[W126 Coupe] Re: MBCOUPES Digest, Vol 11, Issue 2

[eurotech1 at charter.net]

I don't find that to be the case. I bought my '87 300D from the original owner with 97,000 miles in '99, and sold it four years later with 189,000, and absolutely no problems. That's 92,000 miles of extremely hard driving, I might add. I subscribe to the "drive it like you stole it" school, if it don't break, it's a good car, if it does, I never buy another one. Some of that may be related to maintenance, I've always been meticulous about maintenance, you have to be when you drive your cars hard. I've worked on cars for 27 years, and have seen a lot of strange things, like cars that blew when they shouldn't have, and cars that kept going when they should have blown.
I don't take much stock in other's opinions of what's a good car, or a bad car, I try it for myself, and make my own judgement. I've owned a number of so-called "bad cars", Vegas, Corvairs, etc. and I found that they were, in fact, good cars, never had any of the so-called problems they were reputed to have. As a matter of fact, in the early '80s I had a '73 Vega Notchback (had a trunk, was not hatchback), and a '77 BMW 320. The Vega would run off and leave the 320, and handled better, too. So basically, an opinion is like a bellybutton, everybody's got one. I know of several customers with the 603 diesels, a couple with well over 200,000 on the clock, who come to our shop, so far no problems with any of them. I think it's a function of maintenance, not design.

                       Later,
                 Christopher Huffine

===========================================================


> From: Dan Stratton <stratton at illustration.com>
> Date: 2005/09/03 Sat PM 03:36:10 EDT
> To: mbcoupes at mbcoupes.com
> Subject: [W126 Coupe] Re: MBCOUPES Digest, Vol 11, Issue 2
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm familiar with both, I used a '82 300SD as my daily driver  
> for 10 years (260K miles) - they are bullet proof, only weak area is  
> the transmission (I replaced mine with a newer model trans), A/C and  
> front sys stuff that is common to all 80's MB 126. The 350SD on the  
> other hand is a time bomb. My friend (who I purchased the '82 from)  
> had a '91 350SD and the engine went at only 85K miles - required a  
> new long block to the tune of $14K. Another person I know from  
> business had her '90 300SD (6 cyl) self destruct at 120K miles. Both  
> happened within 3 months of each other. I would stay away from any 6  
> cyl MB diesel from 85 - 93. From people I know and have heard from  
> about 50% of 6 cyl diesels have had catastrophic failure.
> 
> Dan Stratton
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 00:15:11 -0400
> > From: "RICHARD JAFFE" <RSJAFFE at msn.com>
> > Subject: [W126 Coupe] OFF TOPIC - 126 CHASSIS DIESELS 300SD VS 350SD
> > To: <MBCOUPES at MBCOUPES.COM>
> > Message-ID: <BAY104-DAV126D37785030CD7437C5CEAAA20 at phx.gbl>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >
> > I'm thinking about getting a diesel as a daily driver. The issue is  
> > whether to stick with the 3 ltr 5 cyl turbodiesel (these seem to be  
> > pretty bullet proof) or go with the 3.5 ltr 6 cyl turbodiesel (1991  
> > model year). One website mentioned numerous problems with the 3.5  
> > ltr motor that MB did not acknowledge. Anyone have any experience  
> > with either of these vehicles?
> >
> > Rich Jaffe
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
> -----
> Dan Stratton   dan at autoretro.com
> 560SEC, 300d, 220S Cabriolet, 220S Sunroof and others
> 
> The MB Coupes Website!
> W126 SEC Mailing List
> Postings remain property of MB Coupes, L.L.C.
>