I am interested in any advice for someone 'looking into' getting a 67-73 Mercedes S-class sedan. I've always loved the look of these cars, so I checked prices, they're beyond 'all over the place' ($500 for a 280SE 3.5 described as 'running' to $28,500 for one that's basically been in storage since 1980?!?!?). Seems like there are plenty out there in the $3-6000 range, making these fairly cheap old cars, at least to purchase. Are these outrageous to maintain?
Any advice as to which engine and/or transmission is best, and which to avoid (there are the caburated six, the FI six, 3.5 and 4.5 V8s, IIRC)? Same with options--should I avoid things like power windows and locks? These cars are interesting, so many engines, some have power options, some do not, some have floor shift, some column, there are a few four-speeds peppered among a majority of automatics, etc.
I can't afford a trailer queen, but I would like one as a respectable, occasional driver (I would not subject myself nor the car to driving it year-round driving in Chicago).
This has to be my all time favorite sedan. I'd love to have one as a weekend car,espically with column shift,painted wheelcovers,slim bumpers,and even no headrests. You see them very infrequently here in Va Beach,and when you do,they seem a little prices. They are probably a little trundly,but they are great looking.
I'd avoid the carburator cars, or any car with air suspension. Also, I'd stay far away from any "beaters" or neglected-looking cars, cars with sagging suspensions (obvious), rust, filthy engines, body damage or excessive engine smoking.
Having weeded out those categories, this gives us "clean daily drivers" which are not perfect but are very respectable cars with documented service records. Among those, the 4-doors are the better deal by far, although not as attractive as the coupes. The convertibles are way too pricey.
These cars are very nice drivers and can be quite reliable, although they are a bit fussy. The a/c is a joke, as are the factory radios, so don't count on either of those to do much more than take up space. Transmissions are hard-shifting automatics or standard shifts with shifters that feel connected to the transmission by clothesline and duct tape. But you can get used to that. These are certainly not sports cars.
I agree, $5-6K is plenty to pay for one. They are not classics probably never will be, although the V8 convertibles may have a shot some long time down the road. I think that about a 71-72 injected 6 cylinder coupe would be sweet, but they are pricier than the 4-doors by a good margin. So if you want to pay way more for fewer doors, that's the price of the ticket.
Oh, no, dreadful car, not even close to a German car. A hodge-podge of incompetence.
However, as big and clumsy and clunky as the 164 is, they will stagger around for quite a long time if you can tolerate the torture of driving one. Think of them as a slow, 4-door Swedish truck or a Hippo in ballet shoes. Think of a lazy little 6 cylinder engine hooked up to a rock crusher transmission and placed inside a Buick with armor plating and bio-degradable upholstery.
Still, if you wanted a kick around car for cheap, you could do worse. They are tough if you can keep that early electronic injection (similar to VW Squarebacks) going.
Well to be fair to Volvo, who I love, they did compete pretty well with BMW at least in the 80's. At least in my neighborhood, it was all too common to see a 325i coupe or convertible and a 740 wagon or sedan next to eacthother.
Yes but they were two diametrically opposed cars in philosophy. Anyone who crossed shopped Volvo and BMW in the 80s was not a driver. I used to kid that "Volvo made cars for people who hated cars", and in the 80s there was a lot of truth to that. Certainly the 164 was a perfect example. Nobody who likes to drive could love that one.
I dunno, Mr. Shiftright, my second was a black Volvo 240 wagon (1989 or 1990 model), with tan leather and all the options.
I have to say that the car is no worse than any American car in terms of handling at the time. I took this car cross-country 3 times and it was actually very pleasant to drive.
I have to admit that there is an element of "submission" in my favorite cars.
While my Focus is nearly the best FWD handler out there in terms of new cars, it just doesn't evoke as many fond memories as my Volvo 240.
Why? I personally think some people like cars BETTER that have boundaries to work around. I loved my Volvo 240, if not despite the fact that it handled like a brick, was very slow. It was so reliable that it ran on a skipped transmission for several thousand miles with no complaint, and you could throw battery acid in the engine and it would still be okay.
Same thing about Mercedes 300D's. They're slow, unrefined and persnickety, but you feel worth something when the engine finally spools up after you've let the glow plug warm up.
I once test drove an 850 turbo wagon and the torque steer/turbo lag was maddening. But it was a fun ride, and half the reason i wanted the car was so that I could figure out how to go fast without steering myself off the road.
Does this make sense to anyone? I think this is why people like quirky cars. They like to be told "no" or "yes" by their automobiles.
So, Mr. Shiftright, it sounds like I need to look at 280SEs and SELs without air suspension? Do you know which cars had air suspension and which did not? I seem to remember the 300SEL 6.3 and some of the other V8 cars (maybe the long-wheelbase ones only?) having the air suspension. Any rule of thumb here would be helpful. I don't mind a six-cylinder car, I'm not interested in speed for this application.
I know I'm probably not going to find a *completely* rust-free car for a reasonable price (unless I go to CA or AZ, where they do seem plentiful and cheap). Are there any typically rust-prone areas on these cars?
Gee, I don't know about the rust issues, but the usual places are just above the headlights, and in the trunk floor where the spare tire sits (actually, both rear fender "bottoms").
I think the 300SEL might have had air suspension,,,yep, I just found it. It did.
Actually, if you are content with a 280SE sedan, you should be able to pick up a very clean one dirt cheap. These cars are practically give-aways. Since the cost of restoration vastly exceeds these cars' value, they will be scrapped as they break down. And since they are not being restored, the value of the nice ones continues to drop because there is no enthusiasts base. So it's a buyer's market on 60s era MB sedans.
A 280SEC (coupe) is still affordable unless you want the 3.5 V8, then it gets pricey.
If you want a coupe, a rather unpopular and hard to sell model is the 250C 2.5. You can buy these very reasonably. around $4K-5K for a clean one.
Pay notattention to asking prices. If the seller is asking a high price, they will never, ever sell a 4-door sedan or 250C for any kind of money. Maybe a 280SEC that was very sharp can command a decent price (12K?).
I know the guy 'wanting' $28k for a 280SEL 3.5 (in its defense, it did have a factory sunroof) was wwwaaaayyy out of line. He must have thought it was a convertible or something (though, actually, the convertibles with V8 seem to be in the $50-80k range). I don't mind a six cylinder, I'd probably like a V8 a bit better, but like I said earlier, there seem to be PLENTY around for that $3-6k 'sweet spot' even for fairly nice examples. 'Special' examples (restored, highly or rarely optioned, etc) seem to go as high as $8-10k, but that's it. I actually would rather have a sedan than a coupe, lucky me.
"The million mile car is a P1800. Different engine, trans, body, chassis etc."
Yes, the 164 had two more cylinders, heavier duty transmission, etc. Mechanically, these cars were very sturdy. I don't think the 164 would have any problems lasting as long as a 1800.
Oh, I don't know. That trans was pretty lousy, and I don't think you can get parts for it anymore, and I'm sure hard parts for the engine would be difficult, too.
Oh, I don't know. That trans was pretty lousy, and I don't think you can get parts for it anymore, and I'm sure hard parts for the engine would be difficult, too. The cams went flat on them pretty quickly.
The M400/ M410 transmissions in the 164 are widely used in sweden for performance modifications to older Volvos. It's hardly a lousy one. These transmissions were also used in the 140 police cars and P1800 in the early 70's.
Almost all engine internal parts are interchangable between the B20/ B30. Naturally, not the crank and cam shafts, but components such as oil pumps, pistons and valves are.
Well perhaps it was their performance in the US that wasn't so good. It was a slow, heavy transmission and we often had to replace bearings. The Laycock overdrive was a bit delicate and quite a chore to rebuild.
I think the low value of the 164 today speaks for the public's and technician's general opinion of it, but of course there's always someone who likes the orphan cars.
Let's just say that taken in its totality as a car, the 164 was rather ill-conceived in its marketplace niche. Perhaps my own bad experiences further color my prejudices against it as a clumsy and ugly thing compared to a Mercedes. As for its reliability, I'll leave that for others to judge.
Did you have to replace bearings in the M400 or the BW35 auto? IMO, the M400 isn't a slow transmission, it has surprisingly good feel, and nict, tight ratios. Sure, it's not a Mercedes, but I think the 164's were nice Volvos. BTW, the B30E had 175 hp, which made the car fairly quick (for an early 70's car). The B30F (low compression) was anemic, though. The value of a 164 isn't lower than for the 144, is it? the 144, there you have a slug, especially with the B18.
Well, you got me there. 144 and 164 are equal slugs, I will admit, of equal (no) value.
What I really wanted to say was not about 164 transmissions but rather that the 164 was not comparable to the cars it was intended to compete with, BMW and Benz. It failed completely in the marketplace because it was readily apparent to buyers which car was the better.
Some of them are , some of them aren't. I find them rather over-rated. I think this happened because they were basically quite rugged and well-built. But they had some grevious weak spots, which I could run down for you in another topic if you'd like to start one! This is about German cars specifically and I'd like to set an example and stay on topic, okay?
The same one that was sold at Barrett-Jackson this past January showed up on one of those Speedwhatever shows this morning. It has light grey interior and a magenta(!!?)roof. Were these,and the light lavender paint, really standard choices back in 1957? Really handsome car,but those colors...
I think it was an option, although fortunately very few people took it. But I'm not really sure. It involves a lot of digging and I'm not that motivated to research what was obviously a mistake, factory paint or not. I recall the Mercedes nuts hashing this out last year but I forget the conclusion.
From the sublime to the ridiculous: in the mid '60s GM offered a lavender metallic.
Pontiac called it Iris Mist and I forget what Chevy called it. I remember an Iris Mist '65 GTO convertible, mint and with all the options, that my GTO buddies were oohing and aahing about, and I felt like the kid in "The Emperor's New Clothes"--hey, doesn't anyone realize that car is lavender?!
Jaguar E-Type offered it, too. I've seen one, and it's not too bad on an E-Type. It really looks awful on a 300SL, which is a more muscular and masculine car.
Chevy offered the lavender (same as Pontiac's), they called it Evening Orchid. A friend's grandma had a Corvair 2-door that color, it was actually pretty cool.
Anyone remember the name of that metallic greenish/aqua that GM sold in 1965-66 only? There were lots of Impalas and Catalinas running around with this color especially, it was quite popular.
What do you make of ordinary '73 Mercedes-Benz sedans, such as the 220 & 280? Is there any value to these low-end cars or is there zero collector interest or investment opprortunity? Or, to be frank about it, is it best to just purchase a decent-looking one and just enjoy it while I can?
On the other arm of the scale, what is to make of Rolls-Royces/Bentleys of the same era? I hardly ever see these barges on the road anymore.
If you mean the 4-door sedans, yes, I'm afraid the Benzes and Rolls of that era will be scrap metal someday soon The reason for that is simple. As they age, they deteriorate, and once they have deteriorated, no one will repair them because of the cost vs. their low market value. I mean, you have to be pretty dedicated to a '73 Benz which is worth maybe $3,000, to put $10K-$20K into it to restore it. And a Rolls Silver Shadow in top top shape is maybe a $25,000 car. If you find one that needs rust repair, a brake job, four tires and paint, the car is basically worthless as is because repair and resto costs on an old Rolls are brutally expensive.
So I'd say yes, find these cars in good shape, enjoy them and when they break in a serious manner, just dispose of them. They won't ever be worth anything more than they are now.
I just missed a good one...well, maybe. A 1991 BMW 750il V-12 for $1,500 bucks. Clean car, 200K miles, one bank of cylinders not firing (gulp!). Hell, I could have sold the wheels for that much! Funny thing about the car, the right bank of cylinders would sometimes work, sometimes not, but the weird thing is that when we fed propane into the cylinder bank, it still would not fire. And there seems to be spark and injector pulse. Very strange.
This is probably a $9,000 car in good running shape with these high miles, so there's only $7,500 worth of room to fix it up---and that $7,500 can disappear pretty fast on a V-12 BMW.
If you want a working A/C, electrical system, and a car that doesn't overheat, maybe, but if you want to 'clunk' around, there are plenty of old Benzes that won't require so much TLC.
Shifty, did you do a compression check? If there really was spark and fuel...
Or maybe the valves for that bank were out of sync with the pistons? Is there a seperate chain for that cam? Maybe a bad cam?
Years ago I had a mystery bad cylinder that turned out to be a distorted intake manifold gasket that was causing a vacuum leak in the runner to that cylinder. Apparently it came that way from the factory, since I bought the car from the original owner and he claimed to have never had the manifold off. Hard to believe.
Compression test? I can't even SEE the spark plugs. Well, if you had no compression in 6 cylinders, that would be pretty weird....also pretty awful to fix on a V-12. I don't think the car is worth repairing if the engine's bad. I'd scrap it (part it out). I mean, the rest of the components have 200K on them, enough's enough, the car did its job and its time for car heaven.
Yeah, it's mighty unusual to loss compression in one entire bank but if you've got spark (at the right time) and (enough) fuel what else is left? Unless it's something unique to that bank like worn cam lobes or a slipped timing belt (could it have its own belt?) or a separate coil.
That's a good one. Too bad there aren't forensic mechanics. BTW I'm an entirely self-taught mechanic...you'd never guess ;-).
I already passed on it, Bill. I bid $1,250 and that was IT! I was thinking later I should have gone to $1,500, but they have been working on it ALL DAY, two techs, lotsa parts, and still no go. So that's 12 hours labor I didn't pay right there.
This dealer has quite a few German cars in "Death Row". That's what I call the back row of cars that are too expensive to fix and just too nice to throw away. So they sit there. Also a Q45 on its 5th transmission. Way to go!
It must be awful to be the owner of that particular BMW 750iL and not have your car running just because one bank of cylinders will not fire. If I were the owner, I'd bawl and weep over the expensive and hard repairs.
On the other hand, I bet that dealer you were talking about would love to work on Irv Gordon's 2-mil. mile Volvo. I bet old P1800s are extremely simple to repair and service!
Wow, a Q on its fifth transmission. That sounds like a record!
As you may know I have a 92 190E 2.6. What do you think about me trading it in for a 300TE from the same era, or possibly an E320 wagon from the pre-big-butt-hump-circle-headlamps days?
I'm not a big fan of the 190, so you have my complete support!
Volvo P1800 is relatively simple to work on but the overdrive is a bear to get right. Generally the P1800 is a sturdy, dull car, typical old Volvo.
I dunno what's with the Q45. These are nice old cars, but they are complex and not cheap to fix. Some people think of them as a Benz alternative but they are often shocked to see their maintenance bills. (the later Q45s are not as much fun to drive but they are better cars I think).
BMW750 IL -- Anytime you are dealing with a V-12, be it BMW or Jaguar, you have to be prepared to take the "big hit". They are complex engines hooked up to complex systems, and there is really nothing worse than old & complex technology.
What don't you like about the 190E? one thing you have to admit is that they're reliable. Mine has not a single thing wrong with it, every little thing works perfectly, and it's pretty fast.
Comments
-Jason
Any advice as to which engine and/or transmission is best, and which to avoid (there are the caburated six, the FI six, 3.5 and 4.5 V8s, IIRC)? Same with options--should I avoid things like power windows and locks? These cars are interesting, so many engines, some have power options, some do not, some have floor shift, some column, there are a few four-speeds peppered among a majority of automatics, etc.
I can't afford a trailer queen, but I would like one as a respectable, occasional driver (I would not subject myself nor the car to driving it year-round driving in Chicago).
Having weeded out those categories, this gives us "clean daily drivers" which are not perfect but are very respectable cars with documented service records. Among those, the 4-doors are the better deal by far, although not as attractive as the coupes. The convertibles are way too pricey.
These cars are very nice drivers and can be quite reliable, although they are a bit fussy. The a/c is a joke, as are the factory radios, so don't count on either of those to do much more than take up space. Transmissions are hard-shifting automatics or standard shifts with shifters that feel connected to the transmission by clothesline and duct tape. But you can get used to that. These are certainly not sports cars.
I agree, $5-6K is plenty to pay for one. They are not classics probably never will be, although the V8 convertibles may have a shot some long time down the road. I think that about a 71-72 injected 6 cylinder coupe would be sweet, but they are pricier than the 4-doors by a good margin. So if you want to pay way more for fewer doors, that's the price of the ticket.
However, as big and clumsy and clunky as the 164 is, they will stagger around for quite a long time if you can tolerate the torture of driving one. Think of them as a slow, 4-door Swedish truck or a Hippo in ballet shoes. Think of a lazy little 6 cylinder engine hooked up to a rock crusher transmission and placed inside a Buick with armor plating and bio-degradable upholstery.
Still, if you wanted a kick around car for cheap, you could do worse. They are tough if you can keep that early electronic injection (similar to VW Squarebacks) going.
I thought the Volvo 164 was the car that went over 2 million miles...you know, that world record...
The million mile car is a P1800. Different engine, trans, body, chassis etc.
The Volvo 164 was built as the "big" Volvo, to compete with Mercedes and BMW. Only in their dreams.
I have to say that the car is no worse than any American car in terms of handling at the time. I took this car cross-country 3 times and it was actually very pleasant to drive.
While my Focus is nearly the best FWD handler out there in terms of new cars, it just doesn't evoke as many fond memories as my Volvo 240.
Why? I personally think some people like cars BETTER that have boundaries to work around. I loved my Volvo 240, if not despite the fact that it handled like a brick, was very slow. It was so reliable that it ran on a skipped transmission for several thousand miles with no complaint, and you could throw battery acid in the engine and it would still be okay.
Same thing about Mercedes 300D's. They're slow, unrefined and persnickety, but you feel worth something when the engine finally spools up after you've let the glow plug warm up.
I once test drove an 850 turbo wagon and the torque steer/turbo lag was maddening. But it was a fun ride, and half the reason i wanted the car was so that I could figure out how to go fast without steering myself off the road.
Does this make sense to anyone? I think this is why people like quirky cars. They like to be told "no" or "yes" by their automobiles.
I know I'm probably not going to find a *completely* rust-free car for a reasonable price (unless I go to CA or AZ, where they do seem plentiful and cheap). Are there any typically rust-prone areas on these cars?
I think the 300SEL might have had air suspension,,,yep, I just found it. It did.
Actually, if you are content with a 280SE sedan, you should be able to pick up a very clean one dirt cheap. These cars are practically give-aways. Since the cost of restoration vastly exceeds these cars' value, they will be scrapped as they break down. And since they are not being restored, the value of the nice ones continues to drop because there is no enthusiasts base. So it's a buyer's market on 60s era MB sedans.
A 280SEC (coupe) is still affordable unless you want the 3.5 V8, then it gets pricey.
If you want a coupe, a rather unpopular and hard to sell model is the 250C 2.5. You can buy these very reasonably. around $4K-5K for a clean one.
Pay notattention to asking prices. If the seller is asking a high price, they will never, ever sell a 4-door sedan or 250C for any kind of money. Maybe a 280SEC that was very sharp can command a decent price (12K?).
Yes, the 164 had two more cylinders, heavier duty transmission, etc. Mechanically, these cars were very sturdy. I don't think the 164 would have any problems lasting as long as a 1800.
Almost all engine internal parts are interchangable between the B20/ B30. Naturally, not the crank and cam shafts, but components such as oil pumps, pistons and valves are.
I think the low value of the 164 today speaks for the public's and technician's general opinion of it, but of course there's always someone who likes the orphan cars.
Let's just say that taken in its totality as a car, the 164 was rather ill-conceived in its marketplace niche. Perhaps my own bad experiences further color my prejudices against it as a clumsy and ugly thing compared to a Mercedes. As for its reliability, I'll leave that for others to judge.
What I really wanted to say was not about 164 transmissions but rather that the 164 was not comparable to the cars it was intended to compete with, BMW and Benz. It failed completely in the marketplace because it was readily apparent to buyers which car was the better.
Really handsome car,but those colors...
Pontiac called it Iris Mist and I forget what Chevy called it. I remember an Iris Mist '65 GTO convertible, mint and with all the options, that my GTO buddies were oohing and aahing about, and I felt like the kid in "The Emperor's New Clothes"--hey, doesn't anyone realize that car is lavender?!
Anyone remember the name of that metallic greenish/aqua that GM sold in 1965-66 only? There were lots of Impalas and Catalinas running around with this color especially, it was quite popular.
On the other arm of the scale, what is to make of Rolls-Royces/Bentleys of the same era? I hardly ever see these barges on the road anymore.
So I'd say yes, find these cars in good shape, enjoy them and when they break in a serious manner, just dispose of them. They won't ever be worth anything more than they are now.
This is probably a $9,000 car in good running shape with these high miles, so there's only $7,500 worth of room to fix it up---and that $7,500 can disappear pretty fast on a V-12 BMW.
If you want a working A/C, electrical system, and a car that doesn't overheat, maybe, but if you want to 'clunk' around, there are plenty of old Benzes that won't require so much TLC.
Or maybe the valves for that bank were out of sync with the pistons? Is there a seperate chain for that cam? Maybe a bad cam?
Years ago I had a mystery bad cylinder that turned out to be a distorted intake manifold gasket that was causing a vacuum leak in the runner to that cylinder. Apparently it came that way from the factory, since I bought the car from the original owner and he claimed to have never had the manifold off. Hard to believe.
That's a good one. Too bad there aren't forensic mechanics. BTW I'm an entirely self-taught mechanic...you'd never guess ;-).
I see those suckers sell at auction for like $4-6K wholesale for nice, low-milers....
Be careful here buddy.... 200K its not worth close to $3500 wholesale...
Bill
This dealer has quite a few German cars in "Death Row". That's what I call the back row of cars that are too expensive to fix and just too nice to throw away. So they sit there. Also a Q45 on its 5th transmission. Way to go!
On the other hand, I bet that dealer you were talking about would love to work on Irv Gordon's 2-mil. mile Volvo. I bet old P1800s are extremely simple to repair and service!
As you may know I have a 92 190E 2.6. What do you think about me trading it in for a 300TE from the same era, or possibly an E320 wagon from the pre-big-butt-hump-circle-headlamps days?
I really want a wagon for the versatility.
Volvo P1800 is relatively simple to work on but the overdrive is a bear to get right. Generally the P1800 is a sturdy, dull car, typical old Volvo.
I dunno what's with the Q45. These are nice old cars, but they are complex and not cheap to fix. Some people think of them as a Benz alternative but they are often shocked to see their maintenance bills. (the later Q45s are not as much fun to drive but they are better cars I think).
BMW750 IL -- Anytime you are dealing with a V-12, be it BMW or Jaguar, you have to be prepared to take the "big hit". They are complex engines hooked up to complex systems, and there is really nothing worse than old & complex technology.
Now I wanna know what you have against it! LOL