300E91

Looking at two wagons, same color, similar equipment and miles. The '95 is the 3.2L M104. the '90 is the 3.0L M103.

I'm somewhat inclined to go with the M103 as it's a simpler design, but gas mileage and performance is improved with the M104.

I owned a 300E sedan for a number of years and am not afraid to turn a wrench. Major mechanicals like head-gaskets and transmissions, however, are beyond my capacity in terms of workspace and experience.

I've seen many complaints about acceleration in the wagon with the M103. Are there owners here that could comment? How about those that might have experience with both?

Other than the wiring harness issue with the later model, are there other significant things to watch for?

Chappy

First gear start on the 95.

RHW

All things equal...take the extra 45 horsepower in the m104. Wagons weigh a bit more than sedans, that extra hp is not going to be added later, so this is the only time to choose that "option"

ds190

95 has biodegradable wiring harness, 90 does not.
95 more likely to blow headgasket, 90 more likely to need valve stem seals replaced.
Both will have front engine cover oil leak someday.
The 95 is r134, the 90 is r12, but both will likely have evaporator leak in the future.
The 95 does have more HP and better fuel mileage.
Both will need some work done regardless of the engine because they are 18 or 23 years old.

chlippo

I say go for the 1995 one. One main reason being that it is HFM while the older one have the CIS.
If your CIS goes bad (which is likely for the age of it) you will hunt phantom problems for years and thousands.

HFM all the way!

Saijin_Naib

Sounds about right. My CIS-E is temperamental at best.