93 E 300 2.8 a good car? - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

051 · #1 10-25-2010, 02:21 PM

Looking at buying one of the above. No experience with this model, can anyone advise me?
Thanks!
51

Brian77 · #2 10-25-2010, 05:01 PM

I owned a 1993 300E several years ago with the 3.2 engine. The 2.8 was an enlarged/reworked version of the 260E engine, while my car was a reworked version of the 3.0 liter 300E engine. Car road like a magic carpet, even much more so, in my opinion, than my w126.

However, I had the head gasket replaced while I owned it (the seepage problem was apparently common on this engine. I don't know whether the head gasket problem applied to the 2.8 engine). Also, the early 90's Mercedes had problems with their evaporators leaking, which would necessitate dash removal. I had this problem, and it cost about $3K to have the dealer replace at the time. Also, the wiring harness was made from recyclable material that prematurely biodegrates. I never had a problem with the wiring harness, but did have electrical issues with the ASR/traction control sensors and the sensor for the alarm in the driver's door lock. Otherwise, the car was a great car. With the car's age, I would also anticipate that the bushings or ball joints on the multilink suspension may need refreshing.

kiwi_bloke_nz · #3 10-25-2010, 05:52 PM

I had a 1993 E280 (same car). Great car, smooth, powerful and got many km's of service out of it. When I sold it, it had done 135 000 km.

It had the original wiring loom, but would have needed to be replaced at some stage as it was crumbling.

I also had a E320 - which was very similar, but on that I also replaced the head gasket because of oil seepage - as mentioned above a common failure item on these.

Both pricey items, so I would check if either have been replaced.

jcyuhn · #4 10-26-2010, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian77

I owned a 1993 300E several years ago with the 3.2 engine. The 2.8 was an enlarged/reworked version of the 260E engine, while my car was a reworked version of the 3.0 liter 300E engine. Car road like a magic carpet, even much more so, in my opinion, than my w126.

However, I had the head gasket replaced while I owned it (the seepage problem was apparently common on this engine. I don't know whether the head gasket problem applied to the 2.8 engine). Also, the early 90's Mercedes had problems with their evaporators leaking, which would necessitate dash removal. I had this problem, and it cost about $3K to have the dealer replace at the time. Also, the wiring harness was made from recyclable material that prematurely biodegrates. I never had a problem with the wiring harness, but did have electrical issues with the ASR/traction control sensors and the sensor for the alarm in the driver's door lock. Otherwise, the car was a great car. With the car's age, I would also anticipate that the bushings or ball joints on the multilink suspension may need refreshing.

Sorry, you are completely mistaken regarding the 2.8 engine. It is an M104, same as the 3.2 engine. (The 2.6 was an M103, same as the 3.0) The 2.8 is essentially identical to the 3.2 mechanically, just a bit less displacement. The 2.8 liter cars have a few options deleted as well, e.g. seat memory is not standard, no headlight washers, etc.

My wife has been driving a '93 2.8 since, er, 2003. It has been a very solid car. Still looks good, still drives good, doesn't need repair too often.

deanyel · #5 10-26-2010, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcyuhn

Sorry, you are completely mistaken regarding the 2.8 engine. It is an M104, same as the 3.2 engine. (The 2.6 was an M103, same as the 3.0) The 2.8 is essentially identical to the 3.2 mechanically, just a bit less displacement.

I read the same sentence and would say he is quite correct - in saying that the 2.8 is a larger and reworked version of the 2.6, just as the 3.2 is a larger and reworked version of the 3.0. The suggestion that the 104 is a "reworked" version of the 103 seems OK to me, and not a "complete mistake".

ncc.1701 · #6 10-26-2010, 10:42 AM

so here is the question about 2.8 and M104 in general:
Wiring Harness - how often it need to be replaced and how to monitor the degradation?

deanyel · #7 10-26-2010, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ncc.1701

so here is the question about 2.8 and M104 in general:
Wiring Harness - how often it need to be replaced and how to monitor the degradation?

It needs to be replaced once in the life of the car and the vast majority of them have already been replaced.

jcyuhn · #8 10-27-2010, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deanyel

I read the same sentence and would say he is quite correct - in saying that the 2.8 is a larger and reworked version of the 2.6, just as the 3.2 is a larger and reworked version of the 3.0. The suggestion that the 104 is a "reworked" version of the 103 seems OK to me, and not a "complete mistake".

Ah, I missed the analogy the first time through. I thought he was saying the 2.8 is an M103. It stretches my mind a bit much to call a distributorless, HFM M104 a reworked M103, but I suppose that's a subjective call.

My apologies if my statement sounded a bit harsh.

pawoSD · #9 10-27-2010, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kiwi_bloke_nz

I had a 1993 E280 (same car). Great car, smooth, powerful and got many km's of service out of it. When I sold it, it had done 135 000 km.

It had the original wiring loom, but would have needed to be replaced at some stage as it was crumbling.

I also had a E320 - which was very similar, but on that I also replaced the head gasket because of oil seepage - as mentioned above a common failure item on these.

Both pricey items, so I would check if either have been replaced.

135,000km? That is nothing, people in the USA drive much much more. I used to put over 40,000km on my car PER YEAR. 300,000+ km is a lot, 135 is not

amg280 · #10 10-28-2010, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deanyel

I read the same sentence and would say he is quite correct - in saying that the 2.8 is a larger and reworked version of the 2.6, just as the 3.2 is a larger and reworked version of the 3.0. The suggestion that the 104 is a "reworked" version of the 103 seems OK to me, and not a "complete mistake".

The M104's had twin cams and more electronic integration. The 3.2, while prone to front cover leaks and head gasket leaks, is a fast reliable engine. My GF has a 95 with 217,000 on it. Still purrs like a kitten, and fun to drive.