My '95 is a great car with 137,000 miles on it. I haven't had to much in maintenance, except for a new wiring harness and new plastic fuel lines (leaking). My only complaints about the '95 is the lack of perfect temp selection on the climate control and the "light peppiness" of the engine - fast would be fun.

My neighbor, a Mercedes guy, has just bought his wife an '07 E-class and said he'd sell his '99 E300TD to me - black on grey, 100k miles, perfect condition, perfect maintenance, one owner. I've driven the '99s, and they haul butt compared to my w124, but I have to believe the w210s had more issues than the w124, but the newness of the w210s might mitigate some age issues. I'd expect the w210 to be a better daily driver of my 140 mile (both ways) commute.

Basically, who has done the jump from the w124 to the w210? Was it worth it?

__________________
- Brian


1989 500SEL Euro
1966 250SE Cabriolet
1958 BMW Isetta 600

A turbo'd W124 would kick butt over your non-turbo'd one, not that helps your decision at all.

__________________
-justin

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

POS, the 1998-99 diesels will go down in history as very good cars. I've owned both (1995, 1999), there is absotely no comparison in performance. OTOH, you give up ~5 mpgs with the turbo car, but in many cases it's a fair trade off.

Ask the seller what serious issues he's had with his car. It may be a "good one". Could work out to be a very attractive deal for you if you can put it together.

My 1999 has never had any serious warranty claims. My father has a 1998 - - it's also a very good car.

Good luck.

__________________
1998 W210 diesel (wiped out by a texter)
Baum spring compressor "for rent"

I previously owned a 90' 2.5 Turbo. Very flexible engine and the W124 is a nimble little car.

I own a 99 E300 currently. The W210 is obviously a much larger chassis. It remains very driveable, turns quickly, turns sharply, handles well, and the pop from the turbo is the best of the OM60x's. Creature comforts are also imporved over the W124.

I've driven a 96 w210 with the same engine as your 95 and thought I was going to have to get out and help push it off the line on take-off.

While I liked the W124, I would not go back to it after owning the turbo W210.

__________________
Terry Allison
N. Calif. & Boca Chica, Panama

09' E320 Bluetec 77k (USA)
09' Hyundai Santa Fe Diesel 48k (S.A.)

I haven't jumped from a merc to a 210, but.... I share the same commute distance as you. I had a 88 Merkur Scorpio. Great highway car. Kept is as long as my wife said I could (215K miles) I had a 97 Catera, POS, always broken. Now I have a 99 210. Great car, say no more.

With that commuting distance, I like to have two cars. There is always sometime, that something is broken, and you can't get it fixed every night, or weekend. Having said that, if you can only have one car, I'd say keep your old one. You're only trading a couple of years, and a couple of years worth of miles. If you can have two cars, then great, go for it.

At this point, the 99 is 7 or 8 years old, so.. having a backup car, in my mind, isn't out of the question.

Do you really? I made 33 cruising at 85 this summer. Is it just because of the lead foot that you lose the 5mpg?

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

With any W210 you have to pay attention to the spring perches, a serious issue these cars may develop. Mine needed new ones and one was about to snap off. Someone in my family could have been killed. The turbo W210's also tend to have air box leaks due to the proximity of the turbo and MAF failures aren't uncommon. Since '97 these cars have the new 5-spd transmission. Don't believe the hype about lifetime fills. By 100K miles, it's definitely time to change the fluid in there. Overall these cars have more electronics than the '95, i.e. more stuff to break, but otherwise it's the same engine.

I don't want to scare you off, but your '95 will probably be a more reliable car, though the W210 turbodiesels are definitely an improvement in luxury and performance compared to the earlier offerings.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

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

I don't drive that crazy, but the car is chipped Best MPG I've ever seen is 27.5, that's mostly city. I've never had the car on a long trip.

My father says he can hit lo 30's with his if he sticks to 65 or so. He reports a lifetime average of 29.5

I think I'd do very lo 30's with my 1995 diesel on a regular basis.

Mine is chipped too. I get 30 with a mix of city and highway. High of 33 with highway and cruise control set at 85 so I am not sure that you lose all that much.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

Two years ago, I went from a 1979 240D to a 1999 E 300 Turbo d'l. The latter has been expensive to own, as mine had all the normal flaws described on this site, save the broken spring perches. I recently dodged the bullet with the glow plugs, apparently because of a small lakeful of redline additives applied over 30,000 miles. I did not extract the Gluehkerzen myself, but my mechanic was pleased with the lack of carbon in the car. It was all sooted up when I got it in January 2005. I commute 180 miles round trip with mine, twice a week or so. It is a very nice car with too much cheapo plastic. I am fond of mine, but one has to budget for its wants. Diesel in the Bay Area is costly, too; however, the goodness of thing lies in its efficiency and I wager in its residual value, as well. I am happy I bought mine.

Ditto to most of the comments already posted. I have a love-hate relationship with my '98. It has way too many annoying little issues to be called care-free but the fact is mine will be 10 years old this July, and that's an old car. I drove it nearly 200 miles this morning smiling on the inside...it's a wonderful cruiser, completely enjoyable to drive, but the ownership experience is marred by the lack of robustness of the convenience items and those stupid fuel leaks are really annoying. I've now got to replace the return lines as they have begun to weep fuel after less than 2 years of service. Another hour under the hood - $10 in parts but annoying none-the-less. It's sad when everone at the MB parts counter knows your name...I feel like Norm at "Cheers" when I walk in.

Mine is about to turn 142,000 miles and I would expect it will go that much more, whether I own it or not is another story - I take it month by month. I can honestly say that the car has never driven better since I have owned it than it does now...every little job I do improves it, I would even say "as good as new", but maybe better. Tight suspension, not a rattle, and brakes you can count on to stop straight and fast. Plus a punch of the pedal that will send your head back a little while getting 30 MPG is not too shabby either. Yes, love-hate is how I would describe it.

__________________
Marty D.

2013 C300 4Matic
1984 BMW 733i
2013 Lincoln MKz

We'll mine is set up with all sorts of anti-economy mods; I'm sure they don't help.

Check for rust under the top of the door seals, and trunk key. May allow you to bargain a little. I love mine, but you need to ask about the status of the glowplugs, you don't want to buy one with them stuck in.

__________________
raMBow

1999 E300DT Obsydian Black Metallic, Heated Full Leather Parchment options, E2, K2, 136,000+, best 36.5 mpg - GP's 12-04 & 11-12 Zero Stuck
2010 Honda Odyssey - The BrideMobile - best 26.5
(2) 2005 Honday Accord- (1 -Corporate 1 - Personal) - 110,000 4-cyl 30mpg
2000 VW Golf GLS TDI, Upsolute Chip (sold to Brother, now 300+k on it) 48.5 mpg like clock work
1987 Honda CRX HF - Sold 87,000 always over 50 mpg Max 67 mpg

I too have had a love-hate relationship with my '96 E300D. I discovered the spring perch problem on the day I got the car. The fuel system had to be nearly completely redone. The dashboard is cracking (cheap material ), the K40 relay was stalling me in the middle of roads, and there has been a number of other, but smaller issues. On the plus side, I love the styling and refinement of this diesel, but in my mind it's in a constant battle with my TDI as I'm considering to downgrade to just 2 cars and I must say the TDI has been winning in most categories. For me the TDI is a bit more fun to drive (thanks to the turbo and smooth, manual tranny), it's newer and so far more reliable, and it's definitely more fuel-efficient. On the down side, backseat room is tight, it has interior rattles (the E300D has virtually none) and the styling is that of a regular car, but it's decent. Still deciding whether to sell the E300D, I might, but the amount of effort and money I've put into it and the fact that it now drives better than ever before is making it difficult for me to part with it.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

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

The '99 is definately worth the trouble, it's so much faster than the non-turbo and the 210 is a gigantic leap over the 124. The 124 may last you longer but you'll enjoy the 210 while you have it, and 33-35 mpg is not hard to attain in the turbo.

The '99 does have more electronics to go wrong although I haven't had any problems in mine. The car is incredibly tight and well-built, I'd definately buy it again.

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