It was said by someone here that a 1999 model does very well with a mixture of performance and efficiency.

Probably the new ones, if you don't consider the purchase price.

There was an article about a W201 retrofitted with a modern (today's production machine) 2.5 or 2.2 liter Diesel engine. It outperformed the 190E 2.3-16 in acceleration and returned something like 40+ mpg. Sounds like a winner to me.

Jim

PS: HP is not the key feature for these engines, it is torque. They have awesome low end torque compared to gas engines.

__________________
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)

I so want to retrofit my e320 wagon with a turbo 606. So much for the cheap wagon club

__________________

77' 300D, "Cartman" SOLD @ 150K (didn't know what I had)
83' 300SD, "The Superdon" 325k+ @ 28mpg
95 E320 wagon, "Millennium Falcon" 231k+ @ 24 Mpg
95 E300D, "Sherley" 308k @ 33.69 Mpg, currently anticipating a head
99 Suzuki Intruder "Trudy" @ 45 mpg

the 95 E300D has decent power, and fantastic economy. it's a tad gutless in some situations, but overall a wonderful buy.

I would say the 190D 2.5 turbo (OM602 turbo) is the best combination of power and economy that M-B produced prior to the current offerings with the potential for real-world mileage in the high 30s, I saw low 40s when on 55mph roads, and decent acceleration. My 2nd choice would be the same engine in the '90-'93 300D 2.5 Turbo, which had about the same performance as the later '95 but with a turbo so that it can perform in mountains where the NA '95 falls flat.

__________________

Gone to the dark side

- Jeff