, its quality was never as good as its design.
Randy
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kaleb C. Striplin
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 7:55 PM
To: Mercedes Discussion List
Subject: Re: [MBZ] $8500 POS
At the time the 140 was designed and built
On 8/13/07, R A Bennell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Spending a fortune on design does not necessarily make a great car. I
remember reading that Ford spent a fortune on
the design of the first generation Taurus that came out in 1986. Don't get me
wrong, it was innovative and good by
the
My college roommate in the 70s got a hand-me-down Granada from his
grandmother. He was quite taken with it, It looks like a Mercedes! I
think that was intended.
--R
Anything would have been a step up from the Granada.
___
http://www.okiebenz.com
For
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Holy cats. A 140, 200K miles AND it's been wet. Move the decimal point two
places left.
Not quite that far. A 140 is HEAVY. Gotta be at least $300 for scrap metal.
If you can sell the doors, trunk lid, fenders and hood for $100 each, and if
the seats are nice
I'd say the decimal two places to the left estimate is probably
accurate. There may be that much in metal, but in a recent conversation
with a boneyard owner, it was costing him a combined $20 an hour in
labour to tear the things apart , so if your time is worth anything and
it would take a
Geez, you guys are really down on W140s. I know it has a lot of systems and
not the most reasonable car to own, but I don't think mercedes ever intended
it to be an econo box. I think as far as sedans go, it was one of those
concorde moments. People look at the cost to run and service it and
The W140 chassis suffers from wiring pre-degredation, very unreliable
computers (ignition, fuel injection, and climate control) and the
whacko conveneince relay system also famous on the BMW 740il series
of similar vintage.
These are not whines, they are serious reliability problems. $4000
As I said, parts and labour are not cheap however you look at it. Mind you,
take a 240D to a dealer and check the bill you'll get! :-) I had a well off
friend how liked his old 300D. He would often spend more than the market
value on the car for a service! The was to run a old 140 is to do
That $8500 car will cost that much every year or two to keep on the
road. I don't think you get it -- no engine computer = dead car, and
NONE of them last like they should. I've known people to get two or
three during the extended warranty period -- and they are $4000 EACH.
Ditto for the
Guys in my area who have bought them new and run them and put many miles on
them may not be as quick to send them to the crusher as you. Up here, the
cars cost $120,000+ new. Who expects to buy such a car and run it for a
$1000 per year? I state my rule of old car purchase again. Put 10% of
personally I love the 140's. Been keeping an eye out for one for the
wife. And a diesel one for me even with the engine problem potential.
E M wrote:
Geez, you guys are really down on W140s. I know it has a lot of systems and
not the most reasonable car to own, but I don't think mercedes
BZZZT, WRONG. The wiring harness issue affected ALL the models during
certain years (93-95). Not all 140's suffer from this problem.
Peter Frederick wrote:
The W140 chassis suffers from wiring pre-degredation, very unreliable
computers (ignition, fuel injection, and climate control) and the
I guess the problem with the 140 was that it followed the 126, people
where used to the good old reliable but technologically challenged 126.
When judging a particular chassis I feel that it is important not to
compare it with previous Merc models but with what the competitors such
as BMW, RR,
Bit harsh to blame Chrysler for the reliability issues of the 140, a lot
of the problems mentioned are due to parts suppliers. However this does
not excuse MB for not putting the test miles on the chassis before release.
Peter Frederick wrote:
It was the beginning of the serious slide in
Not sure what chrysler would have to do with the 140 since it came along
way before chrysler did
Hendrik wrote:
Bit harsh to blame Chrysler for the reliability issues of the 140, a lot
of the problems mentioned are due to parts suppliers. However this does
not excuse MB for not putting the
Good points. You have to remember to when this car hit the scene, many ppl
enjoyed bragging about how much they would spend for a service. :-) Todays
climate, we are more likely to complain about it. :-) 126 was and still is
a great car that mercedes got a LOT of years out of. I think they
At the time the 140 was designed and built, MB spent more money
designing it that any other car in their history. Was the most advanced
car of the time. This told to me by and old german dude way back when
they first came out with them. The next S was just cheap compared.
Hell, even the
These are all the reasons why they are such dogs on the used car
market. They were beautifully made cars, especially the early ones
(rumor has it Benz didn't make much money on them due to the materials
costs), but the necessary (and unnecessary) electronics fail regularly.
The leasing thing
I think mercedes like any company is happy to sell you as little for as much
as they can. :-) They would still sell S Classes with non electric seats
today if they could get away with it. Of course, Porsche have this down to
a fine science. They charge you extra for less car. :-) They call
There's a low rent dealer near me selling an S500, dealer maintained,
super clean, FLOOD TITLE, for $8500. I bet the electrics start
failing before they manage to sell it.
Holy cats. A 140, 200K miles AND it's been wet. Move the decimal point two
places left.
RLE
20 matches
Mail list logo
