What is absolute best gas W124 for reliability & durability - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Wayfarer · #1 02-27-2010, 12:57 PM

I am considering replacing my old '84 300SD with something newer, smaller, and more powerful. Still love the diesels, and I'm keeping my 92 300D, but want to indulge in some gasser W124 fun.

I am considering and 6 cyl or 8 cyl W124 from about 1990 on up. Candidates 260E, 300E 2.6/2.8, 300E, E320, 400E, E420.

I am leaning toward the 400E/E420. Now that these cars have been around for 15-20, we should have a pretty good idea which cars are the very best in terms of reliability, durability, ease of maintenance, and build quality.

To get the discussion ball rolling, I have heard that the 94-95 cars suffered from declining build quality. True? Also, has the variable valve timing on later models increased maintenance or decreased longevity?

A search on the forum reveals that all of them are known for various weaknesses of one type or another. What I am after via this thread is the *relative* reliability/durability compared among the various engines, all typical problems considered.

lee polowczuk · #2 02-27-2010, 01:09 PM

build quality was pretty consistent through 95

i like the idea of a 400e...but i know they have had some issues...not the engine itself, but fan clutch and a few other things... do a search.

we run mid grade in our 300e's...

these cars are fairly bullet proof.... you go through a water pump somewhere between 130k-150k... my alternator gave out on one with about 210.

valve stem seals on the 103 engine.... wiring harness on the 93-95's

people will have to weigh in on the head gasket...

400Eric · #3 02-28-2010, 05:29 AM

I agree that build quality declined after 93. Open deck blocks and plastic oil tubes attest to that (I also have a 95 E420 that isn't in my sig). I would even go farther and say don't get anything built after 2/93. As to M119 vs. M103 vs M104, all things considered, I would go with an early 93 320 or 400E. The 92 400E had a lower compression ratio and it's fuel economy wasn't as good. If fuel economy is really important, get the 320. I average 20 MPG with my 400E with a lead foot. I would average 22 MPG with a 320. You would probably do better in either. Every one of these cars has it's issues, check my sig, I speak from experience.

Please post what you get. If you get a 400E and you want to hop it up a little, let me know and I'll provide you a link to some good info.
Regards, Eric

kwontumspeed · #4 02-28-2010, 12:01 PM

To take your subject literally...anything with Techroline. In my region that means Chevron or Texaco.

To add to the subject...my friend has a 93 M104 and I a 94 M104. He doesn't seem to have half the problems that I encounter as far as what's under the hood. Fortunately I'm a wrencher so I have been able to work on things mice elf. If you can find a 400/420 in good shape, I would go for that. Just don't forget that the 300/320 isn't too shabby with +200hp either.

Wayfarer · #5 02-28-2010, 12:50 PM

Thanks for the responses. You guys have these cars and obviously know what you are talking about.

Based on what you're saying, I think a 92-93 400E is in my future. Economy is only 2 mpg worse, but it's a V8. I love my 280SE 4.5 and know the sinful pleasures of a Mercedes V8.

As for the differences between the 92 and 93, the 92 has a 10:1 compression ratio vs 11:1 for the 93. Is that it? So the 93 has more power, better economy, and a strict requirement for premium only gas.

Very interesting about the decline in quality in 94-95. Plastic oil tubes

. Not just an urban myth then.

deanyel · #6 02-28-2010, 01:02 PM

There was a cosmetic change in 1994 but the idea that there was a 124 quality decline in 1994-95 is about as silly as anything you will ever read on a car forum.

400Eric · #7 03-01-2010, 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deanyel

There was a cosmetic change in 1994 but the idea that there was a 124 quality decline in 1994-95 is about as silly as anything you will ever read on a car forum.

Replacing 16 good aluminum oil tubes with 16 cheap plastic ones on cars that MB was getting anywhere from 60,000 to 90,000 dollars for is a clear indication of where the company's collective heart was going during this time period. Who knows what else was being cheapened. Jim F. shows his own adventures with these plastic turds on his site. He has a few choice words about them here: http://www.k6jrf.com/MB_lifter.html His M119 5.0 S class is a 94 BTW. My very early 93 has one piece aluminum tubes while my 95 E420 has the plastic ones. What possible reason was there for this switch to 2 piece plastic? To cause their customers who paid obscene amounts of money for their product misery, cost them money and possible engine damage? What possible purpose did this serve?
What kind of a company would go out of their way to save 5 dollars per car on cars they were getting 60,000 to 90,000 dollars for? One that no longer cared about making a quality product. It was the beginning of the Jurgen Schremp years that were to later nearly destroy the company.

Another cheapening of the product that occurred in the last half of 93-onward was the switch from closed deck blocks to open deck blocks. Again, who knows what other things that they were scrimping "Schrempping" on?

Another good example of MB's declining quality of that time period is the fact that the W124's replacement, the W210, which came out in 96 is not nearly as respected by the folks around here as the old W124 is.

We are all aware of the very dark period that MB has only recently begun to emerge from. That period began in the last half of 93 and was well underway by 94-95. For the record, the only reason I have my 95 E420 is because I couldn't pass up a running, driving M119 for only $575! You'll notice it's not even in my sig! And you'll notice there are never any running, driving 93 M-119s available that cheap!
Regards, Eric

deanyel · #8 03-01-2010, 07:05 AM

The 119 motor oil tube change did not take place at the beginning of the 1994 model year, but earlier. The vast majority of the cars of this era have a 104 motors which do not even have oil tubes. In the bigger picture oil tubes are an infrequent inexpensive and insigificant DIY repair. Anyone wishing to argue that quality declined specifically at the beginning of the 1994 model year should be able to point to mechanical and/or interior part numbers that changed. Both HFM and LH engines and engine management systems were virtually the same in 1994 as in 1993. The very few changes in the era were often enhancements - such as a vastly superior DIY diagnostic system.

88260e · #9 02-28-2010, 01:27 PM

My friends dad Mercedes Tech says 94-95 320!!!

mlozzi200478 · #10 02-28-2010, 06:24 PM

ive run an 86 300 e currently run 89 300ce,both amazing no maintenance cars,i never had to open the hood,on the 86 great reliable cars,just do your oil changes and drive them forever,the 89 300ce has a few small issues,but still runs amazing.they are the best bang for your buck,they cost approx $50,000.00-$54,000.00 new,i got both for under $5,000.00 and the 89 has 65,000 original miles.

d.delano · #11 02-28-2010, 08:19 PM

Amazing no maintenance cars? Oh they need maintenance. They run better than a GM car even when they're broken, but if you think an MB doesn't need maintenance you are in for a big surprise.

mlozzi200478 · #12 02-28-2010, 08:37 PM

i think you just took all of that out of context,being a prior general motors service technician,the amount of maintenance these german cars require between lube oil and filter is next to nothing,i mean we all know the obvious,plugs, wire,s fuel filter, air filter,rotaton of tires,good fuel injection cleaner,89 octane gas,you just cant go wrong with any e series,be it a 300 or 400,just great dependable cars with little maintenance,we all know all cars are not perfect and trouble free,but a mercedes verse a gm is a much better choice.i prefer 300 series,my car is an 89 300 ce its got lots of little issues from being neglected but its only got 65,000 original miles on it,so change your alternator once in a great while upgrade it to a 150 amp,run some anti sludge oil such as castrol gtx or pennzoil.1986-1995 are all great series of mercedes,good luck.

lee polowczuk · #13 02-28-2010, 08:44 PM

agreed about the 124's

i love our 89 coupe.. but the 95 with the 104 engine has a more refined acceleration

babymog · #14 02-28-2010, 09:00 PM

The 124s are all the same as far as build quality, I've had a dozen (new and used, gas and diesel). The thing that matters much more than build quailty at this age is maintenance quality. Throw in the wire-harness years but if it's already replaced, not an issue.

The '94/'95 are my favorites, better power, better interior, refreshed exterior. They are also newer, ...

I have had no more or less issues with the '94/'95s than with any of my older ones, probably my most troublesome was my '91 (sold in '96).

mlozzi200478 · #15 02-28-2010, 10:06 PM

my all time favorite and yes dream car is the mercedes benz sl 600,the fact that ive owned 2 basic models from there original owners. one day i will move my way up to a late 80's