Diesel Engines of '98 to '99

[diesellady]

It's me again, this time a different thread. Just wondering what anyone's thoughts are on the '98 to '99 E300 Diesel's. I recently saw a couple of them for sale on a used car lot and looked at them, they sure are nice looking. Was wondering if anyone owns one and could give me their opinion on it in comparison to the 300SD of the '81 to '86 generation. Thanks!!!

[kerry]

If I have my hand on the pulse of this forum correctly, most people will say that the 616 and 617 engines of the early 80's (by the way I think the newer engines began in 86 so they are not the same as 85's) are better. They are all iron. The newer engines have aluminum heads which are inclined to warp if overheated. I believe the post 85 diesels have self-adjusting valves but most motorheads are willing to adjust their valves in return for a few more pounds of iron.

[JimSmith]

Take one for a spin and see what you think. From my test drive it took me about an hour to decide to buy one. The decision was influenced by the problems I was having with my 350SD and the dealership made me a great offer on trading it in.

The longevity of the family of engines making up the 220D, the 240D and 300D/SD is legendary and I think it will never be equalled in this day of electronic everything that seems to always need replacing. The power, torque at low rpm, combustion controls, and overall refinement make these new Diesel powered cars seem like they might be pretty responsive gas models, except for their extraordinary good mileage. It is really great to be able to drive and keep up with nearly anything else in traffic, listen to music in the car and hardly detect any Diesel odor or smoke when you come to a stop sign. You still get the telltale blast of black smoke when you put your foot in it and rev up past 3,000 rpm. It only lasts a second or so as the system clears out the accumulated deposits in the catalytic converter.

The next generation CDI engines, from the MB web site, are more powerful, deliver a stronger, flatter torque curve, and get even better mileage while meeting future Euro emissions regulations. It is rumored the 4.3 liter gas V-8 and the 3.2 liter gas V-6 are being phased out as the 4.0 liter twin turbo V-8 CDI and the 3.2 liter V-6 turbocharged CDI power plants blow the doors off these gas engines and still deliver 30% or more of an improvement in mileage. That an E320CDI that gets 39 mpg combined mileage and does zero to 60 faster than the gas 3.2 liter V-6 is just hard to believe (edit). The availability of the 4.3 liter gas engine seems to have been replaced by the 5.0 liter version and the 3.2 liter V-6 by a 3.7 liter version in Germany (see www.mbspy.com).

The point of this long answer is really to suggest the comparison is not really practical. The new Diesels are beginning to outperform the best gas engines of equal displacement. But they rely on electrical stuff to do it, and they have yet to earn the awesome reputation for being bulletproof that the older cars created. While some of us would buy a new 240D or 300SD, there are not many others that would, and so there will never be any new versions of those. I bought hoping the longevity lessons of the older engines, and avoiding the painful experience with the flaws of the early aluminum head cars were part of the design heritage of the E300 TurboDiesel. Time will tell. Jim

Having spent two weeks in france this summer driving a new 2 liter turbo diesel Renault, I can vouch that the new generation diesels are something else. That little engine would really go. Made the nicest whine as turbo spun up. Power always there and with no feeling of stress on the car at all. No smoke and just enough diesel clatter to know the engine was different. 40 mpg or better the whole time.

If Mercedes can replicate that performance in a 3+ liter engine, look out.

Nic

[jcyuhn]

I've seen the OM606 engine (non-turbo) with 315K miles on it, never had the engine apart. So it's certainly no slouch in the longevity department.

[barkford]

love my 98 E300. No smoke unless you goose it all the way. FAST ! Incredibly responsive for a diesel. Also fairly quiet. Has been extremely reliable and always starts immediately even in cold weather. (just gotta wait on those plugs to warm her up) This is the inline 6 3.0L turbo. Only bad thing I've heard about MB Diesels was about the 3.5 turbo in the S350 TD. Be careful there.

Best car I have ever owned

[goldenbear]

My father-in-law drives the '98 E300 TurboDiesel. IMO, this is the ultimate combination of safety, performance, reliability, and efficiency that exists in today's market. A fantastic drive. However, it is not one I would compare to one of OM616/617 stock. Two completely different birds at opposite ends of the price spectrum for pre-owned vehicles.

[98E300man]

I love my 98 E300TD...a FANTASTIC combination of economy performance and luxury. Mine has 40k trouble free miles . . .and I am hoping to keep this car for as long as I live!

LOTS of power above 80 mph or so.....the car seems to have unlimited power available at all speeds. It is quiet and frugal -- 500 miles or more on a tank is not uncommon....

Good luck

[mreid]

There is no comparison to the driving experience of a '99 to the 300sd. Power....wow, quite, very very nice cars, but if you like to do your own fixing then the older sd's are by far the best to work on. The new cars are an electronic nightmare that WILL haunt you at some point. There is just something very satisfying about cruising down the road behind the hum of that 'mechanical diesel'.

I have seen no major problems with the newer 60x engines. If you maintain them, they will last forever. You will get a cracked head here or there, but it is my opinion this was due to owners neglect/error at some point. The 3.5's did have some problems, but alot DID last and are still on the road today. The rest of the 60x family of engines are terrific, IMO.

I've seen some high mileage 96 to 99 E300's, 100K to 190K and as far as I know the engines have never been apart. One '96 E300 I looked at with 100K miles was -very- neglected. It didn't look like the oil had EVER been changed, but it still ran perfectly.

[ATLD]

electrifying diesel control systems may make them more efficient and controlable, but I always felt that it made matters much too complicated (and prone to greater faults therefore) than their earlier mecahnical counterparts. Perhaps I'd feel differntly if I was an EE; Ha Ha!

ATLD

[gsxr]

1- While the old iron-head engines through 1985 are more bulletproof, the aluminum-head versions are not ALL prone to warping or cracking! Only the 1987 3.0L had problems with cracking, it was due to two things. One was the trap oxidizer which MB later recalled and will replace free. Two was a design flaw in the original head, later engines got the updated head. NONE of the other OM60x engines had head problems. Don't worry about it.

2- The 90-95 OM603.97x 3.5L engines had bottom end problems. This was only on the 3.5L, no other models were affected. This engine was only used in the 1990-95 S-class, so it doesn't apply to the 98-99 you're inquiring about.

3- Although it seems like it, and I used to think this too, the 98-99 turbo diesels are NOT "CDI" engines! Mercedes has never imported a true CDI into the USA in a Mercedes vehicle. They did import their CDI engine for use in the Freightliner Sprinter delivery vans, though. CDI means "common rail direct injection". The 95-99 diesels used in the E300 are the OM606, which are all still indirect injection technology with a mechanical injection pump. The 98-99 versions simply added a turbocharger. These engines are amazingly efficient and powerful, it makes you wonder what the CDI's will be like when MB finally brings them into the States!

4- I'd be a lot more concerned with the 98-99 W210 chassis than the engine. I've heard a lot of anecdotal quality issues with the W210 (96-02 E-class). Enough to make me seriously think about sticking with the good ol' 124 chassis (86-95) for a long time. If you purchase a W210 of any vintage, I HIGHLY recommend getting a low-miles version and an extended Starmark warranty!But, the diesel OM606 engine appears to be just as robust as all the previous Mercedes diesels (and much better than the crummy 3.5L!)


Best regards,

[diesellady]

Hi:

Thanks to all of you that have responsed to my original post, I now know that the 300 SD of the '81 to '85 generation are mechanical, versus the '98 and '99 which are more electrical. That helps alot in putting things into perspective when looking at the two different diesels. Thanks again!!!