Is the 350 diesel the problematic diesel, or is it as good as the 300?

Any thoughts appreciated - Ron

The 3.5 litre turbo diesel (OM603.971, OM603.970)used in the 1990 - 1995 S-Class was a poorly designed engine. Connecting rods were too weak, and the engine failed as low as 55K miles.

That is the 350 diesel (unless you're talking about GM)

I'd stay away from those cars. Unless they had a brand new factory engine installed into the car. The replacement engine had reinforced rods and pistons. No complaints on that engine :p YET

DslBnz - thank you. I thought I had read somewhere that the engine was not a good one. The car I looked at had 103,000 miles on it and maybe the engine has been replaced, but not able to talk to owner. I am tired of having cars with problems and would be best to stay away from it even though it was in very good condition.

Thanks again - Ron

The ultimate irony there is that the 350 Benz diesel and the 350 GM "diesel" share one major thing in common. That is, compared to most other diesels, they have a typically short lifespan, and thus both have a reputation for being junk (a well-earned one IMHO). There are 3.5l 603's and 350 Olds diesels that have never needed any work and have racked up high miles, but it's much more common to hear about the problems that both of these engines have.

Maybe there's a curse around the number 350...?

When considering to buy one of these awhile back, I read all posts regarding this car and grew leery of it as well. After I purchased my 300sd I got friendly with the benz tech and he told me that the cars were very good as long as they were properly maintained. They had a tendency for the egr valve to build up carbon deposits around itwhich would break off and cause problems with the rods at some point.

Routine maintenance he says, would have prevented it.

How much were they asking for it?