W124 vs W126 Ride Quality - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

JamesDean · #1 09-19-2013, 01:16 PM

For the past two weeks I have been daily driving our 420SEL. (650miles/week)

The SEL has had a front end rebuild where everything except the idler arm bushing and center drag link were replaced. It was aligned a few weeks ago at an MB dealership.

My normal daily driver is a 91 300D, whose front end is relatively new (4 years ago) and has new springs (1 year old) and a 9 month old alignment.

It just seemed to me that the 420SEL had a more cushy, "on a cloud" type of ride to it. The 124 did not have this property. It was a different type of ride.

Anyone else observe this difference? Just an observation, not really complaining or seeing to fix something (unless something IS broken...)

MBeige · #2 09-19-2013, 01:31 PM

I have the same observation when I drove my friend's W126 in comparison to our 300TE.

The W124 is more W201-like, but bigger.

pmckechnie · #3 09-19-2013, 01:31 PM

Yes, I have a 124 and a 126 and the ride is different. The gen 2 420 has a smoother ride than my gen 1 500 but both are softer than the 124. I have found that the 126 is much better for long trips but uses more fuel. Our 124 300D 2.5 gets over 30 mpg on trips and the 126 will average 19 mpg. When we now we will be going over 100 miles, there is no question which car we will use. The 126 wins hands down.
That is our opinion. The added cost is the price we are willing to pay for the better ride.

Paul

JamesDean · #4 09-19-2013, 01:42 PM

Paul,

Thats what my 420SEL got on average too! 19MPG, 70mph or so.

I still have that front end vibration issue to sort out but even with that the ride was still pretty smooth, relatively speaking of course.

My 300D averages 33-35 MPG, 70-75mph.

pawoSD · #5 09-19-2013, 02:28 PM

Yes my 420 rides much different from how my W124 did....I prefer the feel of the W126. However, my W201 is unique in itself, and I like how that one rides too....for the size/weight of vehicle it is, it rides amazingly well.

Duke2.6 · #6 09-19-2013, 06:17 PM

The five-link rear suspension on the W201/124 is much more sophisticated than the semi-trailing arm architiecture of the W126.

I recall riding in the rear seat of a couple of 560SELs and at least one, if not both, had exceptionally harsh rear suspensions. I think 560SELs have some kind of load leveling system that may have been misbehaving as I could not imagine, that new, they could have been that harsh.

Though the W126s handle well for a large sedan, the 201/124s are serious sport sedans. My erstwhile '84 190E 2.3 had a most amazing, to this day, ride-handling tradeoff once I put some 195/60HR-14 Phoenix Stahlflex 3011 tires on it. My 2.6 doesn't handle quite as well since it's more front heavy, and the lack of a LSD limits its ability to quickly exit low speed corners, but it's a serious back road athlete for a four-door sedan while riding like a big sedan. Mercedes was always very good at suspension design - lots of wheel travel, relatively soft springs, and very well tuned shock absorbers.

My 2.6 handled so well on back roads and at the 1992 Starfest event at Firebird Racway that I thought it would be a decent track car, but it proved to be ill-suited to Willow Springs compared to my Cosworth Vega and MR2. I drove it at Willow for one track day circa 1996 where it busted two 205/60VR-15 Michelin XGV tires on the left front.

Willow Springs is a much higher speed track than Firebird, and at the time the surface was old and getting bumpy and dippy. The soft springs were inadequate as was the damping, and it lacked sufficient roll stiffness. It just wallowed around and was very difficult to hold the line in Willow's 80 and 100 MPH sweepers, and the outside front tires were so overloaded they could not survive those sweepers for more than a few laps.

I never took it back to Willow Springs, again. I had found the 190s limits.

Tires have a big effect on ride quality, especially high frequency harshness. The W/201/124/126 springs, shocks, and bushings were specifically tuned to the soft sidewall characteristics of 65-series tires. The ride/handling with the OE tires was very good, but maximum grip was only moderate. Lower profile, stiff sidewall high performance tires definitely improve maximum cornering grip, but add to high frequency harshness, which is a tradeoff everyone has to make based on their driving preferences and style.

Duke

sixto · #7 09-25-2013, 09:35 PM

The LWB 126 has 10" more wheelbase. On its worst day a LWB 126 will have a more comfortable ride than a 124 on that basis alone. The LWB 126 gives you a lightning-to-thunder pause between the front and rear wheels hitting a bump in the road

You haven't felt cushy until you've been in a LWB 140 with almost 3" more wheelbase and unteutonic tuning.

Sixto
87 300D

Hit Man X · #8 09-26-2013, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke2.6

I recall riding in the rear seat of a couple of 560SELs and at least one, if not both, had exceptionally harsh rear suspensions. I think 560SELs have some kind of load leveling system that may have been misbehaving as I could not imagine, that new, they could have been that harsh...

Bet you those 560s had bad accumulators. Mine rode like that until I swapped them. Certainly not normal.

whunter · #9 09-26-2013, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesDean

For the past two weeks I have been daily driving our 420SEL. (650miles/week)

The SEL has had a front end rebuild where everything except the idler arm bushing and center drag link were replaced. It was aligned a few weeks ago at an MB dealership.

My normal daily driver is a 91 300D, whose front end is relatively new (4 years ago) and has new springs (1 year old) and a 9 month old alignment.

It just seemed to me that the 420SEL had a more cushy, "on a cloud" type of ride to it. The 124 did not have this property. It was a different type of ride.

Anyone else observe this difference? Just an observation, not really complaining or seeing to fix something (unless something IS broken...)

The W126 was designed for the Autobahn.
German autobahns - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Comfort and class...

The W124 was designed for the Nurburgring.
Nürburgring - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Performance and handling.

IMO: Comfort is critical in a daily driver.

.

tilac1 · #10 09-26-2013, 06:44 PM

IMO the only thing lacking in the W124 is quicker steering. Turn in is slow, lots of wheel crank needed and I think it must have lots of caster built in for high-speed stability. This seems to be a German car trait. My Porsche 928 is the same way but has rack and pinion.
W124 nearly perfect in all other ways.

JamesDean · #11 09-27-2013, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whunter

IMO: Comfort is critical in a daily driver.
.

Agree however fuel economy is a factor as well. The 420SEL is very comfortable but it peaks at 19 MPG on my 128 mile commute at 70 MPH.

The 300D peaks at 36MPG doing the same. Its not AS comfortable but the monthly savings make it worth it.

$500/month for 420SEL gas versus, $300 for the 300D.

I rotated the tires on the 300D and the ride improved a bit too.

I need to get the alignments sorted out on both of them. I believe the dealer did not use the steering gearbox lock and instead used the normal wheel lock, which puts the wheel a little off center.

sixto · #12 09-27-2013, 12:04 PM

An SDL would split the difference

Sixto
87 300D

JamesDean · #13 09-27-2013, 12:07 PM

Hm what does an SDL average at 70 Mph? Something like 29-31?

sixto · #14 09-27-2013, 12:12 PM

My '95 S420 which is more comfy still than a 420SEL got 21-22 on level highway, 20 with a 4200' pass in the way. A 97-99 S420 with OD should do better. My '87 SDL never topped 28 but there was always that pass.

Sixto
87 300D

COLDSTART · #15 10-05-2013, 09:34 PM

I have a 91 350 SDL as well as a 95 E300D they do have a different ride for sure ,I bet if I put an extra 600 puonds in the 124 it would closely resemble the ride of the 126 ,maybe 800 .