1989 Cannondale 3.0 SR200 or 1995 Cannondale 2.8 R300
 

Hey, I am looking at two different vintage Cannondale bikes to maybe buy. Can anybody enlighten me on which one might be a better choice? The 1989 is 225 dollars while the 1995 is 250. I know this might be steep but I live in So Cal and they are the best deals I can find. Looks like both have original components. I'm just looking for a light bike for shorter rides (~25 miles). Any knowledge would be appreciated!
Since I am new here they wont allow me to post URL so my solution is I removed the h t t p s : / / and the. h t m l at the end of the link, so insert those if you are interested.
1989
m.facebook.com/marketplace/item/330903302411877/?referralSurface=messenger_lightspeed_banner&referralCode=messenger_banner
1995
losangeles.craigslist.org/lac/bik/d/altadena-1995-cannondale-featherweight/7512818872

The bicycles need to be about the correct size for you to ride comfortably very much to start with. Condition and if the drive train is worn out is important here for not having to spend more money on it, and if you need to ride uphill very much choose a bicycle with gearing for it.
I don't know the models without checking a catalog. Maintaining the bicycle is a factor if you ride it very many miles. Did ether bicycle clam new tires and just serviced?
Some of the members sell bicycles in the marketplace section, but it probably involves shipping. You may be better off waiting and putting a little more money together.
If one of these bicycles has been sitting a garage practically like new and is the correct size would be a good bet, but the tires might be too old for service much at all.

I searched and found an 89 3.0 SR300, if it was listed correctly, it was a road bike for use on hard surface in excellent condition, $375 pick up in NY on eBay, it didn't sell looking almost like new.
They list size and more incorrectly on eBay, and not all bike have a size sticker, so you have sure of what you are looking at in the pictures.
Start with frame size and type of riding, is it smooth road surface with hills to narrow down the best options.

If both bikes are in equal condition, the frame sizes are the same, and don't require any major work, I'd buy the '95 R300. It weighs less and can be upgraded easily to 9, 10 or 11 speed drive train. The '89 is a bit heavier but should have eyelets for mounting racks and fenders, and that can be a plus over the '95. Both are great bikes and you can't go wrong either way.

Reiterating what PB said above. They are both great bikes.

Will say a rack possibility could be something you might want if you wish to extend your rides.

3.0 Criterium Series
 

This bicycle was listed on eBay for sale by a NY bicycle shop at $375, it's no longer available, so it was probably sold to a walk-in customer. It was listed as 1989, and the frame size at 23 inches, frame size is difficult to judge from a picture on these frames.
The size looks correct for me to ride, so if it was for sale locally and easy pick up, it would be it would be hard for me resist paying a few hundred for it.
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...088f4ccc7f.jpg
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...4998d5ea09.jpg
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...8c6838a80c.jpg
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...69321a4673.jpg
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...d1c1e306c7.jpg
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...df700ee3a7.jpg
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...4a5eaeba81.jpg
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...013236a851.jpg

The '89 SR200 on ebay looks very nice and would have been a fine rider.

OP, what's the status on the availability of the '95 R300? Pictures of it would be helpful.

I had both Cannondale 3.0 and 2.8

actually prefer the 3.0 frame - despite the slightly lighter weight of the 2.8

but recommend the 2.8 because the rear triangle spacing allows for more 'contemporary' drivetrain options