When I lived in Germany, in the 90s, I regularly sat in diesel Mercedes Benz taxis with over a million kms under the hood. Private drivers usually. Many had giant mileages.
We used to say (tongue in cheek) that after 250k, the MB diesel engine was broken in. I don't think MB makes them like they used to anymore.
Let me wager a guess: Mercedes models W124?
> I don't think MB makes them like they used to anymore.
You guessed correctly. The 1980's W124 was one of those cars that would keep going and going. Mechanically great, with a galvanized chassis and bodywork that made it also pretty rust resistant.
The 1993 version of the W124, supposed to be an "improved" remodeled version of the original car, was a worst car in every aspect. It rusted, the plastics were cheaper, etc.
The follow-up, the W210, is the model that cost MB dearly. Through cost-cutting and greed, they lost a huge chunk of the taxi market. The car itself was also an absolute rust-bucket piece of cr*p, the interior was also worst, with the whole woes compounded by crappy electronics.
MB as a brand hasn't really recovered from that. The engineering excellency, attention to detail, and engineering pride that made those W123/W124 almost unkillable is lost, and won't be found again.
Once you start swapping over-engineering for bean-counting, you don't just lose durability, you lose a whole loyal customer base
Unfortunately it's hard to run a car company when your fan base consists of people who only buy used cars. People who buy new cars just don't care what the reliability will look like at 200k miles
Absolutely true.
My friend has the W124/125 first model, 250D, with the super 5 cylinder diesel engine: OM 602.912 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_OM602_engine
It's not just a beauty, is working super fine: and never stops. They made the 200D, 250D, 300D with the same engine, just adding one piston.
My friends comes and go from the EU to Turkey (5.000 km) with no issues at all: on the way he stops at a Turkish dealer of auto parts www.brossautoparts.com where he is able to just get the little plastic parts they get ruined (one was a little plastic wheel on the mileage meters they gave him for free 3 months ago).
In the second hand marked you can find this car for 4.000€ which is a totally ridiculous price !
He told me about the right and left mirror, which are not symmetric: Mercedes made a long research on usability and efficacy on mirrors, and discovered the right mirror can and should be smaller and squared (and, of course, remote controlled), while the left mirror was surprisingly preferred controlled by hand, so there is just a stick of metal (a rudimentary joystick) the driver can hold and move.
The sad is that he told me the second and third series had issues (as somebody else wrote already above) with metals, with the plastic on the side, and unfortunately with the electrical wiring (replaced with a more Eco-friendly version which did not last more then 10 years).
Let's remember the designer: the Italian Bruno Sacco, who had to fight a bit to have the new design accepted: the change from w123 to w124 was a big risk, and they made a test with the Mercedes 190 (a smaller version of the w124): which was a great success of the 80s (the coolest car a youngster could have in Italy at that time).
Yes, it is sad that no factories would consider such a good quality product nowadays: I remember what the famous marketing professor Kotler once told Philips and Braun about their reliable electric razors: "So, you find a customer who buys your razor, and then you make it so reliable that he won’t need another one for the next 40 years? Are you crazy?"
I can confirm as an owner of several W124 vehicles, most notably the 1987 North American market S124, this is the 300 TDT, a station wagon version of the W124 chassis with the OM603 turbo diesel. Currently my wagons clock has just over 370,000 mi. This is a unicorn car in North America. They only sold this car during one sales year in 1987, with this particular engine configuration. This engine can also be found in several other cars around the same era from Mercedes-Benz.
I also own a 1999 W210 with the OM606 turbo diesel. This is the electronically controlled and upgraded version of the OM603. I can confirm that the w w210 is plagued with the myriad of problems. But it is still a fairly nice chassis with modern features and once one becomes acustomized with its particular idiosyncrasies it isn't really that horrible. But it's definitely not the tank that the w124 and w123 series chassis were. The primary prize is the OM606 engine. Which is commonly extracted from the W210 chassis and used to repower any number of other vehicles. There are lots of ways to crank tons of horsepower out of these engines, but at the sacrifice of their longevity.
The W210s did indeed rust badly and the interiors weren't on par with previous generations, but in purely mechanical terms, they were still solid cars. The diesels (particularly E250 TD and E290 TD) could cover 700k+ kilometres without any interventions to the engine or the transmission. The W211 is an improvement to the W210 in almost every aspect, and they are still plentiful on the roads in Eastern Europe.
True, from experience, the E290 TD was mechanically solid. The electronics, less so unfortunately. Ours was plagued by intermittent errors and beeping, together with some parasitic battery drain we could not trace down despite our best efforts.
I didn't have the chance to own a W211, but from what I read and heard, it was indeed an improvement. Even in the looks department!
>(particularly E250 TD and E290 TD)
Not a coincidence, though - these two still use those legendary OM602/OM605 diesels of its predecessor series.
One of my sons drives a W210 that has now got well over 300K on it and is still running like new. You can see the plastics are drying out and there is some minor rust in places but it is still a very solid car and likely will continue to run for many years to come. It's the kombi version, 320.
Mechanically, it's pretty solid, absolutely. But the rust.. The rust!! And that's an issue the original galvanized W124 didn't have.
We had a W203 station as well, that one definitely was terrible (this was around the time the paint formula change happened), but the e class wagon is much older and still in very good shape. The one part that seems to be plagued by rust is the rear hatch, everything looks good. He's still debating replacing it entirely (the hatch, not the car) or welding it up and respraying it. He's a petty good welder and he really loves that car so there is a good chance he'll end up doing just that but at the same time that is not as good a fix as getting a NOS rear hatch and putting it in marine primer before spraying it.
The W210 was a very good car, the so-called "Camry" of Mercedes-Benz in terms of reliability, except it had one huge problem: rust.
The true "million mile" Mercedes are probably the W123 diesels. Built very solid, they will still rust if you live in areas where road salt is used, but most cars will eventually.
It's weird how some cars are much more prone to rust than others. I had a Toyota truck in the 1980s and it rusted so fast you'd almost swear you could see it happening. Mechanically it never had any problems.
> "Camry" of Mercedes-Benz in terms of reliability, except it had one huge problem: rust.
Absolutely. The rust.. The rust..!!
> The true "million mile" Mercedes are probably the W123 diesels.
Yes, for sure. And the W124 diesels.
> It's weird how some cars are much more prone to rust than others
Different levels of anti-rust efforts. Where Mercedes-Benz truly angered their clients, was by coming up with a new model with a lot worse rust properties. (Well, they cut corners on other things as well, like the quality of the interior, but the rust would be the first thing you'd notice.)
MB had the know-how and the processes in place to make a car less susceptible to rust, and just decided to go with the cheaper option, clients and longevity be damned.
Yet W210, 211 etc. still sold millions of vehicles and are still on the road in numbers.
The W210 did sell, but they did loose an unconditional taxi-driver base in the process. And a lot of loyal customers were truly unhappy with the downgrade and jumped ship.
I have a w245, 410.000 Km. Still going strong
I bought recently a w245: basically I wanted a reliable petrol car that would have a small exterior footprint while being spacious inside (I have 2 teenagers at home) and that I could buy for less than the price of my bicycle.
Only downside is fuel consumption in urban driving.
Good news! Keep it going strong!
I had a 1984 W123 300TD Turbodiesel I bought with 356k miles on the odometer (which was broken, total mileage unknown). I drove it for over 100k more miles before I sold it. It had no blowby and no perceptible oil consumption between changes. The OM617 with MW pump was a fantastic engine. The Garrett turbo had something to be desired though so I replaced it with a much more efficient Holset HX-30 which worked great with the pump maxed out. I estimated from 0-60 times it was putting out around 150HP, up from 120HP stock. The 722.3 transmission didn't give me too much trouble either but I did rebuild the valve body with a shift kit to make it shift better. The one major issue I ran into was the rear hydraulic self leveling suspension. The hydraulic struts were NLA so I pored over a bunch of parts manuals and eventually found a Lesjofors spring that was the right height and spring rate--I believe from a later model S600--which worked perfectly with Bilstein HDs from a W123 sedan. Should never have sold that car.
I currently own a W210 E300 Turbodiesel. I bought it with 49.5k miles, it currently has 120k. Overall it's been a decent car, the OM606/722.6 drivetrain is great. The rest of it is pretty miserable though. I would like someday to swap this drivetrain into a W124 wagon, with a standalone transmission controller and the injection pump from an OM603 to make the engine fully mechanical.
In the meantime, I'm working on rebuilding a 2.65 rear diff from an SL class car to swap in. I have a TCU from another car that had this final drive ratio so hopefully it'll work. The stock 3.07 ratio is no good for US highways. In 5th gear at 2250rpm (bsfc minimum) the speed is about 100kph (62mph). With the 2.65 rear it'll be more like 77mph which is where I usually set my cruise control. Should get a lot better fuel economy and less noise.
Quite the monologue you got there bud
Those MB diesels made it to the States too, and they were equally well respected here in my experience. Although, there's long been a diesel aversion among some part of the population here, so it was maybe a narrower subset of the population familiar with the legend of the MB diesels.
I drove one for years, acquired when they were available as a quite cheap ~15 year old car. I've since switched to a Toyota and been quite happy with that. I don't know how long the current Toyotas will last, but the golden era Toyotas I think probably last about as well as the legendary MB diesels (with the bonus of not having to track down vacuum leaks).
>there's long been a diesel aversion among some part of the
which is well-justified. Diesels just aren't clean in any sense of the word, and I guess Americans make a lot more short trips which Diesels aren't well-suited for, and are not as concerned with saving on fuel as it's much cheaper.
Diesels are dirty, but I'm doubtful that is where the aversion comes from. Americans are fine with diesel trucks, and, at the time period that the MB diesels are from, emissions wasn't nearly as much of a focus as it is now.
I've heard that one of the supposed reasons for an aversion to diesel sedans specifically is that, during the fuel shortages in the 70's, GM hurriedly built diesel sedans that turned out to be poorly engineered and extremely problematic, and that debacle convinced the public that diesel sedans were a bad idea.
They are super popular in the Bay Area. Never seen so many together. I smell them coming,
I recall a Greek 240D that had exceeded 4M kM (i.e. 4 GM). Regular motor and transmission rebuilds at intervals that would shame a contemporary dealer's service department.
4.6 Mkm. Translated link:
https://www-gocar-gr.translate.goog/news/feed/48650,ellhnikh...
You can still find these things running all over west Africa.
No diesel engine is made well these days in my opinion, at least as far as passenger vehicles go.
Emissions systems on diesel engines have made the reliability pretty abysmal. That's not to say improving emissions isn't a good goal, but it was implemented terribly.
Between regulators over prescribing solutions and car companies finding the quickest and cheapest "fix" every step of the way, we ended with horribly complex motors that break down much earlier than before. It'd be interesting to see a comparison of total emissions when a 90s diesel is still on the road today compared to a newer diesel that is effectively junk in 10 years or a couple hundred thousand miles.
Given that one single old car without functioning emission controls will stink up an entire block far more than that entire block full of ordinary, modern traffic, I would expect that the (non-CO2) air pollution from an old diesel is far higher than that from building and operating new diesel vehicles.
Even then, a EURO5 diesel still makes quite a stink. Of course, even an EU6+OPF gasoline car still puts out air akin to a dying dog's fart.
ICE vehicles just can't go away quickly enough (and we should aggressively get stinky vehicles like everything pre-EU5 and loud vehicles like motorcycles and scooters off the road first).
I'm not huge on regulation, but if anything MIV is underregulated. Even in the EU anything that was street-legal at some point in the past 70 years is grandfathered in, nevermind that illegal vehicle modifications - if caught - at most earn a slap on the wrist. That's enormously dumb and doesn't fly anywhere else.
I can’t wait for tiny engines like on things like weed eaters and leaf blowers to go extinct. Noisy, smelly as hell, generally awful.
A lot of cities have banned them now, at least for personal use. (Last time this was debated in my area, some businesses had justifications for why they couldn't just use electric tools, but none of those applied to regular homeowners.)
A lawn service that is working 8-10 hours a day can't use battery tools unless they buy a lot of batteries and/or have a way to recharge them in the field (from a gasoline-powered generator, most likely). So their complaint has some validity.
Yeah, that's one of the issues they raised. The other issue was that they often get called in for jobs where battery tools simply aren't powerful enough. (e.g. clearing a completely overgrown yard as opposed to regular lawn maintenance.)
I have Ego's bicycle handle brush cutter, think a weed whacker on steroids with a metal blade.
That think does some serious work. I've cleared acres of overgrown mess with it. 2 6aH batteries will outlast me (~2 hours) before I need a break and the fast charger tops one up in maybe 30 minutes.
Lawn mowers are really where batteries fall apart. They go through a charge extremely fast, especially if the grass is even moderately overgrown. Most mowers are meant to be finish mowers where you aren't taking off much grass at all, say 1/4" up to maybe 1". Electric mowers really demand that or you'll run out of juice very fast.
It’s not practical for all crews at present due to costs, but as EVs become more entrenched, the problem will solve itself. You keep an extra set or two of batteries that the truck charges and you swap as needed, not that different from having to stop to refill on gas.
Energy density of batteries is improving too, so the amount of time between swaps will be increasing.
Yes, we're definitely moving in that direction.
Sheep and goats don't need to be recharged. They feed while doing the lawn.
My cows do a pretty good job, but I've always heard that the way llamas eat works extremely well for grass management. Something about biting off the grass rather than pulling/tearing it.
BS. Gasoline is just more convenient and cheaper for them. 40V batteries last long enough that you only need a handful of them to last a whole day.
I have 40V electric lawn mower. It takes nearly the full charge on two batteries to cut my average suburban-sized lawn. Sometimes I can't even complete it on that depending how tall the grass is. Add in edge trimming and blowing away the clippings and then multiply that by a number of lawns or larger properties and I think you would need dozens of batteries.
BTW "more convenient and cheaper" are strong arguments when you're in a competitive business. Lawn services are usually just a guy with a truck hustling for customers. The more lawns you can cut the more money you make. Anything that causes downtime such as running out of charged batteries is going to be a large negative.
I have a 56V electric lawn mower. It takes nearly the full charge of one battery to mow my slightly larger suburban lawn. Trimming and blowing and what not gets handled by my second smaller battery. My largest battery isn't even the largest they make for this model line. I've been on the same two batteries for five years now. I use E-Go.
I'd say your system is just undersized for your needs. Judging by having two batteries, it sounds like your system is one of those based around hand power tools batteries and then attempted to scale those up to lawn mowers. I've mostly heard bad things about this path. There's a lot of other experiences out there.
We have a large lawn, and a pile of broken eGO products. They wear out fast and cannot be repaired.
We started replacing them witg Milwaukee lawn tools. We frequently hit overheat cutoffs, but haven’t broken any yet. We do have a pile of dead small eGO and Milwaukee batteries though. These days, we only buy the biggest capacity we can. Those tend not to die as fast.
Electric is clearly the future for this stuff, despite our problems. The remaining gas powered stuff is all > 10HP.
Honda has a new electric mower coming out that can do like 12-15 acres on a charge.
We're talking a commercial mower though. I haven't seen prices yet, but I'd guess you're in the $15k range.
I have a 40V (well, 2x 20V) mower, and use two pairs of batteries to mow the lawn. But that's fine; between the lawn mower, the leaf blower, the weed whacker, and the snow blower, I've got plenty of spares.
Insane that there's a market for a dude with a lawn mower these days when you can get a good enough robot mower for $1000 ...
Good enough for what? I'd love to have a lawn mower which can dump grass clippings in my compost pile (mulching them and leaving them behind is better for the lawn, I know, but my wife is allergic to grass so this would basically mean she never gets to use the lawn). Also, we have two apple trees which spend a few months dropping apples on the lawn, so I'd like to have a robot lawn mower which can pick up the apples and toss them in the compost pile too. Oh, and there's a gate separating the front yard from the back yard, so it would be great if it can open and close the gate.
Robot lawn mowers are getting better, but I have yet to see one which can handle every situation that humans routinely handle.
> ICE vehicles just can't go away quickly enough
We do have to either replace them with something else or stop owning personal vehicles.
The end goal may be better, but that transition will be long and it will break plenty of things along the way.
It really doesn’t have to. I’d say look at Norway but you’ll dismiss it as a rich country without looking up the actual reason behind their transition’s success. I’d say look at China but you’d say yeah but that’s China.
We can make the same decision and move fast in the direction, we just choose not to
Norway has done a great job transitioning, that's for sure. They are a richer country and that helps fund the massive government spending going into the transition, but I wouldn't dismiss their success either.
It helps that so much of their energy production already comes from hydro, that avoids the challenge of replacing ICE vehicles with electric cars in front of coal power plants.
I haven't been to Norway but I have been to Sweden, I was impressed with their primarily electric public transportation. I'd have to learn more about how Norway handled the transition and how it would translate to the US; for example average commute distance, use of public transportation, etc. I'd also be curious how much their government has been spending per capita, they do heavily subsidize the transition with things like tax incentives.
Transition is almost done around Oslo, and we are doing fine.
Do people there only use cars around town or for short road trips?
I know the trains in Sweden were great when I was there a few years ago, I assume Norway would be similar.
> Do people there only use cars around town or for short road trips?
Modern mid-size EVs have a range of more than 400-500km. To put this into perspective, the drive from Oslo to Bergen, the other end of the country (latitudinal) is about 460km and takes 7h. You could possibly make that without even recharging, if you manage to sit still, without a break, for 7 hours.
A classic usage is driving to the cabin.
Now, yes few people drive as far as possible without breaks.
> one single old car without functioning emission controls will stink up an entire block far more than that entire block full of ordinary, modern traffic
My son's 1963 Dart (daily driver) puts out far less smell than a lot of pickup trucks in this neighborhood.
And the Dart is certainly cleaner than modern choker-style pickup trucks.
Same in Canada but in specially made taxi grade Crown Vics (85B)
Someone I knew had it and they drove it 24/7 in 3 shifts and it had over a million kilometers on it. Visually looked fine and ran fine.
I remember someone from the prairies telling me that used Crown Vics were the ideal first car for teenagers and were highly sought after in the 90s/2000s.
I remember one day I took my car to the mechanic and saw they were doing a head job on a Toyota Sienna (the minivan) that was used as a Taxi. Took a peek inside and realized the car had something like 450k miles.
Now a proud 4Runner owner, I see on forums all the time guys bragging about hitting 300k, 400k and as high as 600k in their 4Runners.
Well, as you yourself saw, they still need maintenance and repairs. And the “traditional” larger Toyota engines are gone. Because their fuel economy was always terrible. 600k miles in a 4Runner at 60-75 cents a mile in fuel doesn’t sit too well with people when it costs 35 cents a mile in a Hyundai. That pays for a lot of repairs!
The 4Runner of last year was the last traditional uncomplicated V6. The Lexus GX of two years ago was the last traditional V8. Aside from their small 4-cylinders, it’s all super-complicated turbos and we don’t know if those will hold up as well. Early indications are that they aren’t quite as special compared to everyone else’s super-complicated turbos.
Nowadays it feels like the electronics or emissions gear will take the car down long before the engine wears out
It's weird how EV fans doggedly believe that EVs will outlast mechanical cars because they got so few moving parts, even experience shows the electronics often fail before the mechanical parts, both in cars and household appliances.
And the funny thing is, that it has been known ever since I was a kid, so at least 20 decades. Electronics often fail before the mechanical parts, and terribly expensive to repair. So my family avoided such cars.
if they last long enough, 3rd party manufacturers might make after-market parts for them.
I remember taxi drivers back then saying they would only buy MB because while they were more expensive, they lasted forever.
Imagine how things are going on that MB are using petrol engines from the Chinese brand Geeky.