Help me decide...'95 or '96 E300D? - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Mr. BILL · #1 11-10-2003, 08:24 PM

I've got the bug to buy a new (old) Benz. I love my '92 300E, but it's time for a swap.

The leading candidates are, '95 E300D w/ 120K on it, perfect records. The other is a '96 E300D w/145K and perfect records. Both cars are in pristien condition so, neither one has an advantage. I can get either one for $10.5K so, they're even there too.

I like the idea of a newer body style in the '96. However, I've been under the impression that the "newer" versions, the 210 chassis have not proven to be as reliable as the 124's.

So, my question is directed to those who have experience with one or both of these models. Oh, BTW, the '96 is a late production model, so it has most of the upgrades of the '97, including a turbo.

I hope ya'll can help me decide as I need to act soon.

Thanks,

Bill

SW · #2 11-10-2003, 09:14 PM

If one is a turbo and the other is normally aspirated I would take the turbo.

toknow · #3 11-10-2003, 09:22 PM

I would buy the newer body style.

speedy300Dturbo · #4 11-10-2003, 09:35 PM

The 1997 E300 diesel did not have a turbo. That came out in 1998 and the last year was 1999.

Mr. BILL · #5 11-10-2003, 10:10 PM

That's what i thought, but the owner said it's a turbo. I haven't seen it yet, so I was taking his word for it. Hmmm, interesting.

OhioMercedesBoy · #6 11-11-2003, 12:35 AM

I would be wary of the '96 if the owner didn't know it well enough to know that it is naturally aspirated... it kinda makes you wonder if the other specialized diesel stuff was taken care of in an orderly fashion.
~D.J.~

samiam4 · #7 11-11-2003, 12:46 PM

I've heard the 95's had the lowest warrentee for MB's in recent years. Maybe dave C said that?

I'd go for the W124. Last year, nice cars and the climate control system is simplier. The 96 is not as simple. The engine is the same(both non-turbo OM606.912's). First year vs Last year for a body. I'd say you''l have less problems with the last year. Also, lower mileage=0)

Michael

Rick Miley · #8 11-11-2003, 01:18 PM

You can expect less problems with the 95 than the 96. As previously stated, the turbo didn't appear until 1998. On a side note, I'll be seriously disappointed if you find an E300 Turbodiesel for $10,500.

gsxr · #9 11-11-2003, 03:32 PM

I'll "ditto" most of the previous comments. The 124 chassis is more reliable and, IMO, more solidly built. You can still do most of your own work on the 124, but that will be harder on the 210. The engines are the same, both are non-turbo, the owner of the '96 is hallucinating.

The only thing you really gain is the "look" of the newer Benz with the 96 model. Now, if you jump to the 98/99 with the intercooled turbo, that's a whole different story! I'd take one of those in a heartbeat just because they're FAST.

jcyuhn · #10 11-11-2003, 04:03 PM

Hey, stop dissing the 210! I liked my 210 chassis turbodiesel!

Seriously, I'd drive both and but whichever one felt better.

I've owned both 210 and 124 chassis cars. There are things I like better about the 210. It's just a touch larger, and I like the extra elbow room. The 210 has a much larger fuel tank - I hate stopping for fuel. My (later) 210 diesel had an air conditioner that would freeze popsicles in July in the middle of Texas. It used a variable displacement Nippondenso compressor that worked great. The 210 has a more sophisticated front suspension than the 124 - upper and lower control arms vs. struts. The 210 has very good headlights - my bicycle has a better headlight than my 124 does.

Advantages of the 124? Timeless styling. Nice size, a bit like an Italian suit. Some folks claim the quality of the interior materials is better (I don't see it). Last of the line vs. first of the line.

Both cars have things going for them, and to be honest they are more alike than different. Drive both and buy the one you like best.

- JimY

gsxr · #11 11-11-2003, 04:10 PM

True! A couple points. The 1995 E300 diesel has a 90L (23.8 gal?) fuel tank. The older 124 diesels (87, 90-93) had a 70L tank. I think the 210 has an 80L tank but I'm not sure. Also, the early 124 headlights were pretty bad. Taping a couple Mag-Lites to the hood would probably help. However the 94/95 124 headlights were much, much better - almost as good as Euro lights. Either way you can always get Euros if you want to, but it sounds like the 210 mightn't need them which is nice.

Good advice to drive both, though. I'd prefer the 124 but would probably buy the one that's in better condition and had been better cared for.

toknow · #12 11-11-2003, 04:22 PM

If you think that 124 is more refined than 123, I think for sure the 210 is also more refined than 124. The new look is a huge refinement by itself!! I think getting the 96 for that price - giving that it is well-cared for, is a great deal, just check agian you might be wrong about the price (i.e. 20,5 instead of 10,5

), or it has already been sold

speedy300Dturbo · #13 11-11-2003, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gsxr
Now, if you jump to the 98/99 with the intercooled turbo, that's a whole different story! I'd take one of those in a heartbeat just because they're FAST.

Now gsxr, don't forget that you can get a well cared for 500E in the EXACT same price range as a nice 98/99 E300 turbo! Decisions, decisions!