1990 300e vs 1989 300e
 

Can anyone tell me the main differences between the 2? Mostly I'm interested in reliability/mechanical. Not body/cosmetics.

I have a 89 300e, just thinking about buying a 90 300e.

thanks in advance :D

My 91 300E, which has been VERY well maintained, will be up for sale in about a week - you might want to check it out. PM me if you're interested and want a preview.

The main difference, I believe, is styling. IIRC, 90 and newer have the more modern looking lower body cladding with chrome strip. Some prefer the older body bumpers, but those look somewhat dated next to the newer style. Also, I believe the interior leather has an updated look. Beyond that, I don't think there are any major mechanical differences, other than possibly 1st-gear start transmission on some models and possibly a different rear end ratio.

Concerning the leather, I preferred the heavier leather of my '89 to the lighter, more pliable leather of my '95. It made the seat stiffer, which I found more comfortable on long rides. I guess it gave better support, I don't know. But I do prefer the exterior body style of my '95 over the '89.

But I don't know whether the 89 is more like the 90 or the 90 is more like the 95. Where's Paul--he knows.

B

94 and 95 have the euro-style headlights and integrated grill as well as color-matching bumper impact strips front and rear. I also think they came with the 8-hole alloy wheels. 93, 94, and 95 also used the M104 engine. 93 300E vehicles are improperly badged from what I understand, and should be called E320.

I've got a 93 300E and it has a 2.8L motor, what makes you think it may be mis-badged?

The 93 300E is misbadged, since it has an M104 3.2 liter engine, same as the engine found in the 94 and 95 E320. But the 93 300E 2.8 is NOT misbadged.