95 E300 3.0 6 cyl Diesel, reliable or not?
 

Anyone have this motor? Lookin to buy one and need advice.

Thanks

Non-turbo OM606? It's a great engine. I really like it in my 210.

brother has one. got it with 110K miles on it..put on 10K and it's been ultra reliable. His wife loves it too.

AC sucks though...like most MB's

they are good cars but i bet youd like the turbo versions better.

The 87 300D has a 6cyl 3.0L 603 engine that was turbocharged and is pretty fast...i have one and love it! Same body style as the 95 just a difference in headlights and hood.

Or you can go up to the 98-99 E300 which had the same 606 engine thats in the 95 but with a turbo and are much faster cars.

But if your not big on power the 95 is a good car.

Playing devil's advocate - the refinement comes at a cost of relatively complex systems to keep the engine smooth and torquey.

Lot of information in the archives of this forum to make quick work of diagnosis and repair. Otherwise you'll pay for the training of an uneducated/undertrained technician.

Sixto
93 300SD

I sort of agree, there are 2 damper valves in the charge tube and manifold assembly that mercedes has engineered to maximize the momentum of the incoming airflow as it starts and stops with intake valve operation and utilize that momentum to "push" extra air into the cylinder augmenting the vacuum created by the intake stroke. Kind of interesting system with a minimal amount of additional equipment installed. Beyond this system, I would find the 606 in my experience to be more reliable and simpler in many respects than my 603. There's a considerable amount of equipment absent in the aspirated model that was required for the turbo. The turbo takes it's toll over the years in higher pressures and temperatures. The aspirated engines are internally identical, this based on part number comparisons I've done. This vs. the 2.3L gas Kompresser vs. non kompresser. same bore and stroke, same casting shapes so to speak but two different engines as the compressor was built to compensate for the pressures, in the 606 case, and the 602s for that matter they were designed to be turbos but started out aspirated. I also thing the 95 124 is a far nicer car than the 87. Nearly 10 years of production perfected an already incredible design that culminated in 95 as one of the most successful vehicles in the companies history. Difficult to do, considering the lineage of the 123s and its industrial durability and design. When I was driving my 87 and 95 interchangeably on a fairly regular bases, the non turbo issue in the 95 was somewhat annoying at highway speeds in the 50-60 MPH range, but around town, the shift points and the gearing of the transmission are set up different, giving much greater agility to the 95 over the 87. You'll get use to it, manual downshift and driving in 3 around town helps immensely. IMHO.

Dead on concerning the education process.

Thanks. I appreciate all the information from you guys. Unfortunately the deal didnt go through on this particular car, but I am still looking and will continue to until I have one. I am GOING to be a proud MB owner soon.

I have got one for sale, PM me or call me at 404-932-2299, Joe

an as yet unproven design...
 

My ’95 is going to tick over 368,000 on the odo this week. The engine is original other than a head gasket at ~325,000.

I guess that’s not really good enough, as the question of reliability & durability hasn’t been proven until it gets to the proverbial “half million miles” constantly espoused on FleaBay in regards to MBZ diesels… :rolleyes:

Curious, what type of failure did it show?
Internal or external? Did I leak up front like the 104s or was it, ah hum, the uglies of mixed juices and pressure where it didn't belong? My high mileage 602.961, fore runner to its younger brother 605, same casting as the 606 less one hole is oozing or leaching oil from the front right corner, enough to stain the block and migrate down and inch or two, but no drips or wetness per say, not worth doing yet, but coming a garage near me soon. MG

I would have to agree with the posts...
 

If you dont HAVE To have the turbo, the 1995 E300 Diesel is an AMAZING car. I love the W124 Chassis, and the 1995 was the best of the best. Every time I see a clean E320, E420, E300D, or the UBER RARE E500... from that 1994/1995 model year i just have to stop and go... DA%N now THAT was/is a nice car. I work for BMW in service as a quality control supervisor/engineer and long for the days that BMW and Mercedes made the cars like they used to. A good friends mom is going from a 2001 S500 to a LS460 Lexus since her W220 has been in and out of the shop more than ANY other benz they have ever owned...

If you can find a nice/clean 1995 E300D... GO FOR IT... I Am trying to find a nice clean 87 300TDT for my mom... the proverbial needle in the haystack...

She loved my SDL so much and the bio brew I run in it, that she says she would trade her exploder in a heartbeat for a nice clean Diesel wagon.

Just my 2 cents worth on the whole discussion. I am also looking for a clean 1995 E300D for my uncle and a nice clean 1998-ish E300TD for my aunt...

Cheers,
Aaron

Basically, the 606 engine is great, but be prepared for many possible fuel leaks issues. Most are related to o-rings in the fuel lines. Not difficult to change, but if one leaks you could be left stranded. After my experience if I were to buy another 606 engine the first thing I would do is replace all of the o-rings with Viton o-rings......peace of mind.

I bought mine with 110k on it late last year and now have 133k. The only money I've spent (not including fluid changes, maintenance stuff) is $5.00 for a new shifter bushing.

The car is really fun to drive and gets 29mpg no matter how fast I drive. Excellent choice for a daily driver.

Now at 169K with my 1995 E300D.
Monthly cost to operate (service and repairs) short of $54. Just checked my Excel list yesterday night. Not a single problem yet, except for one leaking water pump. Everything else is standard service, oil, filters, brake pads, etc.