I have a long commute...like 62 miles one way. The truck is killing me in gas. The money I spend in gas would pay for another vehicle. While I am not getting rid of the truck, I was thinking about getting a circa '99 Mercedes diesel. Is there anything in particular I should look for? Or be aware of with these cars? Any common issues or defects? Expensive maintenance? The wife and I were looking at a Mazda 3, which is a cool little car, but a friend convinced me that for the same money, I could have a decent Mercedes that's only a few years old. He likes the diesels in particular because of the good gas economy and they apparently run forever. Any nice gas powered MBs I should think about? Any advice would be helpful. Thanks!

Dave

Off hand there are only a few things to watch on a 210 diesel. The fuel lines will leak, along with the shut off valve so its best to replace all of them at once. The intake manifold must be removed to replace the glow plugs, so do all of them at once also. Go for the turbo model if you need the car to be able to get out of its own way. The belt tensioner has a shock absorber on it that will get loose at the top, and rattle loudly. Replacement is just a temporary fix at best, they always do it again later. Otherwise expect the same as you would any other 210 E class.
The new diesels (2005 models) have proven pretty solid so far. The 211 chassis is much more luxurious than the 210, but it seems the 211 is still having teething problems. Its not easy to pick a favorite for fuel economy, many of the new diesel owners report they are getting far lower than expected economy. I don't even bother investigating thier claims anymore. Even if they are getting poor mileage there isn't really anything we can do to fix it. I tend to believe they are having a hard time keeping thier foot out of it, those motors make pretty good power.
The C-class would probably suit well for economy, and the 05 models are basically trouble free. 2001 is the only year to really avoid.
Let me know what you decide on or are considering purchasing and I will try to help!

Yeah, I saw the '05 diesel on the MB website...man that looks sweet. If I had $50k for that, I would look in to it. Do you think the I6 gas E series are good and reliable with decent gas economy? I saw a '97 C class with a V8 and it said that it got about 25 mpg on the highway. That sounded REALLY nice. That's economical compared to my truck (16-17 mpg).

Dave

They didn't make a '97 C class with a V-8. In '98 or '99 the C43 AMG had a V-8, but it aint economical.
The I-6 C280 is typical as far as reliability, but a V-6 model is more efficient, and usually better equipped. I really am not too aware of what actual fuel economy is because I don't have these vehicles. I drive an ML350 all the time now, and once in a blue moon I drive my personal ML500. My ML has gotten as much as 21 MPG fully loaded on the highway, as for the ML350 I don't know because we beat on it so much you can't get decent mileage in it anyways. I don't pay for the gas in it, so I never really bother. It doesn't have the trip computer in it either.
If you want the most effiecient, try a 2002 or newer C240, or a C230 if you can find one in your price range because those are all 2003 or newer. The 240 will probably get better mileage overall though, especially with a manual trans. The C240 is decieving. It carries a 2.6 liter V-6. It has NO BALLS. So it must get good economy right? The C240 is actually usually cheaper than a C230, the 240 isn't very popular at all and has lower residual value. A C-class coupe should be avoided. An older CLK320 may be in your price range also, but beware of noisy windows and lots of squeaks and rattles in those cars. Carry a can of silicone spray and apply liberally. Same goes for an SLK, but I doubt you would want an SLK and I won't reccommend one anyways.
Keep in mind 2000 was the last year of the 202 chassis C class, 2001 brought the new 203 chassis. The 203 was updated in 2005. The V-6 models were introduced in 1998. A 5 speed automatic is more desirable than the old 4 speed, its easy to tell apart as there is a W/S switch on the shifter gate. The manual transmissions all shift like crap and have no clutch pedal feel until they got real transmissions and shifters during the 2005 update. When looking at older 202 chassis, the C220 is an absolute dog and is even slower than a C240. It should be avoided. You also DON'T wand a C230 that isn't supercharged. Look for a Kompressor badge on the trunk. They are slow even with a supercharger, so imagine what its like without it.
Have fun shopping.

I think I must have made a typo on referring to the C class. Actually, I'm really not interested in the C class. These are the little ones that look like a Honda in the back? I really don't wanna go lower than an E class. I was thinking the diesel will be more fuel efficient and provide better torque. I think they stopped making the diesel in '99, and are now offering a diesel again in the '05. I have never owned a diesel, but I don't want a black smoker, and something that sounds like a Greyhound bus. I have never even owned a foreign car! I love my truck, but I am only getting about 16-17 mpg, which I suppose isn't bad for what it is and how I drive it. Hell, 25 mpg would be fuel efficient compared to what I am used to. I have a friend who has an '85 300D and he absolutely LOVES it. He told me: "The 1999 E300 Turbodiesel gets 36 highway and sports 174 hp and 244 lb-ft torque." Doesn't sound too bad. I feel that the E class is going to be a much better built car than the C class. Not only am I interested in better fuel economy, but also in a well-built car that's safe, and pleasant to drive; as I travel a great amount of miles. I also don't want to be shoe-horned in, as I am 6'2".

What do you think about BMW? Any familliarity at all? I don't think they ever made a diesel, but some of their 3 or 5 series look like they may be fairly economical as far as gas economy goes. I saw a couple of reasonably priced '98-'99 models.

Quick question about diesels: what is it about a deisel engine that turns the oil black as soon as the engine is started after an oil change is done?

I am putting some $$ in my truck today...getting the fuel sender/pump unit replaced because I am sick of watching the fuel gauge go up and down and not knowing what's REALLY in the tank. I have been basing gas left in the tank on mileage. Also, I am getting the driver's side window motor replaced, as I have not been able to roll down the window for almost a year now. Other than that and some re-lamping, I have not had any major issues with this truck. It's been great.

Dave

The soot from combustion blows by the rings in to the oil. Thats what makes it so black.
I was just suggesting what I thought would be the most economical cars, and I am really not familiar with bimmers at all. I don't think they do diesels at all. The 210 diesel ought to be a fine car for you, try grabbing a '98 or '99 for the five speed auto, and improved electronics. Even better get a certified pre owned model with a warranty. That warranty could really save your ass should you ever need it. A turbo diesel is a far better motor to have over the regular diesel. Most diesels I have encountered do not have very many options on them at all either, they tend to be economy models. Make sure to run michelins and keep them rotated and balanced often to get the best life out of them.

then a Toyota Corolla or a Honda Civic is what you need to be looking at. They will see 35MPG or better with decent driving. Plus, you can get one that is 3-4 years old for just a few thousand, and insurance should be cheaper than a Mercedes. Insurance cost is something else to consider, if you are looking to save money on the work vehicle.

But that's what I'm trying to avoid...I spend a great deal of time in my vehicle, so I don't want to feel like I'm shoe-horned in to an "econobox." I want something that has some substance to it and is pleasant to drive, and safety is also a bit of consideration due to all the mileage driven, yet is more econmical than the truck. Wouldn't want to be in a pile-up in a Civic or a Corolla. Wouldn't take much to make a vehicle fuel-efficient compared to what I'm used to driving. Although you have a good point about the insurance...I have yet to look in to that.

I'm not really ready to seriously buy anything yet...just kinda bouncing ideas around to myself, and I thought I would throw it out to those who are more knowledgeable on it than myself.

You really cannot compare a benz to a honda. They are designed with two completely different mindsets. A mercedes is safer, more luxurious, rides and handles better, and has all the features you expect out of a car in its price range. Also consider who will be taking care of you when you need it most. Mercedes has roadside assistance FOREVER. We don't care how old it is, or how many miles are on it. Change a flat tire, jumpstart, 5 gallons of fuel.... all FREE OF CHARGE. Other services provided for nominal fees.
If you buy a '98 or '99 deisel, you also have comfort in knowing that your car CANNOT be stolen unless they tow it away. There is still no way to bypass a DAS3 igniton. A honda will disappear before you walk inside the mall. The safety point you made is also a major consideration. You WILL be safer in a mercedes.
The car will also be worth more money for a longer period of time than the econoboxes. Buy a good one that has been well maintained, and continue to maintain it, and it will last you a long time. You just don't throw away a benz like you do other vehicles.
I wish I could actually drive mine again... I have put like 50 miles on it during the last few months. All my miles have been done in roadside assistance truck! It was nice having a rock bust the brand new windshield we just put in it, and not caring because it wasn't my truck!

I think another advantage of buying a used Mercedes is that chances are, it won't be dogged like a Honda or Toyota. I would think someone who lays out that kinda money for a new Mercedes would take good care of it.

I was unaware of the roadside assistance provided on Mercedes. Does that also apply to "non certified" Mercedes as well? Say, if I purchased one through a private individual as opposed to a dealer?

Dave

based off the expressed desire to save money on fuel. The thing about getting a work car just for the purpose of saving fuel is, you can't just look at fuel economy. You have to look at payment, insurance and fuel for the second car vs just fuel for the truck. For example, take my Tahoe. Before I got my truck I was putting 200 a month into the Tahoe for gas at current prices. I've been getting 18.5-19MPG (had an all time high of 19.8MPG this weekend!) but I'll say 18MPG for this exercise. At 2.00/gal, I'm burning 100 gallons a month meaning I drive 1800 miles. If I were to have gotten a Civic, let's say it gets 35MPG. This means I'll be bruning about 52 gallons a month for a cost of 102 dollars a month. A car payment would be about 300 a month on a new Civic for 5 years, or 200 a month for 4 years on a used one. Insurance would be about 400 more every 6 months, or 67 dollars a month. For the Honda for the next 4 years at a minimum I would be paying out 369/mo to go 1800 miles vs 200/mo for the Tahoe. Therefore, fuel would have to be about 5.58/gal before driving the used Honda would cost me the same as driving the Tahoe. Eventually the Honda would be paid off and the cost to own it would drop considerably on a monthly basis but that would be 4 years down the road, not doing me any good now. Considering you are looking at vehicles that get considerably less than a Civic, the cost of fuel would have to be much higher before you reached a breakeven point.

Now if you need the car for other reasons then none of this matters. For me, I needed a truck because a man needs a truck. Not to mention that as a National Guard member I'm away from home for days at a time for training, and the wife needs something she can get the family around in. Her work truck can do this but isn't good for it, and if the mother in law needs to be taken somewhere she is to frail to go in the mail rig. If you just need a work car only for the purpose of saving gas money it may not be worthwhile to get another vehicle.

Speeder wrote:

At 2.00/gal, I'm burning 100 gallons a month meaning I drive 1800 miles. If I were to have gotten a Civic, let's say it gets 35MPG. This means I'll be bruning about 52 gallons a month for a cost of 102 dollars a month. A car payment would be about 300 a month on a new Civic for 5 years, or 200 a month for 4 years on a used one. Insurance would be about 400 more every 6 months, or 67 dollars a month. For the Honda for the next 4 years at a minimum I would be paying out 369/mo to go 1800 miles vs 200/mo for the Tahoe. Therefore, fuel would have to be about 5.58/gal before driving the used Honda would cost me the same as driving the Tahoe. Eventually the Honda would be paid off and the cost to own it would drop considerably on a monthly basis but that would be 4 years down the road, not doing me any good now. Considering you are looking at vehicles that get considerably less than a Civic, the cost of fuel would have to be much higher before you reached a breakeven point.

I totally agree that the MB diesels run forever. Dad's been buying them since 82. Believe me, the rest of the car will fall apart long before the drivetrain will.

Here's my question, 7 years later, do you still feel the 98-99 210s are the way to go?

Well, a lot has changed since then. I'd say that the reduced complexity of the older engines is a good thing.

Finding a well maintained example might prove difficult. Most of the W210 E classes I see anymore are neglected and falling apart. There are nice ones out there, but they don't come to the dealership anymore.

The Fuel economy of the newer engines isn't all the great. At least not in an SUV, and since I drive a car that can do in the 40-50mpg range, I can snub my nose at everything else.

The newest engine, the OM642 3.0 V6 turbodiesel can have some pretty odd problems, and be damned expensive to fix. You better not run gasoline or anything other than low sulfur diesel in them, or you have one hell of a repair bill ahead of you. They don't like biodiesel. They will destroy high pressure fuel pumps, sludge the oil, and ruin the low pressure fuel system as well. So far the most widespread issues have been adblue pumps, exhaust temp sensors, and intake port flap shut off motors, the latter requiring R&R of turbo to replace. Its not fun.

They don't break down too often, but it just seems to me that for the low volume we get of those engines, they seem to give far more problems than gas engines do. 20-21mpg out of an SUV is hard to achieve, even with a diesel. They aren't bad.... they just aren't the end all and be all solution for everything. The cost of the adblue can substantially offset what little fuel savings the engine provides. The 20K mile interval for fuel filter replacements adds up, and replacing the air filters gets expensive too because of how they are mounted. A lot of people damage the turbo inlet seal when installing the air duct, and create an oil leak there.

I believe in a sedan that engine produces much better fuel economy. Maybe better than the older engines, I'm not real sure though.

Damn, there's only 1 98-99 E300 D within 100 miles of 75010 (a north dallas suburb zip) on autotrader.com

Availability of diesels is always slim. Availability during periods of high fuel costs makes them nearly non-existent. I'd be very cautious of buying one with spiking fuel costs. Unless he bought another new one, then there is usually something seriously wrong with the car.

I hear some late 90's W124, W129 and W140 models (maybe even all) had issues with disintegrating (biodegradable?) wiring harness in the engine compartment causing all sorts of shorts and other issues.

Do you know from which model year the issue was corrected?

Sometime around '95-'96. Its been a long time since I replaced one, but I used to do several every week. All were covered by warranty whether it was in warranty or not.

Wow that is interesting.
So do you think Mercedes would still replace these under the terms of warranty even today?

No. They were never under campaign so it was simply goodwill. Too old for that now, and goodwill mostly is used on original owners only.

Harnesses are very inexpensive though.