Ray Singh
Posted a lot
More German exotica in my garage now
Posts: 1,984
|
|
|
|
Getting a soft spot for the W124 E class. Prefer the saloon actually. The last models had smoked rear lenses. They look great. Is the build quality as good as they say? What fuel economy should i expect from a 220 auto?  |
| |
Last Edit: Nov 8, 2014 17:13:34 GMT by Ray Singh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've owner several Merc's and one was a W124 300E (305k before being written of). Personally, I wouldn't be interested in a four pot, a car like that needs six cylinders, makes a big difference, not just the extra poke but refinement even if the four pots are good engines. Rust is the main enemy on all of them, the newest is now hitting twenty years old. Great cars, parts are cheap, easy to work on but just get a good one. Good luck.
P.s. Possibly the place to buy one is the Merc club sites.
|
| |
Last Edit: Nov 8, 2014 17:31:11 GMT by Woofwoof
Still learning...still spending...still breaking things!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If your thinking about one of these, pay particular attention to the rear suspension mounting points underneath. Corrosion is common and is not easy to fix. People say the earlier w124 were better quality than the later ones. Great cars though.
|
| |
|
|
Ray Singh
Posted a lot
More German exotica in my garage now
Posts: 1,984
|
|
|
|
|
Is the 6 cylinder the 300 only? I guess that a 280 is a 6 cylinder too?
|
| |
|
|
levismerc
Part of things
Learning all the time...
Posts: 205
|
|
|
|
|
W124s in general are pretty tough old things and not all that big by modern standards (I think they're about the size of the current Mondeo?).
Things to look out for... The later six cylinder cars ('93 to '96 E280/E320) can suffer from the engine wiring loom bio-degrading. Four cylinders (E200 and E220) can suffer from this too although it's much less common apparently. Rear subframe front mounts can rust away so have a look around there. Front wing leading edges nearly always rot through where the arch liner traps dirt. This is more unsightly than a real structural issue.
I'd say a six cylinder is a nicer drive - a bit more shove than the 4pots but the 'economy' of the six not it's, erm, strong point. I'm running a four cylinder 220 as my current daily and, for the size of the car, it's amazing on juice. I recently did a 450 mile trip from Yorkshire to Anglesey via a few other places and it returned late 30's (by my calcs it was touching 40mpg but I might be ridiculed for suggesting such a thing on a public forum - d'oh, just did it!) and I wasn't holding back - it's even pretty good in town. The M111 220 engine does a really good job in a fairly large car - it's just not as silky as a six. I previously had the M110 2.8 six in my old W123 and it was pretty frightening on fuel although I'm sure the 2.8 in the W124 is a different lump? My 220 is perfectly adequate for modern traffic - you'll never get left behind and the Auto box is peachy.
Build quality is always good. Really early cars weren't so hot - German taxi drivers complained to Mercedes about this. Mid life production was always said to be best but my late production 1993 car is amazingly well screwed together.
As you can tell I love 'em. They do all the things that a modern does in a lovely retro way!
|
| |
Last Edit: Nov 8, 2014 19:30:54 GMT by levismerc
'83 Merc 280CE  |
|
levismerc
Part of things
Learning all the time...
Posts: 205
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
'83 Merc 280CE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the 280 is the later m104 with bio wiring loom same as the 320 there where two different 3.0 engines the m103 12v and the m104 24v you could also get a 2.6 which is an m103 in my opinion the m103 is a slightly better engine,
As for fuel consumption i would advise against the four cylinder models of the w124 simply because the engine having to work harder,
the earlier cars seem to have been better built pre plastic cladding on the doors etc the facelifted cars 89-93? seem to suffer from rust abit more the late models ive no idea about.
check parts prices for the model you are looking at getting before buying it!! the price of some parts far outweigh what it would cost to buy another car.
|
| |
|
|
MrSpeedy
East Midlands
www.vintagediesels.co.uk
Posts: 4,786 
|
|
|
|
|
Having ran a 300CE for near on four years, I would say so it.
As said, a car of that stature needs a six pot for the full experience imo.
I used to get low to mid 30's on a mixed run and nothing makes you feel smug like rolling round in an E class.
Well built cars, but prone to rust!
Get a nice clean one and you really won't regret it.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hi there mate I had a g reg w124 manual diesel,with just over a 100,000 miles was in good condition as the chap I bought it from had it from new replaced the wings with genuine merc ones and gave it a full respray . the car is big and cumfy too,and sounded good aswell great car and would gladly have another 1. good In the snow aswell if driven with care. cheap to run and plenty of parts around too.good luck
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I promised myself to not buy another one. and yet I did buy another one. Mainly for two reasons: rust - and the overly complicated rear suspension. Engine wise; whatever floats your boat. They all get into the mid-20 to 30 MPG. The difference is not huge between 4 & 6 cylinder, driven normaly. However, the 4-pots feel stressed and sluggish when coupled to an automatic transmission. All 4-valve gasoline engines, except the 300-24 with KE-injection, suffer from rotten wiring looms, sometimes even burned ECUs (shorting of wiring loom). And then things get expensive... RUST! have a look here: jan-wulf.de/?p=7536 - it's serious! The later the build date, the severe the rust issue is! Bets years seem to be '88-'91. In my opinion, there's currently a hype on these, as they are cheap & plenty. However, personaly I think they are way overrated. They are good cars, no doubt. But not as tough and bullet proof as rumour has it. Be carefull what you buy - they are realy modern cars, despite being 20-30 years old now. And even base-models have a lot of electronic controll units... Due to the good reputation many of them are run to ground and then sold on when they need a bigger sum thrown at. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not much I can add here except to say you should grab one and see how you get on with it.
Haggle like hell when you buy, they're always advertised for decent money because they're (apparently) an "appreciating/up and coming classic" but in reality they're mostly still in luxo-bangernomics territory.
The most I've paid for one was £700 (a '96 320TE with loads of options and amazing history) but my daily (a 109k miles '89 300E) was £500 two and a half years ago and it's a perfect example of the earlier cars being much better made.
I used a '93 220TE as my daily for a few weeks, not a brilliant experience. No better on fuel than the six cylinder cars.
I have a 300CE-24 which would be a great engine with a manual box. Mine is an auto, sad face. The torque delivery is in the wrong place. This engine has an M104 designation but is basically an M103 with a different head. Bear this in mind if you get one because even the dealer will try and give you the wrong parts for it.
Never had a diesel but I've driven a few, the experience was more like operating a steam engine than a car - lots of torque delivered in a very odd way.
|
| |
|
|
