W124 - pre Vs post facelift, differences?

[mccrackenj]

Hi all

Apart from the obvious difference to the grille, can anyone enlighten me as to the main visual and mechanical differences between pre and post facelift cars, specifically the estate. Are there enough significant mechanical differences to sway one's decision one way or another as an ownership proposition? Or is it just a case of buying the best one you can find regardless of age or spec?

Also - re the 300-24v engine - what are people's opinions of these, more trouble than later versions or just as good? Again, is there anything specific to the engine that would put you off owning one long term compared to the other engines? (I'm restricting this question to the 6 pots as if I'm not interested in a 4 cyl.)

Thanks

John McC

[chazola]

Main visual differences on the pre/post cars are colour-coded bumper centres and lower side panels, different front of bonnet/grille/headlight shape with clear indicators, driver's air bag as standard and usually a passenger one (with a centre oddments box) nicer pattern cloth interiors, mechanically they're pretty much the same apart from the engines and the gearbox, there was a 5-speed as an option for the petrol models which is fairly rare. I've have 2 pre and 2 post cars, just to add confusion there's also quite a few from the middle period, with newer engines and old bodywork/interiors, the 300-24 was from this period if I remember rightly. My 300E from '91 had fantastic build quality, the engine 12v sohc 6-cyl M103 was fast and smooth, but not very economical. Mid-period 320TE had ace dohc 24v 104 engine, but MB-tex interior looked a bit rubbish. The 2 post cars I've had have not been quite as good build quality (still very solid though) but very good engines- dohc 24v 2.8 104 E280 estate and 24v 606 E300 diesel estate (my current car). The 2.8 petrol was really quick and quiet, with better economy than the older 12v 300E. The petrol cars are a little over-complicated for my liking, with head gasket and wiring loom issues common. I haven't driven the 300-24 but I suspect it'd be similar to the 320TE I had which was nice and quick.

Since they're pretty old now, definitely go on condition rather than spec if you can, a well looked-after car with lots of history would is a must. They're built like tanks and the engines generally go on for ever but the rest of the car starts to wear out around 200k and bits need to be replaced. I bought my car from a specialist at 150k but it's still needed a new diff, engine mounts, front springs, ball joints, steering components, anti-roll bar bushes and links, various engine bits, rear exhaust, windscreen, and usual service items. It's got rusty jacking points, and one of the front wings is starting to bubble but I still love it after 6 years.

[Biglips]

Agree with previous post. Buy on condition first and foremost. Look for one that has had the usual problems recently fixed (wiring loom, ball joints etc) Change the ATF if it has not been done and it will extend gearbox life. Handling is transformed by replacing ARB bushes and cheap as chips to do. Good luck.

[mccrackenj]

Thanks for replying both of you, much appreciated. I think I quite fancy the look of the older grille etc.

If everything else about a particular car was fine, then I shouldn't ket the 3.0-24v engine put me off then?

[chazola]

300-24 would be a version of the 104 engine, if I saw a particularly nice one I'd be tempted, so no, don't be put off by it. I hear it's a very well regarded version of this engine. Just need to check for head gasket issues (bad design on the original) or wiring harness problems (they used insulation that fell apart after years in a hot engine bay causing random problems). Ideally you'd want one that had any issues sorted, they don't go wrong often but when they do it's often £££'s to sort out.