I thought you should avoid the 96 e300 or 97 e300 AT all costs!!! IS THIS TRUE or not.. i was going to get one with 146k for 8500 ??? how about a 98, are any good??whats wrong with this engine??

 

can i expect 300K out of one of them like the others?? what kind of maintenance thanks Erik

 

If it makes you feel any better, I bought a 97 with 65k on it 2 years ago for 16K.
It was in NEW cond, and I had all the MB service records. It had the gold warrenty package.
Most people think its a new car
The lady had it at the MB shop for light bulb fixes.
I love the car, wish it was a 98, or 99 though.

 

I just bought a 99 E300 TD for $12k with 174k on the clock and I didn't hesitate for a second. It wasn't a super screaming deal, but very fair. KBB put my car in the $14.6K range. The Carfax report listed about 3 pages of reports that all said "mercedes dealer - scheduled maintenance" and also confirmed that it was a one-owner car.

I bought it without even seeing it and flew in to pick it up, and I'm someone who usually takes a LONG time to make decisions.

You're probably getting those recommendations based on the engine. The non-turbo 96-97 issuper slow. The 98-99 turbos are sluggish from idle to 2000 rpm, but once the turbo kicks in you'll be thankful for the traction control. I've actually had mine sideways a couple times with the traction control off, but the 97 I test drove couldn't even muster highway speeds on the on ramp.

The transmission recommendation is probably because if you follow the factory recommended service intervals they tend to fail. Use the knowledge here to set your tranny service intervals and you'll be fine.