'93 300E 2.8 Sedan? - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

pmizell · #1 05-27-2002, 12:03 PM

I was browsing the MB site (15 yr model overview) and saw this car produced only in '93 (only 7,000+ units sold).

Apparently it has a toned down 104 engine (only 194hp, 2.8l) and appears to be built for performance rather than luxury (no sunroof available). $43k retail.

Anyone on this board drive one of these? I suspect this was the transition 124 between the 103 300E's and 104 300E's.

~Paul

________________
'91 300E, 212K miles

http://www.mbusa.com/brand/container.jsp?/overview/overview_engine.jsp&yearModelCode=88_E30028S&class=88_E&rnav=024568&menu=2_2

suginami · #2 05-27-2002, 01:36 PM

I checked out the link, and noticed that it's more accurate to say that it's a 2.8 liter M104 engine. It's not really a toned-down M104 engine, just a 2.8 liter engine instead of a 3.2 liter.

It's the same 2.8 liter engine that was used in the 1995-1997 C280.

I don't think it was built for performance, really, because the performance model would have been the 300E, which had the 3.2 liter M104 engine.

I think it was built to be the value model. If you look at all of the production numbers and original invoice prices of the 300E / E320, the single most expensive year of the 300E / E320 in it's entire W124 model run was 1993, which listed for $49,900.

The previous value model was the 260E / 300E 2.6, but with the change to the M104 engine in place of the M103 starting from the 1993 model year, the smaller displacement engine was the 2.8 liter instead of the 2.6.

The pricing information also tells me that Mercedes realized that their pricing structure was way out of whack with the marketplace.

In 1993, the 300E (3.2) was $49,900, and the 300E 2.8 was $43,800. In 1994, the 300E 2.8 was dropped, and the 300E (3.2) was finally badged properly as the E320, and the original list price of the '94 E320 was $42,500 - cheaper than the '93 300E 2.8, and even cheaper than the 1988 300E!

I think it's fair to say that the 300E 2.8 is probably a fantastic car. I haven't seen acceleration numbers on this model, but I'm sure it would clearly out-perform the 90-92 300E's as it has more horsepower and torque, and didn't have the 2nd gear start. I don't know how it would stack up against the 86-89 300E's as they were lighter cars. And this engine in the C280 has proved to be reliable, even though I'm sure it has the same bad engine wiring harness in all M104 engines from 93-95.

pmizell · #3 05-27-2002, 02:17 PM

Paul:

Unless your 300E came standard with leather and sunroof etc, I can't see the differential $6,100 base price justification between the 2.8 M104 and your 3.2 M104.

Also, did you 300E come with 8 hole wheels?

Would be kind of funny to see a mis-badged '93 E320 on the road with the old 15 hole alum wheels.

~Paul

__________________
'91 300E, 212K miles
updated '94/'95 tails
Hella Euro headlights
'15 x '7 sportline 8 hole rims
205/15/60 Yokohama Db tires
"Smoke silver"/cream yellow

suginami · #4 05-27-2002, 02:44 PM

Yeah, the price difference is too much in my opinion, too.

I think most buyers also felt the same way, as 7,000 300E 2.8's were sold vs. 5,500 300E (3.2)'s sold.

My guess is that all 300E 3.2's were sold with leather and a sunroof, as I've never seen one without. You'd think paying $49,900 would deserve leather and a sunroof.

My car came standard with the 15 hole wheels, but I replaced them with the original equipment 8 hole wheels that I purchased from Hi-Power's '95 E420.

I posted the thread about refinishing these wheels in the wheels and tires section under "refinishing eight hole wheels".

jsmith · #5 05-27-2002, 02:51 PM

there's a few of us on the board. strange one year manufacturing run. there were some weird differences from the beginning to the end of the production run for this model. my car has a sunroof and headlight wipers and no check-engine light! most annoying missing feature is the tilt steering wheel, standard in the 3.2. at my most comfortable seat setting, the top part of the instruments are obscured by the steering wheel. i also found the badgework in the trunk lid to be too busy for my taste with "300E" on the left and "2.8" on the right, so i debadged mine...

suginami · #6 05-27-2002, 02:55 PM

Well, mine really doesn't have a tilt wheel.

It's better described as a power telescoping wheel.

I'm a pretty tall guy at 6'1", so with the seat nearly all the way back, I like to telescope the wheel as far out as it will go. This way, I can have my right hand on the wheel and still rest my elbow on the armrest.

suginami · #7 05-27-2002, 02:57 PM

Here's a nice picture that Hi-Power and I took yesterday:

jsmith · #8 05-27-2002, 03:13 PM

nice shot paul, i just took this pic of my 2.8. i want to rebadge mine to e280 - need to find a friendly dealership though, who'll cobble one together for me.

franj · #9 05-28-2002, 04:59 AM

We had these in Australia before the W124 became "E" series. We had 300E 2.6 and 2.8. The 300E later dissapeared and we then have E220, E280 and E320. I believe the 300E 2.8 and the 320E had the same motor as the E280 and E320.

pentoman · #10 05-28-2002, 11:50 AM

Did the W210 ever get the M104 3.2 and 2.8 engines or did it come along with the V6's they're currently using?

suginami · #11 05-28-2002, 11:55 AM

In the U.S., the W210's got the same M104 engine as the W124's in the first two years - 1996 and 1997.

3.2 liters is the smallest gasoline engine they got.

FWIW, the W140 used the 3.2 liter M104 engine from 1992-1999. They never got the V6.

The 2.8 liter M104 was only used in the W202 C-class from1995-1997.

blackmercedes · #12 05-28-2002, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by suginami
The 2.8 liter M104 was only used in the W202 C-class from1995-1997.

Correction. The 1994 C280 had the 2.8L M104 DOHC engine. The C280 with inline six was 1994-1997.

In many markets, the S-Class W140 cars were sold with the M104 2.8L engine, creating an S280.

#13 05-28-2002, 04:57 PM

Hi guys,
Just to add to the confusion, I own a 1990 300E-24, which is how it is badged incidentally. It is the 3.0 litre M 104 without cat. and puts out 170 kw. They were sold in NZ from 1989 and were the top of the range with all options.
have a nice day
BriNZ

suginami · #14 05-28-2002, 05:33 PM

The 300CE's were sold here in the U.S. from 1990 - 1992 with the 3.0 liter DOHC M104 engine. It did not benefit from variable valve timing, though.

Following is the hp and torque ratings for the 3 different engines: 1989 and older (M103), 1990-1992( 3.0 liter M104), and 1993-1995 (3.2 liter M104 with variable valve timing):

Net power 177 hp @ 5,700 rpm. 1990: 217 hp @6,400 rpm. 1993: 217 hp @ 5,500 rpm.

Net torque 188 lb-ft @ 4,400 rpm. 1990: 195 lb-ft @ 4,600 rpm. 1993: 229 lb-ft @ 3,750 rpm

The horsepower stayed the same from 1992-1993, but became available at a lower rpm (5,500 rpm vs. 6,400 rpm). The torque shot way up for 194 lt-ft to 229 lb-ft. This is due to the increase from 3.0 to 3.2 liters, but mainly due to the variable valve timing, on the intake cam.