I had a look at another G and I have an option to buy either a 230GE LWB( 1984) or a 300GD LWB(1982). I have a 300GD SWB myself but would like tto know about the 230GE engine regards fuel consumption, performance and reliability. I am biased towards diesels but would like an unbiased viewpoint on the 230GE .
Ident number is 35000 odd so im not sure if it has the KE or the K fuel injection ? how do you tell.
Thanks
I have owned a 82 230TE, and also driven a LWB 230GE for some time. If I could choose, I would go for the 300GD. The 230 engine is very slow and sluggish in a LWB, and you have to really push it all the time.
When I drove the 230GE and my missus our 300GD, I had no chance to keep up with the GD on the highway. It was screaming at 4500RPM in 4th gear and maxed out on 80km/h. No power and no torque.
Gas mileage is also horrible if youre going to use it as a daily driver. I personally think the 230 is too little engine for too much truck. Oh, and besides, its not a diesel. :-)
__________________
-=- information wants to be free -=-
http://www.g-wagen.no/
I had a 1987 230GE short wheelbase with a 4spd manual. I liked the car very much. During long distance driving it was economical (compared to size and weight) and provided me enough power to turn 36" (315/85R15) tires with stock gear ratio (4.9)and transmission.
This is a small engine in a large car and it will never be powerful but it did the job for me pretty good. As I see it it is a simple light and rather economical engine. (I once got 10.5L/100km with 4persons in it, fully loaded, on the 36" tires with 4sets of skis on the roof rack and 150L of fuel. I had a hard time believing this but I have seen similar numbers on other cars so maybe this was correct)
The 230 should give better performance than the gd ( 65vs 92 kw , and more max torque but I guess the torque below 2000 will probably be higher in the 300. I'm surprised the 230 GE is sluggesh.
Peter
I own a 1989 230gel 5 door with a 5 speed box. You must remember that the later 230 motor is different than the earlier ones (later models 85 onwards is the well known 102 motor as used in the W 124 passenger car although downrated in the G to 92 kw versus 100 kw in the car). My performance is good -120km/h in 5th with the rpm at 3450. Where it lags is at hills were you need to downshift to 3rd when the hill is fairly steep. As far as it's reliability it is very good engines being proven in its passenger car variants. Just for fact: Early 280 engines out was 115kw and 226 N.m versus the 102 engine 92kw and 192 N.m torque.
I have tried both 1987 versions now and in my humble opinion I would go for the diesel everytime and have. The petrol is underpowered and you constantly have the feeling you are thrashing it and I only got around 15MPG from it. It does have a quicker pull away and 50-70 mph is quicker but the diesel gets there and stays there except of course on a hill. The Dover docks road called the Jubilee way is very steep and the GD will sit at 30 in 3rd but keep on pulling evenly but the petrol will pull at 40 in 4th but feel like it is screaming. I also get 26-27MPG urban or Freeway and when I was recently tug my caravan I got 24/25 mpg and on a flat road you did nt even know it was there. Diesel is obviously noisier but I have used a 'Noisekiller'kit which helps enormously inside.
The diesel is also obviosly easier to service due to very minimal electrics under the bonnet but most things tend to be a little dearer parts wise
YOU PAYS YOUR MONEY YOU TAKES YOUR CHOICE!
__________________
Nicholas Greene
Criminal Psychologist
Neuvic Entier
FRANCE
Linear Mode
