driving an '83 Lincoln town car

Buy it and drive both. I keep my W124 in the garage during the winter and the SD get's daily duty. Actually this year my TD is getting daily duty as my SD is in Detroit as a back up car.

123Guy · #10 03-01-2010, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by babymog

Based on what test? Granted, the 126 weighs about 300lbs more than the 124, but the 124 is a generation beyond the 126 in engineering, better testing and engineering might well have eclipsed the additional 10% in weight.
I like the 126 a lot, but prefer the 124. A matter of preference is all that separates them IMO.

The 126 is the last of the chrome and steel battering rams, don't sell them short on any account. It's also the last of the MB's that you tell it's a Mercedes from a block away.

babymog · #11 03-02-2010, 09:36 AM

So completely subjective based on walking past crashed cars with no knowledge of what forces were involved, and by stories of survival in 126 crashes? No question that the 126 was built with the best knowledge and materials available at the time, but the 124 was built with better knowledge still, and a safety cage made IIRC 30% of high-tensile steel which the 126 didn't have. Regardless, the simple dynamics of a longer body and 10% more mass clearly have an advantage that even advanced engineering can't overcome in some crashes, only some crashes however. The increased mass is a disadvantage in a side collision as the whole car must be displaced by the door.

Personally? I'd rather be in a touchy situation in a 124 than a 126, with or without my family. Why? Because I know the engineering that went into the car to help it survive a crash, have completely disassembled one that was in a fairly serious T-bone (and some on the forum have had the same bad luck in 124s) and was impressed with the design of the safety cage.

If you search, there are several success stories in the past year involving potentially serious crashes in the 124 including a highway rollover (in the past 30days IIRC with photos), one or two side-collisions, frontal and rear-end collisions and the occupants fared well in all cases so far.

Crash survival is a good thing, known in the industry as passive safety which is what you need if you are not able to avoid a collision. Active safety is where the 124 is IMO head-and-shoulders above the 126 though and more important, it is the ability of the car to avoid a colliision which given the 124's better braking, handling, and acceleration would give it the advantage here also.

I know that we won't agree, and I don't want to convince you as you love one of the best cars in the world for excellent reasons. I just have experience, training, and opinions that lead me otherwise, these are my preference and the reasons why.

If you truly want crash survivability, go W140. An amazing car.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DslBnz

Based on what I've seen at junkyards and what my family has experienced in several, what should have been fatal, collisions where the MB saved lives. Not saying the W124 is unsafe at all. The passenger safety cage seems not quite as rigid as the S-Class, is all. I grew up around nothing but Mercedes.

300sdToronto · #12 03-02-2010, 11:27 AM

So guys, trying to pull this back to my original question.

I am NOT unduely worried about safety. I'm assuming both cars are safer than the average car one drives. Or indeed much safer than my wife's 380SL

I am trying to understand if any aspects of the 1991 300D are significantly less reliable than the legendary 617 power train - engine, transmission, electrics.....

So far I am not hearing that the car I'm thinking about is a reliability PITA.

Any comments on that line?

Cherrs

babymog · #13 03-02-2010, 01:26 PM

There will be no convincing a 61x driver that it is as reliiable, I'm not going there.

However, the only items I can recall that are of note in a '91 300D 2.5 turbo that are significantly different than the SD are: Wire harness issues, turbo boost issues (electronics/sensors, can be back-dated with a pressure-actuated wastegate), vacuum pump, evaporator coil. You will have ABS so there's the occasional front sensor issue.

Front suspension is much simpler and cheaper to rebuild, rear suspension about the same, and like the SD bushings get old and need to be replaced if/when they start to fail.