I'm considering buying a '96 E300...at least I was until I drove a '98.

Can anyone offer information as to differential in maintenance costs of a normally aspirated vs. a turbo charged engine? I like the '98, but do not have enough information regarding differences in operating costs to justify the difference in purchase price. Any advice is greatly appreciated.

I cannot imagine much if any difference in maintenance cost. If you like the 98 then by all means get it. I have a 96 and love the car, if I had the opportunity and the $$$ I would have the turbo for the added power. My .02.

__________________
Keith Schuster
2006 E350 98K miles
2013 Ford Explorer 15K miles

It is probably about the same. Although for the 98 and 99...

1) I think you are suppose to run sythetic motor oil - you may do this anyway in a non-turbo.

2) I do not think that there is any recommended trans service interval for the 98 and 99 - could save here...who knows...could also toast your trans.

3) Are the tires 17 inchers? If so, these could likely cost more.

4) Standard fluid and filter changes, GPs, brake and suspension components should be the same.

5) Fuel mileage for the 96-97 is 28/35. Whereas for the 98-99 it is 26/36. Depending on what knid of driving you do, you could see minor differences here.

That is all I could think of. Let us know if you have more questions about these models. They are becomming more popular on this page

__________________
1996 (W210) E300D 86K - Traded in for a Lexus
1992 (W124) 300D 2.5 Turbo 202K - Sold
1983 (W123) 300D, 146K - Sold
1970 280S, 263K - Sold - Beginning of addiction

Thanks for the feedback. I'll be taking the wife out tomorrow to drive both. I know what her answer will be. I'll post later and let you know how much happier I am (yet poorer) that I purchased the turbo.

toturboornot,

When faced with the exact same question, I drove both, and bought the 98 turbo. I had the dealer ship change the transmission fluid at 60,000 miles when I got into the semantics of "sealed for life" and how "life" was to be defined with the service manager. It was quite costly, nearly $250. Most of the cost was the special MB sauce that goes in it. I will do it again at 120,000 too.

I am lucky to get 30 mpg now with the car, but that could be the winter's toll on mileage. Overall I think the car is about as good as a car with an automatic can be. If it had a 5-speed or a 6-speed manual it would really be perfect.

Hope this helps and enjoy your purchase! Jim

__________________
Own:
1986 Euro 190E 2.3-16 (291,000 miles),
1998 E300D TurboDiesel, 231,000 miles -purchased with 45,000,
1988 300E 5-speed 252,000 miles,
1983 240D 4-speed, purchased w/136,000, now with 222,000 miles.
2009 ML320CDI Bluetec, 89,000 miles

Owned:
1971 220D (250,000 miles plus, sold to father-in-law),
1975 240D (245,000 miles - died of body rot),
1991 350SD (176,560 miles, weakest Benz I have owned),
1999 C230 Sport (45,400 miles),
1982 240D (321,000 miles, put to sleep)

turboornot,

Remember that the 98 and 99s have the 5-sp electronic trans as opposed to the old 4-sp in the non turbos. This plus the turbo really makes for a great car.

That being said, I spent $17K for my '96 with 66K miles. It has a CD player, leather, heated seats, the rear window shade and every record since new from the one previous owner.

I really had a hard time justifying the extra bucks for a similarly equipted turbo version.

__________________
1996 (W210) E300D 86K - Traded in for a Lexus
1992 (W124) 300D 2.5 Turbo 202K - Sold
1983 (W123) 300D, 146K - Sold
1970 280S, 263K - Sold - Beginning of addiction

Get the turbo if you can afford it - its got so much more pickup/power, you'll always wish you had it if you get the non turbo!! I have a '99 turbo and it's chipped. When ya floor it, HANG ON! The maintenance costs are identical.

__________________
2004 Ram 2500 Cummins HO
2000 Jetta TDI
1999 E300 (sold)