I would never buy a naturally aspirated diesel.

 

I used to own a 240, I bought it because of the manual everything. Once up to speed, it's OK, but you're really winding the engine. Which in my case came to tears.
A friend has an atmo 300 CD (Euro) manual transmission, he's happy.
The turbos rarely break, they have an oil line going to the bearing. Also, parts of engine work become more tedious, as the turbo is in the way of replacing the starter, (have to go in from under) among other things. I had to take off the "U" tube to work on the alternator, not a big deal, but still another step.

Good luck with your decision, and keep us posted.

 

I love driving and working on my 240D, but when I need to go on the freeway for any reasonable distance I take the 300SD. The extra cylinder and the turbo (not to mention the longer wheelbase of that chassis) make for a much more relaxing drive at highway speeds.

 

I have a 300D, non turbo.
took it cross country NJ-CA and back. no problems.
you just have to adjust your driving habits.
it's very relaxing to know you CAN'T go fast!
Get a 300D, ~)

 

What is your definition of fast? I am considering a '79 300D longer road trips. If I can maintain 80mph in flat terrain near sea level I'll be happy.

The vehicle I am looking at is a one owner with 71K (!) miles. I saw it at the same indy that I use and spoke with the mechanic who has maintained it for some years. The mechanic highly recommends this vehicle. The engine purrs (for a diesel) and started cold right away after one cycle of the glow plugs.

It was in the shop for an A/C switch replacement (from what I've read an ongoing problem). Engine/transmission appear to be in top shape. I'm going in today for a test drive and to inspect it on the lift. Front windshield seal has been replaced. Owner bought a front and rear set together but has not replaced the rear seal.

The vehicle appears to have been garage stored for the first two decades but has spent at least the past 5 years in the elements. No evidence of any wrecks. Paint is faded although no clear coat wear patches yet. Exterior light lenses appear to all be original and have age cracking (appearance - not cracked in pieces). The plastic grill on the hood has broken areas. Interior has minor issues such as cracked dash and other minor cracked plastic parts and appears faded. Seats are good. Carpet is average - not worn but "looks" older. Carpet may not be original.

The major issue so far is rust. There is a small rust bubble on the top corner of one side of the sun roof. I'll be inspecting this further today. The headliner does not show any water stains and so I am hoping that the damage is minimal.

I've owned diesel light trucks in the past (both turbo and non-turbo) and have spent a time in reading the archives.

I have inferred from the buyer's guide and other posts that most people have the attitude of if there is any rust do not buy and also don't pay more than $2.5 - $3k. The seller is firm at $4k and as I mentioned the vehicle does have some visible rust. My experience is with '60's and '70's vehicles is that rust can be stopped and repaired with a good body shop.

My WAG on the body side is that it would take $700 to stop further deterioration and up to $4,000 if I wanted the vehicle to appear "like new" assuming that I use a local shop for the major paint and body work and do the rest of the repairs myself.

Before doing any research when I first noticed the car the price $3,000 popped into my head. So it appears that my uneducated instinct is in line with the group's opionion. But due to the excellent state of the engine and drivetrain I am trying to justify spending an extra $1,000 on this vehicle. I am not trying to make a show car. I just want something dependable to use on longer road trips. I make a ~800 mile round trip excursion about 15 times a year by myself. The longest leg is 320 miles and if I can do that without stopping to refuel this is a large advantage for me, which is one reason why I am considering this vehicle. Plus I just like both diesels and older cars.

 

I have a 300D, non turbo as well. I *really* wanted a turbo model, but made do with the normally aspirated version, because the price was right! You definitely need to adjust your driving style to the slowness of the car. I find that I'm a lot more relaxed in my 300D, despite how slow it is. Maybe it's because I'm in a different frame of mind when I'm driving it.

I've driven a 240D with a stick, and I'd dare to say its faster than my 300D automatic. And well, if it's not faster - it was certainly a LOT more fun to drive.

You can do what Zedd did - transplant a turbo 5cyl into a 240d w/ a manual tranny. I have yet to drive a car like that, but I bet it's a lot of fun!

 

The 240D, 300D and 300D turbo can be peppy off the line, but after that, the 240D bogs down the first. Both 300D's will pass the 240D from maybe 40mph. The 300D non turbo gets going up until maybe 60mph, and that's where the turbo will pass it.

At least that's what I think will happen, based on my limited experience driving a 240D stick and a non turbo 300D (auto) and comparing that with my turbo.

 

Having owned my 84 300D Euro non-turbo for about a month this is what I've noticed. It has absolutely no power going up long or steep grades. That's the biggest downside. The upside is no turbo to leak or cruise control to break down, no computer which is really awesome, and manual crank windows which will never have a vacuum leak problem. :thumbsup: Let's not forget the acronym KISS (keep it simple stupid).

Having driven a few 300TDs prior to buying mine I was not impressed with the turbo's performance. My truck (1997 F-350 Powerstroke) does have a turbo. There is no comparison between the two because the truck drives like a bat out of hades and the car drives like a turtle which is why I named it Yurtle.

I never considered a 240 as I've heard they're slower than Yurtle.

 

...and manual crank windows which will never have a vacuum leak problem. :thumbsup:

Are you being serious here ?

 

Get a 300DT. Mine chirps the tires going from 1st to 2nd, even at my mileage, kicks non-t azz.

 

Mine chirps the tires going from 1st to 2nd

That only means your transmission is poorly tuned.

 

Well, yesterday, I test drove a 300D Turbo. I felt like the power was adequate, although, I did not get the opportunity to ride on the highway. I was impressed with the acceleration from 0 to 50. I wanted to test the condition of the suspension, so I drove over a few bumps. It was smooth. Better than my 95 Toyota Previa mini van. The ride was comfortable and not bouncy at all. The dealer attempted to cover up a lot of body damage through a new, cheap paint job. The car had a lot of rust around the sunroof opening. The hood, obviously did not match up with the passenger side fender, and, right underneath the rear window, on the driver’s side, the paint was starting to bubble up. The steering wheel was extremely soft on the backside. Overall, the interior was in fair shape for a 1984. I also noticed that, there was a lot of play in the steering. Probably needs a new steering box. I want to test drive a 300D (non turbo), however, I have not been able to find one as of yet. My next 2 test drives will be at highway speeds.

 

I also noticed that, there was a lot of play in the steering.

That's adjustable, the rack to pinion distance (steering wheel play), uses and allen bolt on the gearbox.

 

I have a 300d euro, I love it. I can get him up to around 100mph. It doesn't link hills to well but catchs back up to traffic going down hill. I was told to give him more power I could through in a rear end from a later w126 and a turbo. I seem to like him the way he is and gets great gas mileage. I may do the rear end and rotors from a 126 later on it works good for me, and the interior is nice and comfy with the cloth seats.

 

You don't mention where you live, whether it's hilly or not, and what your typical driving week is like. Lots of freeways? Just around town? Is this going to be your primary car?

A 240D is a great 2nd car in flat geography if you don't spend a lot of time at freeway speeds. The 5 cylinder turbo (any model) is far superior in acceleration and noise level at freeway speeds. I have four 240D's, a 300TD and a 300CD. I've driven one of the 240D's and the 300TD to North Carolina on two separate trips...a whole different experience in the turbo. Cruise on 75 mph, it never wavered going through the WV mountains and the temp never rose beyond 85C.

I had to get in the truck lane and turn off the A/C in the 240 in the mountains.

 

I live in Fort Lauderdale, FL. As most know, it is flat down here. The 123 will be my 2nd vehicle, and probably will not be the daily driver. I plan on taking it on the highways for vacations. I am probably going to go with a 300TD. Now it is a matter of finding a nice one, whether it's a coupe, sedan, or wagon...

 

How many miles can a 300TD go on the highway doing 75-80MPH without re-fueling?

 

I used to get 23-25 from my 300TD, no matter what I did with it. I get about 25 from the 300D now too, no matter what. It sounds odd, but is true, fast or slow, same mileage for it's whole life. Mileage does drop to 22 or so in winter when they dork with the blend more here in the northeast, but then it's always that, no matter how I drive.

 

I get 23-21 mpg from my non-turbo 300cd, I've tried to get higher (and lower!) but that's what it gets. I'd say the difference with a turbo MB would be one more thing to break, and a more comfortable cruising speed on the highway, few less seconds to 60, little better MPG. Try to get a turbo if you can, but non-turbo's are great too. Acceptable cruising speed in my MB is about 75 mph, above that and it's very loud.

Treat the accelerator pedal as a on/off switch, make sure your linkages are tight.

 

i have two 240s and and a 300dt.

the 300dt has plenty of torque and will go when asked, basically at any speed.

the 240s are a bit more tame, but will still get the job done. they aren't fast off the line, but are adequate enough. i change between the 240s and the 300dt frequently. i enjoy each without really having a favorite.

in my experience the 240 is just as comfortable as the 300 series. its basically all in the design of the seats, which are wonderfully crafted with springs instead of dead foam.

 

I have the 1987 300D turbo - takes off like a champ!!! My sister has the non-turbo and it takes a bit to get used to how slow it starts off, and gets a little iffy when pulling out in traffic or getting on the freeway. With my turbo, there is no problem with this.

 

i would avoid an auto 240D for use as a daily driver... i love mine but it really is a slug

 

240D

The MB 240D is a wonderful car for many reasons, but it is slower than an intoxicated turtle. If this doesn't bother you, buy one.
Hemersam

 

The MB 240D is a wonderful car for many reasons, but it is slower than an intoxicated turtle.

Yep, and the 300D is a sober slow turtle which is why mine is named Yertle.

 

i would definitly go with a 300d turbo.. mine is a 85 Black on Black and i bought it about a month ago from a elderly man who always garaged it and always had Mercedes service the car.It had 251k miles and i was rather disappointed at the speeds i was getting..Had problems climbing hills and just a slug at most.. I had the valves adjusted, diesel purger done, replaced all filters and replaced the vacuum line from the intake manifold to the alda..Nothing.. i was actually thinking of selling it because it was just to damn slow..UNTIL this past friday i replaced the switchover valve and now im keeping it.. driving the car with a turbo is intoxicating..My turbo pins me back in my seat! Almost rear ended a guy when it hit boost the first time driving it.. how the hell was i driving without turbo..so anyway sorry for the long rave but get a TURBO NUFF SAID!!!

 

W123's are 23 years old and so expect 1985 or older performance a 300D has the performance of an underpowered SUV and the 240D has the performance of a school bus that's way past it's prime.

The car is cheaper to buy but the repairs will be higher proportionately to a car that is brand new. In terms of speed and or reliability it depends on how well the car was previously maintained. If you start getting into rebuilt engines $6,000, transmissions $1,500, rebuilding suspension components etc it's going to get pricey and not worth it for an all around daily driver. Then again if you didn't really want one you wouldn't be asking here.

 

Now I'm really confused. I though the difference was a single spark plug.

 

I had an NA 300D automatic and a 240D manual and both were unbelievably slow cars.

 

I frequently race rice rockets (and win) in my 300 turbo, but that turbo has ruined some people's concrete driveways...

 

Either you must have dumped a lot of effort into your OM617 or the rice rockets in your area are simply dismal performers.

 

perhaps blinded by the black smoke!

 

240/300

Someone commented that the 240D was exciting to drive, especially when you just entered the expressway (uphill entrance ramp) and a sixteen-wheeler is suddenly on your tail. Perhaps "exciting" is not quite the right word???
Orgelmann