Lee Levitt wrote:
Comments appreciated on the differences (driving,
reliability, comfort, performance, etc) between a '93 300
2.5L turbodiesel and the '96 E300 3L diesel (non turbo)...
The '96 was sold before I could get to it. I drove a '97 E300D this morning.
Nice car, very comfortable, dog slow. It got a bit faster as I drove it
(perhaps it was sitting around for a while, or maybe I got used to it), but
it was still *really* slow. 0-60 in about 15 seconds, with no get up and go
in the 30-50 range or 50-70.
I'm trying to decide whether the later car (more airbags, traction control
and an updated interior) is worth $3 or $4K more than a faster W124...
Something was wrong with the W210 E300D if it was slower than a W124
E300D. It should do 0-60 in about 12 sec. and when the air intake length
switches from low to high speed, it's ALMOST as good as a turbo.
Marshall
--
Marshall Booth (who doesn't respond to unsigned questions)
"der Dieseling Doktor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
'87 300TD 181Kmi,'87 190D 2.5 199Kmi, '84 190D 2.2 227Kmi, '85 190D 2.0
159Kmi, '87 190D 2.5 turbo 234kmi
