Im looking for the right Merc for under 5k but I'm not sur what to look for I just want a basic diesel that gets good milage at least 25+ mpg.
I want a turbo.
I want to be able to tweak and upgrade it for verry little money and make a good amount of power like my first gen.
It needs to be reliable.
I dont care if the paint is in bad shape or if its dented I just dont want a rusty turd.
I dont want any computed controlled bull ****.
What is the lug pattern? because the stock rims are ugly
What kind of MPGs do you guys get?
please school me on these badass old dino burners

---AutoMerged DoublePost---

here is the video that inspired me to start the search fo a old merc


---AutoMerged DoublePost---

and this

---AutoMerged DoublePost---

I just found a 1983 300sd with the 126 chasis in grey with no rust verry nice grey paint mercedes mechanic owned for 10 years primo interior ew tires 244000 miles claims he gets 30-35 mpg old *** ugly rims he wants 3 grand is this a good deal or bad

 

Anyone claiming to get 30-35mpg from a 1983 300SD is either lying or bad at math. Expect 24-28mpg from that car.

If you want 30-35mpg you need to look for a 190D (only available with a turbo for one year, 1987), or a 1990-1993 300D (all are turbos). If you want a fast diesel in stock form, look for a 1987 300D, these will get 26-30mpg or so.

The 1995 E300 was a non-turbo. All 1996-up MB diesels are completely computer controlled, with electronic injection pumps. The 98-99 turbos are awesome but outside your $5k budget.

 

Interesting.....

 

thanks gsxr thats kinda what I figured with his milage mybe his speedo is wrong
I did see a 1987 on craigslist what is different about those as opposed to 82-86 300d s.
I think Im set on the 3 serries I used to have little small honda civics when I was younger now I just look like a gorrilla driving a small car when I get in one So I like the TANK appeal of the 3 serries

 

Do you mean a 1987 300D vs a 1982-1985 300D? They are totally different chassis, engine, everything. 1985 was the last year of the W123 chassis, it was replaced in 1986 with the W124 chassis. There was no diesel W124 imported to the USA in 1986, it arrived as a 1987 model only... approx 2500 sedans and 1500 wagons were imported. It was the most powerful MB diesel until the new DOHC intercooled turbo arrived in 1998. Anyway, the W124 chassis is an order of magnitude more advanced & refined than the W123... the W124 has standard ABS & airbag and handles like a sports car, it's quick, and quiet. The W123 is a land barge in comparison, noisy, and slower. You will likely pay double for a W124 (i.e., $2500-$5000) versus a W123 (i.e., $1000-$3000), but believe me, it's worth every penny. For a 1987 300D/TD buying guide, click here.



Be careful... the 1980's car badging is confusing. There is also a 300SD/300SDL, which is a W126 chassis, aka the "S class", from 1981-1991... this is the full-size MB. The W124 is the E-class, a mid-size car, from 1986-1995. The W201 is the 190-class (aka "C-class"), 1984-1993, the smallest MB sedan. But don't think a 300D and 300SD are both "3 series" - they are completely different cars. The 1987 300D/TD (W124) and 1987 300SDL (W126) share the same engine, but that's it.

The last year of the old-skool iron head OM617 diesel engine was 1985... everything used the new engine as of 1986-up. The W201 (190D) got the new engine two years earlier, in 1984. But it sounds like you want a larger car, not smaller... so check out the W124 and W126, from 1986-up.

 

I am new to this forum but I thought I might help with the Mercedes discussion. gsxr is correct in his explanation of the Model names for Mercedes. Unlike BMW (and most others) the number is not that relevant to the size of the body.

In fact, the number is a representation of the engine size of each model. The 300D and 300SD are both approximately a 3.0 Litre engine but the 300D is a midsized E-Class, while the 300SD is the "Luxury" (or Saloon) S-Class. The 190D is a Compact C-Class with a 1.9 Litre engine.

However the E-Class 300D is not a small car. I am 6-feet tall and 300 pounds and my 1985 300D fits very comfortably. It is a large sedan in the same class as an older Ford Taurus or a 500-series BMW. While the S-Class 300SD is a Luxury Sedan in the same class as a Lincoln Towncar or a 700-series BMW. I am confident neither will feel like a clown car to you. The biggest size difference is going to be felt in the backseat. While I can comfortably sit in the back seat of my 300D (even with the seat in front all the way back). A 300SD feels like a Limo in the back. It is designed for a luxury feeling in the back so that it can be used by people who "have drivers".

As for you suggestion of a particular model. I cannot recommend the W123 series highly enough. The 1980-1985 300TD Wagon and the 1981-1985 300D Sedan in my opinion are the perfect balance between features and bulletproof design. The famous 617 I5 engine is lauded by many as the most reliable engine ever mass-manufactured and my experience has found that to be true as well. I have 440,000 miles on my baby. And she is running like a champ.

The older 300D models and the concurrent 240D are just as reliable but lack a Turbocharger and you will notice the lack of "get up and go" without a Turbocharger.

After '85 the E-Class lost the cast iron head of the 617 that made it so reliable and was replaced with the 603 which had Aluminum heads. The E-Class did in fact have 300D's starting in 1986 (W124) but there were so many problems with the 603 that few of them have survived to this day. It took a couple of years for Mercedes to get the kinks worked out of this lighter (therefore more fuel efficient but also more unreliable) engine which is why there are far more '87 and later SD's around.

The W126 is hardly a bad car, they just are more likely to have a typical lifespan of dying after 200K or so miles. While it is rare for a W123 to die unless it is substantially neglected or wrecked. I have a good friend who drove his '84 300D from 600K to 750K and sold it for more than he bought it for, still running in fine condition.

There is also an amazing community of DIY-mechanics of W123 Mercedes who have insight and are always willing to give input on any problem you might have. Don't be confused if you decide to drive a 25-year old car you will have to get your hands dirty no matter how reliable she might be. But the W123 is a great car to learn some wrenching on.

I specifically got my 300D so I could learn more about how my car runs and build a more symbiotic relationship with my automobile. After alot of research I decided that a Diesel Mercedes and specifically a W123 would be perfect for this task. 4 years ago before I got her, the most car work I had done was changing the brake pads and rotors and changing an alternator or starter. Since I have been driving Gisele, I have learned to do my own A/C work and re-converted the A/C system back to R12, repaired a broken B2-band piston in the Transmission, Replaced the Upper Control Arms of the front suspension, and last weekend, I rewired the Glow Plug system from the Keyed Automatic Relay to a Manual Relay using a push-button system that can be run as long as needed including after the car has started to help with carbon coking in the Glow Plug chambers.

The W123 is an easy to learn system that I think is by far the best Mercedes (if not vehicle) you can get.

Good Luck,
Aaron

 

Minor clarification: The badge number only indicated engine size some of the time through 1993. The 190 class never had any 1.9L engine... there was a 2.2L and 2.5L diesel in the 190D, plus a 2.3L and 2.6L gas engine available in the 190E. Thankfully, Mercedes simplified the badging in 1994, where the letter came first and indicated the chassis, and the numbers came after the letter and always did indicate engine displacement. This only lasted through about 2002 or so, at which point MB stupidly started having the numbers only indicate engine size some of the time. The current system is still easier & more useful than the old pre-94 badging, but the number no longer definitively indicates engine size like it did from 1994 through 2002 (approx).



I have to politely disagree, although I understand your viewpoint. I owned three different W123's and hope to never own another. They are nearly bulletproof, but that is about all they have going for them, IMO. The W124 was an order of magnitude more advanced in nearly every way, and is no more difficult to repair or maintain. I currently own several W124's and have had 124's with 6-cyl & V8 gas engines, as well as 5- and 6-cyl diesels.



You are too kind. The 240D is an absolute pig (I owned one, with manual tranny) and the 300D non-turbo wasn't much better. Neither get great fuel economy either - mid 20's is typical. The newer models with turbos had decent power and better economy, but even those were substantially below the W124/W201 diesel economy & performance.



Whoa, whoa, whoa. There were not so many problems with the 603 that few have survived! MB simply did not import many to the USA... about 4k total W124's and ~10k W126's (I think), compared to the literally several hundred thousand W123/OM617's that were imported. The 603's were absolutely NOT more unreliable. The first couple years of production (86/87) of the 603 did have a couple of design flaws which were fixed, and MB continued to produce these engines through 1995 worldwide. My 1987 300D has 313kmi on the odo and still going strong. The OM603 (3.0L) was about 20% more powerful and 20% more fuel efficient than the 3.0L OM617, not to mention quieter, and without requiring manual valve adjustments. Now, the 3.5L version in the early 90's was kind of a lemon - but that's a different discussion, and very few of those were imported to the USA.



There's no reason the W123, W124, W126, or any other MB from the 80's/90's can't go >500kmi if maintained properly. Most never get driven enough to rack up that kind of mileage, or get wrecked prematurely. There's a guy on a different MB forum with a W124 V8 gasser that has over 500kmi and never had the valve covers off, disproving the common misconception that the MB gas engines need a rebuild by 200k (total BS, other than the M103 gassers needing valve guides at ~200k). The W126 will last just as long as any W123 given the same maintenance treatment - regardless of what engine is under the hood.



Why not convert to an automatic afterglow system instead of manual? This was used from the factory from 1990-up... I converted my '87 to the factory setup, works great. You don't want to run the glow plugs any longer than needed as it shortens their lifespan considerably. The factory setup only runs the afterglow on a cold engine, based on a coolant temp sensor. There are aftermarket kits for the 617, although you could also use the OM602 factory afterglow relay (pick one up cheap on eBay to save a few bucks).



The W123 is slightly easier to work on & maintain, but until you've owned a W124 for a while, you can't quite claim it's the best MB (or vehicle) you can get. OK, yes, I am biased since I've owned a total of eleven different W124's over the years... but I did own three W123's for comparison, and one W201 (190D). When possible, please buy a nice W124 and after about a year of ownership, let us know if you'd still prefer the W123. Very few people come back to the W123 after spending time in a good W124 (no beat-up abused junkers!). Most of the time I find that W123 owners either don't want to spend more $$$ to move into the W124, or they are scared that it's "too complicated" (it's not - believe me). It's worth it though.

 

I definitely like to get my butt on a 124. An office mate paid me to drive one from San Jose to New Mexico when I was there for work. I drove the car straight in just over a day going 75-85 the whole way.

 

Hi,
Could you elaborate on your statement about the 3.5L being a bit of a lemon.
Looking for a decent older Mercedes Diesel and I would appreciate any info or suggestions you have.

TY

 

The 3.5L was known as the "rodbender". It's still a mystery as to why the majority of failures were on US models, and not European models, as they used identical engine internals. But anyway, on a significant number of the 3.5L engines in the USA, the rods would bend slightly (usually #1 or #6) and cause abnormal wear on the cylinder or pistons, resulting in increased oil consumption, and eventually smoking & low power. When it gets that bad (smoking, power loss, and burning a quart of oil every ~500 miles) they usually need a rebuild. Mercedes released updated/stronger connecting rods in the late 90's, and the factory replacement motors use the updated rods... there have been nearly zero reported failures on rebuilt engines with the updated rods. If you have a 3.5L engine with the original "weak" rods, you can prevent the failure by replacing all six rods proactively. Note that the 3.5L engine was only used in the S-class from 1990-1995 (350SD, 350SDL, S350) and VERY few were imported to the USA. You'd likely need to search nationwide to find any for sale. Models with documented factory engine replacement are obviously worth more as these should not ever have the rod problem again. If you do some Googling, you'll find lots more info on this. Personally, I would love a 94-95 S350 with a rebuilt motor... incredible car, but extremely rare.



Depends if you want small, medium, or large body (small = 190D, medium = 300D/E300, large = 300SD/300SDL/350SDL/S350). And, then it depends if you want maximum fuel economy, or max power. Example: The 1990-93 300D is a great car, 30-34mpg, but a tad underpowered. The "fast" ones will be 1987 or 1998-99. Max fuel economy will be any 190D with a 5-speed manual (36-40mpg, depending if it's the 2.2L or 2.5L). The older iron-head engines (300D/SD through 1985) are about 20% less fuel efficient, 20% less powerful, noisier, and need regular manual valve adjustments. They are cheap and plentiful though. Avoid the 240D unless you enjoy scraping dead bugs off the back of the car.