Hi,

I currently have a 1975 300D that I love and would like to purchase a newer diesel MB. I've asked a couple of mechanics for their opinion on MB diesels from the 90's. One told me that there isn't much difference between any of the years, they're all fine. The other guy said that any diesel after the 80's is "crap" and I'd be shelling out massive amounts of money to fix anything from the 90's. I know when I was looking for a gas MB I was told that I should stay at '95 and below. Is the same true for diesels, or was mechanic number two closer to the truth? I'd like a newer car, but also one that's well made.

thanks for any help!
Ana

 

From what I have read, the only diesels that you would want to avoid are the 3.5L OM603 equipped models, that includes the 1990-1991 350SD/SDL, 1992-93 300SD, and 1994-95 S350. Those were built with a flaw from the factory, which caused bending of the rods. I would only consider one of those models if it had a new FACTORY replacement engine. Supposedly, the engines from the factory had the problem fixed. All of the other diesel engines from that period such as the 3.0L OM606, the 3.0L OM603, 2.5L OM602, and 2.2L OM601 seem to be pretty good in terms of reliability, though some have their quirks. For example, with the OM606, which was used in the 1995-99 E-class diesels in both turbocharged and normally aspirated versions, to replace the glow plugs, the intake manifold must be removed.

As for the engines offered on the diesels since 2005, I can't speak for them yet as I have not heard much about them.

 

There is little disagreement that the 123 cars are the finest examples that MB has ever produced - everything after 1985 comes with some sort of caveat. My wife and can drive anything we choose and have owned 14 Mercedes over 40 years, we continue to drive my 300CD and her 300SD (both bought new) because MB has not built a better car since these two models. After 85 Mercedes tried to price compete rather than make the best and price it accordingly - so your mechanic is right when he says everything after the 80's is crap - at least relatively speaking. Here is a link to an article that's from another thread on this site, it's worth reading:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...14/mrmay14.xml

 

This is utter nonsense! Modern MB diesels are more powerful, MUCH less polluting, quiteter, safer, etc, etc. You can argue that the build quality and interior appointments of the older cars are superior, and I'll have a difficult time disputing you (it will be based on personal taste), but in functional/safety/economy/road manners (handling) terms there is no comparison!: The '03 and forward diesels are hugely superior to the oldsters. Your mechanic is an antedeluvian, and apparently has no knowledge of modern MB diesels.

 

You have an interesting point of view and it does have a modicum of truth, but I firmly stand by my points - that the material and build quality of the 123 cars is unmatched by any MB built thereafter and the likelihood of a 123 car outliving you is far greater than any of the later models. After 1985 MB built a few cars that they should have never built. I have a number of friends and business associates who own later MB's - I'm not impressed (I would also rather have back my long-gone, clunky '69 911E than a superbly engineered new Porshe). My boss owns a G55 AMG, SL 600 and new S class sedan and when we go somewhere in Elvira (my 300CD) he reminisces that he should never have gotten rid of the 300D that he drove for 10-years. We also had an ML for about four years and the only comment I have about it is that MB shouldn't build cars in Alabama.
To your point the 2003+ diesels are more powerful and quieter, etc. Sure they are, but our two old MB's will cruise comfortably all day at 85 MPH - that's more than fast enough to get you a ticket on all but a few tollroads in all but a very few states. As far as quieter - if the noise bothers you, turn up the stereo. We have meticously maintained both cars (3K oil changes, 12K valve adjustments and all other services right out of the owners handbook when due) and used RedLine Diesel Catalyst since new. Neither smoke at all, even on heavy acceleration. And the best part, we haven't had a car payment since 1986. And in case you ask, I have every receipt on both cars since they rolled out of the showroom in Dallas TX so I know that my annual costs of maintaining these two, less than "hugely superior", diesels doesn't come near a car payment on one new MB or Porsche.

 

Should you wish to sell you or your wife's car or cars please let me know.

 

You have to judge the cost of ownership over a number of years, not just fuel consumption and noise.

Apart from these there is the ease of maintenance (ordinary engine oils instead of high fashion synthetics), ease of modification and the grandfathering of emission regulations. All these things add up to one thing.

Money.

 

I recently purchased a 1997 E300 w/145k miles for $11k. I purchased it from an elderly-women who originally bought the car new in Monterey, CA from Stahl Motors. She lived and worked in San Jose and had it routinely serviced and maintained by the same Mercedes mechanic all its years; docs, clean title, oil changes, repairs, etc. all included during purchase.

I looked and researched for 3 months for a car that could replace my 2001 Saab 9-5 SE Turbo: 200hp/229 lb. torque, 21 mpg commuting on a curvy road. After 3 months, I finally narrowed my search to a 1996 - 1999 Mercedes E300. This was due in part that I am 6'3" tall, wanted a car I can comfortably fit in, rides smooth, looks nice, diesel, saves gas, and is priced right.

My choices were narrowed down further because Mercedes offers two E300 options from 1996 -1999: a non-turbo and a turbo. I originally wanted a 1998-1999 E300TD. However, what I experienced while testing a few 1998-1999 E300TD was that most were not one-owner vehicles and did not have full docs. The E300TD's which were one-owners and had full docs had an average asking price of $16k - $24k. On the other hand, the 1996-1997 E300's had an average asking price of $9k - $18k.

Given my criteria on pricing, the 1996-1997 seemed like the better bang-for-the-buck. In addition, I noticed that most Mercedes forums spoke negatively of the W210 build quality. However, because I like the body-design of the W210, those remarks didn't sway me but did influence how much I'd spend on a purchase. If the forums are correct on the W210 build, then I would rather spend $9k - $12k on a 1996-1997 E300 purcahse, and use the extra saved money for any repair costs.

After 1 month of ownership, how is my 1997 E300 treating me? Excellent! My Mercedes mechanic says it's very rare to find one in such great condition with all service records and priced so low. The E300 is a big, comfortable, stable, smooth, heavy, fuel efficient, nicely designed car, and has given me no problems. For a daily commuter, the horse-power is a non-issue. When traffic is flowing up steep-hills from speeds of 55mph-70mph, 4th gear has the pulling power. When traffic slows down to speeds of 55mph - 35mph on steep-hills, 3rd gear has the pulling power. When I'm on flat-fast-moving freeway/highway traffic, 5th gear (Drive) is a great cruiser gear. If a person doesn't mind working the gears on hills, the non-turbo E300 is a great car at a great price. Currently, on my commute through the hills I am averaging 32mpg.

Conclusion: For the price, the non-turbo E300 is turning out to be a great car; I'm looking forward to putting over 500k miles on mine!

 

Hi, I know you posted this quite a while ago but I'm wondering if you still love your 1997 300D. I found one that I'm going to look at tomorrow but I keep reading conflicting information about them. Would you mind sharing your experience? Thanks, Ana

 

I've had my E300 TD since 10/07 and have put about 5K miles on it. It currently has 121K miles. So far the car has been very good. I've had to change fan clutch, brake pads, window regulator, and a "sun sensor." I've also tightened the front bearing nut and repacked some grease as the car was wandering a bit. It drives very straight and nicely now. Right now the only thing needing replacement are the struts and tires. The car came with decent service records so I know the car has had good maintenance. I'm looking into a WVO/SVO conversion at the moment. I think the W210 is decent car, but the main problems are little gremlins like window switches, window regulators, etc. I mainly do my own repairs so it keeps the cost down quite a bit. If you don't mind repairing minor things (switches, interior panels, etc), the W210 is a very very nice car.

Performance wise my car is very very close to an E320 in terms of power. Power is not as instantaneous as normal cars, but the turbodiesel does catch up very rapidly. I think the only difference is straight off the line. Once the car gets going it's a wash. Btw I do have a Speedtuning level II chip. Made a decent difference but I wouldn't necessarily miss it if the car didn't have it. The current setup compares very well with my previous S320. If the S-class had the same OM606.962, I would probably prefer that over the W210.

 

I'm a fan of my 99' E300DT. It has had its quirks, but any used car has them. Most of the maintenance I do myself, so it has been cheaper for me to maintain than most that take theirs to the dealer. I purchased the vehicle at 90,000 miles and now have 141,000.
Search the W210 forum of the website. You should find a decent amount of "what to expect" maintenance scheduling from members' postings.
Preventive maintenance is key for these vehicles.