Well, I have owned a 210 and it is definitely "cheaper" in materials. But it also handles better, gets better fuel economy(with a lockup clutch as well), and is still relatively pragmatic to work on. The seats are a bit stiff, and legroom up front is a little cramped in the passenger side of a 4-matic. The battery is in a quirky location(under the rear seat). But it's a good car with a HECK of a lot more headroom and legroom in the rear seat.

What kind of car with nearly 300 hp can get 25 - 27 mpg cruising at a steady 70 mph? A 4.2 liter M119 with a 2.82 overdrive 722.6x, that's what!

The W124 is quite spartan, but more posh, IMHO.

Take two cars. One a 210, and one an early ninetie's 124. Sit in one. Then sit in the other. Side by side, in similar condition(no some mudball 124 and a clean 210). Materials are remarkably cheaper, but the 210 is relatively cavernous.

The 210's goggled lights win me over. They are far more intimidating than the narrow nosed 124.

__________________
1987 300SDL (324000)

1986 Porsche 951 (944 Turbo) (166000)

1978 Porsche 924 (99000)

1996 Nissan Pathfinder R50 (201000)