Which W140 Years to Look For - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

dproudfo · #1 08-31-2006, 06:35 PM

Well I'm hunting around for a 140 S320 and have been reading everything I've been able to find on the shop. I've come across a number of different opinions in regards to what the better years are for the 140 chassis sedans. The fully aggreable opinion is to avoid the 92 as it was the first year with a number of not-yet addressed issues. Then there's the topic of the price drop of the S-class in 95 and how that reflected on the quality of the materials in the car. And finally the plain and simple answer I get is to look for one that is as young as possible, preferably 97-99 because the kinks of the 140 were mostly worked out by then (I say MOSTLY with caution. . haha) Anway, just though I'd create a post to see what people's opinions are on the specific years for these cars and which years they'd recommend hunting around for. Thanks!!

Gilly · #2 08-31-2006, 08:16 PM

Buy the newest one you can afford.
Gilly

softconsult · #3 08-31-2006, 09:08 PM

I just bought a '97S320, Black Pearl Mettalic, Long Wheelbase, 107K, Starmarked from 40K to 100K. Pretty much complete dealer records.

I was not really considering one, until I really started reading about them. I concluded that I would accept the risk of the evaporator, the "Lifetime Sealed Transmission" , and the head gasket issue. I had briefly drive a '95 S500. I don't remember being overwhelmed by that particular car and I didn't like it's massive appearance.

So I was cruising around on AutoTrader and saving various cars about 4 S320's and a bunch of W124's (I've had 3). So up pops this S320 located 20 miles away from me. I had a month long CarFax account and it checked out. Local NE Tennessee car for the last 68,000 miles. Owned in a wealthy little old money town. Car spent 3 years on lease in NJ, then sold under starmark to the guy in TN. I have read that the W-140 is very good in corrosion resistance. Only rust I have found in on the rear muffler.

Went for a test drive. A stack of dealer service records were available for review. It was about a 9 out of 10. To many things to list, but included head gasket, blower regulator, Mass Air Sensor, new windshield.

As far as any quality degradation goes, I sure can't tell. What a ride. Solid, heavy, quiet, and really fast for a 4,500 machine. Totally fast enough for me.
0-60 in under 9 seconds. Great seats, great features, great sound system.
Dual pane side glass really isolates noise, self-dimming mirrors.

So what is the reality of trying to find a good one. CarFax is a must have weed-out tool. Then I think it might be fate. I mean you can find them, but how far can you travel go to test drive them. Seems to me that this is a complex car, but many aspects are not that different from the W124.

The M104 engine is up to 228 HP. It is sitting there in the cleanest engine department design going. There is so much room. Nice plastic horizontal covers adjacent to the insides of the fenders. The hood liner is fastened on rather than glued on. Dual wipers . Re-designed belt tensioner, far more simple. Easier to work on if you are a DIY'er.

The transmission is a snap to service if you have the special $40 dipstick tool.
Replaced front rotors and pads. Nothing special. Easy.

I still have my '92 Sportline with 245K , 90% interstate, miles. Meticulously maintained. It's such an interesting back to back comparison.

The 300E is very connected to the road. A great car in pretty much every respect. Makes me drive fast in the curves and feels glued to the highway.
The S320 changes my personality. The suspension kind of moves around. Steering is more boosted. Less feel. However, after you become accustomed to the car, it can really be pushed through the curves. Brakes are wonderful, but not brake pedal is not as immediate. More pedal travel. Feeling in the S is less rushed, serene, quiet. S is for highway cruising in style. S really settles in at 80 - 110 mph. You can tell that's where it wants to be. Fortunately it's also really good at 75 - 80, which is normal.

The climate control system makes the 300E look sick. It is really nice, dual zone system. You can over-ride the automatic fan speed with a tap of a button.

The headlights were improved at some point in the model run. My model has projector headlights. They aren't as good as the Euros on my Sportline, but they are really pretty good.

In conclusion, the M104 is a very bulletproof engine. The 722.6 will be fine as long as the fluid and filter is changed on a 30,000 mile or so interval. I have not been able to determine the exact point at which MB switched back to non-disintegrating wire harnesses, but logic says 99, 98, 97 would be the most logical choice.

Now that I have one, I would recommend holding out for a Long Wheel Base model. I didn't know it at the time, but now think it looks better than the short wheel base.

If you can find a good one, you will smile every time you drive it.

Steve

dproudfo · #4 09-01-2006, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by is4b2rd

I agree that the W140 interior is much more inline with what we expect from Mercedes. However, starting as early as 1995, MB was cheapening the interior bits of the W140. Look at the interior materials of the pre-95 W140's and you will see what I mean. Even the leather was better and smelled more in the earlier W140's. Remember how po'd 94 S-Class owners were when MB dropped the price dramatically, I think it was with the 95 models. There was a reason they were able to drop it so much, cheaper materials.

How true is this? Could someone address the softer "Nappa" leather option in the 140? How was it applied to the 140s post 1994 (was there an alternative to it?)

Thanks for the replies!!

HarryM · #5 09-01-2006, 01:54 AM

There was a very long thread about the various model years of the W140, (guessing) about a year and a half ago. Everything you need to know is there, written by very knowledgeable individuals.

dproudfo · #6 09-01-2006, 02:58 AM

Found it. Sorry that some of these questions come up over and over again. The title of the actual post is W140 vs W220, and in it are some comparisons of the 140s different years and their qualities. Sometimes the answers to certain questions are hidden deep within posts that appear to have no relavence based solely on their topic titles. I'll keep reading. Thanks again!

snp8990 · #7 09-01-2006, 03:56 AM

Im selling my 1998 S500 with 106,000 miles.PM if your interested.

rchase · #8 09-01-2006, 04:43 AM

I would buy a 1999 model. The 99's have the distinction of being the last year and a US only model as 1999 was the beginning of the 220 cars in europe. Additionally they solved a lot of problems from 97 on. The wiring harness issue is non existant in 97 and later cars and many of the other bugs were worked out of the cars. The 140's truly have a legendary build quality which is why parts are expensive. You get what you pay for though a car that is a rolling bank vault. The double paned glass and quad seal pneumatic sealing doors really make the interior seem very quiet.

Here are some of the upgrades you get in the 97 and later cars

Post 97 cars have a glass moonroof rather than a sunroof.
Later models have the absolutely wonderful bose audio system
Later models have a nicer climate control interface
Later model parts are somewhat less expensive.
Mono colored exteriors in later models (elimination of the two tone plastic side cladding)
Interiors have more modern color choices and wood choices (no oudated zebrano here)
The exterior was updated with more modern headlights and tail lights and wheels. This was an attempt to make the car look less massive and appeal to the european market.
Xenon Lighting was offered in the 97 and later cars.

I bought a 1999 S320 and its been an absolute pleasure to drive with very few problems. So far I have changed a few lightbulbs and a set of remote batteries. It gets 23.9 MPG in my mixed city highway driving. On the open road its at its best as 90mph seems as calm and quiet as 30mph.

I think the S320 is the best choice as the V8 powered cars have expensive to repair hydropneumatic suspensions that provide nothing to the cars ride quality and have poor fuel economy. The S320 has 230hp and despite the claims from V8 owners that the cars are underpowered have plenty of power to spare. Unless you need the extra ego boost of having the S500 badge on the back of your car or never outgrew street racing from high school you will absolutely love the S320.

softconsult · #9 09-01-2006, 06:52 AM

Robert, you wrote about changing a set of remote batteries.

Other than the normal trunk mounted battery, where are these remote batteries?

Those door seals are something! You sort of feel like you are being hermetically sealed into the car.

Also thanks for clarifying the '97 change away from dis-integrating harnesses.

Steve
'97 S320

rchase · #10 09-01-2006, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by softconsult

Robert, you wrote about changing a set of remote batteries.

Other than the normal trunk mounted battery, where are these remote batteries?

Steve,

The batteries I was talking about is the remote batteries in my keyless entry remote. Other than $3.00 worth of batteries and about $6.00 in bulbs (im anal retentive and changed all of them in the cluster) its just been gas and oil changes.

Robert Chase

A. Rosich · #11 09-01-2006, 10:04 PM

Read the first two pages of this thread:

S-Class Fiasco: W220 vs W140

Ignore the first few posts about the comparision between the W140 and W220 and review the posts about the differences from pre and post 1995 models that start around the middle of the first page.

Also, as everyone has stated, your best bet is working backwards through the year family tree: 99-98-97... I would consider first a low mileage-pristinely maintained 1997 over a doubtful mantained 1999, but besides that, equally mantained cars go for the newest one.

snp8990 · #12 09-02-2006, 03:03 AM

The S320's are very good cars and are good for daily driving.I think the 500's and 600's are ment more for non-daily useage.But,I am sure that no problems are to be coming in my 500.Since the car does come with a warranty,even if you do run into a problem in the next 4 years,you dont need to worry about it.

rchase · #13 09-02-2006, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snp8990

The S320's are very good cars and are good for daily driving.I think the 500's and 600's are ment more for non-daily useage.But,I am sure that no problems are to be coming in my 500.Since the car does come with a warranty,even if you do run into a problem in the next 4 years,you dont need to worry about it.

Thats an interesting way of looking at it and probably somewhat true to an extent. Realistically I think that a lot of people use S500's as daily drivers though. Then again a lot of Americans use Ford Expeditions as daily drivers too!

If you look at the entire Mercedes line from the beginning to current you will notice a trend. In the beginning most of the early cars were powered by 4 and 6cyl engines. In the 1970's when Mercedes started importing more cars into the US thats when the larger engines started showing up to compete with the domestic cars we have here which had large big block V8 powerplants. You will notice a similar trend with BMW's except BMW was a bit more aggressive with promoting their 6cyl's for weight balance.

In europe the 140 chassis is also offered as an S280 and even with the 2.8L 6 is quite powerful enough to move the car. I think Princess Di was killed in an S280 hotel car.

Anything 97 and on is ideal in a 140. Learn the shortcomings of the 140 and be proactive in its service and repair before the items fail and you will be much less fustrated. I read something about them resolving the headgasket issues in late 98 on the S320's but I have not confirmed that. The later model 98's and 99's have some slight differences on their 722.6 transmissions with the deletion of the drain plug on the torque converters for some cars. I have heard that some MB dealers have special flush machines that are designed only to flus 722.6 transmissions.

rchase · #14 09-02-2006, 03:49 AM

A word about earlier models:

I think a lot of the rumors are true as the earlier models did have more "toys" and had slightly higher grade leather in the interiors and were built "heavier" than the newer models. BUT there is a big trade off of reliability on the earlier models. The earlier models have the biodegradable wiring that affects the engine wiring harness first and then moves to the rest of the car later on in life. The earlier models are nicer but cost a LOT more to maintain and earned the W140 its reputation of being an expensive to maintain car.

Mercedes did a lot of thinking about some of the expensive and very breakable options on the 140 and ended up removing them on the later models. Many people look at this as "cheapening" but to a German car engineer its trading toys for reliability and longevity.

I personally could not consider an early model 140 at any cost. I would put the early model 140's on the same par with early 7 series BMW's. While the price for entry is much cheaper you end up paying the same or more in repairs and still have an older car that is not as nice cosmetically as some of the newer models.

JimF · #15 09-02-2006, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rchase

I think a lot of the rumors are true as the earlier models did have more "toys" and had slightly higher grade leather in the interiors and were built "heavier" than the newer models. BUT there is a big trade off of reliability on the earlier models. The earlier models have the biodegradable wiring that affects the engine wiring harness first and then moves to the rest of the car later on in life. The earlier models are nicer but cost a LOT more to maintain and earned the W140 its reputation of being an expensive to maintain car.

Mercedes did a lot of thinking about some of the expensive and very breakable options on the 140 and ended up removing them on the later models. Many people look at this as "cheapening" but to a German car engineer its trading toys for reliability and longevity.

I personally could not consider an early model 140 at any cost. I would put the early model 140's on the same par with early 7 series BMW's. While the price for entry is much cheaper you end up paying the same or more in repairs and still have an older car that is not as nice cosmetically as some of the newer models.

You get a hell of an argument from me!!! Of all Mercedes that I've owned, my '94 has been the MOST reliable car barring none.

It's had very few failures, so then in-turn, the maintence cost is the lowest of any of my MBs. I've owned the car since '98.

Any cosmetically, it's a new car!