Mercedes-Benz Forum banner

1985 280CE

3K views 14 replies 7 participants last post by  PlaneCrazy 
#1 ·
I'm going to look at a 1985 280CE with 150000 miles on it. Supposedly, a Florida car. Small rust in right rear fender underneath, about the size of a quarter. It has the inline 6, naturally aspirated engine with automatic transmission. It is a European model. Would like info on the engine and what the price range should be. Somewhere I was told that these engines have a tendency to have camshaft problems. Any other opinions would be highly valued.
Jim
 
#4 ·
Yabbut it will suck you dry on fuel with that engine/transmission combination. The only saving grace is that it's fuel injected and not carbureted. It would have the dreaded Solex 4A1 carb on it - that's enough to make anyone run away as if their hair was on fire.

Dan
 
#5 ·
Dan, I beg to differ about your opinion on the legendary M110. They are a dependable, durable and strong motor... however has the fuel economy of a V8. If economy and maintenance is a concern, one should get a newer Honda or a Toyota.

A 280C (Carb) was very rare in a C123 and died off early in the 123 line up. Most were the 280CE model meaning fuel injected. A Euro M110 provided with 180hp. Far better performance than any other model in the 123 line up.

A 1985 280CE if its in good condition, is an excellent car. However, being that it is a coupe, make sure the rubber seals are in good shape as they are expensive to replace.
 
#6 ·
Don't listen to the diesel snobs here. Most of them are half-deaf from all that clattering.

The M110 is a terrific engine, and you'll blow diesels right off the road. Smooth and quiet, too, with excellent reliability and longevity assuming maintenance is performed. The Euro model is higher compression, higher performance and gets better gas mileage. The K-Jetronic mechanical fuel injection is fussy and takes experience to tune properly. You'll want an experienced classic (Porsche/MB etc.) mechanic if it needs much attention, lots of special tools required. Never heard about camshaft problems.

I personally don't care for the CE style but many do and the coupes have consistently higher value than the sedan.
 
#8 ·
Please don't misquote me, guys. I didn't say there was anything wrong with the M110, I just said it's not terribly economical on fuel - even more so if it's carbureted. I did not question the integrity of the engine.

This could be said about any of Mercedes' cars of that era. My personal favorite is the M130, which was horrible on fuel consumption even when the dual Zeniths are properly tuned - carbs that I personally love.

I've owned W123 sedans and coupes, and while I do like the coupes, I had to retire mine because my kids grew and I couldn't fit them in the back seat.

As for fuel types, I do prefer diesel due to it's longevity, low maintenance and higher mileage, but right now I have five cars in the stable, three of which are gas, two diesel, and I drive them interchangeably. I am not a fuel snob by any sense of the term.

The perfect 280CE would be a Euro spec with a stick.

Dan
 
#9 ·
The M110 was the most economical gasser in the MB stable. But only when paired with the manual transmission. Good luck with that.
 
#10 ·
I think the m110 is often geared with a 3.3-3.6 rear end. That's why I think they often don't do very well with fuel economy. I'm most familiar with them in the 107 chassis and did get about 20mpg in a four speed manual c107 on highway runs, but shouldn't expect more than 17. I figure the c107 is damn similar to the c123, but I think the c123 is lighter and more aerodynamic.

I think the m110 was the top of the line engine for the w123 chassis. So as a collector, I think it would be the most valuable. As the top of the line, it seems it was rarely paired with a manual transmission though. :-(

Overdrive is a real plus for fuel economy in a m110, but in my 1985 280sl 5-speed with a 3.58 rear end, the overdrive ratio is still around a 0.91 I think. So my final drive is still up around a 3.3 I think.

The alloy block four speed v8 cars seem to have come with 2.27 and 2.47 making them pretty good on MPG with torque to overcome the low gearing.

M110 (solid lifters) should have the valves adjusted every ~10,000 miles supposedly.

Blah blah blah. Spec specs specs.

But what is the most fun about the m110 is how much it loves to rev around the redline. This can still be lots of fun in an automatic, and that's why owners love the m110. It's a cool looking vintage engine in that engine bay with the dohc valve cover. I love them.

G-wagons have a lot of them. An injected m110 in a w114 coupe (d-jet) would be one of those holy grail cars. In the c123, it is very cool. But around 1978 I believe you could get them anywhere, even in the US. I'm pretty sure there WERE US spec m110 c123 cars in the late 70's. Look it up. :)
 
#11 ·
I think the m110 is often geared with a 3.3-3.6 rear end. That's why I think they often don't do very well with fuel economy. I'm most familiar with them in the 107 chassis and did get about 20mpg in a four speed manual c107 on highway runs, but shouldn't expect more than 17. I figure the c107 is damn similar to the c123, but I think the c123 is lighter and more aerodynamic.
Correct, the 123 chassis had a 3.58 differential ratio. This lead to higher RPM's. All US-spec 280's came with automatic transmissions as standard. Euro spec 280's came with a 4-speed manual as standard, but an automatic or 5-speed transmission was an added option. Most 280's however, even in Euro spec, were ordered in automatics.

I think the m110 was the top of the line engine for the w123 chassis. So as a collector, I think it would be the most valuable. As the top of the line, it seems it was rarely paired with a manual transmission though. :-(
The turbo diesel and the 280 were technically the top end model for their respective fuel category. The 300TDT, which was rare in Europe, was I believe just slightly more expensive than the 280TE but I am not sure. The 300CD was never available in Europe and the 300D was only available as a non-turbo version and costs less than the 280E counterpart.

With that being said, the 280's have a bad reputation, primarily for being a gas guzzler. The diesel cars in the US are considered more collectable. I think this is because :
1) the diesel motors have a solid reputation
2) the diesel motors were available in much higher numbers and there are far fewer 280's around
3) hippies love their WVO
4) Being that its a classic chassis, having a diesel would excempt most of them from emission testings.

The alloy block four speed v8 cars seem to have come with 2.27 and 2.47 making them pretty good on MPG with torque to overcome the low gearing.
V8's in the 126 Gen I's were mostly 2.24, Gen II US specs had 2.47, Gen II Euro's ranged from 2.24 to 2.65 (2.65 was stock on Euro 560's).

M110 (solid lifters) should have the valves adjusted every ~10,000 miles supposedly.

Blah blah blah. Spec specs specs.
Correct, supposedly every 10k miles is what was written online... will check the manuals to see if that is the correct answer. Diesel engines also need adjustments, but not sure how often. Its not specific to the M110, though.

I'm pretty sure there WERE US spec m110 c123 cars in the late 70's. Look it up. :)
Yes, US spec 280's were available up until 1981 (when the turbo diesel models came in). After 1981, all 123's in the US were diesel as a work-around for Mercedes. By having a certain amount of diesels (emission excempt at the time), it would allow for the overall emission numbers to be lowered. So if you see a 280 advertisted as a 1982 or newer, then its most likely a Euro spec (unless the owner made a year mistake).
 
#15 ·
The first W123s were available with a 5-spd manual, type 717000. It was used until 1979-ish on such cars as the 230, 250, 240D, 280, 280E and 300D. It could also be used on the 200, 200D and 220D, but I'm not sure it was. IIRC, it had a very short OD ratio of 0.89:1

In 1979, MB used two mechanical identical, but geometrically different, 5-spd manuals: 717400 for the 280E, 240D and 300D, and 717401 for the M102-powered 200 and 230E. There were also 717402, used in the R107 and W126 with M110 engines, which differs from 717400 by having an electric encoder instead of a mechanical speedo cable. All of these had an OD ratio of 0.83, I believe. When the M103 replaced the M110, MB's own new generation of 5-spd manuals replaced the 71740x.

(Sadly, the new MB 5-speeds were related to the new 4-speed manuals MB started manufacturing and introducing in 1979: 716210 for M110, OM616 and OM617; 716211 for M102. These 5-speeds would be introduced on the 190E and on the W124-series, 5 years after the 4-speeds. It stands to reason that, since both bell housing patterns were available for the 4-speed manuals, both could also have been made available for the 5-speeds. Why, MB? Why...?)
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top