Hi All;

I have a chance to buy either a 1995 E320 or 1995 E420. I have searched the forum and not much are said about comparing them (M104 vs M119). What is the best choice for someone who wants to do most of the work himself?

Thanks

Ben

 

If you can do most of the work yourself, hands down the E420. You get nearly equal fuel economy, with 50% more power! The main reason anyone would pick the E320 over the E420 would be maintenance, but if you can handle the odds and ends on your own, by all means, take the V8 and do not look back.

 

I'm with him. The difference in fuel economy is negligible, but the power is WAY better. Get the V8.

 

My opinion is likely quite biased, but I'd say with all else equal, go with the V8. I bought my '93 400E 5 years ago with 73,000 miles and now have almost 175,000. I usually average 20-22 mpg, but have seen 24 on a long trip. It is a little more nose heavy than the 300E, but I didn't buy it for autocrossing, lol.

 

Buy the wagon.
Huh?
Oh.

I'd probably choose the 420 too, if all things were equal...

 

You'll probably find the E420 a lot more satisfying.

 

I would love it if they had made a V8 wagon! I'd have bought that in a heartbeat!

 

I love the wagons but yea, a production e420T would have been suuweet.

 

I don't think it really matters - they both have their strengths and foibles. 320s have head gasket issues but no timing chain issues, while 420s are the opposite. I'd just go with the best car. But get out and drive a few of them - the answer may be obvious to you.

 

For the past two years I looked into replacing my 300e with either the e320 or e420 and after reading forums like this and doing alot of homework I finally purchased a fantastic condition e420. I have both the 300e and the e420 and have been alternating driving them. My impression of the e420 is not as black and white as what I see these cars portrayed as. I think that in alot of city driving situations the 300e/e320's are preferable. They rev better and are just scrappier in some ways. I am still happy with my choice because the e420 i got is exactly what i was looking for, but honestly if it had the inline 6 I would be just as happy. The "huge power gain" to me just is not there.

 

Last year I had a place up in Sun Valley that had a rear end (they called it a "pumpkin") with like a 3.08 ratio all ready to swap into my '93 400e. Labor and parts were going to be around $1K to ditch the 2.24 and I really wish I had done it.

I have managed to get 27-29 MPG on the 5 north on way to San Fran on a couple occasions and the novelty of maybe one day breaking 30 MPG had me hoping.

I also loved the idea that the reason the engine feels so solid at 123K is because it has turned 1000's fewer revolutions due to that absurd rear axle ratio.

But I recently added a CLK500 to the garage and MAN what a difference.

And here's the thing, the CLK has like 25 more hp. A touch more torque and a few lbs less. And yet a night and day personality difference. If my 400e had the same raw SCARY power that the CLK has, I might never have bought the W209.

So I think that MB kneecapped the 400e with a Bobby-Soxer rear end to help justify the major $$$$ to get a 500e. I just read some reviews from 93 and 95 and the motoring press RAVED about 400e power but the sluggish 0-30 just ruins it, at least here in LA where you rarely break 40 in town. (contemp 0-60 were in the 7-8 sec range)

That said, the 400e has an almost-wet-your-pants kickdown from 60-120 that shows the true power available. But I really wish I had done that rear end swap, I think at least in LA it would have made the car much more fun and useable for squeezing left turns in where now I just wait. The fact is the MPG in town is abysmal anyway, especially with AC on so the MPG loss in town couldn't be much.

I would be interested to see some results from a 400e with a drive axle swap like this. My 400e can only break rear tires loose (215/65s) by stomping on it around a turn. In comparison, the W209 is hampered by the ESP system shutting the party down as the 245/45s constantly lose traction in a straight line when you goose it.

Before & after test results from a 400e with an axle swap would be really interesting.

 

500e has an incredibly low rear-axle ratio as well.

I have the rare 3.27 and even with this... sluggish as hell. My dad and I have toyed with the idea of putting that into the 500e, but he wants to take one of the 4.xx rears from an older turbo-diesel. That... would be a horrifying fast car.

When we had a 400e, I found you could easily get it to burn rubber at a stop so long as you had gotten the car to actually drop into first.

 

I like the way your dad thinks.
Mileage? 2 gallons per mile.
0-60? Faster than you can say 0-60mph.

 

He plans to recoup the losses by betting at the track. Very few people know what a 500e even is, and nobody would be expecting one with a final drive more than 2x as short.