There a thread somehwere about Honda replacing an auto-box at 7yrs, saying "our auto-boxes don't fail".
Having said that, what would define the life of the car? I would imagine that for most cars at 7yrs+, an autobox failure would render the car an economic write-off.
|
Xpat, your questions are difficult to give opinions to as you don't give your projected ownership duration or mileage, this applies also to the choice of new car in the other thread.
If you're keeping the car 3 years at average mileage or up to warranty limit it won't really matter anyway as your own preference is the decider, as it is anyway ultimately.
If you intend to run the car till it dies then thats a whole new set of questions.
As a rule long term ownership will have most here suggesting Japanese i would have thought, if its a 3 year car then the C5 would be a very pleasant alternative to the norm.
Is your preference for proper auto only or are you prepared to try one of the others.
|
|
Well, I have a 1992 W126 300SE MB with 145k on the clock with the original autobox and no problems whatsoever. Not exactly comparable with C5s and the like, but it does show that they can last. No doubt the simpler design of the old boxes underpins their longevity.
|
|
Forgive my ignorance as I'm not up on the numbering system for old Mercs but a Danish friend of mine has a car which I would describe as an E class diesel saloon. It was bought new by him in 1985. It's an auto diesel but I can't tell you more than that. What I can tell you is that it has covered 890,000 km. It has had a couple of exhausts but is still on the original engine and gearbox. He won't part with it and says he reckons it'll outlast him. Last time I went to visit him he picked me up from the airport in it and I'm inclined to agree that it probably has a good number of years in it yet.
|
It was bought new by him in 1985. It's an auto dieselbut I can't tell you more than that.
Thats some service life Humph.
85 is changeover year, from W123 roughly 73 to 85 and W124 85 to 95/96, so it could be either but as he's a friend of yours he's likely to be well heeled so i'd suspect the newer model, if he was from your homeland i'd suspect the older possibly bargain priced model..
I'll keep me head down for a few weeks...you did play rugby i seem to recall..;)
When you speak to him again would you be kind enough to ask him for model details and his servicing regime please, his secrets of long vehicle life could be very interesting.
A truly good auto box life well maintained or not.
There were much better auto (turbo) diesel MB's in LHD form, it seems they couldn't fit the turbocharger to either model in RHD form, i've never believed that as i would imagine MB engineers very soon coming up with new manifolding or even supercharging to overcome that problem especially as by the late 80's, early 90's BMW's turbo diesels could wipe the floor power wise with MB's.
We had to wait till 97ish with the new W210 and its rust till we could have the 3 litre turbo'd diesel.
I suspect MB UK werent ready at that time for diesels to be much more powerful than the very expensive 6 cyl petrols, pity with a bit more forethought they could have stolen a long march.
|
Yes, the only thing missing from my E300D is a turbo.
Alas, it would be quite a conversion task, relieving a rotted out W210 E300TD of its turbo and manifolds and pipework would be the easy bit! The W210 used an electronically controlled pump, while my W124, apart from idle speed control, is purely mechanical. The only sensible route would be to fit a pump from a European W124 turbo, i.e., from an OM603, to obtain the boost control function. Plumbing the oil to and from the turbo, again would be easy, when compared with fitting the large oil spray nozzles in the block to cool the pistons.
|
Yes the only thing missing from my E300D is a turbo.
My 95 diesel saloon was very low mileage and still only about 60K when i sold her 18 months ago, a very sweet smooth engine which as you know is capable of quite a turn of speed but you have to let it rev very high with associated noise...i can't bring myself to do that to a vehicle.
I enquired from various reputable specialists about retro fitting a turbocharger kit to the vehicle, and found what i hoped was a suitable kit from TB's.
If i had been able to fit such a kit i would have kept the car indefinately.
Would have been heartbreaking to sell the coupe mind.
As so often with my schemes i mentioned (hoping he'd fit it really) to my renowned MB indy, the look of horror and gurgling sounds (he looks so like my old physics master when purple) told me that i shouldn't pursue that route.
He did say that the 300TD in LHD 124 vehicles is a completely different engine to that fitted to our 300 multivalve.
Which presumably ties in with internal oil cooling your are referring to, no doubt many other differences too.
As so often it seemed a good idea at the time.
|
Yes, the left hand drive W124 turbo diesels were 603 engines, the 12 valve predecessor to the 606 multivalve engine. Multivalve turbo engines weren't available except in W210s.
|
|
|
|
Hi GB - OK, now have the lowdown on my Danish friend's Merc. It's a 1984 ( not '85 ) W123 300D auto saloon. Kind of sludgy green colour with blackish green interior.
Three exhausts, two wheel bearings, four shocks and one diff so far. Gearbox and engine original. All body panels original but some rust repairs have been made from time to time. Still used daily.
Secrets to longevity? None as far as I can see. Normal servicing etc. by his trusted indy in Copenhagen.
Tough old thing.
|
trusted indy
That seems to answer it Humph, the emphasis being 'trusted'.
Thats not a bad catalogue of failures for over half a million miles, thanks for updating us, must have been one of the last couple of years of 123 production then.
Expensive car in its day, but quality never did come cheap, seems to have been worth it though in the long run.
Very tough old motor comfy and effortless to drive, i hope he gets his wish but not for many years yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agree Roger and i'll bet the vast majority of our old school autoboxes that have had reasonable maintenance (regular oil changes) have been equally good, certainly mine have.
A careful read on various forums will reveal later fully electronic boxes to be a little 'temperamental', and other German makes too especially during those years when manufacturers insisted they were 'sealed for life' requiring no maintenance had problems.
Think of the Valeo radiator gearbox wrecking problem here.
I remember hearing that when the Lexus 400 was 10 or so years old not one gearbox had needed replacement.
I wonder if thats still the case?
|
The 722.3xx and 722.4xx gearboxes being described by Roger and GB are certainly good - not bullet proof, but, good. They certainly aren't simple though! Partially because they are among the last in a long development of all mechanical automatics, the hydraulic circuit is extremely complex.
As an example, the brake bands are applied with a lateral servo piston, which is absolutely standard - but, as the band brake will have some self servo action which will be different if the direction of the torque in thespinning member changes, the direction of the torque is detected by extra hydraulics in the brake band support, and the signal fed back to modulate the pressure profile applied to the servo piston during the change.
The result of this type of complexity is that the gearboxes, when correctly set-up, produce amazingly smooth and fast changes - when I first drove one, I thought they must be electronically controlled.
The later electronic MB gearboxes, are, paradoxically much simpler. However, MB has let themselves down in the detail, with weeping pilot bush seals allowing ECUs to become flooded with oil, and Valeo radiator problems to ruin torque convertor lock up clutches - silly details with drastic consequences.
I think that if an automatic gearbox doesn't have any in-built weaknesses, and is well looked after, and not abused, then it's life should be long and trouble free. The problem is, you can't tell if there are no in-built weaknesses until a few years down the line!
|
"and not abused,"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
my feelings exactly
|
Audi A8 gearboxes fail c 100k miles, I beleive as they are "sealed for life". But I understand a fluid change makes them last longer.
There are loads of Lexus LS400s with over 200k miles and the original box: the service requirement is for regular (60k? miles) changes...
I suspect a lot is about maintenance.
|
I recall my old XJ 3.2 with 153k on the clock. When I got it, the box was a bit jerky so I had the fluid changed - totally transformed the change to slikly smooth again.
The problem is people dont keep up with the right service schedule using the correct fluid. I strongly suspect the reason why many Lexus LS400s are still around is because they are taken care of as owners who do keep their cars longer, would likely keep up the servicing if they could afford such an expensive car to start with.
|
I strongly suspect the reason why many Lexus LS400s are still around is because >> they are taken care of.....
I agree, and of course the maintenance schedules themselves tend to be much more realistic on Japanese cars.
Lexus, like many Japanese manufacturers, doesn't offer marketing led "features" such as extended service intervals and "sealed for life" transmissions. The maintenance schedule is drafted according to the requirements of the engineering in the car, not the marketeers and fleet managers wishes. The cars last a long time and walk the surveys every year. It's not a coincidence in my opinion.
Cheers
DP
|
Makes me wonder - if you bought, say a new Lexus IS250 and ran it for ten years, serviced it on the nose - would it, overall including the fixing of all faults, be cheaper than say a Renault Clio bought new and ran for the same period?
I know someone who just bought a new IS250 and he rates it as the best built car he has ever owned. I must say, paint quality is an example to all.
|
stunorthants26
you have hit the nail
the lexus has one owner who appreciates tender loving care
the renault has 1 keeper that cares and 3 that dont give a damm
|
I'm confident that, if you bought a discounted small car that had been engineered properly, and ran it for 10 years of sensible driving, ensuring that you serviced it sensibly, it would cost a fraction to run compared with a Lexus.
Stuart knows this. That's why he runs a Daihatsu. I know this, hence I run a Fiat Panda.
We don't have the kudos of running luxury cars but we don't need that.
|
Well Renault was prob bad example - just looking at the cbc a Pug 207 is a better example.
If this:
2 New Oxygen sensors fitted different times.
1 New Alternator.
1 Cigar Lighter.
1 Rear Screen washer wiper pump.
Plus Boot would not open.
2 New Steering racks.
is what you get over two years, by the third year you could well be having similar failures - over ten years, how much will these, plus others not yet encountered add up to - how much is a steering rack fitted?
Over time, I think a £20k Lexus would be cheaper than a £11k 207.
|
>>ensuring that you serviced it sensibly<<
I think the point was being made that small cheap cars are invariably treated worse after warranty period ends, thus they often dont last so long.
>>a discounted small car that had been engineered properly<<
There arent as many of them as you would think - as many Corsa owners are discovering, your lucky if it survives the warranty period, let alone ten years.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for all the info. You're right, I should have been more specific. I try to keep my cars about ten years. Having said that, I kept the Renault 21 for nine and I'm passing on the Laguna to my son after seven+ (probably would have driven it for another year had he not needed a car). So I'd like to think that doing only 12k a year I wouldn't get any problems with an auto box before let's say 100k. Am I asking too much?
|
|
|
|
|
