I have sold my 1992 300sd and am looking at 1997 and 1998 E class wagons and sedans. Are these cars reliable? How are the diesels compared to the 300sd 140 series? Anything to watch out for as a trouble spot? Is the a/c as expensive to work on? ANy tips will be appreciated.(you shall be rewarded in heaven)
Thanks

If you are considering 97 and 98 the first thing to decide is whether you want a straight six (97) or V6 (98). That's the big difference between those two years - both had five speed automatics, which started in 97.

.....same with the V8's. They use different engines.

1997 E420's use the DOHC 4.2 liter engine.

1998 E430's use the SOHC 4.3 liter engine.

__________________
Paul S.

2001 E430, Bourdeaux Red, Oyster interior.
79,200 miles.

1973 280SE 4.5, 170,000 miles. 568 Signal Red, Black MB Tex. "The Red Baron".

For most people I'd recommend the '98, though the differences are minor. The M112 V6 engine seems to be more reliable overall than the M104 I6. It does not suffer the headgasket and oil leak problems of the inline engine. The only weak spot on the M112 is the harmonic balancer, and this is a very inexpensive and easy repair if performed before it fails. The V6 returns slightly better fuel economy and has much lower emissions/pollution. Overall performance is about the same.

The '97 is the first year most cars got the 722.6 five speed automatic transmission. Though it's overall a good unit, there are a number of updates over the years. A '98 will likely have a few a updates that are missing in the '97.

You can get a '98 model year wagon, there is no '97 wagon.

The differences are minor enough that I'd take a clean '97 over a less-nice '98, but all other things being equal I'd choose the '98.

- JimY

Wow, I didn' know that 1997 didn't have a wagon - probably to work on the the second generation 4Matic for them with the new 5 speed for '98?

__________________
dtf
1994 E320 Wagon (Died @ 308,669 miles)
1995 E300 Diesel (228,000)
1999 E300 Turbodiesel ( died @ 255,000)
2006 Toyota Tundra SR5 AC 4X4 (115,000 miles) rusted frame - sold to chop shop
2011 Audi A4 Avant (165,000 miles) Seized engine - donated to Salvation Army
BMW 330 xi 6 speed manual (175,034 miles)
2014 E350 4Matic Wagon 128,000 miles
2018 Dodge Ram 21,000 miles

Someone is going to paint me as a troll, but I'll risk the public scorn... 1997-1998 was the first transition year of the "old" Daimler-Benz to the "new" Daimler-Chrysler (DCX) that meant operational changes in Stuttgart. Early years of the merger saw a power struggle between the two companies - capitolism versus craftsmanship in my opinion. Eventually the Germans won, but not until after Mercedes product quality dropped into the basement. You could not pay me enough money to drive an MY97 or MY98 Mercedes!

Anyhow, compared to your older vehicle.. a 1997-1998 E will likely be inferior in the following areas:

* Interior materials quality (leather, cracking dashboard)
* Engine mechanical (harmonic balancer failure is common)
* Electronics quality (switches, motors, audio equipment)
* A/C compressor (approx. $900 - $1000 USD)

Most failures are reported in the 80k - 120k mile range from my reading.

Keeping in mind this is a site for disgruntled owners... the following link enough interesting horror stories, especially for recent (2003) models: http://www.mercedes-benz-usa.com/e_class.php

Hope that helps in some way :-/
-DM

__________________
1995 E420 SE black/black
2004 Volvo V70R AWD

I owned a 1998 E320 from new. It was an excellent car. Absolutly no problems with the "first-year" V6. Very, very fuel efficient for its size. I now have a 2002 E430 4-Matic. Also very reliable and can pass anything on the highway except a gas station. I upgraded to the V8 because I figured I would need the extra torque to pull the 4-Matic. Bad decision, in the end the V6 was an excellent engine and would have perfomed just fine with much better MPG.

ANyone else have surpirsingly bad mileage with the 430 in a E-Class ?

oleh

How bad is bad? The 4matic system costs a bit of mileage, due to the added weight and the added driveline friction. An E320 4matic is rated lower both in city and highway mileage than a RWD E320. An of course the V8 costs in terms of mileage. Is it perhaps 3MPG worse - maybe 17 around town and 22-23 on the highway?

- JimY

I currently own a 1998 E 320 sedan. It currently has 58K miles. I purchased the car with 37K on it as a "Starmark" warranty car. The only problems I have had were 1) the crank position sensor replaced under warranty 2) the rear passenger window regulator replaced under warranty. My only concern now is the dreaded harmonic balancer. At last service it was said to be OK. I am considering replacing it as a preventative maintenance item. Best to replace it BEFORE it goes out. I have heard that the repair bill can be expensive when and if it fails. Pay a little now or a lot later. This is a great car. I would suggest that you buy the best you can afford. Good luck!

__________________
Donwo
1999 SL 500 Sport (30K miles)
1998 E320 (SOLD)
1989 560SL (SOLD)
1987 300E (TOTALED)
1986 300E (SOLD)
1984 300SD (SOLD)

The electronic components of the car are pretty cheap. The previous owner of the car already replaced two window regulators, went through 2 air mass flow sensors, and an a/c unit($1800). Hopefully i wont experience to many failures during my ownership But then again, at least my diesel engine is solid... :p

__________________
2002 G500 74K
1998 E300 200K and rising
1995 S600 73k


"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering
if they've made a difference. The Marines don't
have that problem."-Ronald Reagan

"Never tell people how to do things. Tell them
what to do and they will surprise you with their
ingenuity."-General George S. Patton

I'm biased, so I'll tout the 99E300turbodiesel as a fantastic car. My opinion has become much more favorable the longer I drive the car. We just got back to Fort Worth after tanking up on Cerrillos road in Santa Fe--made it all the way back, 624 miles with fuel to spare. The car got 37.5 MPG at speeds of
70 to 80. The 98 and 99 have loads of power to spare due to the turbo, but you will pprobably get better mileage around town with the 96 and 97 non-turbo. I get 27 to 30 depending on how I drive.

As far as reliability goes, I think it comes down to finding a good tech who cares about you as a customer. Many of the quality issues seem related to repeat repairs or damage caused by improper repair methods. With all the electronics its pretty much a crap shoot, but so far I've been lucky, needing
only one MAF sensor and a fuel temp sensor. Many have complained about glow plugs not lasting and light bulbs burning out, but so far, so good for me.

Steve

The W124's AC/ACC system is not a paragon of reliability. The W210's system has failures of Evap Temp sensors, but the compressor unit seems to be pretty reliable. The newer variable pressure systems are more reliable than older MB AC systems.

I agree about the interior materials. Our now-sold 98 E300 was nicely "styled" inside, but the interior plastics were a grade below our C-Class.

Our E300 had a ton of problems, most related to the driveline and trim. My indie says he now has a solution for the constantly failing glow plugs, and perhaps I now regret selling the E300, as that particular problem was the main reason we got rid of the car.

Things I like about the W210 vs. the W124 is the backlit instrument panel (despite the absent oil pressure guage), front end style (I really do like the quad-eye look and think it's aging very well) and the general driving experience. The W210 front suspension is much better and the overall handling of the W210 is a great combination of supple ride and grip. It lacks the front end "bump steer" of the W124 and W201 strut style suspension.

The W124 has better plastics, better paint (though not environmentally friendly), and early versions were very light and very nimble cars.

__________________
John Shellenberg
1998 C230 "Black Betty" 240K

http://img31.exs.cx/img31/4050/tophat6.gif

I'm a newby and don't know what standing Consumer Reports has here. The following is from the 2004 Buying Guide

FWIW, the 1997 had problems with the engine and hardware (half black circles) and even more problems with the electricals (a black circle). In the 1998, the engine was much better but the electricals and the hardware were the same as the 1997. In addition, the 1998 had real problems with the power equipment - a black circle, whereas the 1997 was much better - with a white circle. Otherwise there was not much difference between the two years.

I'm the happy owner of an exquisitely simple 1983 240D. The reliability is simply stunning :-)

HTH

V007