Mercedes-Benz W109 Reviews

1972 Mercedes-Benz W109 300 SEL 3.5 - 8 cylinder from UK and Ireland

Model year	1968
Year of manufacture	1972
First year of ownership	2002
Most recent year of ownership	2006
Engine and transmission	3.5 - 8 cylinder Automatic
Performance marks	8 / 10
Reliability marks	8 / 10
Comfort marks	9 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper)	8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)	8.3 / 10
Distance when acquired	89000 kilometres
Most recent distance	89000 kilometres
Previous car	Mercedes-Benz W108

Summary:

I'll never sell, so no offers please

Faults:

One back passenger door won't open.

Heating controls are broken.

Odometer not working, dash light not working.

Air suspension was acting up.

Leaks a little brake fluid from a brake caliper.

Wouldn't start after lying idle outside for a long period.

Exhaust wore out.

Drivers window slips down, open about 3 inches due to worn winder cog inside the door. Can be pulled up by hand.

Some rust in the usual problem areas, but the car holding together pretty well.

General Comments:

I love this car. It is long wheelbase, same as the 6.3, just with smaller engine. The engine runs beautifully. Very reliable when used on a regular basis.

The one time it wouldn't start in the four years I have had it, was due to some rusty contacts points at the battery.

Air suspension holds car up for 1 to 4 days, depending on weather. Caused me a problem at one point, couldn't get the car to rise to its regular height until I discovered a linkage under front wheel had disconnected. Fixed with a plastic tie.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 13th July, 2006

Comment on this review

Fix the spelling and grammar

Delete this review

1969 Mercedes-Benz W109 300SEL 6.3 6.3 fuel injected from Australia and New Zealand

Model year	1969
Year of manufacture	1969
First year of ownership	2003
Most recent year of ownership	2005
Engine and transmission	6.3 fuel injected Automatic
Performance marks	10 / 10
Reliability marks	8 / 10
Comfort marks	8 / 10
Dealer Service marks	3 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper)	6 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)	7.0 / 10
Distance when acquired	150000 miles
Most recent distance	170000 miles
Previous car	Toyota Landcruiser

Summary:

A truly great classic I am on my second example after experimenting with other cars in the interim

Faults:

Rebuilt air suspension, new heads, new suspension, new differential many other components have also been replaced.

General Comments:

The Mercedes 6.3 is an extraordinary machine for its era. It is a very rewarding car for the driver and with an an uprated suspension will handle very well. Fuel is not a significant cost as the cars can be relatively economical. The cost of parts and proper maintenance can be significant however the vehicle is far more reliable than even an excellent Rover or Jaguar series 111 which I have also owned.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 4th October, 2005

Comment on this review

Fix the spelling and grammar

Delete this review

25th Apr 2009, 05:22

Eh, economical? I've owned one of these myself, and economical is not the word that best describes the 6.3 litre V8, but quite frankly, no owner of an m100 Mercedes care much about the fuel consumption either, as these cars are owned by enthusiasts who enjoy the driving experience.

Besides, the car handles very well with the original air suspension, but they are prone to get problems over the years. If the suspension is in good condition, it provides a great balance between good handling and comfort, that is quite unique in cars, and particularly for the era. It always amazed me how well balanced it was and how well it handled, particularly for such a big car, made in 1970.

And of course, the engines are very reliable as well. The m-100 V8 is rock solid and doesn't require much maintenance for such a high performance car of the 60's/70's. Besides, it's strikingly smooth for such a big V8.

Reply to this comment

Fix the spelling and grammar

Delete this comment

2nd Oct 2010, 21:08

I've owned one of these for 6 years now, going on 7, and I agree with the statement of the car being economical - in relative terms. Forget Hondas etc, but compare the 6.3L V8 to the Jag XK 4.2 straight six, and note how much more economical the big V8 is.