My 1983 300D was just totalled by being rear ended.
I think I am probably going to go to a gas engine now, but basically because there seem to have been problems with every diesel engine after the early 1980's 5 cylinder turbodiesel, except the 6 cylinder used in 1986 and 1987, but these are in the SDL (too big). At least this is what I can gather so far. Am I wrong?
The exception seems to be the latest versions (1998-1999); can't afford those unfortunately.

up to 1985 - like a rock
1986, 1987 - good, occasional head cracking and rod bending
1990, 1991 3.5 L - bad news
1991-1993 2.5 liter, decent but reliability problems too, talked to a transmission repairman who owns several Mercedes and is something of a fan, showed me the hulk of just such an engine in his shop, says he has seen several like that with big problems.
1992 S series - big problems, expensive
1996, 1997 no turbo - one frequent poster here referred to his 1996 E300D as the worst car he ever had.

Sorry, the dates might be a bit imprecise.
While we're on the topic - did the 1998-1999 version finally solve these problems? Seems like a decade and a half of experimentation on Mercedes' part.

Thanks

I've never owned a MB but I'm looking for the "best" diesel too. From what I've seen it's a 123. All I've looked at have been "well used" so to speak so I'd like to find a clean 91 thru 93. Anyone have any thoughts on these?

__________________
'93 300D 200k (since Aug 04)
'82 300TD 205k (since March 04)
'02 Ford Escape 192k (bought new)
'90 Ford Festiva 310k (since '92 with under 10k)
'01 Jeep TJ Wrangler 278k (since 07 with 235k)
'76 VW Westfalia van 150k ? (since '90 with 100k)
'72 Chevrolet Corvette conv. (base not a LT1) 175k (since '84 with 100k)
71' VW Squareback (since '72 with under 9k, odo turned over, then stopped then replaced. maybe 250k)
'87 Yamaha Riva 125 scooter 7k

The new CDI's in Europe seem to answer your last question. They are apparently, quiet, fast, efficent, and reliable. I think Mercedes got it right with the CDI's. Too bad we can't get them here in the US.

Not that I could afford one either....

The same 3.0l OM603 as found in the 300SDL was available in 86 and 87 in the W124 300D and 300TD. I'm not sure both were availabe in both years, but it's something like that. If an SDL is too big, these cars might be the right size for you.

The 2.5l OM602 is essentially the same engine as the OM603 with one fewer cylinder.

The 3.5l OM603 as found in the 90-91 350SD/L and 92-? 300SD gets very little respect in this forum.

I haven't heard of problems with the OM606 as found in the 95-97 E300 or the turbocharged version in the 98-99 E300 (95s are W124, the rest are W210). If you know the key words that lead to the thread on OM606 problems, I'd appreciate you letting me know.

If the S-class is too big, then you're looking as gasoline E-class cars and probably later model versions as the M104 inline 6 while reliable will have you back at the shop for nagging oil leaks. Might be a gross generalization but chances are...

Sixto
91 300SE
81 300SD

Coupla comments.

The '86-'87 OM603 is known for occasional head failures, but definately not rod failures. Only the later, larger displacement version bends rods. Both are of the OM603 family, but the 3.0 liter versions are OM603.96x, whereas the 3.5 liter versions are OM603.97x. Only this second type is so self destructive.

The OM602 as used in the 90-93 (do I have the years right?) 300D 2.5 is very much the same engine as the OM603, but with an improved head. You only get five of the six cylinders, but everything else is the same On these engines - both five and six cylinder - it is possible for the vacuum pump to fail in such a manner that the timing chain jams and breaks. The vacuum pump on these is a PM item every 150K or so miles.

The problem with the '96-'97 OM606 diesel is a surging problem under cruise. The engine has a variable geomety intake manifold to flatten the torque curve. Apparently there was some problem with the flaps moving about during steady cruise. Probably well fixed by now.

The '98-'99 is great. I have one and it is a wonderful car in most respects. Mine breaks far too often, but when running it is very impressive...

I understand your dilemma. I feel that the best diesels for the long term are the 616/617's. As a previous poster pointed out, they are getting more difficult to find in good shape.

I finally threw in the towel and began driving gas MB's and have yet to be disappointed. If you insist on a diesel though, with some patience and doing some searching, there are still a few good 123's out there to find.

Good luck,

jcyuhn,

Could you shed some light on the type of problems you have experienced with your 98/99 E300D Turbodiesel? I have one and it has a little less than two years of warranty on it, and other than the front seat backs clicking and popping (driver's side fixed under warranty - new gear set needed for power seat adjusting mechanism) I have had no issues, yet. When I read a sentence suggesting a nightmare coming it scares me.

I second Larry's statement about the gas cars. My 190E 2.3-16 was purchased new in December 1985 and has proven to be a very reliable machine. No actual problems that kept it off the road yet, or kept me from getting home. Of course, driving 70 miles from the airport once without a clutch when the hydraulic fluid leaked out might have kept the car off the road that night for some people, so I guess I have to qualify that statement. While it is a great car to drive, it is not as efficient as my Diesel, and it has a lot of extra stuff under the hood to make it run compared to a W123 Diesel.

Based on the record of the 190E and some recommendations/endorsements from this forum I picked up an '88 300E 5-speed last Fall. It also seems to be a really well made machine that should see the hunred thousand mile digit on the odometer hit at least two.

I am just beginning to venture under the hood of the 98 E300D Turbodiesel, and it is looking a little more electronically controlled under there. Still, the basic stuff I expect to do for the life of the car, routine maintenance, is still accessible.

Thanks, Jim

__________________
Own:
1986 Euro 190E 2.3-16 (291,000 miles),
1998 E300D TurboDiesel, 231,000 miles -purchased with 45,000,
1988 300E 5-speed 252,000 miles,
1983 240D 4-speed, purchased w/136,000, now with 222,000 miles.
2009 ML320CDI Bluetec, 89,000 miles

Owned:
1971 220D (250,000 miles plus, sold to father-in-law),
1975 240D (245,000 miles - died of body rot),
1991 350SD (176,560 miles, weakest Benz I have owned),
1999 C230 Sport (45,400 miles),
1982 240D (321,000 miles, put to sleep)

I've got the clicking seat issue, but it doesn't really bother me much. Haven't done anything about it yet.

Here's the history. Car has been in service 4.5 years, has 41K miles on it. I purchased it slightly used, at 8 months and 8K miles. (No, it wasn't a lemon, I bought it from MBNA - it was the press car used to introduce the E300 turbodiesel to North America.) At about 20K miles the transmission electronics failed. I was driving home from the office when all of a sudden it refused to shift out of first gear, then a bunch of warning messages came up. Transmission was in "limp home" mode. I was near the dealer, so limped on over to drop it off. Apparently this failure was common in early E300 cars - there used to be a mailing list and several folks experienced the problem. The car spent 14 days in the shop awaiting parts. It was fixed correctly the first time and has stayed fixed.

At about 30K miles it started running a bit rough and smoking in the morning. (Not unfiltered Camels, either.) Eventually it set the check engine light. The dealer replaced all six glow plugs and the glow plug controller. Stayed in the shop 10 days waiting for parts.

At 40K miles (i.e. last month) we drove it to visit my inlaws for the holidays. After lunch it was very difficult to start. Finally got it running and made it to our destination. Looking under the hood, there were lots and lots of air bubbles in the fuel line. Dealer pulled codes, replaced the mass air meter, and replaced all the fuel lines. (Which appear to have redesigned fasteners vs. the original lines.) I had to leave the car at a dealer 400 miles from home. It required a week to fix, but it was during the holidays.

Other than that, the CD changer died once and the engine mounts have been replaced. That was actually accomplished in a single day.

It's an amazing car when running right. But mine has spent about 30 days in the shop in the ~4 years I've owned it, and had three seperate problems which rendered it undrivable. That's by far the worst record of any automobile I've ever owned.

The question at this point is whether to keep it or get rid of it. My wife is already out car shopping, I'm undecided. I rather like it, and there is nothing else which combines the performance, comfort, economy, and style of this model E-class. As well, my experience is that Mercedes really gets after problem areas and provides permanent solutions. I've seen many revised parts for earlier cars to solve issues, so I expect the same to be true of the E300. Right now I'm thinking keep it, just because I like it, and also because I'm too lazy to go buy a new car. Any thoughts on the matter out there?

Sorry about your loss, but IMHO, the 123's were the last REAL Mercedes...everything since has been retrograde with regard to durability, dependability, or any other attribute.

You are lucky in that there are still many, many primo 123's out there...but this won't be the case forever. Find the best one (or two) you can...ten years from now, you'll thank me.