EPA ratings:

93 300D 2.5 = 26/33
95 E300 = 26/32
96 E300 = 28/35
99 E300 = 26/36

YMMV

Sixto
93 300SD 3.0 ... 20/23

You can still end up with a stuck glow plug in the '95 engine. I remember reading a post here from someone in that situation. A '95 E300 may be slightly more reliable than a W210 E300, but I feel the W210 chassis is so much more modern that the W124 chassis looks ancient in comparison. The W210 has more rounded and sleeker styling, digital odometer, proper instrument cluster lighting from behind, more interior space and overall just looks beefier. It just lacks good quality.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

Does the 210 have a 4 speed or 5 speed AT?

Does the 96 have more safety features than the 95? More airbags, ASD, ASR, etc.?

Can you fit 95 glow plugs in a 96?

Sixto
93 300SD

The '96 has a 4-speed AT, same as the '95. '97 and later have the newer electronic 5-speed tranny. Not sure about the safety features. Mine has side airbags. Does a '95 E300 have those? The glow plugs are different as stated earlier. Someone here once had trouble because he mixed them up.

Also I wouldn't trust those EPA ratings. From what I've read the '95 E300 is slightly more efficient than all the W210 E300's.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

AFAIK no. Only passenger airbag eliminating the glove box.

Makes sense on the efficiency as '95 is NA. Surprisingly tolerable though.

__________________
1982 300TD 210K miles ("The Replacement" aka "The Anvil") - SOLD
1979 300SD 245K miles (never ending project)
2007 Pinarello F3:13
1995 Ducati 916 (SOLD, sniff)
1999 Ducati 900SSie (SOLD)

FWIW, my 1993 E300 gets low 30's 50/50 highway/city commuting and mid- to upper-30's on highway trips.

I think the main reason the '95 is more fuel efficient is that it's lighter ('96 and '97 are NA too). A turbo doesn't have much effect on economy.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

Boy, they aren't kidding when they say beauty is up to the beholder. While I don't find the 210 hideous by any means, I think it looks "chinsier" and generic compared to the 124. I felt a great letdown when I first saw that model when it was introduced, and continue to hold the same opinion ... although I like it better than the current E-Class in styling. "More modern" does not equal "more appealing" in my world. I'm not trying to start a chassi war, as this is all just a matter of personal taste. And when it comes down to it, I think most of us can agree that form follows function ... if someone offered me one of those "ugly" E350 CDIs on the lot now, I'd be in the driver's seat in a heartbeat. It's just that if all things were equal, and looks were the only thing left upon which to base a decision, I find the 124 far sexier ...

__________________
1987 300D, arctic white/palomino--314,000 miles
1978 240D 4-speed, Euro Delivery, light ivory/bamboo--370,000 miles
2005 Jeep Liberty CRD Limited, light khaki/slate--140,000 miles
2018 Chevy Cruze diesel, 6-speed manual, satin steel metallic/kalahari--19,000 miles
1982 Peugeot 505 diesel, 4-speed manual, blue/blue, 130,000 miles
1995 S320, black/parchment--34,000 miles (Dad's car)

Here is a search to bookmark for 95 E300D prices:LINK

In terms of MPG, I get 32mpg consistently with a mix of highway and DC beltway gridlock driving in my 95 E300D. But with these cars the good mileage isn't going to save you money over a used Honda or something.

I've owned my 95 E300D for almost 5 years now. I bought the car with 86K miles and now I have 172K (or so) I have spent thousands to keep this car on the road. And I do understand that all cars need regular maintenance...but this past year has been a whopper for my car. In the past year I have done the following:

Motor mounts
Tires
Brakes - rotors/pads - fluid change
PS pump and ASD lines
Glow plugs, glow plug relay, pull head remove stuck plug
H20 pump, thermostat, water hoses, antifreeze
Front fender (had a rust spot. Purchased new fender, had it painted/mounted)
Fan belt + tensioner and shock
Fuel lines + IP O-rings + Shut off valve + fuel filters
Three oil/filter changes

I was thinking about selling the car but I am way upside down at this point.
Plus it is running great now!

So I guess my point is to buy the best car that you can afford. Review the records and check the common problems. I wouldn't buy an OM606 powered car unless I knew for sure that the glow plugs were recently changed.

A $5K car that needs work can easily "cost" more than a $8K car in top condition.

Only time will tell......

the W210 E300 is taking a few hits right now on glow plugs and spring perches, but..... for me.... I'm a happy camper right now with my MY99 E300.

30mpg, as fast as I want to go, keeps up with traffic, starts everytime. I've put 22K on the past 49 weeks, and have enjoyed about every mile.

Personally, I see nothing wrong stylewise with a W210. It blends in perfectly between the W124s and the W211s. If anything, to me.... it's the perfect mix of modern and retro. Too new to look old, and too old to look new.

jnc19610

MY99 E300
MY99 Boxster
MY03 Jaguar S type
MY70 914/6

All those cars have the same engine, NA 606. Same trans well the 1997 got the 722.6 which I prefer personaly.

NA 606's are ok, but you get all the 606 issues, (which granted are not many) without the power of the turbo charged 606.

I still think the best ones are the 1998-99 E300D's. Chip the ECU, maybe get a set of Kleeman cams and they are pretty respectable. You can even put on a complete E55 brake and suspension.

__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

I think the W124 looks way better than the W210.

If you had sub $10k to spend, I'd go with the W124. If you just want to spend lots of money I'd skip right past the W210 and go with a W211 CDI.

I consider the W210 a transition chassis. It's evident both mechanically and cosmetically, it's a little W124 mixed in with a little bit of what we would call a "modern car". Wait another 2 years or so and that comment will suddenly sound stupid, if it doesn't already.

__________________
-justin

1987 300TD, 1987 300TD
2008 R32, 2000 Passat Wagon

Go for the '99!
Rocketship capabilities aside, against the '95 it has the newer chassis (210 is leagues ahead), side airbags and a glovebox...
Both the '95 and '96 have the old 4spd tranny vs. 5spd electronic in the '97-'99....
And I believe the '99 has a few electronics updates over the '98, a newer radio and better alarm system.
Try a turbo 606 before you buy a NA606...the best upgrade is the kick-in-the-pants acceleration!

0-60 times were 13 sec I believe for the NA, 8 sec for the turbo, faster if you chip it.

__________________
99 E300 TD -- sold
01 540i 6 spd

Hey, nothing wrong with having a personal taste. Beauty is 100% subjective. Personally, I used to like the W124 styling better than the W210 but about 2 years ago I really warmed up to the W210 styling as I was seeing more of them on the roads when I was running some errands in California and after I test drove a few. Now I actually find the W210 "sexier". I'm even warming up to the W211 styling, though I still don't like it as much as the W210.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL