(first posted 1/4/2018) This is it. This is the generation of sedans that firmly cemented Mercedes-Benz’s hold on the American luxury market. Fully redesigned and reengineered, the “volume series” applied all the latest technology Mercedes could muster, and wrapped it in styling reminiscent of the larger, pricier S-Class sedans. A range of power plants was offered, including the recently introduced 5-cylinder diesel, but the flagship of the E-Class range was the gas-powered 280E. Car and Driver couldn’t wait to get behind the wheel of this one.
After all, the “International-Sized” luxury market was white hot in 1977. The Arab Oil Embargo had shocked even the most affluent customers, and suddenly “smaller” was in style across all market segments, including luxury cars.
The benchmark that many makers used to establish size and styling parameters for smaller, more pragmatic but still pricey cars was the Mercedes-Benz W114 Series that had been introduced in 1968. Makers from Cadillac with the Seville to Ford with the Granada sought to emulate the style, if not the substance, of these Mercedes sedans. By 1977, the premium “International-Sized” segment really heating up, with the arrival of the Lincoln Versailles and Chrysler LeBaron, both introduced to challenge the Cadillac Seville, which of course had itself been introduced to challenge the Mercedes.
But then Mercedes moved the target, and in a big way, with the introduction of the W123 Series. Car and Driver was delighted to sample a 6-cylinder 280E in March 1977.
For the car enthusiasts, the arrival of the W123 was indeed a big event, as the car represented Mercedes-Benz’s continual quest to make the best possible car with the newest available technologies.
Efficient packaging and safety engineering were naturally improved.
Solidity was enhanced, and a sophisticated new fully-independent suspension was deployed, along with better 4-wheel disc brakes–all familiar Mercedes attributes enhanced with the W123. Also classically Mercedes-Benz was the well made, but strictly functional interior. Ergonomics were excellent, materials were top notch, but there wasn’t a “loose cushion” or ersatz wood panel anywhere in sight, much to the chagrin of many a middle American luxury buyer.
At least from an interior styling standpoint, Detroit products could still tailor a traditionally hedonistic American luxury environment to woo traditional buyers repelled by the austere Benz. But Motown’s finest didn’t stand a chance with buyers seeking the latest in high tech, efficient power-trains.
Perhaps reading articles like this one in my formative years is one reason why I love cars that are meant to be driven. Each of the counterpoints praises Mercedes for building an outstanding machine, not some sort of rolling isolation chamber. Of course, nowadays the pendulum has swung in the polar opposite direction–driver engagement is “out” while automation and detachment are “in.” One carryover: in 1977 Mercedes were critiqued for being “cold” machines, just as today’s pricy, trendy steeds like Tesla are now channeling the icy electronic style of soulless robot dominance.
Interestingly, the 280E didn’t handily beat the competition against key performance metrics. In fact, braking performance was the worst of the bunch. But unaccounted for on the charts was the totality of the new design that gave the Mercedes an unbeatable combination of overall attributes. And it was priced accordingly: the as-tested 280E listed for $16,290 ($68,688 adjusted), which was a princely sum back in 1977, especially for a rather spartan mid-sized sedan. Target buyers, however, didn’t care at all and were happy to snap up as many W123s as Mercedes would send stateside. Mercedes-Benz U.S. sales surged 25% compared with 1976, rising to 53,818. Plus, this was for a line of cars that started at $11,573 ($48,798 adjusted) for the cheapest 240D, which was higher than the base price of all Cadillacs except for the Seville and Fleetwood Limousine.
Ironically, even as highly desirable customers (e.g. younger, better educated and more affluent) began to show a marked preference for the sophistication, engagement, quality and snob appeal of the Mercedes, Detroit still couldn’t fathom that “International” luxury was more than a boxy design and upright grill. This W123 was the car that truly caused the tectonic shift in the U.S. luxury market, introducing new standards of excellence and redefining “stealth status” for affluent Americans. Motown is playing luxury league catch-up to this day.
That first paragraph about MB’s “deeply enmeshed philosophical code” is a tragedy, given what they’ve become. Nowadays they appear just to chuck Transformers-style cars into market niches in the same way as Audi, BMW, JLR and the rest. Was there, I wonder, a board meeting at which the philosophical code was formally abandoned, or did it just leech away from about 1990 onwards?
I’d still be very happy to be driving one of these, maintenance/spares/cost notwithstanding.
My understanding is that Lexus happened. If my recollection is correct, the Lexus LS400 with V8 performance, S-class Mercedes size, class leading technology and features, and relatively inexpensive scheduled service costs, was more than $10,000 less than the Mercedes 300E. The number that comes to mind for the LS400 is $40,000, although I believe the LS400 MSRP grew quite rapidly through the 1990s.
I believe Mercedes’ development model of no cost spared innovation (for example the single windsheild wiper), seemingly strange luxury compromises (like the power passenger mirror, manual driver’s mirror), high price, and unfavorable exchange rate put Mercedes as a distinct disadvantage.
The Lexus achieved what Cadillac couldn’t in terms of taking on Mercedes because it more finely balanced the combination of luxury attributes of Mercedes (performance, uncluttered interior, round gages) with more american luxury attributes (quiet cabin, isolation, marketing leading technology and features). And it looked the part of Mercedes competitor!
Mercedes reacted on multiple fronts once they really felt the effect on their bottom line. I don’t know the details of the S-class reaction as well as the E-class reaction, but here are a few of the items I know.
1) MB added a v8 to the E-class line for the first time (400E)
2) MB added the 24-valve 6-cylinder to the 300E in 1993, upping horsepower to 217 from 177
3) MB added a passenger airbag in the place of the glove compartment
4) MB dropped the E-Class price by $10,000 in 1994. My 1993 MB 300E had an original MSRP of $53,000, the 1994 E320 has an MSRP of around $43,000.
Ultimately, I believe the result of all these changes was a significant hit to profitability, which led over time to the change in the way that MB engineered cars (to a price point for the first time) and in the way that MB contracted for and built parts (from a focus on longevity to a focus on cost).
So to guess at an answer to your question, they must have had a number of board meetings where they made numerous decisions to change the way it has always been done!
The 1990 Lexus LS400 base price was $35000. Inflation was significant in the 90’s so that by 1995 the price tag could have been $41,000, but in fact had been inflated to $51,000. I think that the early price tag was made very attractive (read that as below cost).
My 1992 MB 400E had an original base price of $60,175. And still had the manual driver side mirror. It was a fantastic car but Lexus was eating MB’s lunch, the next generation of E was a shadow of its former glory.
I’m in disagreement with those who think the w210 was a shadow of it’s former glory. My father had a 1997 E420 that was both more solid and far faster that both his predecessor car (BMW e34 530i V-8) and his successor car (1999 Audi A8 Quattro). I found it one of the most fun to drive cars I’d ever driven. Later, my brother bought a low-miles, used 1999 E430 that he kept for nearly 10 years and it still felt just as fast, buttoned down and solid at the end. I will grant that the cup holder was a ridiculous piece of plastic and that the LCD display on the radio and the climate control wore out over time, but I found the w210 superior to the w124 at the time, as did my brother who test drove a 400E with me in the car at the time that I owned my 300E and he was soon to buy the E430.
I’ve said this before, but the allegations that the original LS400 was dumped below cost are unsubstantiated and I think unfounded. The real reason for the rapid inflation was the change in dollar-yen exchange rates.
The JDM prices of the Toyota Celsior, the LS400’s home-market counterpart, remained pretty stable throughout the model run. They went up some, but only what you’d expect for new car prices — a few percent a year. However, during that period, the value of the dollar fell from about 150 yen to about 100. U.S.-market Lexus prices changed accordingly; on a straight exchange-rate basis, prices for the LS400 and Celsior remained very close.
You may be right. The point still is that the 1990 price was very attractive at $35000. The yen was around 150 to the dollar. By 1995 the yen is 85 to the dollar. The 1995 price was $51,000. By 2002 the yen is up to about 125, but the price on the LS is $54,000.
I think what disturbed Mercedes more than anything was the fit and finish of the LS, which was probably near S-class quality at a lower price.
Current owner of a 2013 E350 BlueTec, purchased at the end of my lease. I’ve been very happy with the car so far. No complaints or issues to this point. I don’t know enough about how they used to run their business years ago to comment, but to ask, compared to what?
When someone says Mercedes, this is the car that comes to mind. And if I ever own one it will be one of these. OK, or maybe a W114.
This car shows the different trajectories of Mercedes and Cadillac. The 1977 W123 kept all of the good things about the W114 and added more good things. If Cadillac could have taken that same approach and built a 1977 model that was everything that the 1965 model had been and more, how different would the world look today.
As good as these were, I continue to believe that snob appeal sold more MBs in the US then the cars’ engineering and execution ever did. Daimler Benz was simply brilliant in cultivating an image of exclusivity on these shores.
And the snob appeal continued far after MB’s real quality began to slip… kinda like a certain aspirational US make in an earlier decade. Even to this days a large % of “upscale” buyers continue to buy prestige German makes, despite being unable to appreciate their functional dynamics. They’d be far better off with a Lexus.
This is the one that fueled my admiration for the Mercedes brand as well, and it is testimony to how well they were built that so many still survive today in good shape.
Great write-up! I enjoy the old C&D reviews too. We had a 1979 240D my parents bought new, and a 1979 280CE, the coupe version of the 280E, my dad bought used 5 or so years later. Though ostensibly the same car, the personality difference brought on by the engine transplant was amazing!
Looking at the stats, you realize how much the basic technology we take for granted has advanced. My 2016 Lexus ES, slightly preowned, cost half what the 280E did; gets twice the mileage on the highway (31 or so), has 120 more hp, and a long list of safety and electronic equipment unknown in 1977.
Does the Lexus feel as hewn from granite as a W123 Mercedes? No, it doesn’t, and that speaks to the inherent perfection baked into these old Mercedes. But of course that pursuit of perfection and “solidity” that is not appreciated by most of the motoring public got Mercedes behind the eight ball by the late 90’s.
So yes, in many ways Mercedes has cheapened the cars to varying degrees of success, and expanded the lineup in some unseemly directions. But they are just trying to stay relevant and chase sales like everyone else.
I’m convinced they sell the new S-Classes at what must be a loss. The S-Class prices really haven’t even risen with inflation for many, many years. I think the proliferation of the new models helps underwrite and justify holding the line on a “reasonable” entry price of $100K or so for the halo or aspirational model.
The S-Class is sold all over the globe, which probably makes it profitable.
That is the challenge faced by Cadillac and Lincoln as they try to repair their brand images and compete in the 21st century. Mercedes is known – and sold – all over the world. Cadillac and Lincoln are basically North American marques, with a growing presence in China.
I’m convinced they sell the new S-Classes at what must be a loss. The S-Class prices really haven’t even risen with inflation for many, many years. I think the proliferation of the new models helps underwrite and justify holding the line on a “reasonable” entry price of $100K or so for the halo or aspirational model.
Keep in mind of enormous difference between American and German as well as international markets. Americans make do with fewer engine choices and more ‘package options’, which keep the price lower. Germans have much more choices of engine and equipment options. They prefer the custom order rather than buy one off the lot as Americans do for the instant gratification. In addition, Germans have been ‘subsiding’ the American market through higher purchase price in Germany for years.
Don’t forget many of mechanism, engines, and equipment found in S-Class are also used in many platforms from smaller A-Class to E-Class and from GLA to GLS. That spread the developmental and manufacturing cost to the wider range as to amortise the cost quicker and shorter.
Dealer lots are smaller in Germany, and the vehicles don’t have to be shipped across the Atlantic Ocean, so it’s more practical for Germans to special order a vehicle.
Here in the U.S., land is relatively cheap compared to land in Germany, so dealers can stock a large variety of vehicles on a large lot. And some dealers will “swap” vehicles with other dealers if the customer’s preferred vehicle isn’t in stock.
’m convinced they sell the new S-Classes at what must be a loss.
Let me unconvince you: they don’t. Car manufacturing has come a long way from the old glory days of Mercedes. All of their RWD cars share large portions of their innards, and all the doo-dads have become cheap to build. Not to diss them, but a modern Mercedes is not really built any much different than any other mass-produced car. So their profit margin on a $100k S Class is hefty, much bigger than a C or E Class. The smaller ones make some of their smaller margins back on volume, but the no worries, MBZ is making hay with the S Class.
Profit margins on high end cars invariably are very large, because it doesn’t cost nearly as much to make them as what folks think it does. Porsche has mammoth profit margins. You really think it costs $100k to slap one of these cars together every couple of seconds?
Imagine Cadillac’s current profit margin on a $104,000 Escalade.
J P,
I think the difference between the philosophy that made these cars so great, and the contemporary Detroit offerings so mediocre is that Detroit ALWAYS zeroed in on appearance while the German car manufacturers emphasized engineering. The advertisements for the Ford Granada demonstrated this point in large print. “You will mistake our car for the much more expensive German car. ” Yet Mercedes, BMW, Audi, or VW would never boast about their cars having such features as a 1 barrel carburetor, a 3 speed manual transmission, or NON independent rear suspension…..like their American competition.
DanE, let me play the contrarian. We agree that the W123 is a great car and that the 76 Granada was not. But . . . look at the rest of what Germany was putting out in 1977. The VW Rabbit/Golf? The Audi 100? Some good engineering there but also some horrible and expensive long term owner experiences. I would take an old W123 over a Granada, but would probably take a decent used Granada over most of the rest of what Germany was building in 1977 (the BMW 320i another possible exception).
Porsche is an exception as a boutique maker of sports cars. Mercedes was an exception as well. Still for all of Mercedes brilliant engineering, the Granada had way better brakes and (with a 351) was substantially more powerful, all at a fraction of the price.
MB sold 50K cars here in the US in 1977 (a number not much better than Studebaker managed in 1958) and they were obscenely expensive for what you got. Most people were in no position to spend that kind of money and American manufacturers knew it. I have plenty of gripes with the American car industry of the 70s, but they mostly provided a very good value proposition compared with anything coming from Europe then. They would certainly run longer with far fewer troubles and for a lot less money. I am not sure that was still true by the 90s because European stuff had mostly improved and American stuff had degraded further.
The Japanese, of course, eventually cleaned everyone’s clock.
My point was that American car manufacturers were of the opinion that the APPEARANCE was more important than the substance. I remember reading many articles, beginning in the mid 70s, how much research went into building a car that customers would PERCEIVE as being a quality product.
As far as the actual longevity of a German car versus an American car, my experience is that American and German (as well as British) manufacturers had/have a blind spot about certain features that are built into their cars. I owned a 74 Audi Fox and a 76 Ford Pinto, both were snickered within a $1,000 of each other. The Audi was a pretty advanced car while the Ford drive like an early 60s “any car”. Yes, the Ford was trouble-free while the Audi was most definitely not trouble-free.
I don’t disagree with anything you say here. I think that the Americans took the pragmatic view that their customers bought new cars and would buy another in a few years. Their customers were not driving ten or twenty year old models, so to hell with them.
I always believed that for the manufacturer willing to suck up the high initial cost of overbuilding their cars, there would be an eventual payoff in long term reputation, higher resale value and higher prestige in the showroom. But getting to that point would be really expensive and would take at least ten or fifteen years. Nobody here was able to commit to that course for any sustained period. Mercedes had the luxury of being able to charge really high prices in the US (for what you were buying) and the ability to get by on relatively few units. No US manufacturer had that luxury.
It also helped Mercedes that they had started out, in the days of the pegged DM 1=$0.25 exchange rate, offering those overbuilt cars for Buick-Oldsmobile money and the reputation was well enough established that they not only could sell and make money at the high prices the weak dollar/strong D-mark of the mid ’70s pushed them to, but (once they had gotten the gray market legislated out of existence) continued to charge them through the 80s while Cadillac struggled to find its’ feet in the new era and Lincoln made bank selling Town Cars to traditionalists and fleet operators.
Mercede’s pricing model in the US was popped like a balloon by Lexus. It was totally unsustainable.
Toyota/Lexus showed that one could build a reliable car without overbuilding it like Mercedes. Mercedes had to go back to the drawing board and start over, and it took several generations to get to the point where they are now, meaning both price-competitive and reasonably reliable with good perceived quality.
I don’t recall any American automaker “boasting” about their cars having 1bbl carburetion, 3-speed manual transmissions, or solid rear axles. It was more like “This is what we build. Take it or leave it; we’re betting most of you will take it out of habit”. Which had been a solid bet for so many years that it took them a very long time to perceive that it wasn’t any more.
Still and all, a thoughtful American buyer might well and justifiably have run the numbers in ’77 (’78, ’79…) and concluded that a thoughtfully-specified Chev Caprice beat out a W123 Benz. Not quite the same numerous-decades durability, but certainly at least a decade and a half’s worth. No 4-wheel disc brakes or fuel injection, but better acceleration and/or fuel economy. No swoons of envy from the Joneses next door, but no eyewatering parts and service prices, either.
In my opinion, the W123 is the best-looking of the mid-size Mercedes – still serious-looking, but with just enough rounding off to give a measure of sleekness. It’s a shame we didn’t get the big Euro headlights in the US. The coupes are particularly nice-looking – so much better than the somewhat awkward W114 coupe.
Agree entirely with all that assessment (we got the big lights in Aus). As for the W114 coupe, it looked like it’d be pretty hot for the sheep in the back of that ute with it’s solid tonneau cover…
This road test article is a prime example of why “Car & Driver” was the “go to/must read first” magazine for my Father and (later on) his eldest son, from 1964 until 2017.
“C&D” was a fine balance between the “All American” stance of “Motor Trend” magazine and the “Foreign Car Superiority Over American Cars” snotty attitude that all-too-often permeated “Road & Track” magazine.
Dad and I had mail order subscriptions to all three of the above magazines for over 50 years; but “C&D” was the most trusted, the most relied on magazine.
The informative, fair & well documented road tests, the editorial musings of David E. Davis, Warren Weith, Brock Yates and Patrick Bedard and Rich Ceppos gave me interesting counter-points to the other dull blatherings of the other car magazines.
Sadly, I find no automotive inspiration in any of the above car magazines today. They all seem like soulless, “politically correct” copies of each other.
I stopped buying C/D a decade ago. The current changes I see at the bookstore when I browse thru aren’t likely to change that.
There was a spate of interesting stories in C/D back in the 80s that kept me in their fold for quite a while. Road trips to the end of Baja, road testing cop cars and the annual 10 best were fun to read.
When my current mail order subscription to “C&D” expires; I will not be extending it. After the early/mid 1990’s I gradually lost interest in it.
When David E. Davis was the editor of this magazine, he “stirred the pot” and flavored the magazine’s word stew with interesting, thought provoking “point/counterpoint” personnel (his “feuds” with Brock Yates are of automotive publishing legend) and unusual road tests, such as the ones you mentioned.
After his untimely death, on the operating room table during a (supposedly) “routine” procedure, I quickly lost interest in C/D and his founded “Automobile” magazine.
Several years ago I was told, by the general manager of a Mercedes-Benz dealership no less, that up until about 1990 Mercedes-Benz automobiles were” built to a specification. Since then, like almost all other makes, they have been built to a price.”
I completely understand the comment about being put in to a Benz blindfolded. Since I had my last two ‘old school’ Mercedes-Benz – a 1994 E320 sedan and 1995 E320 coupe – I have owned a 2003 ML350, 2007 C280, two GLK 350s (the wife loves them), and a 2013 E350. While all of the later cars have been excellent performers and given tens of thousands of miles of great service, none of them have had that ‘carved from a solid block’ feel of the W124s.
By the way, when pressed hard it was evident that the E320 sedan was a bit stiffer than the coupe which lacked a B-pillar.
I’ve owned one 123 (280CE) and two 124s (300E, 300CE). I prefer the 124s but the 123 introduced me to Mercedes ownership. It was, and is, a very satisfying car to own.
Two comments about Mercedes. One is pricing. The 123s and 124s (especially the coupes) were ridiculously priced in the US market. Some of this had to do with the strength of the West German Mark. But the cars’ pricing was a real shocker to anyone used to buying American cars or even German VWs. It was real hurdle in the late ’70s to justify spending so much on a car. And the 124s were also remarkably expensive when compared to anything else. You really had to want one badly; I did and was not disappointed. This pricing disparity has been greatly diminished.
As to the change in Mercedes philosophy, I believe the cusp was the taint of Chrysler. The internal thinking must have changed just prior to that mistake. The engineering first (and pricing be damned) theme was last so clear with the 126, 124 and 129 series cars. They were introduced in (about) 1980, 1986 and 1990. By the end of their model runs (about 1991, 1995 and 2002) the replacement models clearly favored pricing over engineering. My clue was a V-6 engine replacing a straight six in the E class and the then new CLK coupe.
A nice 123 is a great collector car; my eyes are open for another coupe.
As I recall it, Daimler Benz was bleeding red ink at the time of the Chrysler “merger”. Chrysler was generating huge profits at the time which helped the German operation through a tough time.
M-B really had no real competition for the top of the market through the mid 80s, and so its “we will build the best and damn the cost” philosophy was viable. But by the late 80s both Lexus and BMW started to give M-B some real competition for the first time since the War, which led to the kinds of quality compromises that everyone else in the industry had been used to making for a long time.
JPC’s got the history right; LOL at “the taint of Chrysler”.
Sorry Daniel; Chrysler was a mistake and is embarrassment to the proud history of Daimler-Benz. As for cars, the most obvious example was the Chrysler Crossfire – a vehicle that used the prior generation Mercedes SLK running gear and quickly failed. The benefit to the lame Chrysler was using Mercedes E class transmission, suspension, differential and other mechanical guts on Chrysler RWD cars. Mercedes got nothing from this arrangement other than the shame of the word “Chrysler” displayed on various facilities in Stuttgart.
Daimler bought the smallest of the American companies – one riddled with serious pension obligations to union workers. Daimler made the decisions. Bob Eaton got out. Chrysler managers made more money than their German counterparts. The cultures did not mesh. It was an error and it cost Daimler. It unloaded Chrysler on Cerberus at a big loss and that mess eventually was bankrupt and somehow revived by Obama. So yes, there is a taint on Daimler-Benz from the Chrysler years, whether or not you like your K-car.
You’re not entirely wrong or anything, but by all appearance you aren’t able or willing to see or acknowledge some fairly major aspects of that ill-conceived “merger” that don’t mesh with your personal preferences, biases, and loyalties.
It’s not terribly important to me, and your scornful tone indicates you’re not interested in actual discussion, so…good day, sir or madam!
My suspicion has long been that Daimler used Chrysler to learn about and experiment with cust-cutting measures they wouldn’t ever dare attempt doing with Mercedes models, at least not without a track record establishing how to do it and how that would pan out long-term.
Those measures that worked out fairly well, later did get applied to Mercedes models, but those that didn’t… oh well, it was “only Chrysler” that would suffer for them. Once they’d extracted all they wanted out of Chrysler and experimented on it within an inch of its life, they sold off the barely-living husk of its remains to Cerberus and washed their hands of it.
In this view, rather than Chrysler “tainting” a hapless Daimler as if they didn’t know what they were getting into, Daimler did it to themselves, eyes open and deliberately, to convert their whole corporate culture away from their familiar but increasingly obsolete and failing “engineered to a standard” development and “cost-plus” pricing model, and towards an unfamiliar but more sustainable and profitable, cost-controlled and market-targeted industry-standard model.
Patrick Bedard’s counterpoint in the C & D article is apt. He seems the only one not dazzled by the MB myth, saying accurately that the engine is loud, the transmission shifts oddly and the suspension and wind are noisy. I would add that the seats are quite awful, worsened by being very close to the floor, and the fuel consumption is poor.
I was excited to go performance testing in one of these in ’84 with a local car mag during work experience from school. These were the equivalent of $150,000AUD cars in todays money, and limited by quotas here, thus a seriously exclusive bus. I was expecting silence, super smoothness, deep comfort and ease. Instead, I felt as if in a particularly expensive dentist outfit, all sterile, high quality, serious. And noisy. I was utterly intrigued by it despite all the above. It felt like no other car, though I still couldn’t quite understand why the well-off might want to suffer in this way.
Even though I didn’t really like it as such, I want one still, likely because it represents a time in my life as much as the worth of the machine. I now appreciate the deep-set quality. And I want to suffer like the rich did, perhaps so I can feel well-off occasionally.
Was about to post the same thing. I remember riding in one as a child , and hating the seats. Try driving long distance in one of these “luxury cars”
And try sitting on those vinyl seats on a hot day when you’re wearing shorts.
Reading his take on this car, what Bedard really wanted was a better built, better buttoned-down American car.
In other words, he wanted a Lexus before anyone knew what Lexus was.
Or alternately, a Ford Granada that wasn’t a 1960 Falcon underneath.
He essentially received that in the 1978 Ford Fairmont, which debuted a few months after this article appeared. In the September 1977 issue, he raved about the Fairmont’s handling abilities.
From the time when we still thought Germans cars were just all that. The styling is classic, but I prefer cars that don’t have rock-hard seats and punishing suspensions. It should also be noted, too, that neither the Lincoln Versailles nor the Cadillac Seville had “loose-cushion” seats either.
Great article. Best car MB ever made, in my opinion. Solid as a rock and that classic look. In Germany it is known as “the last of the chromeans” As far as I know quality at Daimler starts changing with its successor in the mid 80s. There should have been some protests from german taxi drivers about the worse quality of the W124 back then.
As much as I appreciated these cars, most Americans who bought them were not well served by them. They were too mechanical, and didn’t really come into their own above 70, as pointed out in the article. Most Americans didn’t drive in a way that would allow them to ever properly appreciate their qualities. So why did they sell so well?
Status. American cars had lost any meaningful status when just about anyone could afford a Cadillac and such. Those Americans that could afford a significantly more expensive car had essentially nowhere else to go. In the 50s, it was Jaguar, the best-selling import premium car. But their reliability issues and the pendulum swinging to Germany, which had already started with the VW (don’t think that a good number of Mercedes buyers hadn’t been early VW adopters in the 50s) made Mercedes the brand to have, to stay above the hoi polloi.
American’s need for effective status symbols trumped all, and it was downright humorous to watch them clattering and vibrating along in a 240D thinking that they were driving a truly superior car. Mercedes Mania was in a fever pitch by this time.
I actually tried to talk some folks out of buying one, because I know that objectively, they were going to be not as well served as a comfy, cushy, powerful and smooth-riding Olds 88 or such, but to no avail.
I think you’re right about status Paul, but it was a very particular kind of status symbol, sort of like Packard, or a small but perfect and colorless diamond. The status was a combination of the expense disqualifying all but a very few, and the unseen quality assuring the owner that he or she had realized value.
For my dad, who had two w123’s as company cars (1978 230 & 1982 300D Turbo), and who bought two w123’s for my mom (1979 300TD & 1981 300TD Turbo), it was the 300’s that hit the status, engineering, value sweet spot.
He used to say about the 280E that it was overpriced, very thirsty and not that powerful (the torque peak wasn’t until 4500 rpm). He used to consider 240D drivers status seekers, crazy to want to drive such a slow car. And he said his 230 with an automatic was one of the most gutless cars he’d ever owned. But he loved the 300’s (we also had a w115 300D, 1975). He said they were torquey (the torque peak was at 2400 rpm) and got good mileage and were not as expensive as the 280E.
I think he considered the 300’s to be very “rational cars” in every way but price. Upright, roomy and supportive, easy to see out of, easy to park, safe, reliable, efficient and attractive.
So they were flashy because they broadcast that you could pay the tariff, but they were satisfyingly understated because those unaware of the unseen attributes couldn’t understand why the car was so expensive.
Weren’t Mercedes cars mostly sold thru Packard dealers in the 50’s?
Here’s a good article on the distribution of MB through Packard/Studebaker dealers: https://jalopnik.com/5770530/a-studebaker-300sl
That was an interesting read. I diddn’t realize it was that messy. Thanks for that link.
From 1957 through 64 Mercedes-Benz cars were sold through a subsidiary of Studebaker-Packard (later just Studebaker Corporation). Most M-B dealers were also Studebaker dealers. I know that the Mercedes dealer in Fort Wayne, Indiana in the 70s had been a former Stude store. I believe that Max Hoffman had gotten the rights to distribute Mercedes in the US and worked a deal with S-P as it was being managed by Curtis-Wright. M-B got an established national dealer network and S-P dealers got a little extra volume. It is possible that adding Mercedes allowed S-P to drop Packard without incurring liability for violating state dealer franchise laws, as in “Hey, we will give you one new slow selling expensive car in place of the other slow selling expensive car that we are discontinuing. Trust us, you’ll like this one better.” Beginning in 1965 a new US sales company was formed and M-B sold cars for themselves.
Studebaker also distributed NSU cars for two or three years in the early 60s.
I’ve posted this image before, of Rasmussen’s Studebaker – Mercedes dealership on West Burnside in Portland. Given the palatial Mercedes dealership in downtown Portland today, I’d say it worked out just fine for Don Rasmussen.
The truly rational car at the time was SAAB, safer, more efficient, more fun to drive, &c albeit slightly smaller.
Saabs would have been just as full of character as these 123s (we’ve had two) but I can pretty much promise they wouldn’t be as safe in an accident. Mercedes was an early pioneer of active and passive safety, these 123s were already quite advanced for their time with crumple zones, reinforced passenger safety cell, doors that don’t jamb in accidents and so forth. You could option these with ABS and airbags later in their production.
Linard ;
SAAB of that time was indeed a safety designed car .
Pops bought a new one in 1966, a red three cylinder two stroke station wagon .
It had some odd problem that caused it to cease running without warning, the head Mechanic at Gaston Andre, the SAAB Dealer in…. ?Brookline? ?Cambridge? was using it as personal transport when he had a head on collision, I don’t know what he hit but Pops made a point of taking me to see the remains, it was smashed nearly up to the firewall yet the passenger compartment was intact .
The engine was designed to eject underneath the car in frontal collisions and that’s what it did .
The lack of blood in it leaves me to believe the Mechanic was using the three point mount seat belts that Pops ordered with the car as he had done his residency in the late 1930’s in emergency rooms and saw the collision carnage up close, personal and soaking wet with other’s blood .
I’ve been a seat belt user and advocate since I can remember, some of my jobs have involved wrecked vehicles and after you see red mush smeared all over you begin to belive in seat belts .
IIRC the two smoker SAABS were pretty lively too ~ in the late 1960’s a teacher had a red two door and it flew .
They had ‘freewheeling’ too, a nifty option that was mighty handy yet it killed many too so I’m of mixed opinion on it .
-Nate
I think the basic problem with Cadillac’s status is that once upon a time they were not a generic GM Fisher body. During the 20’s GM bought Fisher (mostly) then acquired Fleetwood, mostly so that others could not have the custom Fleetwood bodies. But then they closed the Fleetwood plant (in Pennsylvania) and made them in Detroit. However, as the depression dragged on, the Fleetwood bodies were dropped in favor of the cheaper Fisher bodies. So at this point Cadillac’s are not worth 6x the price of a Chevy.
It is worth pointing out that Cadillac survived the depression, while Pierce Arrow did not, and while Packard made it past the War, they also failed. The V16 really did not give Cadillac the status of either the Pierce Arrow or Packard.
In all fairness, Mercedes was riding he wave of a perfect storm. As you mentioned, Mercedes had become an overpriced status symbol. On the other hand, Mercedes couldn’t have known that in just a few short years, Cadillac would abandon all semblance of quality control or mechanical reliability. Added to that, some really questionable styling choices (I’m being charitable) makes it a wonder that Cadillac sold as many cars as they did. The other domestic choices included the Lincoln (Oh look, there’s a Lincoln… and the box that it came in!), or the Chrysler 5th Avenue, based on three decade old mechanicals. Hmmm.
On the European front, there was Audi, who was still working their way through numerous reliability issues. And BMW’s, which were lovely, drove beautifully, but quickly showed themselves to be fragile and not exceptionally durable. Even Volvo tripped up with that god awful V6. That pretty much left Porsche and Mercedes to fly the prestige flag… and Porsche was having their own issues. Anyone remember the 924 and the 928?
All that being said, I truly love reading these old road tests. I’m also reminded why the GM B-bodies were the real luxury car value… at least for awhile… before Lexus arrived on the scene and rearranged the entire luxury car market.
The car that came after the W 1 2 4 – built on all these qualities and more. Handles and drives better. I have just bought one again after a 3 year haitus. The greatest sedan ever made in my opinion. 89, 000 from new and stored 9 years – came 50 miles home including motorway and London’s bumper-to- bumper ring-road. Driver in zen bliss while the Merc mixed it with the plebeans.
As many commenters have noted, the MB was an acquired taste, even with all its benefits. Cadillac made a half-step in the right direction with the ’75 Seville, but it was really still too prosaic, despite the fancy trimmings, to genuinely compete with Mercedes. But imagine if Cadillac had gone farther, even just a bit. Imagine better materials (real wood, higher grade leather) and a more sophisticated independent suspension. It’s not that GM couldn’t cost-effectively offer those added features and priced accordingly, but in a misguided quest for high volume in the luxury segment (two objectives that don’t really mesh), Cadillac eroded their materials, uniqueness and actually lowered their prices, at a time when buyers would have paid more, not less, to gain a status symbol.
In 1967, the Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham was base priced at $6,739 ($50,526 adjusted). Ten years later, the all-new Fleetwood Brougham started at $11,564 ($48,684 adjusted), so it was actually cheaper. In contrast, the 1967 Mercedes-Benz 250SE stickered for $6,385 ($47,872 adjusted), but by 1977, the comparable model—the 280SE sold for an eye-watering $19,411 ($81,848 adjusted). Of course Cadillac sold far more cars—197,667 in 1967 was a tremendous amount of high-end sales. But by 1977, that had increased to 358,341 units—volume levels that put GM’s flagship in many, many driveways. Slowly and subtly the damage was done: Cadillacs were cheaper and more common than ever, while Mercedes was growing sales rapidly but was still exclusive and elite, with enormous pricing power (even accounting for the bad exchange rates at the time, the MB’s were mighty expensive).
Cadillac could have split the difference and priced the ’77 Fleetwood at say $15,500 ($65,357 adjusted), including standard fuel injection, independent rear suspension, a wheelbase stretch, truly sumptuous materials inside. GM still would have sold a boatload of Cadillacs at that price, with enormous profits to boot. And the snob wars would have become more challenging, as it would have been harder to put down the enhanced Cadillac as an inferior product (MB did that very effectively with its marketing in the late 1970s and early 1980s), and the increased price tag would have perversely been seen as a good thing for Cadillac in the true luxury market, where the more money you spend, the bigger the badge of success (if not the actual car any longer).
That leads to the question; just how much *was* the premium for a Fleetwood over a deVille?
It’s also a case of it being a problem that GM divisions were supposed to compete with each other. There had been an “entry-level” Cadillac for decades at that point; imagine if they could’ve offered it, by 1977 at the latest, with fine materials applied sparsely and been able to direct people who wanted more Brougham for their buck to the top of the Buick/Olds lines.
In ’79, I ordered my folks a new Sedan deVille loaded with just about everything available EXCEPT a sunroof, padded vinyl roof, and fuel injection (Guess why we had to order it?). Tab for that car came to just over $11300 OTD… a princely sum at the time.
So, probably nine grand to start and just under/over 10k with typical “on the lot” options, depending on cloth/leather or two-tone but probably certainly including the vinyl top!
I know they say hindsight is 20/20, but if you were on the 14th floor a few decades ago things might have turned out a bit differently.
It looks like the engines on these were substantially detuned to cope with US emissions–I’m pretty sure the large-displacement, injected M110 has a better reputation in Europe, where (wikipedia says) it put out around 180 peak hp, instead of 142 at 5750 RPM as tested by C&D. That makes the US interest in the 5-cylinder diesel/turbodiesel engine more understandable.
It also emphasizes how much the US Mercedes buyer was a status buyer. Flooring the gas pedal on a fuel-injected, twin-cam engine of 2.8 liters to get 142 hp and maybe less than 15 mpg must take the joy out of the cool engineering/design. (If it hadn’t been stuck with BMW’s destructive emission engineering, the E12 5-series should have wiped a car like this out completely!) There were probably non-status cars that provided better objective performance out of 1949-1960 technology, although the steering and ride would not have had the stability that I, at least, like in the older MBs.
The cost discrepancy was likely a huge factor; the smaller 4’s, both gas and diesel, were give or take $11,000 to start in 1977. This test model was north of $16,000. Not insignificant. The larger diesel likely seemed like a sweet spot for a lot of buyers.
A ’77-’79 Caprice with the F41 Suspension would match or better the Mercedes in just about every number (including fuel economy) except stopping distances.
Exactly my thought.
Fifteen and a half miles per gallon?!!!
Yes, and worse on the highway than in the city according to the graph. Direct drive in top gear plus a short final drive equaled about 3000 rpm at 60 mph… that may explain some of this, but still, mpg per hp (to specify a rough measure of efficiency) is not good.
K-Jetronic was not noted for its great fuel efficiency — a look at the technical description gives you a sense of why. The addition of lambda sensor feedback for mixture control helped some, but I think CIS was inherently thirstier than the electronic D-Jetronic and L-Jetronic systems.
K-Jetronic did always seem to be the performance rather than the efficiency option ( a function of CIS?) but oddly enough, my one longish-term experience of it in a Peugeot 505 was that it bettered any others I’d had for economy. Mine was the unleaded US-style injected pushrod version, automatic (look, I was in no hurry at the time, ok), and flogged hard – alright, there was no not flogging such a beast without risk of rear-borne enflattenment – it got better mileage than my manual non-K-Jetronic ones before it. Go figure. Very reliable too, though the C & D assertion that mechanics easily understood it is a bit hilarious.
“Rear-borne enflattenment!” +1!
K-Jetronic was a step up from a carburetor (especially an early emissions-era carburetor), but not as efficient as an electronic system, I think.
I’m tempted to agree with you just on operational theory alone; it seems like a constant injection setup without even batchwise pulsing has got to be wasting gasoline. But practically I don’t agree about K-Jet being necessarily thirstier than D-Jet in a comparable installation. Look at the godawful mileage D-Jet Volvo 164s got. Clean exhaust and good driveability compared to the previous twin Zenith-Stromburg CD carbs on the same engine, but dismal mileage, even in perfect tune.
And I don’t know for sure here but didn’t the K-Jet early 240s get better mileage than the D-Jet late 140s with similar engines? (The Volvos are the only applications I’m directly familiar with; questions like this might just as easily be asked about Mercedes cars, or others)
If K-Jet in some cases gives better economy than D-Jet with all other factors reasonably comparable, then I find it fun to think about why it might be so. I think to some degree D-Jet’s very early electronics have problems of their own. Ditto the early, primitive injectors and surrounding science (where to put them/how to angle them/spray patterns/timing/etc). I have to think D-Jet might’ve given better fuel economy with feedback mixture control, but that came along well after D-Jet went away.
Oooh dear, this wobbles further and further away from stuff I probably didn’t understand in the first place (let alone the post) but didn’t the 140’s grow an overhead cam while waiting patiently to grow into 240’s, and wouldn’t this account for some efficiency gains? Also, in oddball Aus, I seem to recall (which means I read the old magazines because I’m a sad bastard) that the 164E was V8 fast, with V8 mileage, supporting the idea that CIS is a performance deal. For an ignoramati such as your current interlocutor, it does seem that continuous pulsing of large blobfuls of fuel into a motor at one go MIGHT boost the go, but then that doesn’t square with the widespread use of this system to meet emission standards. I reckon Daniel’s got to be pretty close that the early electronics were not fully wide-consumer ready (D-jet), but I’m genuinely curious as to how or when injection generally went from the performance option to the emissions-meeting one, and most of all, why mechanical injection met that better than electronic. Seems all arse-about. And is now probably so remote as to become another post altogether, but anyway, anybody..?
The OHC engine didn’t come along until after 240 series had already arrived. 1975 240s had the OHV B20 engine with K-Jetronic—I have personally seen 1975 240s configured this way. RockAuto suggests some 1974 140s had K-Jetronic while others still had D-Jetronic; don’t know how accurate that is for the US market—it might be accurate for Canada or other markets.
1976 was the first year for the B21 OHC engine in 240s. Those all had K-Jet in the US market.
The 164E never came with anything but D-Jet; never with CIS, and while it ran well, I don’t know that I’d say it had “V8 power”—at least not in lower-compression US configuration.
In 1972 the 164 cars could be had in the US market with either twin carbs or D-Jet. Same piston displacement, maybe slightly different compression ratio. More horsepower and torque and much cleaner emissions from the fuel injected version; service manual tune-up specs were to tune the carbureted engine to achieve 2.5% CO in the exhaust; fuel-injected models to achieve 1.5%. Similar comparisons can be made in the few years prior to that, when certain 4-cylinder Volvos could be had in carbureted or injected configuration. So right off the bat, the injected cars had cleaner exhaust.
As for why K-Jet (CIS) could clean up the exhaust despite constant fuel spray: probably less because K-Jet is so awesome and more because carburetors are so sloppy. Also, it was only a couple years between Volvo starting to use K-Jet and the advent of the Lambda Sonde (O2 sensor) feedback mixture control, an easy add-on to the basic K-Jet system, which not only made the exhaust much cleaner in its own right but also paved the way for 3-way catalytic converters that really did a cleanup job on the exhaust.
It doesn’t matter if the fuel is sprayed continuously or intermittently as long as the same amount of fuel is sprayed. The fuel only gets into the engine when the valve opens.
I think the K-jet is less precise than the D-jet, although that depends on the number of sensors used to compute the fuel needed. A K-jet with an O2 sensor would be much better than without.
Yes, fuel is only admitted to the engine when the intake valve is open, but it does (or at least can) make a difference whether the injectors are spraying continuously or intermittently. Take a look at what happened when Chrysler went from batch- to sequential-spray injection on the Mitsu 3.0 V6 engine: without any other changes, they picked up a whole mile per gallon, comparing like-to-like vehicles tested by the EPA.
That is a completely different type of fuel injection system, not a mechanical one. Adding an O2 sensor to the K-jetronic would probably increase fuel efficiency too. Sequential fuel injection requires a higher level of control than is probably possible with an analog system (although I am not sure). I suppose that a mechanical system could be designed like a diesel and spray fuel sequentially, but would this make it better?
I did find the Chrysler engine. They actually upgraded the computer system to make it run sequentially, so you are not correct in stating that it was the only change. In any case the system is not mechanical fuel injection, but digital.
Um…yes, of course the controls had to be changed to pulse the injectors sequentially rather than in batches. That’s part and parcel of changing from batch to sequential fuel injection; we don’t get to just wave a magic wand and declare it so. The changes were minor: six single-channel drivers rather than two 3-channel drivers in the SBEC, and a pair of wires to each injector rather than a branched pair of trios. And yes, it was the only economy/emissions-relevant change on the 3.0 between ’91 and ’92, and I say that having had the opportunity to look in close detail at the fuel curves and ignition maps.
As to mechanical vs electronic: please take a look at the context of this particular little side spur of the conversation, kicked off by gagging on the very poor fuel economy of the tested Mercedes. We’re not just discussing K-Jetronic; D-Jetronic is also being discussed, and although its sensors and ECM are more primitive than the hardware Chrysler used in the early 1990s, they’re rather similar speed-density systems.
No need to speculate about the effect of adding an O2S to K-Jetronic, either—that was done in 1977, a year after the Volvo 240 cars got K-Jet; details are in this SAE paper. We are left to guess at the effect of adding an O2S to D-Jet; AFAIK that was never done.
Your comment above at the head of this thread was that constant injection somehow wastes gasoline. If somehow it (K-jetronic) pulsed the fuel injectors simultaneously that less fuel would be used. I do not think this is true and all of your posts do not convince me that you are right.
However, todays direct injection systems are much better than even the digital sequential were.
Fortunately for the both of us, convincing you I’m correct is not on my list of goals for 2018. Probably not ’19, either. 😉
I have found that the intake and exhaust valve timing is different for the Chrysler Mitsubishi engine. So tuning is different and this is an equally likely reason for improved fuel economy. It is wildly speculative to make assumptions about mechanical fuel injection on this basis. Mechanical fuel injection is relatively simple by design. Complicating the design seems pointless as the airflow into the engine is not measured precisely in mass terms as is needed to inject the proper amount of fuel.
My goodness, you certainly are persistent, bless your heart—but really, what’s the point in making stuff up—even if you call it a “finding”—just to look like you’re winning an argument? Per the factory parts cattledogs, the camshafts are identical (P/N MD145655 and MD145656) for the ’91 batch-fire and ’92 sequential-fire engine, and per the factory service manuals they’re phased identically, too.
I’m pretty sure we’re done here; at least, I am. Keep smilin’!
https://www.allpar.com/mopar/3specs.html
Q. E. D.
While the article claims that it is mass flow sensor, it is really a volume flow sensor. In a nutshell, the fuel metered into the engine is really an approximate amount, a bit more accurately done than a carburetor.
After Lexus I think it took MB a good two or three generations to learn how to make a price-competetive yet good car. The ML series (think RX300 style, if you’re not familiar) SUVs that were all over in the early 2000s rusted to hell in a few years. I see more pre-95 MBs on the street even here in Salt Central. I honestly think the engineers had no idea on how to build to a price point, because they never had to. I come from the opposite side of engineering- I’m usually brought on to something to get it out fast and Good Enough(TM). If I had the luxury MB engineers used to have I’d probably get lost up my own ass trying to figure out best practices. “Ooh, shiny!”
My take on the whole MB/Lexus thing is this…Asian companies are better with electronics than German companies. There’s a reason we have Sony TVs and not Grundig.
I have owned MB products, from a 71 220D to a 93 300e, but I have ZERO desire to own anything they build now.
Part of me would like to take a late-70s Seville, tighten up the suspension with my own take on F41 parts, Recaro or Scheel Mann seats and make my own American version of a W123/W124. In reality it will never happen but in my little pea-sized brain it sounds like a fun exercise.
A new CTS would be a better car.
Until the electronics go bad. If you don’t kill the car out of frustration trying to use Cadillac’s VUE display screen.
You mean CUE, which works quite well for me.
Thank you fat-fingered the keyboard. I despise it, but I don’t drive one with this feature on a daily basis. The Charger’s display is much more complex (performance pages take awhile to get used to), but I took to it in no time flat.
On the other hand, I appreciate the simplicity of the dash layout on the wife’s Camry. Buttons and dials, placed exactly where you’d expect them to be.
The worst part about Mercedes electronics was the use of subpar materials for the shielding(iirc they were biodegradable i.e. “green”) and brittle plastic connectors, the circuits themselves aren’t particularly bad, certainly not anywhere near Lucas bad
Mercedes were still very mechanical until the 90s, which is really where the whole overengineered saying comes from, and makes them so endearing as long life near indestructible vehicles(broken electronics tend to fully die and need exact replacement, while mechanicals can often be coaxed or jerry rigged to continue working). Even things like the power locks were done with pneumatics rather than electric solenoids, and the electronics that were there were either luxuries, ignition related and of course lighting – though if they could have gotten away with it they would have probably used gas lamps for that too
I agree that the W123 was one of the best Mercedes ever made, so many parts of it were just right.
My first drive of one was an Arab friends family car, it was left a hand drive automatic, with touring suspension and gearing that had been brought over to the UK.
It was a four cylinder so must have been a 230, sluggish from a standstill but could cruise very fast completely unflustered, I wondered if they had simply fitted a diesel diff as it felt so high geared.
The speedo was in KPH and it was one of the few cars that would just run away with you as the speedo hovered around 180 – 190 kph. It didn’t feel that fast and not being familiar with KPH I didn’t realise that it was cruising effortlessly at 110 – 115 mph on the motorway.
At the time I had a 350SE saloon which felt much busier at that speed and drank fuel like nobodies business. In retrospect a fully optioned W123 would be much easier to live with than the very expensive to run S class and in no way would feel like a downmarket car
The other thing to remember was that the W123 was not a luxury car in Europe, huge numbers were used as Taxis so comparison with US makes like Cadillac are not fair, their design brief are different.
These W123 are extremely durable and for the time, very rust resistant. The Coupe looks lovely and is a particularly usable classic, they could still be used as a daily driver
A W123 was much more a German Buick than a German Cadillac. That was the S-Classes mission. I remember my wife’s surprise when we walked out of the Frankfurt Airport and saw a literal sea of ivory-colored W124’s with “TAXI” signs on the roof.
“It was a four cylinder so must have been a 230, … ”
In Europe and most other markets, a 2.0 liter four cylinder (code: M 115) was the base petrol engine. Maximum torque: 158 Nm. To cover up the weakness of the mill, MB installed a 4.92:1 rear axel ratio. Horribly noisy on the motorway – especially the stickshifted ones.
Ah – I forgot to mention: Those cars were baged “200”.
For a car praised for overall performance, those braking numbers are atrocious! If this had been an American car, C/D would have criticized that long braking distance all over the place. Instead, they praised the 4-wheel disc brakes with a pad-wear indicator light on the dash.
For reference, a 1968 AMX with power front disc brakes/rear drum could stop from 60-0 in 115 feet in 1968 road tests. That kind of braking power is barely matched even today!
There are various differences in test methodology that make comparing the road tests you’re talking about perilous — starting with the fact that an 80–0 or 70–0 stop is a much more challenging test of braking power than a 60–0. Also, C/D throughout this period was concerned with consistency of performance as well as stopping distances. They’d been complaining for about a decade that since front discs became available, bigger American sedans could manage one (1) quite decent emergency stop from freeway speeds, after which they would need an extended breather before recovering, which wasn’t much help in the mountains or in sustained high-speed driving.
Nonetheless, there’s no denying that the braking distances of the 280E test car were unimpressive even for 1977 — about 20 feet longer than I would call respectable compared to other card C/D tested in this period.
I’m surprised that someone has not mentioned what snide, superior, arrogant Germanic azzhoals the dealer service departments were for MB and BMW during the late 1970’s thru early 1990’s.
Slow service, sky high prices for work that may or not have been done correctly…..and that ATTITUDE they tried to foist off on the buyers of these overpriced German “super cars”: “Dere es NO problem wid de motorcar; de problem ez wid de drivaaah”.
Lexus treated their customers like royalty from day one! Polite, friendly, helpful service writers, clean, tastefully decorated waiting rooms, courtesy cars and rides, free car washes and interior vacuuming out, tasty treats on the tables in the waiting room, follow up post cards and telephone calls…..everything that MB and BMW had long (if ever used?) abandoned.
Long after the entry price is forgotten (or at least rationalized) the “human touch” is remembered.
My office had a client in the late 80s who had bought a Mercedes for his wife. He was a self-made guy who pushed back at the dealer on the need for several recommended service items. He took delight in retelling how the service guy told him (in the expected german accent) that he did not deserve a Mercedes.
“He took delight in retelling how the service guy told him (in the expected german accent)…”
Did they really ship batallions of service men from Germany ‘cross the water – or was >>sis shermann akzent<< just a histrionic thing ?
I was working at A MB Dealership at the time these came out. They were one of the least troublesome of all the cars in that time period. The only problem ever ran across was a cold running problem. The warm up fuel pressure regulator that Bosch designed. had a bimetallic strip that would bend with the temperature changes in order increase the fuel mixture when it was cold, a sort of a thermostat . The base setting was set a little lean by the factory we suspected in order to meet the emissions specs but on cool days the car had a bitch of a time getting going. When the first ones would come in with the problem we diagnosed it as the regulator and would order new ones, the regulators all did the same thing it would not fix the problem. There were no adjustments screws and the factory swore it could not be adjusted. Looking closely at the bottom of the regulator we saw what looked like a dowel pin. That pin pushed up on bimetallic strip to set the mixture. A few taps on the pin pushing it up just a little solved the problem. That was good car.
One of my three W123’s has 427,000 + miles on it and still no rattles/squeaks, I’m getting ready to rebuild the front suspension .
Not many of the other cars mentioned here are even still running much less having daily driver use and doors that close like bank vaults .
No old Chevy Caprice cop cars from 1977 are left anywhere . I know they were damn good cars but not in the same league .
Yes, the M110 (280) gasser engine was a thirsty son of a gun but folks love it, me not so much .
-Nate
“not in the same league” …nor in the same price class.
The doors may not close as solidly however I’d wager a ’77-79 GM B or C body with proper servicing would go the distance just as well at far less cost. Not to mention that you could buy 2 of them.
Thanx for the laugh Randerson .
-Nate
I always felt like these an “old money” presence to them. Not flashy, but you knew the people driving them were loaded.
In 2024 dollars, this thing would be juts under $88k, which is nuts.
No question this was probably the best sedan (of its size) that money could buy in that era. Absolute tanks.
There was a poll of German car owners 20 odd years ago. MB was rated as most desirable make (no surprise). MB was also rated the worst ownership experience.
That’s amazing. Would not have been surprised if it was VW.
I believe they were second.