On a fast learning curve here, I see potential advantages to both cars. I'm looking at purchasing one of several '96-'97 E320s or one of several '98 E320s. All have about 100K & reasonably good service, records, etc. So, all things being generally equal, which is a better bet for providing the kind of good, long-term service one should expect from a well-maintained MB?

From a tech standpoint, is one or the other engine particularly easier to diagnose & do maintenance on?

I had wonderful luck with my '71 220D (350K +) & '81 300TD (240K), both as running cars with life left in them...but this will be my first gasoline MB.

thanks in advance
-c

My preference is with the inline-6 over the V6, but that's just me.

One thing to consider with the inline-6 is that early M104 engines had problems with oil leaks at the head gasket.

The head gaskets were updated several times, but I don't know when the last update hit.

'96-'97 E320's may never need a head gasket.

I don't think the V6's ever had head gasket problems.

Another consideration is that the '96 had the 4 speed transmission, which proved to be quite durable and is cheap to rebuild.

'97 was the first year of the 722.6 5 speed auto, but it required a lot of updates. 2000 models have all the updates needed.

__________________
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".

Are these head gasket failures to the extent that they would be warrantied or even covered in a recall (post warranty...i'm guessing i'm on my own, but i'm also an experienced DIYer w/ most of the right tools + friends who have good diagnostic equipment & service manuals).

I'll be writing the check (if) only after a final consult with all the maint. records, so thanks for the heads up there.

I'll also be in the market for a CD changer if I go for the '96, but I guess that's another thread for another day....

From other stuff I've read, sounds like the '96 is more of the traditional 'tried & true' MB mechanicals....thus perhaps a bit kinder for the DIYer to own.

A head gasket is child's play compared to having your rings go bad on the V6, which seems to be quite common. What can you say about an engine (V6) that requires synthetic oil to operate properly - crazy.

How did you come up with that fairytale ?

__________________
2007 C 230 Sport.

And got it from the factory, see http://www.whnet.com/4x4/oil.html and the FSS lawsuit, didn't even think it a provocative or controversial statement. That the 112 engine family is a substantially cheapened engine comes from Mercedes itself in statements made to Wall Street at introduction. And some of these ring failures are coming on cars that have never seen conventional oil.

Common sense should tell you need to use the finest oil available if you want your engine to last

~Nautilus

__________________
1990 260E Sportline (that's 300E 2.6 for our American friends) -> sold
2001 E320 4Matic Elegance -> my Dad's daily drive
2005 Seat Leon FR 1.8T

cgranju - It's a good question. Some good points made here.

I think they are both good engines, the key is maintenance. How have they been serviced? If you find an M112 that has had frequent oil changes, either more than stipulated by FSS or at least on par, and has also used ONLY approved synthetic oil, it should prove a fine engine. I would not purchase one without this service record documentation in hand.

There seem to be quite a few ML owners with M112s that use oil, and have been serviced well. So it does seem that some of these engines use oil, whereas this was not an issue with the M104. Definitely something to consider. As stated, my M113 uses oil and it is a frustrating issue to try and rectify as diagnosis is very difficult - short of tearing the entire engine open.

However, the 722.6 transmission is leagues beyond the old 4-speed in terms of performance and quality of ride. If you bought a 1999 model, you would probably be in good stead in terms of getting a solid specimen.

Then there is the 1997 E320, which will give you the M104 and the 722.6. A family member here has this car and it has proved very reliable and durable. Now close to 160,000 Km, it has the original tranny and engine. Not a single problem with either (doesn't burn a drop of oil either). We have had the transmission fluid changed however, and will do so every 50,000 Km - Mercedes' 'lifetime' fill be damned.

Good luck!

__________________
Chris
2007 E550 4Matic - 61,000 Km - Iridium Silver, black leather, Sport package, Premium 2 package
2007 GL450 4Matic - 62,000 Km - Obsidian Black Metallic, black leather, all options
1998 E430 - sold
1989 300E - 333,000 Km - sold
1977 280E - sold
1971 250 - retired

"And a frign hat. They gave me a hat at the annual benefits meeting. I said. how does this benefit me. I dont have anything from the company.. So they gave me a hat." - TheDon

At this point I think condition, mileage, and service records are of greater significance than which engine is chosen. I currently own one of each - a 1993 300E 2.8 and a 2001 E320 wagon. In normal driving they are almost indistiguishable - perfectly smooth, responsive, and quiet. Add a bit of throttle and they both get aggressive, pulling hard at upper RPMs with a sporting growl. Different notes, of course, an I6 doesn't sound like a V6.

In terms of repairs, the M104 has required both a head gasket and engine wiring harness prior to 100K miles. As I understand it, the engine wiring harness is not a concern in a 96/97 model year car.

The M112 hasn't needed any repairs. Of course, it's only 7 years/55K miles old.

The professional techs on the site do report occasionally reringing the M112/M113 V6/V8 engines. So far I haven't seen any data points that correlate, or not, this failure with use of conventional oils. I don't know whether this failure occurs to the unlucky or only those that don't follow proper maintenance procedures. I can recall 2 occurances of folks on this site that needed new rings.

The 722.6 five speed automatic is a nicer driving transmission than the earlier four speed. It has a better selection of gear ranges, and is more cooperative in choosing the correct gear. It delivers better fuel mileage because it has an overdrive top gear and a lockup torque converter. But unless you can afford a late 99 or 2000 model year, when all the updates were incorporated, I wouldn't recommend it over the earlier transmission.

My long and rambling $.02,

- JimY

But you're missing the point. The really long lived MB engines of the past never saw a drop of synthetic oil. The point is the engines have changed. I believe MB boasted to Wall Street that they had cut nearly half of the production cost of the 112 engine family versus the prior engines. Whether they did this intentional to shorten engine life (planned obsolescence) or simply missed a calculation and screwed up is not as important as the fact (obvious to me) that it happened. Bottom end engine problems are not a laughing matter in this day and age. 104 motors and 119 motors don't have them short of really serious abuse.

No, no recall of the head gaskets, but the problems were mainly on the earlier M104 engines ('93-'95). There were surely some '96 E320's that had head gasket leaks if I had to guess.

My 1993 300E (3.2) "E320" had the original head gasket up until about 127,000 miles. It developed a leak at the right rear corner of the head gasket, which is where they usually leak. I let it just leak for about a year, but it got so bad that it leaked on the exhaust manifold. When my mechanic had it up on the lift, the whole under carriage was covered in oil.

In any event, these head gaskets fail so that oil leaks externally. It's not a failure where the coolant mixes with the oil, causing other problems.

So look for a leak. If it's not, it either means it's been changed or it might not ever leak.

__________________
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".

Truthfully, the only material difference between '96 and '97 cars is the transmission.

The 5 speed auto in the '97 has advantages in that you get slightly better mpg, probably faster acceleration, etc., but it is an electronically controlled transmission. You need to have codes pulled to diagnose problems, and my mechanic can get these transmissions rebuilt for $3,500, installed.

The older 4 speed auto is cheap to rebuild. He installs rebuilt units with a one year warranty for $1,500.00.

__________________
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".

That V6 needs synthetic to operate under (at the time, MB-specified) FSS a.k.a. extended oil change intervals.

AFAIK, dino oil is fine in that motor if you change every 5K or thereabouts.

And that's the way it is.
If you change oil as per FSS.
That does not mean a V-6 will not run " properly " on dino oil.

__________________
2007 C 230 Sport.

well, fwiw, i figure i'll go ahead and change the oil every now & then