(first posted 11/29/2016) The first energy crisis impacted Detroit drastically more than the imports, which were mostly poised to capitalize on it, given their generally small and efficient cars. But there were some big exceptions, like the Mercedes S Class. Their superb new W116 line had arrived just a few years earlier with a substantially larger and heavier body. And emission controls had clipped the once free-breathing Mercedes sixes. So the W116 arrived in the US in strictly V8 form, as the 450SE/SEL. But its 13 mpg fuel economy was a bit excessive in the light of the post-crisis outlook, so Mercedes offered the 280S as a cheaper and more efficient alternative. The result was decidedly underwhelming, since the emission-controlled DOHC six made a mere 120 hp, and the big Benz weighed almost 4000 lbs, resulting in a 0-60 time of 16.3 seconds. And fuel economy was only modestly improved. Mercedes would eventually find a better solution than this.
The mediocre performance and efficiency of the 280S is what give Mercedes the impetus to put its turbo-diesel engine in the S Class in 1979 (300SD), for the US market only. Performance was not much different, but fuel economy was drastically improved, solidly in the mid-20s range. It was a decidedly better compromise than the 280S. And already in 1977, this engine was replaced by the fuel-injected version, making 142 hp, which brought back some of the pep that the European versions had.
A great example of why I think 1975 was the peak year for malaise. Everybody was struggling even the Germans. The Cadillac Seville was a better performing car and got similar MPG, for a lower price. And the Olds 350 was a more reliable engine than the Mercedes M110, which was overstressed with the US smog gear, A/C and W116 chassis weight.
The mid-eighties W126 300SE was the same kind of car — slow and thirsty. People like to make fun of the Cadillac Brougham 307 engine performance but it was quicker than the 300SE with same city MPG and much better highway fuel economy.
This is not to throw stones at the Germans, they made great cars back then. But so did the domestics. Love R&T’s criticism of the 280S’s 5-mph bumpers and their suggested facelift. Boy would they have been surprised to see Mercedes stick with that design all the way to 1989 with the last R107.
A great read, thanks.
Pretty sure the W126 300SE was faster than a 307 Caddy. 177hp at a lighter weight. The direct drive top gear was again hurting on the highway
The W126 body had numerically higher rear gearing than a 300E (W124) or 190E (W201) with the same 103 engine. That meant the 3.0L SOHC six was really putting out the revs at 80mph in the 300SE. My 190E is just under 4,000rpm at that speed, the 300SE would be over. The Caddy with its overdrive 4th gear and much taller rear end is maybe doing 2,500rpm.
A 300SE with that kind of gearing wouldn’t sustain speed because the 103 engine didn’t make enough torque at that engine speed. The Olds 307 is going to feel and flat out be much quicker around town, too. A 300SE may beat the 307’s 12-13 second 0-60 time but only by a tick and only by engaging the 1st gear. That of course leads to a very jerky 1->2 upshift which is why customers avoid stepping into the throttle at launch. Let the thing start in 2nd gear and it is 280S slow and way worse than a 307, with same city MPG and much worse highway MPG. Lest we forget, one could barely feel the shifts in a GM TH2004R transmission.
In a big heavy car the low-stressed domestic V8s were a better choice than the European sixes.
I would hope that an engine with 60-70% greater displacement (Olds 307 c.i. vs MB 300 @ 180 c.i.) would produce significantly more power. What’s surprising that it’s even debatably close from an end result standpoint.
I doubt I need to but it’s useful to instruct readers that a MB 300 is not anywhere near the same size as an Olds 307 being that the 300 denotes 3.0 LITERS and the 307 denotes 307 cubic inches in this case, translating to around 5.0 liters as stamped on most blocks. Which is a bit weird though, since 307 ci would actually be larger than 5.0liters, more like 5.11 or so.
Your point would make more sense if the 307 cost a lot more to make than the M110 or got better fuel economy. It doesn’t. Heck it probably doesn’t even weigh much more.
Who cares the size of the engine if it performs well, gets good fuel economy and doesn’t cost much? Here we see a low-tech, cast-iron pushrod V8 out perform, in a total sense including fuel economy and cost, a modern twin-cam six from Mercedes.
Sometimes better is better.
My point was specifically that the 307 does NOT perform very well based on performance related to a displacement viewpoint if we are comparing the two engines you mentioned. A low tech cast iron pushrod V8 will always outperform a more modern twincam six IF the displacement difference is large enough. On a per c.i. basis, perhaps not so much. It was an observation, that’s all, no need to get all excited…
“A low tech cast iron pushrod V8 will always outperform a more modern twincam six IF the displacement difference is large enough.”
Yeah but it won’t always get better fuel economy which is the beauty of the Olds 307. Big, with all the inherent torque, and great MPG to boot.
Actually the 96 350 V8 with far better performance has the same EPA rating.
The metric displacement of the Olds 307 was 5,033cc, so it would still round down to 5.0 liters.
The automobile catalog suggests that the 5 liter Fleetwood Brougham’s 0-60 time is about 13 seconds, while the Mercedes is more like 8, both for 1985-86 models (86 for Cadillac, as the 85 was still the 4100).
There is no way in hell a late 80s 300SE is an 8 second car to 60, a 560SEL maybe.
http://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/1988/1475015/mercedes-benz_300_se_automatic.html
That appears to be the factory claim for what I think is the German market version without wasting a ton of time on researching it. From what I can easily find is that apparently Motor Trend tested one over here in the very late 80’s and got close (in the 9’s) to that but I can’t link the reference. (Google Books Snippet). Maybe if someone has the magazine collection and cares enough to look it up they can comment.
The only 0-60 test results I could find for a 300E was 9.1 seconds. It was deceptively light, and only weighed a couple of hundred lbs more than the 300E. Its lower gearing meant that it was only about .5 to 1.0 seconds slower than the 300E.
The automatic always started in first if you were doing a full throttle start.
Anyway, this whole debate is pretty ridiculous, as most of them with calibrick inevitably are. You’re comparing tafelspitz with a hamburger.
My 307 can click off a 12 sec. or so 0-60. I doubt the 300SE could come close, unless you call on that stump puller of a 1st gear which gives severe 1->2 shift shock. The whole reason Mercedes 4-speed autos start in 2nd gear is to avoid that violent upshift.
Quoting any 0-60 time for the 300SE is like saying my car is really quick, if I take the engine to 4,000 and dump the clutch. No one drives their own vehicle that way and that particular measure on that particular car is therefore largely irrelevant.
One thing is for sure — the 307 4bbl will bury the much more expensive-to-make 103 for highway fuel economy. FE is the whole point of having the six in the S-class; it was bad in ’75 and not much better in ’89, 14 years later.
9.1, 10.1 seconds it doesn’t matter it’s not significantly quicker than a 307 to 60, and certainly not 8 seconds. A 2nd gear start is going to be much slower to 30 and 45 than a 307 and that’s why the 300SE feels like such a dog around town.
Just like you cannot sum up engine performance by looking at the peak HP figure you can’t do it by 0-60 either. That ignores things like the torque curve and transmission characteristics.
The 300SE did 0-60 in 9.1 seconds.
Car (SA) tested a 300 SE in Dec. 1986. They got it to do 0-100/kh in 10.0.
In June 1987, Modern Motor (AU) tested a 300 SEL and recorded 10.9 for the same sprint.
No matter how you slice it, any 3.0 S Class is going to accelerate quicker than a 307-powered Brougham.
Uh with US smog equipment and heavier weight those 10.0 and 10.9 figures would be a bit slower, no? And a bit slower would be pretty close to my 12 second 307, no?
Never said the 307 was quicker to 60 in a magazine test. I said it was quicker meaning in the scenes in which folks typically drive big luxury sedans. Around town the 307 is going to give better acceleration, on the highway better MPG.
That’s 0-100kmh which is 62mph, that extra 2mph takes .5-.6 seconds if you look at the other link given earlier (automobile catalog). I believe it’s because max speed in 2nd is 60mph so there’s a shift in there.
The 300SEL is already heavier than the US 300SE.
What’s your source for the 12-second 307 time? That seems awfully quick unless you put it in a Chevy Luv., i.e. I have a hard time believing it. You eyeballing your Timex doesn’t count. 🙂 It’s time to pony up against the multiple (four or five?) sources presented so far on behalf of the not so sluggish MB.
Nobody who every bought an S-Class new did so because they wanted to save fuel or couldn’t afford the fuel cost of the 500. Maybe they bought the six because it was a lower point of entry to an S-Class or they liked the characteristics of the I-6, who knows. Was the result a runaway speed demon, no, but not sure anyone who mattered (i.e. an actual buyer) really cared.
Either way however, if someone did care, it still seems to be a lot faster than a 307. 8-10 seconds to 60 up a freeway on-ramp is a lot faster than the 14-18 second 307. It’s also faster than a 12 second 307 in a Chevy Luv.
I would imagine most if not all of the post-MCE W126’s were equipped with catalysts, though I may be mistaken. The Australian 300 SEL was rated at 135kw. That’s 180hp. The South African spec 300 SE was good for 138kw – about 184hp. The U.S. spec 3.0 was rated at 177hp.
Either way, numerous other posters have already posted substantive evidence that an I6 S-Class is faster than a Brougham. My previous post merely serves to bolster their original assertions.
Speaking of which, I have never seen any road tests of a 307 Brougham, so I would be interested in seeing you post some quantitative evidence in support of your claim. A 12-second 0-60 seems a bit optimistic, but hey, I may be mistaken.
Gee whiz only for you guys would I do this but check out my 0-60 on the old girl. Jim my Timex may not count but the YouTube counter sure does 🙂
Note that I got a late start, no hot rod style launch and a pesky stop light cut me off at about 58mph. Take away a second at the beginning, add another at the end and you’re looking at 12 seconds all day long fellas. And listen to the engine and those shifts, smooth as silk!
The same exercise in the 190E would be downright harmful to the car but I would do it right now if it was daylight out to show you. Whatever that turned out to be you could add another 2 sec. or so for the 300SE.
One thing that can make a difference for the Cadillac is the optional towing package, which you should have thought of. My opinion of the carburetor equipped Cadillacs in the late 80’s and early 90’s is that performance is at best adequate. The 94 through 96 models are much better.
Haha, nice!
Blow it up to full screen and advance it frame by frame.
As the timer ticks to 1 second the speedo needle is already moving past 5mph.
At 11 seconds we hit 50
At 12 seconds it looks like 55 with a bit of an angle from the left to the right but let’s still call it 55.
As the time ticks past 13 it looks like 57.5 and then you let off before hitting 60.
It’s unlikely to be faster from 57.5-60 than it was from 55-57.5 so at best that’s another second, perhaps more.
So 14 seconds best case. No way is that 12. And I’ll trust that it really is a 307 wailing away up there and your speedo is sort of calibrated rather than running fast like most do from the factory – mine’s off a verified 4mph… 🙂
It does look like a nice low-mileage ride though. You should write a story about it for CC.
Thanks Jim. It’s a nice car but so much has been written about that model here already. I might want to do a 190E 2.6 Vs. FWB 307 comparo at some point, since they were about the same price new, are about the same age now plus I own both.
The 190E was something I always wanted while the desire for the Brougham came after learning about it here, mainly from JPC’s COAL. I get a little defensive about the 307 because I don’t want people reading to be swayed by the overly negative comments, and jokes, that seem to always come. No one gets reprimanded for those. I would not have bought my car if I had read those first.
I saw the picture you posted on JPC’s post, I (along with Tom Klockau) love that buttercream color, not sure of the actual name.
I know you picked it up in Phoenix and drove it home, that sounds like a fun story (and something I’d do too).
It’s got to be a great car for wafting along the interstate and probably around town too…Don’t worry about what others say, at the end of the day it’s your car, you wanted it, you like (love) it, and that’s all that matters.
Cheers!
I have never understood why the DOHC 2.8 had such a low output. Unlike the Cologne Ford 2.8 or the later GM 2.8, this one sported a four barrel carb. Yet the output is comparable. The torque ratio is much worse than even the height of malaise in Detroit. Worse than a slant 6 in an R body.
You can also see the gearing is strange. 60mph equates to over 3000 rpm. This with a four speed auto with direct drive top gear. I can see this gearing maximizing much needed acceleration, but a big Benz should be able to hit the highway.
All that said the shape, interior appointments and emblems are all in place. It is amazing for how many MB buyers, that was enough.
1975 was early in the emissions standards. No manufacturer really had the technology sorted out.
A 1975 Cadillac Deville could do 0-60 in about 12 seconds with a 190 HP 8.2 liter engine.
The gearing isn’t strange at all. This engine is relatively peaky, revs to 6500 rpm, and needs it in order to move this heavy sedan at all. It’s the same gearing as the Euro version, which was designed to have the engine power peak correspond to its top speed. This version peters out sooner for lack of upper-end hp.
But look at the max speeds per gear; they’re not odd at all for European sedan. Maybe for an American one, but they typically have much larger engines and more torque and hp at lower rpm.
Agreed. Our BMW 325i had a five speed stick, with no overdrive. it hit 3000 rpm below 70mph and with that smooth I-6 you didnt even notice without looking at the tach. That BMW engine was pre variable cam timing so it was peaky.
mercedes, till the 90’s, were just beautiful cars. no car to this day has a door that closes with such solidity.
As someone who has owned more 1975 model year rigs, than any other year, I have to chime in. I will be brief. Best: 1975 Chevy (Isuzu) LUV. Worst: 1975 Ford Granada. Most solid feeling: 1975 245 Volvo, will match any Benz product if a door closing like a bank vault is a major concern. Honorable mention: 1975 Audi Fox: stupid cheap even after I swapped in the ’83 GTI engine; approx 110hp in a 1700lb beercan, can be fun. Second to worst: 1975 Torino Elite. In its defense: bought well used with almost 150K on it. Spent most of its life (not kidding) towing a 2 horse trailer. The trunk was full of hay when I got it. The 400, however was a trooper. As long as you kept as much oil in it as it used, you were fine.
Although I agree with you on the door feel, have you closed the door on a Volvo 240; XC70 (pre-Ford) or XC90?
Good call to you and Suzulight. My Dad’s (then my own) Volvo 145 had great doorslam solidity. I’m reminded of giving Dad a lift the other day in my W116. For some reason he has to slam the front passenger door shut with all possible effort thereby bursting my eardrums.
I think for some cars/engines (Ford’s 200 and 250 cid six for example), 1975 WAS peak malaise.
But catalytic converters and improved emissions controls helped make things better–for Ford in particular, and most cars in general, starting in 1976. 1977 was better.
But then, the 2nd fuel crisis struck, and we had more emasculated offerings—like Ford’s 255 V8, GM’s 265 and 267 V8s (Chevy, Pontiac), as well as the anemic Olds 260 (from 1975).
So the 2nd peak malaise would be 1981.
The 1982 Mustang GT and 1983 Rabbit GTI marked the dawn of a golden new era (the 80s!) and the end of malaise!
We need a timeline of the changes in emissions controls. I believe most ’76 had slightly less power than the ’75, the first year for catalysts for most cars. The ’73-4 had more power than either, but the driveability of the engine, especially when cold, was much worse. Our ’73 Century would die at least once every time. My later ’74 Fleetwood was so rough at first, it broke the back 2 exhaust manifold bolts, so I had a noisy gap until it warmed up.
That makes me wonder why benz had not offered five speed sticks with 280s in usa.here almost all 280e and 280s from seventies and eighties are manual.
In the USA, Mercedes was seen as a strictly luxury car maker. While there were stick shift Benzes sold, the S class was(and still is) the flagship Benz. it would not “do” to shift your own gears (or at least this was the mind set of the folks buying them)
Of course overseas Benz was a more rounded company then in the USA and was making cheaper versions of their cars for taxi use and also making buses and heavy trucks.
It was a warning light for the Catalyst. I wonder what that would measure? This car would not have an oxygen sensor as that was a later refinement.
Make that ‘has’
Probably temperature. IIRC, my mid-80’s Alfa Spider had one as well. If it lights up you are stressing the engine too much resulting in too much heat in the catalyst, i.e. slow back down to 55mph as the overlords intended…
It could have been a California thing too, my Alfa was a CA car and I think this Mercedes is one as well, being a “West Coast” car per the list price and R&T being in SoCal at the time.
Yes, it was a catalyst temperature warning light. Early cats ran VERY hot — years ago, a friend had a ’70s Celica whose catalytic converter would get so hot after sustained highway running that the cat would actually glow red in the dark. (Admittedly, there was something wrong with hers and it was later replaced by a dealer under an ancient recall notice that had never been completed, but that was a matter of degree.)
On many Italian cars the catalyst high-temp warning light had “slow down” written on it. Never knew the Germans had and never remember seeing on a US domestic.
Don’t forget about the 300 SD turbo diesel that started in 1978 on the W116. And when the W126 came out in 1980-81, the most popular version through 1985 in the US was the 300 SD turbo diesel. There was a long wheel base 300 SDL version sold in 1986-87, replaced by a gas 6 cylinder 300 SE/SEL in 1988.
A friend of mine had a 350SDL, which is what they were selling in the US as their last of the line S-class diesel.
I think the W116 300SD was good for about 20 or 21 MPG. I know the turbo was supposed to improve efficiency, but reality was that you had to use most of the performance most of the time. The extra air just allowed it to burn more fuel. My ’76 240D never saw 25 MPG under any conditions, and it was much lighter.
“The result was decidedly underwhelming, since the de-smogged DOHC six made a mere 120 hp”
Just curious – what exactly does “de-smogged” mean? Does it mean that the smog has been removed as a byproduct of engine function, or does it mean that smog control devices have been physically removed or bypassed on the engine or exhaust system?
I was wondering the same thing!
It means that the engine has be equipped with emissions controls.
It means that pollution control devices have been added. The magazine text gives context by quantifying the loss of HP as a result of complying with CA emissions compared to the same engine in Europe. The car was sold in all 50 states with the same CA spec (120hp).
Due to the low “octane” unleaded fuel available and required for cat equipped cars in the US back then, compression ratios were lowered, reducing power output. Computer controls eventually compensated for the loss.
The ability of my Honda Fit to operate happily on 87AKI fuel with 10.5:1 compression still amazes me.
This is my car although mine has an ‘E’ after the ‘S’, slightly more svelte bumpers and rectangular headlights. A slow, but more than adequate cruiser. Hates hills, but I love it anyway.
E for fuel injection?
Yep. Apparently Bosch K-jetronic but I’m not much good under the hood.
I think by that time Mercedes had switched from the early D-Jet electronic system to K-Jetronic mechanical.
1972-1976: electronic Bosch D-Jetronic.
1976-1980: mechanical Bosch K-Jetronic.
According to the chart here, after a bit of scrolling down:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_Baureihe_116
Frankly, it was pretty pathetic for MB to not include injection with this car. But they didn’t have the FI version of this engine certified for the US. It finally arrived in 1977, and it got a bump to 142 hp, which helped considerably to returning some of the sparkle that the non-US versions have.
You should go on a country ride… you may get a good parts car
Parts car has been located, and has already donated trim. Situated north of the city and best of all owned by someone else.
Cant beat a good parts car I scored another Xsara that popped a heater connection and cooked the motor at 104,000 kms so I now have an unworn low mileage interior all unbroken switch mounts nice things that cant be got new and impossible to find used
Don, further away from Kilmore. We should go for a drive. Plenty of treasures to be found out in the sticks.
Those weight, top speed, mpg and 0-60 specs remind me suspiciously of a ’74 302 Torino.
This just shows how good the 1975 Ford Granada was for much less money.
http://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/1975/852380/ford_granada_4-door_sedan_351_v-8_cruise-o-matic.html
Recently acquired for chump change a 1977 Mercedes 230. Four cyl, carburetor fueled, automatic w/ 280k. One family owner. Dang, is this car fun to own and drive and gets great looks. We put all the criticisms aside, and enjoy the car– perfect for Eugene driving. A wonderful counterpoint to the V12 coupe that failed us.
While I’m much fonder of MB than a Chevy 307 or 350 stuck in whatever GM branded body it happened to be in, I think MB really let the ball down. Compared to their country mate, BMW, in 75 BMW had the 530i or 3.0Si, both of which were rated at 176HP. FI true, but a boatload more power than the MB. Slight displacement advantage, ~7%, but only SOHC instead of MB’s DOHC. Comparing either to the 307 might be an apples to oranges thing, but to each other it might be more of a red delicious to a golden delicious.
Slightly different market the 2 German makes were after, but a subtle shade of gray, not red-green.
I actually drove and worked on Euro spec versions of these in the 90’s. A few things I remember.
1. They were very very slow. They could reach highway speeds, but they took forever to accelerate.
2. Handling was numb, but stable. Think Camry, but not as mushy.
3. The upholstery was indestructible.
4. The interior design was very modern, it did not have the boxy 70’s look that many of its Japanese or American competition did at the time.
5. They rusted pretty bad around the trunk and rocker panels. Trunk was not well sealed, sometimes would fill with water.
6. The center caps would fall off the wheels and the aluminum wheels were not well protected, they would corrode.
Neither article mentions the W116 first arrived in the US with the 3.5 V8 as the 350SE. I remember the magazines cooing over the corrugated taillights, but I don’t remember the year.
The W116 350SE was never sold in the US; it was targeted to Europe and other non-US markets. Only the 450 SE/SEL was sold here, due to reduced power from emission controls.