Which Mercedes?
Discussion
Hey all
Which Mercedes do you think will become future classics?
This is discussed much on Merc forums, with the general consensus being that no saloons ever will. The 450SEL 6.9 (brown one in ronin) and 300SEL 6.3 - the first ever super-saloons - are the most likely contenders but are not particularly valuable now. This rules out the 16v (cosworth) 190E, and also the Porsche-engineered-and-built 500E.
It's odd how an original E30 M3 is often priced into five figures, but you could be in the not inferior, just different 190E 16v for a third of the price. It's More odd when you compare basic model versions - 190Es are worth more than 316-325s, the BMWs feeling rather old now.
So apparently is has to be a coupe or ideally convertible.
CLKs are too boring, mainstream, common and one of my least favourite Mercedes. I love CLs but don't think they have a wide enough appeal. SLs are always valuable, particlarly compared to Jag or BMW counterparts, but not especially "classic" seeming apart from the 300SL gullwing/roadster and follow up pagoda-roof SL. V12s seem to loose all their value. Early AMGs used to be all handbuilt but don't seem terribly cherished. Oddballs like the SLR, and old and new CLK GTR will be classics simply because of their rarity and enormous price tags.
The ~90-95 E-class convertible (the good old square headlight shape E-class) is supposedly going to be one. Granted it's rareish and values are unnaturally high (93L E320 77,000 miles, £12,000 on exchangeandmart.co.uk) but it's not particularly special or highly regarded.
What does that leave?
Russ
'86 190E, '62 Elan
Which Mercedes do you think will become future classics?
This is discussed much on Merc forums, with the general consensus being that no saloons ever will. The 450SEL 6.9 (brown one in ronin) and 300SEL 6.3 - the first ever super-saloons - are the most likely contenders but are not particularly valuable now. This rules out the 16v (cosworth) 190E, and also the Porsche-engineered-and-built 500E.
It's odd how an original E30 M3 is often priced into five figures, but you could be in the not inferior, just different 190E 16v for a third of the price. It's More odd when you compare basic model versions - 190Es are worth more than 316-325s, the BMWs feeling rather old now.
So apparently is has to be a coupe or ideally convertible.
CLKs are too boring, mainstream, common and one of my least favourite Mercedes. I love CLs but don't think they have a wide enough appeal. SLs are always valuable, particlarly compared to Jag or BMW counterparts, but not especially "classic" seeming apart from the 300SL gullwing/roadster and follow up pagoda-roof SL. V12s seem to loose all their value. Early AMGs used to be all handbuilt but don't seem terribly cherished. Oddballs like the SLR, and old and new CLK GTR will be classics simply because of their rarity and enormous price tags.
The ~90-95 E-class convertible (the good old square headlight shape E-class) is supposedly going to be one. Granted it's rareish and values are unnaturally high (93L E320 77,000 miles, £12,000 on exchangeandmart.co.uk) but it's not particularly special or highly regarded.
What does that leave?
Russ
'86 190E, '62 Elan
You quite literally had to drive a 300 SEL 6.3 to appreciate what it was capable of.
When you opened the bonnet the whole engine bay was filled to the brim with the power unit.
Although it looked like the S Class of the day, it was in reality completely different under the skin.
It had the 6.3 engine from the limo with Kugelfischer mechanical injection and twin high rise inlet manifolds.
At the front of the engine was a V twin compressor that supplied the air for the suspension system, which was the best air suspension I have ever seen, and had a height adjustment lever inside the car.
It was shod in what at that time were enormous tyres, and the driving experience was quite simply second to none.
It had a four speed automatic 'box that you could lock down manually; if you drove it like that you could make the wheels spin going into THIRD gear, absolutely mental. But the best part of it was it's split personality.
I used to love picking people up in it and they would slide into the seats and admire the vehicle in the way that you would with a Roll Royce or Bentley, and you could drive around town sedately lulling them into a false sense of security.
Eventually someone would ask if it went quite well: the resultant terrified silence or gasping as the rear snaked under full throttle and the subdued baying howl of the V8 entered the cabin was all that was required to answer the question.
There was nothing like these anywhere.
When you opened the bonnet the whole engine bay was filled to the brim with the power unit.
Although it looked like the S Class of the day, it was in reality completely different under the skin.
It had the 6.3 engine from the limo with Kugelfischer mechanical injection and twin high rise inlet manifolds.
At the front of the engine was a V twin compressor that supplied the air for the suspension system, which was the best air suspension I have ever seen, and had a height adjustment lever inside the car.
It was shod in what at that time were enormous tyres, and the driving experience was quite simply second to none.
It had a four speed automatic 'box that you could lock down manually; if you drove it like that you could make the wheels spin going into THIRD gear, absolutely mental. But the best part of it was it's split personality.
I used to love picking people up in it and they would slide into the seats and admire the vehicle in the way that you would with a Roll Royce or Bentley, and you could drive around town sedately lulling them into a false sense of security.
Eventually someone would ask if it went quite well: the resultant terrified silence or gasping as the rear snaked under full throttle and the subdued baying howl of the V8 entered the cabin was all that was required to answer the question.
There was nothing like these anywhere.
clapham993 said:
The 450 SEL 6.9 was the definitive Mercedes
Yes, it's a beautiful car, but I always felt it was very heavy and not as nimble as the 300; and it didn't make that beautiful growling rasp that the 6.3 did.
I suppose it comes down to personal taste between the two. Both wonderfully engineered.
IOLAIRE said:
The 450 SEL 6.9 was the definitive Mercedes
Yes, it's a beautiful car, but I always felt it was very heavy and not as nimble as the 300; and it didn't make that beautiful growling rasp that the 6.3 did.
I suppose it comes down to personal taste between the two. Both wonderfully engineered.
I guess I have a soft spot for the 450 because my Grandfather had one - I remember as a small boy going on holiday to the South of France in it, cruising all day at 120-140mph - that was in 1976
clapham993 said:
clapham993 said:
The 450 SEL 6.9 was the definitive Mercedes
Yes, it's a beautiful car, but I always felt it was very heavy and not as nimble as the 300; and it didn't make that beautiful growling rasp that the 6.3 did.
I suppose it comes down to personal taste between the two. Both wonderfully engineered.
I guess I have a soft spot for the 450 because my Grandfather had one - I remember as a small boy going on holiday to the South of France in it, cruising all day at 120-140mph - that was in 1976
Oh stop it!! Stuck in Scotland on a dreich, wet evening, and you're talking about cruising the South of France in a v8 Merc; just not fair!!
There is no other place to enjoy driving a classic car than rural France on a beautiful summer's day.
In that era I used to drive a BMW 3.0 CSL. All the windows down and sunroof open and the glorious exhaust note growling away, not a care in the world!
IOLAIRE said:
IOLAIRE said:
clapham993 said:
The 450 SEL 6.9 was the definitive Mercedes
Yes, it's a beautiful car, but I always felt it was very heavy and not as nimble as the 300; and it didn't make that beautiful growling rasp that the 6.3 did.
I suppose it comes down to personal taste between the two. Both wonderfully engineered.
I guess I have a soft spot for the 450 because my Grandfather had one - I remember as a small boy going on holiday to the South of France in it, cruising all day at 120-140mph - that was in 1976
Oh stop it!! Stuck in Scotland on a dreich, wet evening, and you're talking about cruising the South of France in a v8 Merc; just not fair!!
There is no other place to enjoy driving a classic car than rural France on a beautiful summer's day.
In that era I used to drive a BMW 3.0 CSL. All the windows down and sunroof open and the glorious exhaust note growling away, not a care in the world!
Even as a seven year old I remember the feeling of being from another planet as people stared unashamedly at this behemoth.
I also remember that, when bought new in 1975 it cost £23,000 which must equate to about the price of a Maybach in today's money
Balmoral Green said:
Both these cars are on my 'must own sometime' list, I have been tempted more than once by the 450SEL 6.9 and they arent expensive to buy either, even good ones. As for running costs, well, I have the T shirt already
Pa always reckoned that the Mercedes, with its five seats and magic carpet ride was faster than the Aston he was running at the time
Very capable cars for sure, I have always liked the 'sinister' cool aspect to them too, black leather jackets, shades and an aura of east european connections. Bronze metallic was the wrong colour in Ronin.
What model Aston did your Pa used to run? Five of us in Turbo R's set faster times than a pair of Aston V8's at a sprint last year, none of us expected it, least of all the Aston drivers, they were livid.
What model Aston did your Pa used to run? Five of us in Turbo R's set faster times than a pair of Aston V8's at a sprint last year, none of us expected it, least of all the Aston drivers, they were livid.
clapham993 said:
Both these cars are on my 'must own sometime' list, I have been tempted more than once by the 450SEL 6.9 and they arent expensive to buy either, even good ones. As for running costs, well, I have the T shirt already
Pa always reckoned that the Mercedes, with its five seats and magic carpet ride was faster than the Aston he was running at the time
It's funny you should say that, coz my 300 6.3 would out accelerate my mates 911 2.4S up to about 110, the Porsche would then claw it back.
But it drove him nuts!!
Balmoral Green said:
Very capable cars for sure, I have always liked the 'sinister' cool aspect to them too, black leather jackets, shades and an aura of east european connections. Bronze metallic was the wrong colour in Ronin.
What model Aston did your Pa used to run? Five of us in Turbo R's set faster times than a pair of Aston V8's at a sprint last year, none of us expected it, least of all the Aston drivers, they were livid.
At that time he had a pre Oscar India V8, before that he had a DB4GT
Old Mercedes are very under rated I reckon. I don't know what "classic" means anymore. When I see over rated "hard shoulder warriors" fetching stupid amounts of money- stuff that was under developed when new- I no longer care either....
I'm a big fan of the W114 series, I love the 280 E with Bosch Mechanical injection (around the early 1970s era) with stacked lights. Seemed to be the James-Bond-Villain of choice motor too.
They were fast in their day too, 0-60 in the 8s with perhaps a BMW 2002 tii being a tad faster.
They guzzled the fuel however......
I'm a big fan of the W114 series, I love the 280 E with Bosch Mechanical injection (around the early 1970s era) with stacked lights. Seemed to be the James-Bond-Villain of choice motor too.
They were fast in their day too, 0-60 in the 8s with perhaps a BMW 2002 tii being a tad faster.
They guzzled the fuel however......
That Bosch mechanical injection system... as a lover of old Volvos it always seemed to me a retrograde step that Volvo (was it forced on them by Bosch?) went FROM an electronic injection system TO a mechanical one in the early 70s. With all its various mechanical devices to introduce various fudge factors into the fuelling, the mechanical system looks to me like a collection of kludges. At least in the Volvo case, it didn't increase the power output but it did make fuel consumption heavier compared to the preceding electronic system. I'm not aware of any reliability problems with either system, although if asked to guess I'd expect them first in the mechanical system, partly because of its higher operating pressure but mainly because of the spider's web of kludges and plumbing. Anyone able to shed any light on this apparently strange progression?
Pidgeon, You'll think I'm even crazier now: I'm thinking of retro fitting an old style Bosch Mechanical set up onto my e21 BMW 323i.
How could I, fluent in mapping engines for ULEV/Euro Stage 2, used to writing tunes for the most stringent conditions and for the highest performance production road cars- even consider such a thing? What could be possesing me?
Well, I'm shying away/fed up of ECU systems, and nothing on the after market matches the kind of systems I would require/am used to. Also after time, it's nearly always black boxes that go and when they do- they're so hard to fix (unless you go for military grade components)-I've already owned my Bimmer since 1990 and intend to own it ALOT longer...).
The standard Bosch K Jetronic isn't immediately compatible with port thorttles that I'm intending to retro fit onto my BMW. The Purely mechanical system ( that will only use Engine speed, have a 3 D throttle cam and a Bi Metalic system - allows me to have a HUGE 14 litre plenum and not worry about transients- I could even take off the air box and still drive it if needed.
As to why most cars with this set up seem to guzzle fuel- you're probably right about the fuel pressure and the fudges- adding up to big approximations when cummilated. The high injection pressure might also lead to big anciliary parasitic losses. In addition- because the system has no way to measure ACTUAL air flow into the engine- if not regularly recalibrated, while the engine wears- the system tends to runs rich. It shares this phenomemon of progressively running rich with an ageing/worn engine with Bosch D Jetronic system. Now I wonder if it was this very D Jetronic system that was fitted to these early Volvos you're fond of? The D Jetronic system was the first Electronic fuel injection system- but only used manifold pressure as a means to signalling fuel flow. Again- for similar reasons these would tend toward rich running with age....
It is the sole REASON I have hesitate about buying a classic BMW 3.0 litre "E9" CSL. If I do get one of THESE I may retrofit in a 3.5 litre 7 series engine with motronic FI.
Nevertheless I'm on the hunt for a Bosch/Kugelfischer type of system for my 3 series project- perhaps I can improve upon the original design!??
>> Edited by Marquis_Rex on Monday 22 November 23:52
How could I, fluent in mapping engines for ULEV/Euro Stage 2, used to writing tunes for the most stringent conditions and for the highest performance production road cars- even consider such a thing? What could be possesing me?
Well, I'm shying away/fed up of ECU systems, and nothing on the after market matches the kind of systems I would require/am used to. Also after time, it's nearly always black boxes that go and when they do- they're so hard to fix (unless you go for military grade components)-I've already owned my Bimmer since 1990 and intend to own it ALOT longer...).
The standard Bosch K Jetronic isn't immediately compatible with port thorttles that I'm intending to retro fit onto my BMW. The Purely mechanical system ( that will only use Engine speed, have a 3 D throttle cam and a Bi Metalic system - allows me to have a HUGE 14 litre plenum and not worry about transients- I could even take off the air box and still drive it if needed.
As to why most cars with this set up seem to guzzle fuel- you're probably right about the fuel pressure and the fudges- adding up to big approximations when cummilated. The high injection pressure might also lead to big anciliary parasitic losses. In addition- because the system has no way to measure ACTUAL air flow into the engine- if not regularly recalibrated, while the engine wears- the system tends to runs rich. It shares this phenomemon of progressively running rich with an ageing/worn engine with Bosch D Jetronic system. Now I wonder if it was this very D Jetronic system that was fitted to these early Volvos you're fond of? The D Jetronic system was the first Electronic fuel injection system- but only used manifold pressure as a means to signalling fuel flow. Again- for similar reasons these would tend toward rich running with age....
It is the sole REASON I have hesitate about buying a classic BMW 3.0 litre "E9" CSL. If I do get one of THESE I may retrofit in a 3.5 litre 7 series engine with motronic FI.
Nevertheless I'm on the hunt for a Bosch/Kugelfischer type of system for my 3 series project- perhaps I can improve upon the original design!??
>> Edited by Marquis_Rex on Monday 22 November 23:52
I understand that reasoning... I think I too would prefer to fit something simple and reliable that I could tune to the best of my ability, rather than something complex with potential for expensive failure that I knew was always going to perform worse than my own designs elsewhere. The latter would always be nigglingly unsatisfying even if it didn't break down.
Yes, the early injected Volvos used D-Jetronic - I always get Bosch Jetronic prefix letters confused, but it did indeed judge airflow using a variable-transformer sensor for manifold pressure, with no provision for compensating for engine wear or indeed for tuning mods. When I got my Amazon it had a bastard engine made from a 1.8 head on a 2.0 block, a hasty replacement for the original 1.8 which dropped a valve, which used a pint of oil per 200 miles (100 miles before I fitted an overdrive) and did about 27mpg on a 1.75" Stromberg. I replaced this with an injected 2-litre out of a dead 1800E, in excellent condition, with the thicker head gasket as in the 1800ES. This would do 30mpg including long periods of 90mph on motorways, so I rated it as excellent for fuel efficiency - despite the fact that I was missing the ambient air temperature sensor and had "got it running" with a fixed resistor - and the plugs were always a healthy colour.
I thought the system was extremely well-made, with good quality wiring and connectors and the ECU tucked away in the more friendly environment of the passenger cabin. Inspecting the ECU it seemed that while opening it up would involve cutting the case, there would be no problem avoiding damage to the circuit board within, and as far as I could tell it was not potted. Since it predated microprocessors, let alone ASICs, I figured that if it did go wrong there would be no great difficulty in fixing it. (I did carry the carb and manifold around for a while, until I "trusted" the system
) Looking back, I wish I had opened it and traced the circuit, just for the sake of interest.
Yes, the early injected Volvos used D-Jetronic - I always get Bosch Jetronic prefix letters confused, but it did indeed judge airflow using a variable-transformer sensor for manifold pressure, with no provision for compensating for engine wear or indeed for tuning mods. When I got my Amazon it had a bastard engine made from a 1.8 head on a 2.0 block, a hasty replacement for the original 1.8 which dropped a valve, which used a pint of oil per 200 miles (100 miles before I fitted an overdrive) and did about 27mpg on a 1.75" Stromberg. I replaced this with an injected 2-litre out of a dead 1800E, in excellent condition, with the thicker head gasket as in the 1800ES. This would do 30mpg including long periods of 90mph on motorways, so I rated it as excellent for fuel efficiency - despite the fact that I was missing the ambient air temperature sensor and had "got it running" with a fixed resistor - and the plugs were always a healthy colour.
I thought the system was extremely well-made, with good quality wiring and connectors and the ECU tucked away in the more friendly environment of the passenger cabin. Inspecting the ECU it seemed that while opening it up would involve cutting the case, there would be no problem avoiding damage to the circuit board within, and as far as I could tell it was not potted. Since it predated microprocessors, let alone ASICs, I figured that if it did go wrong there would be no great difficulty in fixing it. (I did carry the carb and manifold around for a while, until I "trusted" the system
) Looking back, I wish I had opened it and traced the circuit, just for the sake of interest. Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff