500E or not to 500E

[Erich Borden]

Is the 500E really different from the 420E? Other than the engine displacement, is it that much better? Still thinking of buying one, but wanted to check with previous owners.


Erich

[bill streep]

These cars aren't even close... I want a 500 soooo bad.

Go here for a look:

http://www.mercedesshop.com/featuredcars.htm

[Jordan_3202000]

I have some experiance with these cars, someone i know has one. Compared to the 420E, the 500E is MUCH more powerful. Also the 500E has quite a few diffrences in terms of suspention and such. Intrestinglly, the car was produced by porsche, mercedes shipped the chassies and engine over to porsche, and they assembled the car, as well as puting on quite a few of their own performance tweaks. Compared to the 420E the 500E is a much faster and better handling car. Also there wern't very many made. As the 500E is the ultmate w124, and could completely blow the doors of my 300E, if your in the market for one and can find one, than my advice is to go ahead and get it. I'll be green with envy:D

[mooney]

HI

How about year? 92-93-or 94. Traditional thinking is that last year is the best year. What if any was the best year for the E500-500E. Happy driving.

joe moon
85-380Sl
94-E320
95-E320Cabriolet

[bill streep]

The '94 has the smaller grill, and in my opinion, looks better. Lost 7 hp in '93 & '92 (315 vs 322) though (and other exterior facelifts). '94s are also going for a bit more.

[Tom Hanson]

Many differences. Seats, suspension, brakes, front and rear fenders, headlights, etc etc. Quite the gentleman's hotrod. There is one of the nicest ones around for sale on another section of this forum right now. You ought to have a look.

[TimFreeh]

I have to dissent, IMHO a 400E/E420 is 80-90% of the 500E experience but it's available at about 40% of the price of a comparable 500E.

Due to the 2.24 rear end ratio a 400E is capable of delivering 24-26MPG on the open road. The 500E will not exceed 20 in a simliar environment.

The 500E is clearly the superior car but in a real world -daily driver environment I'd pick the 400E.

Tim

[gerryvz]

I heartily recommend the 500E/E500 if you can afford the insurance, gas and potential maintenance costs.

The 1992 and very early 1993 cars were more powerful (+7 HP) than the later 1993 and 1994 cars. However the 92 and 93 cars had the pre-facelift styling in the grill and trunk-lid, not to mention headlights, turn signals and taillights.

The 1994 cars had the more modern grill and more importantly/significantly, the brakes from the SL600 which were significantly larger than those from the SL500 (which were used on the 1992 and 1993 models). Many people who own the older models say that the SL500 brakes are not quite up to the level of the performance of the 500E, so the changeover to the larger brakes for the 1994 model year was welcome. Also many of the 1992 model brakes used the aluminum caliper made by Brembo, which causes some weird noise/resonation when the brake pads wear down to a certain point. the later 1992 and 1993 cars used ATE iron calipers which were heavier and eliminated the resonance/noise problem.

The 500E/E500 is an easy car to live with and works well as a "daily driver" -- certainly better than sports cars or coupes that are in its performance range. You can expect to get 20-21 MPG in 70-75 MPH freeway driving, and 13-15 MPG around town in mixed/city driving.

Hard to say which year is preferable. Different people like different years. To me condition is much more important -- the most important thing being a solid maintenance history.

These cars have only a few major flaws, the biggest one being the failure of the main engine wiring harness that is typical of 1992-1995 Benz cars -- due to the use of "environmentally friendly" sheathing on the wires. What happens is the heat in the engine bay eventually makes the wiring insulation brittle, causing it to flake off and then the wires to short out, causing all sorts of WEIRD electrical gremlins and rough running. Cost of the harness just went up 50% earlier this year and is around $500, though Tom Hanson can probably get it for a bit less. It can be replaced by a medium-level or advanced DIY-er, in a couple of three hours and is a very straightforward process.

These cars' throttles are controlled not by a direct cable but are actually "throttle by wire". The electronic actuator that controls this often goes out and it is quite an expensive part (I believe around $1,200, perhaps more now) to replace.

The 500E/E500 is prone to going through front brake pads AND ROTORS quite frequently. The 1994 cars with the larger 600SL brakes use a slightly different rotor for each side on the front; the 1992 and 1993 models use the same rotor on both sides. Not horribly expensive, but bad enough. Plan to change rotors probably every 75,000 miles as a rule of thumb.

The engines on the 500E/E500 last quite a long time -- 300 and even 400,000-mile 500Es are not uncommon in Europe, where these cars were driven on the autobahns very hard by demanding owners. The engines and transmissions are durable and quite strong, and will last a good long time. Occasionally a flare can be experienced in the shifting of the transmissions but this can be adjusted out.

The 1992 and 1993 models used the stock Becker 1432 radio standard to US-spec 124s for those years. The reliability on these radios is mediocre at best, and many owners replace them. For 1994 the radio was significantly upgraded to an Alpine unit with 10 speakers in the car, which sounds considerably better. Reliability of these Alpine radios is much better as well, except for the volume knob which with extended use can lose its ability to control volume. This can be repaired though.

The self-leveling rear suspension is not overly prone to problems, but it should be looked after at major services. It uses well-known technology as found on the 450SEL 6.9, W123-class and W124-class wagons, 126 560SEC coupe, and the 190 2.3-16 cars.

The 500E/E500 had just about every option available for the 124 cars -- many not found on any other 124 imported to the USA INCLUDING the 400E/E420. Some of these options included: sunroof, rear sunshade, bucket rear seats with wood console in the middle, burl walnut wood, pre-wired for CD changer, pre-wired for car phone, rear reading lights, ASR standard, limited-slip differential, advanced sound system, leather interior, and self-leveling hydropneumatic rear suspension.

The US-model 500E/E500 was found in around 10 colors, but pearl black (paint code 199) was the most common color by far. Typically this exterior color (which looks like a metallic graphite gray) was paired with either a black or gray leather interior.

Compared to a 400E/E420, the 500E/E500 is a significantly higher-performing car. It is considerably more expensive to purchase used than the 400E/E420, though they share the same basic motor (M119). The 500E/E500 was produced by Porsche while the 400E/E420 was produced on the normal MB production line in Sindelfingen. Significant chassis modifications were performed by the Porsche craftsmen to the 500E/E500 chassis and shell in order to accomodate the drivetrain and suspension, and for this reason (and the fact that the car was truly handbuilt by experienced craftsmen, taking 18 days to complete vs. 3 days for a normal 124 car produced by MB at Sindelfingen) it is significant. The car was engineered specifically as a limited-production, ultra-high-performance sedan that could outperform all but only the most expensive exotic cars then on the market when it was manufactured. And do it without breaking a sweat, using reliable MB componentry available at any MB dealer worldwide.

The 400E/E420 is around a second slower in the quarter-mile and has somewhat slower acceleration. BUT, it is definitely in the ballpark and even ahead of today's "sport" sedans and holds its own quite well. It is truly the ultimate development of the 124 car in a production sense and thus is a great car to own. Good performance, decent fuel mileage, good acceleration, value retention, great build quality and materials -- excellent value too!

Until very recently (Maybach, SLR McLaren) the 500E/E500 has been the only handmade Mercedes-Benz in modern times. Not since the end of production of the W111/112 coupe and convertible in late 1971 has an MB been so hand-built. Thus it is very collectible.

If you are deciding between a 400E and a 500E, you have to ask yourself whether you want or need the extra performance and exclusivity. I would say the cars are equally easy to live with on a daily basis, and maintenance is only incrementally more on the 500E. However, there are a fair amount of body, suspension and drivetrain parts that are germain only to the 500E and thus these can be expensive. Things like the flared fenders or front spoiler of the 500E can be several times as much as the more moderately priced "normal 124" fenders and air dam of the 400E.

The 400E is a significantly better value for the money, and they are easier to find (only 1,505 500E/E500s were brought into the USA) though the 400E is still fairly rare as compared to the 300E/E320s. Whoever said that a 400E is 80% of a 500E is probably correct, but that extra 20% is worth every penny if that's what floats your boat!!!

I am not up on prices for the 400E/E420, but for the 500s a good car with no damage, well maintained and good cosmetics will start at $20K and go up, depending on mileage. There are cars with low mileage (50K and under) out there as well as cars with 150K and higher mileage, which tend to run in the high teens. You can find 500Es regularly on eBay but I would beware of that venue -- I have seen cars listed there with bad "histories" and questionable sellers/cosmetics/descriptions.

Good luck!

Cheers,
Gerry

1994 E500
1995 E320T
1989 560SEC
1969 300SEL 6.3

P.S. If you are interested, the best owner and technical resource for the 500E and E500 on the Internet is called 500 Ecstasy, and can be reached at www.500ecstasy.com. The forum there is very active and quite good. These cars are owned by a very loyal and enthusiastic group of people -- all ages.

[TimFreeh]

Gerry

Very impressive post - you clearly know your 500E's.

Anyone that is considering a 400E/500E should study your summation - It's the best I've ever seen.

Tim

[aldedmon]

Why split hairs....have 'em both

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/aldedmon/album?.dir=3e95&.src=ph&store=&prodid=&.done=http%3a//pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph//my_photos

[gerryvz]

400E and 500E are too similar ... variety is the spice of life!

It's why owning a 6.3, 560SEC and E500 is so much fun.

Cheers,
Gerry

[atatexan]

I have a 1994 E420 which I have done my best to convert to a 500 as can reasonably done. On the engine performance side, the majority of the "kick" difference stems from the drive ratios; the E420 is optimized for low RPMs in top gear for CAFE reasons. The small volume of 500's enabled M-B to ignore the lower MPG of the 500 produced by the higher ratio. A good economical swap is the SL500 rear differential. A good bit more acceleration without a big fuel economy penalty.

Regarding suspensions, the stock E420 handles like a Cadillac compared to the 190 16V which was my frame of reference. In informal consultation with AMG/MBUSA, I swapped my suspension out completely:

E500 front springs, E500 F&R sway bars, European E420 SportLine rear springs (avoids the, in my view, undesirable self-levelling set up of the 500's), 16-inch 8-hole wheels, and ATE PowerDisc front rotors. The handling and stopping power are excellent; the car is transformed into a very fast, nimble car.

The car is a superb "poor man's E500" complete with European E500 headlights.

[n2lw]

I owned a 400e for 2 years before I bought my 500e. Imho there is no comparison. I could never go back. I have had back surgery yet I drove a 600mi run and stepped out with no fatigue or discomfort..
I have looked at more modern cars, but have found them lacking.
I have had no significant mechanical trouble, but some services are expensive.
I get about 25k from a set of tires.
Mileage is about 18mpg
Careful speeding has kept the license clean so far!

DO IT!
Good luck

[rd92171]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4603019787

[amc401eric]

[QUOTE=gerryvz]

[These cars' throttles are controlled not by a direct cable but are actually "throttle by wire". The electronic actuator that controls this often goes out and it is quite an expensive part (I believe around $1,200, perhaps more now) to replace.]

This is not a problem on a non-ASR "throttle by cable" 400E.

[The engines on the 500E/E500 last quite a long time -- 300 and even 400,000-mile 500Es are not uncommon in Europe, where these cars were driven on the autobahns very hard by demanding owners. The engines and transmissions are durable and quite strong, and will last a good long time.]


I can agree with that but I was wondering if that figure is really in miles or kilometers?


[The 500E/E500 had just about every option available for the 124 cars -- many not found on any other 124 imported to the USA INCLUDING the 400E/E420. Some of these options included: sunroof, rear sunshade, bucket rear seats with wood console in the middle, burl walnut wood, pre-wired for CD changer, pre-wired for car phone, rear reading lights, ASR standard, limited-slip differential, advanced sound system, leather interior, and self-leveling hydropneumatic rear suspension.]


The only option here I see worth having is the limited-slip differential.


[Compared to a 400E/E420, the 500E/E500 is a significantly higher-performing car.]

At best 20% better performing. And the acceleration gain comes mostly from the lower gearing (2.82 vs. 2.24).

[It is considerably more expensive to purchase used than the 400E/E420, though they share the same basic motor (M119).]
You can buy THREE similar year/condition 400E/E420s for what the 500E/E500 will cost.

[The 500E/E500 was produced by Porsche while the 400E/E420 was produced on the normal MB production line in Sindelfingen.]

I think we all agree that MB built more reliable cars during this time period than Porsche did.



[The 400E/E420 is around a second slower in the quarter-mile and has somewhat slower acceleration. BUT, it is definitely in the ballpark and even ahead of today's "sport" sedans and holds its own quite well. It is truly the ultimate development of the 124 car in a production sense and thus is a great car to own. Good performance, decent fuel mileage, good acceleration, value retention, great build quality and materials -- excellent value too!]


We can all agree on this point too.




[If you are deciding between a 400E and a 500E, you have to ask yourself whether you want or need the extra performance and exclusivity. I would say the cars are equally easy to live with on a daily basis, and maintenance is only incrementally more on the 500E. However, there are a fair amount of body, suspension and drivetrain parts that are germain only to the 500E and thus these can be expensive. Things like the flared fenders or front spoiler of the 500E can be several times as much as the more moderately priced "normal 124" fenders and air dam of the 400E.
The 400E is a significantly better value for the money, and they are easier to find (only 1,505 500E/E500s were brought into the USA) though the 400E is still fairly rare as compared to the 300E/E320s. Whoever said that a 400E is 80% of a 500E is probably correct, but that extra 20% is worth every penny if that's what floats your boat!!!]


Agreed. I have to say getting 80% of the performance for one third the cost is what floats my boat!

[I am not up on prices for the 400E/E420, but for the 500s a good car with no damage, well maintained and good cosmetics will start at $20K and go up, depending on mileage. There are cars with low mileage (50K and under) out there as well as cars with 150K and higher mileage, which tend to run in the high teens. You can find 500Es regularly on eBay but I would beware of that venue -- I have seen cars listed there with bad "histories" and questionable sellers/cosmetics/descriptions.]


Agreed.
Also it has to be said that the '94 redesign has a cheaper look about it. The pre-'94 looks like a Benz. The '94-'95 looks like a car trying to look like a Benz.

It's my understanding that the '94 and later Benzs (including E500s) are governed to 130MPH whereas '92-'93 400Es and 500Es were governed to 150 MPH. So my 2nd grade math says that a 93 400E, while it is a little slower accelerating, has a much higher top speed than a '94-95 E500.

I've already weighed in on this subject on the 300E verses 400E thread. The 500E is the best. But 20% better does not justify three times the cost.

Here's something us Benz fans can throw at our BMW friends: For many of the shots of the chase scenes in the movie "Ronin", The M5 was being towed by a 500E! (rent the DVD, and listen to the director's commentary during the chase scenes).

[Alex]

[QUOTE=gerryvz]
But 20% better does not justify three times the cost.

Your thorough review is on the mark, except for the above quote.

The curve of performance (vertical) versus cost (horizontal,) is exponential. Same with quality versus cost. This is so with cars as with other things.

At the bottom of the curve, as performance increases, the curve is almost a straight line rising, then it begins to bend to the right, as performance increases more slowly with significant increase in cost. Then the curve begins to run almost horizontally, asymptotically, slowly approaching but never quite reaching perfection at the top.

At the higher end of the curve this means that just a little improvement in performance requires a big increase in cost.

It's no different in the top echelon of sports, where a huge investment of training effort is needed to gain a small increase in performance.

Most of us operate on the round portion of the curve, where there's still a lots of performance gain to be had for an equivalent investment of money or effort. But keep in mind that some enthusiasts are willing to play at the higher portion of the curve and pay big bucks for just a litttle more performance because that's what it costs to get it.

Evidently, the 500E was made to meet such demand. I respect people willing to pay that much more to get that little extra bit of performance. After paying a lot to get just a little more performance, that little more sure seems like an awful lot.

[amc401eric]

So I will rephrase my statement: .....20% better is not worth three times the cost... not to me anyway... nor is it worth it to most other folks.
Eric

[gerryvz]

Agreed. I have to say getting 80% of the performance for one third the cost is what floats my boat!

Also it has to be said that the '94 redesign has a cheaper look about it. The pre-'94 looks like a Benz. The '94-'95 looks like a car trying to look like a Benz.

It's my understanding that the '94 and later Benzs (including E500s) are governed to 130MPH whereas '92-'93 400Es and 500Es were governed to 150 MPH. So my 2nd grade math says that a 93 400E, while it is a little slower accelerating, has a much higher top speed than a '94-95 E500.

I've already weighed in on this subject on the 300E verses 400E thread. The 500E is the best. But 20% better does not justify three times the cost.

Here's something us Benz fans can throw at our BMW friends: For many of the shots of the chase scenes in the movie "Ronin", The M5 was being towed by a 500E! (rent the DVD, and listen to the director's commentary during the chase scenes).

Getting 80% of the performance for 1/3 the price may float YOUR boat, but there are MANY other people who are less budget-minded out there who would beg to differ. Remember that after a certain point in anything, the law of diminishing returns basically says that it's going to take a lot more resources to squeeze more blood out of the turnip. That's certainly true with the 500E. But, that 20% is the creme de la creme, something that 400E owners never get to experience. Once you experience it, you'll never go back.

Your design analysis of the 1994-1995 W124 is subjective to say the least. While I have owned 124s of both designs, let me just say this. I have yet to ever meet any late (1994 or 1995) W124 owner (E500 or E320, E420, etc.) who has "retrofitted" their Benz with "pre-1994" grill, hood, headlights, and deck lid. On the other hand, I have known a number of cases where pre-1994 W124 owners have fitted later 124 panels to their cars. To me, that says one thing -- that to most people, the later design is aesthetically more pleasing -- at least to the point where they are willing to spend some significant bucks to make their car appear to be a later model. That's not subjective analysis...it's a fact !! Go figure, and draw your own conclusions. What's good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander here.

And one more question... you say that the 1994-1994 cars are trying to "look like a Benz". What, pre tell, does a "Benz" actually look like? I mean, is my 1989 560SEC not looking like a Benz, or the 1977 450SEL 6.9 and 1969 300SEL 6.3 that I had, not looking like Benzes in your eyes? Please enlighten me what the specific definition of a the look of a Benz is. I would hate to think what your analysis of a W210 or W211 E-class is....but don't tell me, I don't wanna know !

I can definitively tell you that my 1994 E500 IS NOT factory limited to 130 MPH. It is the same as the earlier 500Es and limited to 150+ MPH. And I have removed that limiter with a German black box on my car, so that it is unlimited. I (before the black box delimiter was installed) have driven my E500 on public rural roads above 145 MPH, with a passenger inside to verify. Not sure where you heard this, but at least for the E500 it is incorrect. I'm not sure that a non-M119 engined W124 car could go 150 MPH, and in fact I don't believe that even an 400E/E420 could do that speed.

I saw your comment on Porsche build quality vs. MB build quality. I am no Porsche expert, but I will absolutely say that I would take a "handbuilt" car anyday over a machine-built car. No MB since the Grand 600 (which ran on its own special production line from 1963-1981) has been handbuilt to nearly the degree that the E500E was.

Lastly, you totally don't "get" what the E500E was all about. It wasn't merely a W124 sedan that an M119 V-8 was shoehorned into. The car was ENGINEERED by Porsche, chassis and suspension tuned, dynamically balanced for 50-50 weight distribution, etc. The car was specially reinforced in the body, chassis and suspension to achieve it's purpose. No other MB (save the one-off low-production models such as the McLaren SLR, etc.) have received the degree of chassis engineering, reinforcement, etc. that the E500E did. It's all under the skin, so it's not visible unless you put a regular W124 and an E500E next to one another. There was A LOT of attention given to these cars in an engineering and production sense that you are totally discounting with your post.

Many people compare the E500E to the E55 AMG cars of the successive E-class generations. There, again, is no comparison. There was NO chassis reinforcement or special engineering given those cars of either the W210 or W211 (current) generations. All MB did was pull bodies off of their Sindelfingen production line, shunt them off to have AMG suspension and engine installed, and sell them as high-performance designs. There was no chassis engineering, special reinforcement, or other custom engineering and track tuning done to those cars -- at least to the degree and standard that the E500E was engineered to.

The E500E was engineered specifically as a unit -- as a performance car. Despite sharing an engine and basic layout, the E420/400E is not even in the same universe as far as being a performance car. Sure you get 80% of the top speed, but much less of the trackable cornering power, chassis integrity, stiffness, and refinement as a sports sedan that the E500E has.

You need to do more research before you make some of these sweeping generalizations that you do. Your sources seem to be fairly poor, as well.

Cheers,
Gerry

[Alex]

So I will rephrase my statement: .....20% better is not worth three times the cost... not to me anyway... nor is it worth it to most other folks.
Eric
Eric,

You are not qualified to say "nor is it worth it to most other folks."

This is not Consumer Reports. This is a forum of M-B enthusiasts. Most of us will pay lots of money for just a little more performance, as long as the more performance is real rather than imagined. It's that issue, among others, which engages us here.

My suggestion to you is to choose your words carefully when posting.

Check your facts carefully, state your opinions clearly. Above all, be humble. Remember, no matter how smart you really are, there are people here who are probably smarter.

[DblDog]

The 500 is a branch of the 124 cult...or so I thought. I have a 95 e320...What is not to like...fluid black, silky firmness, pleasing to the senses, trim and ready to perform. As to performance, compared to many, superior, but at the entry level, limited. Not long ago I stopped at a local store and as I got back into my car, a gold 500E parked behind me. Aesthetically, it blew me away. It had a very intent look. I chatted briefly with the owner...How fast?...'under 5'*. Ah, for a little more disposable income.

Beyond the marvel of engineering that the 500 is and that there are only 1,500 or so of them, there will always be a faction in the automotive world willing to belong, whether its 80% for 1/3 or 100% for 3/3.


* I'm assuming zero to 60, can't confirm the 'under 5', might have been 'under 6'.

[gerryvz]

* I'm assuming zero to 60, can't confirm the 'under 5', might have been 'under 6'.

Good post. You are right on the money, a 94-95 E320, is really all one could want in a car, even today. Sure it doesn't have every electronic gew-gaw that you can get today, but you don't need most of that stuff anyway, and it all fails sooner or later, generally sooner given Benz electronics' quality in recent years.

I'm already seeing 2004 W211s at my INDEPENDENT shop, with squeaks and rattles, electrical and idle stability issues. Not pretty....

My wife has a 95 E320 wagon, with just 60K on the clock, and I can't think of a more ideal family car/debris hauler/excursion car. We drove it from Portland to San Diego and back up the eastern Sierra last summer, and it performed admirably. That car never fails to start, idles more smoothly than any car I've ever seen, and has been as reliable as anything (so far). Couple of small things but nothing out of the ordinary nor too expensive. Haven't had the wiring harness issue yet (though I did mine on the E500) but have had the EGR tube plug-up, which is easily fixed.

I think a stock 500E can do 5.9 in the right hands, so six-ish is in the ballpark for 0-60. By today's standards, it's not that great (still in the top 1/3 of cars though). But 10 years ago, that was pretty knockout performance. You had to go the route of a Ferrari or 911 to do that or less. The fact that it was a 4-door sedan, made it even more unbelieveable.

Yes, performance has come a LONG way in the past 10 years....

Cheers,
Gerry

[amc401eric]

[Getting 80% of the performance for 1/3 the price may float YOUR boat, but there are MANY other people who are less budget-minded out there who would beg to differ. Remember that after a certain point in anything, the law of diminishing returns basically says that it's going to take a lot more resources to squeeze more blood out of the turnip. That's certainly true with the 500E. But, that 20% is the creme de la creme, something that 400E owners never get to experience. Once you experience it, you'll never go back.]

How MANY? MB planned on selling 5000 500Es a year (Car and Driver 12/90 pg.101) but instead was only able to sell 10% that amount. (1,500) in 3 years. Maybe that's why it went away for a while after 94. Back then the price difference between the 2 cars was 45%, which is way less than it is now. In 4/92, Car and Driver, despite admitting the 500E was the better car, picked an inferior car, the M5 because ..."the 500E's price tag is monstrous". Then proceded to run a sidebar article showing the 400E to be the better alternative. Despite having said all this, I'm still gonna drool all over your 500E if I see it at a meet. I'm just not willing to pay 20 grand (or more) for it.


[Your design analysis of the 1994-1995 W124 is subjective to say the least. While I have owned 124s of both designs, let me just say this. I have yet to ever meet any late (1994 or 1995) W124 owner (E500 or E320, E420, etc.) who has "retrofitted" their Benz with "pre-1994" grill, hood, headlights, and deck lid. On the other hand, I have known a number of cases where pre-1994 W124 owners have fitted later 124 panels to their cars. To me, that says one thing -- that to most people, the later design is aesthetically more pleasing -- at least to the point where they are willing to spend some significant bucks to make their car appear to be a later model. That's not subjective analysis...it's a fact !! Go figure, and draw your own conclusions. What's good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander here.]


This one is easy. Say you have a 93 300E and you are getting real tired of the fact that it looks like a 86 300E. (A 20 year old car!) So you change a few pieces and PRESTO! You car is only 11 years old now.


[And one more question... you say that the 1994-1994 cars are trying to "look like a Benz". What, pre tell, does a "Benz" actually look like? I mean, is my 1989 560SEC not looking like a Benz, or the 1977 450SEL 6.9 and 1969 300SEL 6.3 that I had, not looking like Benzes in your eyes? Please enlighten me what the specific definition of a the look of a Benz is. I would hate to think what your analysis of a W210 or W211 E-class is....but don't tell me, I don't wanna know !]

OK, I won't. (It's your loss).

[I can definitively tell you that my 1994 E500 IS NOT factory limited to 130 MPH. It is the same as the earlier 500Es and limited to 150+ MPH. And I have removed that limiter with a German black box on my car, so that it is unlimited. I (before the black box delimiter was installed) have driven my E500 on public rural roads above 145 MPH, with a passenger inside to verify. Not sure where you heard this, but at least for the E500 it is incorrect. I'm not sure that a non-M119 engined W124 car could go 150 MPH, and in fact I don't believe that even an 400E/E420 could do that speed.]

On page 212 of Uncle Stu's bible, he says: "In 1994 the wheel offset was changed to 44mm (1.7 in) and the tires were down rated to HR". "The cars were electronically limited to 130 mph based on these H rated tires". He didn't say: "except the 500E". C+D didn't test a 94 500E but it's OK. I'll accept your assertion on your word. Here's the rest. C+D got 148 MPH
out of a 93 400E in it's 3/93 issue. According to Uncle Stu, the 92-93 400Es are governed to 150. (page 20) If I had your "german box" I could go faster (get me one and lets see!) cause I've got the gearing for it. You don't according to that C+D article of 12/90, page 108, you're already buzzing your redline (6000 RPM) at 155 MPH. (Those 2.82s again). Better get some 400E gears if you plan to take advantage of that "German Box". But then you'll be giving up about half of your acceleration edge over a 400E.


[I saw your comment on Porsche build quality vs. MB build quality. I am no Porsche expert, but I will absolutely say that I would take a "handbuilt" car anyday over a machine-built car. No MB since the Grand 600 (which ran on its own special production line from 1963-1981) has been handbuilt to nearly the degree that the E500E was.]


I stand by what I said: Benzes of that time period were more reliable than Porsches were.


[Lastly, you totally don't "get" what the E500E was all about. It wasn't merely a W124 sedan that an M119 V-8 was shoehorned into. The car was ENGINEERED by Porsche, chassis and suspension tuned, dynamically balanced for 50-50 weight distribution, etc. The car was specially reinforced in the body, chassis and suspension to achieve it's purpose. No other MB (save the one-off low-production models such as the McLaren SLR, etc.) have received the degree of chassis engineering, reinforcement, etc. that the E500E did. It's all under the skin, so it's not visible unless you put a regular W124 and an E500E next to one another. There was A LOT of attention given to these cars in an engineering and production sense that you are totally discounting with your post]


You think that just because I don't think the 500E is worth the price premium that I don't "get it". I do "get it". I just don't think it's worth "it". 12/90 C+D: "M-B did the engineering and Porsche carried out test and development duties". You queston my sources. What are yours? 4/92 C+D pegged the weight distribution at 53.3/46.7 do you still question my sources? C+D and Uncle Stu both state the 400E recieved "reinforcements" as well.



[Many people compare the E500E to the E55 AMG cars of the successive E-class generations. There, again, is no comparison. There was NO chassis reinforcement or special engineering given those cars of either the W210 or W211 (current) generations. All MB did was pull bodies off of their Sindelfingen production line, shunt them off to have AMG suspension and engine installed, and sell them as high-performance designs. There was no chassis engineering, special reinforcement, or other custom engineering and track tuning done to those cars -- at least to the degree and standard that the E500E was engineered to.]


No arguement from me. I don't like the Jurgen Shremp area stuff either.



[The E500E was engineered specifically as a unit -- as a performance car. Despite sharing an engine and basic layout, the E420/400E is not even in the same universe as far as being a performance car. Sure you get 80% of the top speed, but much less of the trackable cornering power, chassis integrity, stiffness, and refinement as a sports sedan that the E500E has.]


Not only is the 400E in the same universe, it's on the same block. I've already addressed your top speed inaccuracys above. As far as cornering goes, between 92 and 93 C+D changed their maneuverability test (even renamed it) so an "A" to "B" comparison is not possible. However, we can go back to 86 and look at the 300E which did 59.0 MPH on those tiny 195 65 VR 15s. the 500E on much bigger tires only did 60.7 MPH. I can say that stepping up to 205 55 VR 16s (still smaller than the tires on the 500E) has made a HUGE difference in handleing on my 88 300E. Also let's admitt it... the 500E is rather overweight oops, I'm sorry, caloricly challenged.


[You need to do more research before you make some of these sweeping generalizations that you do. Your sources seem to be fairly poor, as well.]


This last paragraph seems to apply more to you than it does me.



Cheers,
Gerry


Please understand I just wanted to set the record straight. Peace? I figure I'll be living in Oregon soon and I am going to need a good shop (your's ?) to replace my 400E timing chain not too long after my arrival.
Best wishes
Eric

[Robby Ackerman]

Years ago when I purchased my 190E 2.3-16 (Cosworth-Mercedes-Benz) an additional second off 0-62 mph time of the 2.3-16 cost an additional $15K and 2 seconds cost an additional $30K. I bought the 2.3-16 because it was the most bang for the buck. (I still had three kids in grad schools.)

[gerryvz]

How MANY? MB planned on selling 5000 500Es a year (Car and Driver 12/90 pg.101) but instead was only able to sell 10% that amount. (1,500) in 3 years. Maybe that's why it went away for a while after 94. In 4/92, Car and Driver, despite admitting the 500E was the better car, picked an inferior car, the M5 because ..."the 500E's price tag is monstrous". Then proceded to run a sidebar article showing the 400E to be the better alternative.

Thou doth rely-est upon singular (and inaccurate) sources of information for thine statements.

Your assertion (even though from Car and Driver) is not correct on the production figures. MB contracted with Porsche to manufacture 500Es, knowing full and well IN ADVANCE what the production capacity of the Rossle-Bau factory was (see quote below). They didn't have the physical space, nor the craftsmen, nor the logistics to support more than they produced.

From the get-go, MBNA only PLANNED to import up to ~500-600 E500s/500Es per year to the USA out of total production. Over 4 years, MB produced over 10,400 E500Es worldwide. And for much of its production, the 500E was sold out in advance in the USA.

The original MB press release announcing the 500E, dated from September 1990, which I obtained personally from the factory archives, indicates "Die vorgesehene Produktionszahl ist auf rund 2400 Stück pro Jahr begrenzt, was den 500E formvollendet in die Rolle der exclusiven Rarität versetzten kann." (General translation is that the INTENDED production number is 2,400 cars per year, putting the 500E into a rare and exclusive place in the hierarchy). That 1990 prediction was just about what MB ended up producing in the end.

I'd surely take what MB says in their own press release over what Car & Driver says. Wouldn't you?

"Only able to sell" as you put it is just plain incorrect -- MBNA has for many years planned out well in advance and placed orders the year previously from Germany exactly how many cars it decides it can and will sell. "Can and will sell" and "able to sell" are completely different things. MBNA could have sold far more E500Es than it actually did. They were quite in demand in this country.

"About twenty cars are built each day, but only 600 will swim to the United States this year." -- AUTOMOBILE MAGAZINE, April 1992, page 67

The only reason that C&D picked the 400E as a better alternative, was simply because it was more affordable for the AVERAGE C&D reader. Remember, publications write to their reader base. Automobile Magazine had an entirely different conclusion on the car.


This one is easy. Say you have a 93 300E and you are getting real tired of the fact that it looks like a 86 300E. (A 20 year old car!) So you change a few pieces and PRESTO! You car is only 11 years old now.

The whole point for many E500E owners, is the very fact that their car DOES look like a 1986 300E to the civilian eye. Having said that, the W124 has a timeless elegance even today....many of my co-workers and others on the street believe that my 1994 model car is a "turn of the century" model, perhaps 5 years old max. You can't say that with most of today's "jellybean" style cars which age quite quickly.



On page 212 of Uncle Stu's bible, he says: "In 1994 the wheel offset was changed to 44mm (1.7 in) and the tires were down rated to HR". "The cars were electronically limited to 130 mph based on these H rated tires". He didn't say: "except the 500E". C+D didn't test a 94 500E but it's OK. I'll accept your assertion on your word. Here's the rest. C+D got 148 MPH
out of a 93 400E in it's 3/93 issue. According to Uncle Stu, the 92-93 400Es are governed to 150. (page 20) If I had your "german box" I could go faster (get me one and lets see!) cause I've got the gearing for it. You don't according to that C+D article of 12/90, page 108, you're already buzzing your redline (6000 RPM) at 155 MPH. (Those 2.82s again). Better get some 400E gears if you plan to take advantage of that "German Box". But then you'll be giving up about half of your acceleration edge over a 400E.

You may consider "Uncle Stu's Bible" to be the Gospel on the W124, but I sure as heck don't, just like I don't consider the recent MBCA Star cover story to be the last word on the E500E. (There were several inaccuracies in that article, for example the assertion that the 1994 E500 models weren't made by Porsche at Rossle-Bau...just plain incorrect....I have photos that plainly disprove this statement).

You take the supposed "Stu gospel Bible" FAR too literally here.

Do you really think that for 1994, that MB would de-rate the tires of the E500 as compared to the 500Es? A stock E500E can do over 160 MPH with stock gearing, into redline territory. Again, I can tell you from direct experience that any limitation of the E500 to 130 MPH is malarkey.

The factory engineering data sheet, sitting here in my lap, for the 1994 E500 indicates that the car has 225/55 ZR-16 tires on 8Jx16 size wheels.

And in fact, for the 1994 E500 Limited, the tires were actually UPRATED to ZR-17 wheels from the normal 16" rims of the 500E and earlier E500s. This information from the factory brochure on the E500 Limited.

The German box removes the electronic rev limiter in the ignition system, allowing you to go faster because you're not bouncing off of the redline. I'm not advocating this and I've not done it on a public road, but I will say that I personally visited the German engineer who created this box, in 2004 (he is a former Carlsson engineer and is responsible for several of their current "black box" offerings for current gas and diesel models), and he described how the system worked to me in great detail. Not to mention I have the TUV paperwork & instructions that describes the system and its characteristics.


I stand by what I said: Benzes of that time period were more reliable than Porsches were.

Build quality (what I commented on) and product reliability (what you asserted) are two VERY different things, with perhaps a bit of overlap. Reliability is largely a function of materials used and engineering design, and partially on how parts are assembled.

I am talking about a car in which close human attention was paid into its assembly, fit and finish, physical tolerances, cosmetic and physical defect elimination, and Q&A processes. No claim of increased mechanical reliability over any MB or any other car marque was made by me.

I was simply reinforcing the point that MUCH of the reason that the E500E was so expensive, was the HUGE degree of handwork that went into its production -- a degree that hadn't been seen within MB for 15-20 years.


You think that just because I don't think the 500E is worth the price premium that I don't "get it". I do "get it". I just don't think it's worth "it". 12/90 C+D: "M-B did the engineering and Porsche carried out test and development duties". You queston my sources. What are yours? 4/92 C+D pegged the weight distribution at 53.3/46.7 do you still question my sources? C+D and Uncle Stu both state the 400E recieved "reinforcements" as well.

My sources are a very broad array of car magazines, internal MB production information, dealer sales literature & internal sales guides, and factory development & test information.

"In 1988, Daimler-Benz contracted Porsche to execute the project. Porsche ultimately took responsibility for the structural improvements, the side-impact crash testing, and the production engineering. It's likely that Porsche R&D's Weissach facility proved useful for development since Mercedes has only a tiny test track next to the original facility to call its own and uses the racetrack at Hockenheim for high-speed testing. -- AUTOMOBILE Magazine, April 1992, page 67

Relative value (whether something is "worth" it or not) is a subjective opinion, but it differs by person and one shouldn't attempt to generalize or extrapolate on others based on one's personal opinion of worth. I don't personally believe that a Yenko Camaro or a Ferrari Enzo are "worth" their inflated prices, but I would never generalize that my opinion is representative of that of the general population.


Not only is the 400E in the same universe, it's on the same block. I've already addressed your top speed inaccuracys above. As far as cornering goes, between 92 and 93 C+D changed their maneuverability test (even renamed it) so an "A" to "B" comparison is not possible. However, we can go back to 86 and look at the 300E which did 59.0 MPH on those tiny 195 65 VR 15s. the 500E on much bigger tires only did 60.7 MPH. I can say that stepping up to 205 55 VR 16s (still smaller than the tires on the 500E) has made a HUGE difference in handleing on my 88 300E. Also let's admitt it... the 500E is rather overweight oops, I'm sorry, caloricly challenged.

The simple fact that a 400E/E420 has the same engine between its strut towers as an E500E DOES NOT put it on the "same block". There is MUCH MORE, as I indicated, to the E500E beneath the skin. Slalom course results mean little, as does 0-60 or quarter-mile times, taken individually. With the E500E, it's the entire package taken as a whole. An E500E is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT car when driven than a 400E/E420. Totally different feel based on the engineering.

Gross vehicle weight E500: 2160kg; E420: 2140kg. Power to weight ratio (kg/kW): E500: 7.28; E420: 7.9.


This last paragraph seems to apply more to you than it does me.

I'll trust the foot-high stack of resources sitting here on the desk in front of me much further than the simple C&D test issue and the Stu Ritter 124 "Owner's Bible" that you quote.

Cheers,
Gerry

[gerryvz]

If you are looking for a shop in Portland, the best-equipped and most knowledgeable is MBI Motors, Inc. / 1309 SE Hawthorne Blvd. / Portland 97214 / 503-231-0444.

Ask for Sig (owner) or Rich (shop foreman) and tell them that Gerry referred you. They will take care of you.

An alternative would be Burback Motors, located just a few blocks away. Mike Burback (the owner) was a former mechanic at MBI Motors and is also familiar with the 124.032 cars and can work on them.

Cheers,
Gerry

[market000]

Yes they are worth it......I just bought one and WOW.....what a ride

[gerryvz]

Yes, it's really easy to "think" what a 500E is like, until you drive one. Then you just want one.

How has your ownership experience gone since you got the car? Still enjoying it?

Cheers,
Gerry

[les_garten]

Hi,
WoW! Almost glazed over this thread. But a great read. makes me want to hunt down a pristine 500E. By the way, I realize this is not a Porsche forum, but they are very reliable Cars. I've owned a 930 for a LONG time, and am connected to the Performance communities and they are well built Cars also. Just my .02

Les

[Greg]

Pity it didn't have a manual transmission. Now that would be a car.

Greg

[gerryvz]

There's a RENNtech built car out there with a manual transmission, and also at the present time a 6.2-liter high-performance engine and manual transmission being put together for an English 500E, in Southern California.

Cheers,
Gerry

[lovesportlines]

;)O lord won't you buy me a 500E,
a Porsche-Mercedes seems perfect to me.
My friends all drive Porsches or Mercedes-Benz
O lord won't you help me to make amends
Double duty the car does, on your mood it depends
So don't make me settle for an ordinary Benz.........