ryanrod

Which one is better? Is the 1995 E300's 3.0l faster than the previous 2.5l turbos?

Im looking into getting one of these diesels and Im tryin to decide...


1995 E300 Diesel (non turbo 3.0L)


1992 300D Turbodiesel (turbo 2.5L)

neanderthal

which one is better?
or which one is faster?

two different answers.

i put the 1995 OM606 powered 124 on top of the pile for ALL mercedes cars ever. but thats just my opinion

ccorley

In regards to reliability, the M606 motor is much more reliable than the 2.5 turbo versions. The 2.5's were prone to blowing head gaskets. If speed is what you want in a Diesel, then locate a 1987 6cyl 3.0 turbo, they were the fastest diesel produced until the more recent 1998 M606 turbos in the newer cars. Ofcourse with speed and horsepower, you lose on the mileage gains of owning a Diesel. I enjoy the fact of having a diesel without a turbo, knowing that I have one less item on my car that could cause problems.

I suggest getting the 95, it was the last year of the w124 cars and the most reliable. The 24v M606 motor is very very reliable. Fuel economy is very good at around 25mpg in town and 35 on the highway, I ususally see around 30mpg in mixed driving scenarios.

~ccorley

Eliot

The 87 is about 7/10s of a second faster in the 0-60. I'd go with the 95 That was my first choice but I couldn't find one in the area.

Edit - One of the details I love on the Diesels is the right front Fender vent. Lovely cars.

OJ's DNA

Yep, my 95 E300 is SOLID - and beleive it or not kinda quick, I know others will laugh at that but it really is. I still don't know how MB made a non-turbo this strong but it is. I have nothing bad to say about the 2.5 turbo but there's no way I can recommend not buying a 95 E300. Oh yeah, 35 mpg while cruising effortlessly at 80 mph here on California freeways - I get 700 miles to a tank.

AMGDave

1987 300D - 10.9 seconds 0-62.4mph (probably 10.5-10.7 for 0-60)
1990-93 300D - 12.8 seconds 0-60mph
1995 E300 - 12.6 seconds 0-60mph

Source data:
http://www.w124performance.com/docs/...tion_specs.xls

Anyway, the 1987 300D is known for head cracking issues thanks to a flawed original casting (fixed in 1988/89 but those models didn't come to the USA). The 90-93 300D did have a few issues with the head gaskets but it's NOT that common, and it's not that expensive to replace the gasket. With a properly installed new gasket I wouldn't expect further problems. The E300 isn't without it's share of issues, though... you've got the biodegradeable wiring harness hassle, and glow plugs that can be a nightmare to change if they're carboned up. The engine makes power via a variable tuned resonance intake, and if the flaps get sticky, you need to take it apart & clean it up (not fun).

The 1987 gets 28-32mpg at best, and the 90-95 models are more like 32-36mpg (approximately) at best. You can get more power from the turbo engines if desired via intercooling and cranking up the fuel delivery... no such option exists on the E300. I do like the updated body style, though.

I'm currently in the market for a clean 1990-93 300D with optional ASD, and preferably with heated seats... let me know if you see any for sale! Must be rust-free car - no snow-belt cancer victims. (This would replace my pristine 300E, and no I'm not selling my '87 300D! )

deltadude388

The E300 isn't without it's share of issues, though... you've got the biodegradeable wiring harness hassle, and glow plugs that can be a nightmare to change if they're carboned up. The engine makes power via a variable tuned resonance intake, and if the flaps get sticky, you need to take it apart & clean it up (not fun).



[/QUOTE]
Flaps inside the intake? Closer to the EGR valve end or the intake manifold end?

yellowduc

I having new front struts put in by the dealer on my '95 E300. Cost 1100. Ride....priceless!

I'm excited to start tossing it into turns now!