W124 220 vs 230 comparison (or 320 vs 300)

[RGubbioli]

Dear All,

Once again I find myself looking to buy a W124, this time a coupe (the previous 2 where TE's).

Although I would prefer a 6cyl model, I am concerned about the fuel consumption (in the UK fuel is very expensive!) so am primarily looking at the 4cyls. Here in UK we only got the 230 or the 220 as 4cyl.

So, my questions are:
- Has anyone driven both 230 & 220 and can comment on any clear differences in terms of refinement and fuel consumption?
- Is one of the two engines better at handling high mileages (over say 140,000mi)?

As I would really like a 320, in case anyone can comment on how that compares to the 300 too that would be great.

By the way, so far I had both a 230 and 200 (!).

Thanks in advance,
Riccardo

 

[Bolide]

W124 coupes

Riccardo


The differences are not limited to the engines; the later cars (220, 280, 320) have different suspension tuning, different gearbox tuning and different interior trim. These updates more-or-less concided with the facelift which gave lower body plastic panels, colour coded bumpers & clear indicators plus a few other bits & bobs. I'm sure you know this as you've had a couple of TEs

The E220 engine is more modern than the 230 and has, I think, a different injection system. It should be more economical

The 300 is a petrol guzzler, make no mistake. A 280 or a 320 should be much better. I think the 320 is pretty much based on the 300-24 valve, though is tuned differently - it's not as peaky - and I assume that the 280 is a smaller version of the 320. Though someone may know better...

I'd look at your budget and what year of car you want and buy accordingly. I wouldn't pick one over another based on engine (eg 220 vs 230) - I'd go by condition. That said, a debadged E220 would be my pick of the bunch unless someone else was paying for the fuel

Compared with a 320, a 220 loses about 100 Kg of engine so will handle better and feel more nimble. That's because the engine in a 220 is set that much further back and the extra weight in a 320 is ahead of the axle line - just where you don't need it. The 220 is not as smooth as a six by a long chalk, but its not a bad engine


Nick Froome
www.w124.co.uk

 

[RGubbioli]

Thanks Nick.

That is a good and detailed explanation. As I thought, possibly the best 'real world' choice will be a 220 (debadged even better). My budget is variable, depends on how much I like the car, but will try and stick to around £3k. That way there is more money left for maintenance.

On a related note, I have seen your website before, its inspiring to see such an effort and I agree with your view on what the S124 class (TEs) represents. Do you ever bump into any LHD cars?

Regards,
Riccardo

 

[Bolide]

LHD W124s

Riccardo


I get regular enquiries for LHD W124s and all of them seem to be from people relocating to France and Spain. But I've never had one nor do they seem to be particularly common

I spend most of my time looking for multivalve diesels - the rarest of the rare - and maybe I should for look for LHD versions. These came with a turbocharger - how nice would that be? A smooth 6-cylinder engine plus a turbo. I might have to go on a shopping trip to Belgium!

For people planning to relocate to Europe I think the best advice is to buy a car out there. The French, in particular, can take a dim view of people trying to register RHD cars and applications at the Mairie seem to be destined to wait forever. I know of someone near Cahors that has a RHD Cadillac (don't ask me why) that is just sitting in the Cave taking up valuable wine storage space because they can't register it. It's been there for years!


Nick Froome
www.w124.co.uk


PS it's a nasty front-wheel drive Cadillac. If it was something nice, like a 1958 Type 62 Convertible, it wouldn't still be sitting there!

 

[paulcallender]

As I thought, possibly the best 'real world' choice will be a 220

Obviously newer=better so the 220 will be better than a 230. If you analyse classic car desirability (where often older=better) it seems to be middle of model age series which retain the most interest, although it s very fragmented. But this wouldn't really be an issue here.

I too think the 4 cylinder is a more sensible real world choice than 6 cylinder. Unless you are wealthy enough to fuel and maintain a 6 cly well into the future (remember, all the petrol sellers are gearing up for 3 figure prices per litre!) The difference in performance rarely becomes an issue in the real world - the 220 is fast enough.

 

[RGubbioli]

Nick,

in my case its a car for my mom who, as you suspect, lives on the continent (Italy). We bought her a UK 200TE as a 'stopgap' car last year but when the insurance on that expires she will want to get another 124 estate but this time with a bigger engine and more options (ac and leather). As it happens cars in the UK tend to be well maintained (or at least one can find such cars more easily as long as they pay the right money) plus its easy to buy (not the same in Italy). I suspect we will probably have to go to Germany though in order to find a good LHD (on mobile.de).

Paul,

I once had a sports car and what you say is exactly true, in the UK there is no space for quick cars! I currently own a very pedestrian 1991 Golf GL which I calculated to be returning 22mpg (purely town driving), so I suspect the 220 should not be much worse. The only issue is that there really is no reason in selling the Golf as its a minter 27k mile car and even has working a/c! Well, apart from that the Merc is suuuuch a nicer drive!! :mrgreen:

 

[Apial]

Fuel consumption figures for the 230CE auto4:
Urban : 25mpg
Constant 56mph: 39.8mpg
Constant 75mph: 32.5mpg

Fuel consumption figures for the 300CE Auto4
Urban: 22.1mpg
Constant 56mph: 34.0mpg
Constant 75mph: 28.2mpg

Fuel consumption figures for the 300CE24 Auto4:
Urban: 20.8mpg
constant 56mph: 33.2mpg
Constant 75mph: 27.2mpg

Standard were cloth seats, and leather or velour were cost options.

My experience of the figures are that a long run will get you the 75mph consumption, and 7-8 mile runs will get you the "urban" figure due to a cold engine and a hilly start.

As I use my car for less than 1000 miles a year, I'm not bothered about the fuel consumption, but if I was doing 15000 miles per annum I definately would be.

Kerb Weight wise the 230CE is 1380kg, the 300CE 1430KG, and the 300CE-24 1490KG. Top Speed 230CE 123mph,300CE 138mph, and the 300CE24 146mph. 0-62mph figures are 10.4seconds for the 230CE, 8.2seconds for the 300CE, and 7.4 seconds for the 300CE-24. All figures sourced from MB published Technical Data May 1990.

I would imagine the 320 figures would be very similar to the 300CE-24, and that a 5 speed auto would show a 2-3 mpg improvement on the 300CE-24 figures.

All of these consumption figures look poor though if you compare them to a modern small turbo-diesel. I currently get 55mpg in my MINI diesel, and our 1.4TDI A2 does even better. I don't think that I would chooses one engine version over the other just on fuel consumption grounds. You really should give each one a test drive to see what suits you best.

 

[RGubbioli]

Thanks Apial,

I think the 300 and the 300-24, while certainly great engines, I am ruling out as they're just too uneconomical in terms of fuel. I will probably choose the 220 in the end as its possibly the best compromise, unless I find a nice 230.

Keep in mind I mainly use the car to drive less then 4 miles in central London, about twice a week. Then there are the occasional trips to the countryside.

One day I will have a Mercedes with a 'proper' engine (ie the 6cyl)!

Riccardo

 

[Bolide]

Coupe

Riccardo

If you're doing that tiny mileage and you had the car for 3 years I think the additional cost of a 320 over a 220 would be insignificant compared with insurance, tax, servicing and parking costs

I'd definitely consider a 320 or a 300-24 valve. For some reason the 300-24 seems to be collectible and they do go like the wind when you wind them up

A 320 or 280 is probably more relaxing to drive as the 300-24 is a lot peakier. But fun. I got 22 mpg one weekend in a 300-24 estate. I was trying to be economical but had to do some "performance testing" as well. They're pretty hot between 70 and 120 but then again a 320 would be too

If you're doing a 4-mile trip the engine, gearbox & cat won't really get a chance to get up to temperature. Not a good way to treat them - whatever car you get will need a weekly or monthly "Italian Tune-Up" to keep it happy. With a name like Riccardo I'm sure you can handle that!



Nick Froome
www.w124.co.uk

 

[paulcallender]

If you're doing a 4-mile trip the engine, gearbox & cat won't really get a chance to get up to temperature.

In London, a 4 mile trip takes around 30-45 minutes. Plenty of time for the car to warm up!

 

[andy_k]

in my opinion the 220 is a more refined engine than the 230 but it seems less economical, perhaps the fact that it is so happy to rev freely leads to more spirited driving. We had a 230TE for 2 years with 225k miles on the clock and it never let us down or used any oil or water.

The six cylinder engines are all different, the normal 300 was the one I ruled out immediately when we were considering a change. It was nothing special in terms of performance but the fuel economy was very poor. The 24 valve version is a great engine but it's at its best when you are right up near the red line, below that it's a bit noisy and nowhere near as smooth as you'd expect a big six cylinder engine to be.

In the end we bought a 320 and that engine is a beauty. Smoother and more economical than the 24 valve and only a few horsepower down but easily quick enough to get you into a lot of trouble very quickly and at 70 mph with the kickdown it takes off like a scalded cat It's more "useable" power than the 300 24V as well because it pulls like a train from 1500 rpm.

Economy wise it's kind of hard to tell. We have had over 30 mpg on a mix of town and motorway but it's more normal to get something in the mid twenties - the temptation to play with the acceleration usually proves too much

None of the engines will dissapoint you but the 300 24V and the 320 will excite you

Andy

 

[Bolide]

London traffic

>>In London, a 4 mile trip takes around 30-45 minutes. Plenty of time for the car to warm up!


Yes, sorry. I live in Sussex now and have tried hard to forgot how bad London is!


Nick Froome
www.w124.co.uk

 

[andy_k]

I live in Sussex now and have tried hard to forgot how bad London is!

yeah, got to agree living in Sussex is good for helping forget just how bad London traffic can be.

Andy