I am curious about which of these cars would give me better service they both have close to 160,000 miles on them and seem very clean and well taken care of. I am a little familiar with the 2.5 turbo but the e300d seems to have a 3.0 litre twin cam turbo . I am not afraid of doing mantainence but i enjoy diesels and have a 50 mile comute daily thanks for any advise Peter

No turbo in that 95.

I don't think you'll be dissatisfied with either one. The '95 has the more modern OM 606 engine and is mimimally stressed because it's not turbocharged.

The decision should be based upon condition. If they are the same cost, buy the one with better maintenance records or better overall condition.

I'd have to agree. They are both pretty close on performance and body features.

Go for the one in overall best condition.

after reading some more on other E300d forums I would have to say the 95 being that it is the last of the 124 improvements and it seemd a little more refined thanks again peter

Both cars are almost indentical, although the E300D SE is truly something special, being one of about 1000 cars built before they abandoned the W124 series for good.

Unlike the '86 and '87 six cylinder turbodiesels, the 5-cylinder turbo of 1993 is a very good and reliable engine. Same is true for the 6-cylinder, non-turbo 24-valve-6 EDS diesel, but these two have totally different characteristics.

I love my 5-cylinder diesel for its reliability and know I can get a used engine if the unspeakable happens, but in terms of refinement nothing beats the 24V. It's so silent, you barely know it's a diesel when you drive it on the freeway. Even at 90 mph it is silent, whereas the 5-cylinder turbo lets you know what it is.
Unfortunately, whence the time comes to find a used EDS engine (I will never buy a newer Mercedes then 1995, ever), it might be difficult to find one with decent milage for not-so-much money.