O K, now you have exposed your bias and lack of knowledge and experiance here as several have explained that over time,
it is easily done, garner 32 ~ 36 MPG's out of an un modified W-126 300SD / SDL when traveling cross country .
You said you don't have the patience or whatever excuse to drive 60 MPH fixed, that doesn't mean others don't do it on a regular basis .
[WHERE and WHEN did I say that? I do that often. Study my Fuelly!]
Further, your stick shift 240D might beat my slushbox OM617 engines across the intersection from a dead stop but, no way will it _ever_ keep up nor pass my OM617's , I know this as I rally my old Mercedes Diesels on a regular basis and many "Sports Cars" can't keep up much less your low power 240D regardless of stick or slushbox .
Instead of simply ignoring the facts, try to pay attention and learn ~ that's what open Forums are supposed to be all about ~ not you whining petulantly "it can't be done!" over and over just because you don't know how to.
Talking is just that . . talking!
Well Nate, read for content (below). What I am saying and what this old man will do IF YOU WANT!
Since my older diesels (the 220Ds and the 240Ds All) are long gone now for more than 25 years, I cannot prove
anything to you. I had all of them when they were new and I well know what they could and did do then.
The 300Ds I raced were not the later (beginning 1981) turbo diesels, but the five (5) cylinder non-turbo 77 horsepower models
and they were very slow. I could pull away from them at any speed, from a dead stop up to and including high freeway speeds.
The automatics that they all came with in the US ate up the extra power of that fifth cylinder.
The 123 horsepower Turbocharged 300SDs were not much faster either.
I turbocharged my 1978 1457 CC Rabbit diesel and it could and did beat many W-126 Diesels.
I did not consider it to be a fast car either.
Since you do indicate that you are somewhat local, how about if we meet someplace and I fill the tank of my W-211
CDI and you fill up your older slush box automatic with no locking T/C and we have a little fuel economy contest?
You set the time, place, and the route and all the conditions to you liking. Okay?
We can fill up at a station I use regularly in Ontario and go towards Las Vegas and back to that same station.
I will follow you and you set the pace. What say you?
As far as driving at 60 mph for fuel economy, I have and IN FACT do it most all of the time!
How do you think I get the posted fuel economy which I am so proud of?
Oh, that's right, you have not bothered to check out my Fuelly?
BTW, where are your published reports for all to see?
If you bothered to read all of my posts for content, you might have concluded that I did not just come
to town and fall off the back of the turnip truck and have been around the block many many times.
I have owned eleven (11) MBZ diesels beginning in 1966 with my first, a used 1961 190 D/b, so you might maybe
understand or conclude I have that I have had a few. How many have you had and when did you start?
There is no way that any older slush box equipped MBZ diesel without a locking
Torque Convertor (T/C) can begin to approach the MPG readings you speak of.
My later model W-211 not only can, but does that and more on a regular basis time after time, and not only does
it do so regularly, but tank after tank, being driven in some stop and go city traffic but also on the
freeways with many cold starts and over several days, not just on a test on the highway only.
So IF you are so sure about your figures, let us meet and I will let you prove it to me.
I say again . .
THERE IS NO WAY YOUR OLDER AUTOMATIC EQUIPPED MBZ DIESEL CAN OR WILL GET 32 ~ 36 MPG's.
My CDI can and does do so (and better) all the time.
This is actual tank mileage (gallons used for miles traveled) and not computer readings which are inaccurate.
Will you prove what you are saying? I can and am willing to do so. How about you?