M104's came in 1993 300E 2.8 and 300E (3.2) / 1994-1995 E320's, 1996-1997 E320's, and 1993-1999 W140 chassis S320's.

I own two 124's, and often drive my mechanics '88 300E. Of the bunch, to me, the most refined of the bunch is the '95 E320. Performance-wise, the car is no slouch, it has a great balance between handling/ride, and in no way feels any way compromised to the other to w.r.t. quality. Most that have the opportunity to drive my E320 are surprised at the responsiveness and driving experience of the car. I wouldn't hesitate to own another.

....And wasn't 1994 the first year to have added the cabin filter.

..... Yes and better headlights too! Listen guys, most of you are forgetting the O.P.'s original question: "What is absolute best gas W124 for reliability & durability". He didn't say anything about features, appointments, refinement, looks, facelifts, updates, appearance, or my favorite thing, power, or anything else. "Reliability & durability". Check the Consumer Reports reliability record of the 94-95 W124s as they aged against that of the older W124s as they aged.

For the record, the 92-93 400Es were governed too, but they were governed to 155 MPH instead of 130 MPH and the "H" rating is good to 130 MPH not 127. I seen tests where the governed top speed of MBs of 94-95 varied between 127-133.

I read in a book about Schremp and the Chrysler takeover that MB reduced the number of quality control inspectors on the assembly lines as another cost cutting move but I don't remember exactly when that happened. Maybe that was right after they blessed us with those plastic oil tubes. :rolleyes::P;):D
Regards, Eric

My worst 124 for reliability was my '91, my best would be either my '87 300D or my '95 E320. Only the '91 ever left me stranded, only my '91 kept the dealer and indy busy with warranty and post-warranty problems, I swore I'd never own another Mercedes. Electrical, electro-mechanical, ignition, fuel-injection, and chasing leaks like it was an English car. THAT was all in the first 100,000miles (after which I sold it).

So my opinion? If a diesel, I've only had '87s but great reliability, if a gasser, a '95. My daughter's '94 has been very reliable also even though it was a neglected auction car when I bought it for her. Perhaps this is a better way to answer the question.

From the vantage point of 2010 I think the best 124 is the newest, best cared for E320 you can find. It needs to have records showing the head gasket and wiring harness have been replaced, and perhaps the electronic throttle. They are very solid cars once this work has been done.

Other occasional problem areas are common across all 124 cars - AC evaporators, for example.

One item I haven't seen mentioned. Starting with 1994 cars MB went to water based paint systems. I think the 1993 and earlier paints are more durable, especially in non-clearcoat colors (e.g. white, black). My wife drives a white 1993 300E 2.8 and the paint still looks new. It's really amazing how well the car is holding up with age.

I don't have direct experience with a 124 400E or 500E, but think they tend to be more expensive to own. Not necessarily more problematic, but use more expensive parts and/or are more labor intensive to work under the hood. That big V8 is stuffed in an engine bay originally designed only for a straight six and is very tightly packaged. I would expect more heat/age related problems in the V8 cars as a result, such as brittle plastic bits, squeeky serpentine belts, or aged radiator hoses.

I purchased a 1995 E320 wagon 2 years ago with 170K miles from the 3rd owner for $1500. It was in very good cosmetic condition and I knew that the transmission was bad, a/c didn't work, and accumulators needed replacing in rear SLS. The only records with the car were detailed oil changes and record of being a StarMark car when the second owner purchased it.

I consider myself an advanced DIY'r and figured that I would replace the transmission with one from a salvage yard and then work on the other issues. I ended up rebuilding the transmission myself (my first automatic teardown), replaced the a/c evaporator (probably more work than the transmission rebuild), and replacing the accumulators. This was done in the first 3 months and since then I have only done minor more routine repairs such as front struts, ignition lock, 2 window regulators, oil pressure sending unit, rear control arm to hub bushings and rear wheel bearings.

I have driven it over 30K miles and it is a pleasure to drive and puts a smile on my face every time I get in it. It has become my favorite car of all that I have owned. My second favorite is 1996 Volvo 850 with 5 speed. The 6 Saabs that I have owned can't come close (although I would like to have another Saab 96 to restore for fun).

I just completed a 3000 mile trip to New England and would not hesitate to take this car anywhere.

Is it any better than the earlier 124's?? I may never know because from my experience I would stick with the 94 or 95's. My biggest complaint is that the transmission does not have a lock up torque converter. The motor is smooth as silk and amazingly peppy.

Inline 6 cylinders are best.Mercedes learned the bad from Chrysler,and started making V6's both gas and diesel.

This is an awesome discussion. Great input, and from knowledgeable owners who can walk the talk.

Since starting this thread, I asked both of my longtime indy techs this very question, and one said the 1986-1992 300E and the other said the same vintage 260E. Apparently the variable valve timing on the newer sixes makes these engines slightly more complex with a hair more maintenance requirements and expense, although the 93-95 straight 6's are still quite good. They said the 400E is also very good for a V8, but being a V8, it does end up costing quite a bit more to maintain in the long-run. Not less reliable or durable per se, just more engine to keep up, especially the 2nd head, of course.

On the 300E/260E's, they both said all you really need to do is rebuild the head every 150-250K miles and the bottom end will last longer than you care to keep the car...with proper routine preventative maintenance, of course. And in the end, the straight 6's will probably give you the lowest cost per mile in maintenance over long-term ownership.

One of my independent shops has been working on my cars for 25 years and the two partners are absolutely the best mechanics I've found anywhere. So I give their opinions a lot of weight. As much as I REALLY want a 400E, I might just consider a well cared-for 86-92 straight 6, since I am after absolute reliability and durability. After all, I am really a Benz diesel head used to 400K+ mile engine life, now looking to dip a toe back into gassers...:rolleyes:

The MB V6 was already designed and released before the Chrysler takeover. MB learned it's bad ways from Schremp, not Chrysler. At least Chryslers of the late 90s had a 4 valve V6 option, the Benzes didn't. Just that knappy 3 valve. Also, the Chrysler V6 was and is a 60 degree V6 while the Benz is a fundamentally flawed 90 degree V6 that requires a balance shaft. 60 degree V6s don't have or need such crutches.
Regards, Eric

Wayfarer, since I've been looking out for you so well, could you please do me a favor and be sure to put me at the very top of the list if that 87 300D ever comes up for sale? Thanks!
Regards, Eric

Your on the list right after me. I foolishly sold it to my parents 15 years ago with 36K on it when going through my "BMW phase." I still get to see it, drive it (not enough!), maintain it, but they won't sell it back to me. It is oh so sweet and has noticeably more power than any 90's 2.5 turbo...but we digress. The W124 chassis is the best Mercedes ever built, imho. The perfect balance between old-world build quality and modern technology and driveability. Time for me to fool with a gas version now.

You'll be back. The '87 is the one I keep going back to, the rest are good, but the '87 300D was when they really had it right IMO. Too bad they didn't put the 606 turbo in the '95 (one of my current projects).

inline 6's
 

Come to think of it,even American inline 6's were tuff. I had a Ford,Big Chevy 292,American motors,and Dodge slant 6. They lasted and lasted.I know Truck pulls,the best is a inline Cummins.Whats the deal.However Mercedes can take a 6 and make it run.

I wanted to clarify that the Dodge 3.9 and the Dodge and Jeep 3.7 are both lame 90 degree V6s too. The above post was only referring to cars made by Chrysler and it's divisions, not the trucks and SUVs although we are now seeing 60 degree V6s show up in the trucks and SUVs too (like the 4.0 V6 option in the Nitro). Just wanted to keep the facts straight.

I now wish I hadn't badmouthed the 94-95s because maybe I could've talked somebody into trading their 87 300D for my 95 E420!
Regards, Eric