Mileage/power differerence between a 4, 5, and turboed 5 in the same chassis? - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Uriah · #1 11-19-2005, 09:47 AM

I'm on the prowl looking for several cars. I've had several W123s, W124s, W202s,116s, ect... but am after a 123 right now.

My experience with the 240Ds with automatic, they are SLOW, and get mid to upper mid 20s in economy, the sticks get close to 30 and maybe a little above (but not close to 40 like every one on Ebay does).

300D non turbos seem to do about the same as a 240D automatic, with the turbos getting slightly less, but even with spirited town driving I don't think I've ever gotten less then 22-23 mpg.

My 300D/4 speed stick I think got the best mileage out of any W123 I've owned (1980) that was consistantly in the high 20s.

On this board alone, I've seen peoples mileage with an almost 20mpg range (claimed 18 something to 40 something). Big range for basicly the same cars.

I know the 124s and 202s do better, not to mention the newer stuff, but it's more then I want to spend right now, plus I want to go back to simplicity. My BMW is a VERY complex hard to work on car, so that's enough for me.

t walgamuth · #2 11-19-2005, 10:08 AM

i know.

from my personal experience i can say that a 240d with a na 300 motor, stick and 308 rear end will consistantly get 30 on the highway doing 75 mph.

a totally stock 240 will prob not quite do that but will do high 20s.

a 240 auto will do three mpg less and struggle to break 25.

a stock 300 d turbo will do mid 20s.

a 300 turbo with a stick and 308 will prob do 28 (guess).

and a 300 turbo stick with 308 and a fiver speed will prob break 30...just.

my experience is at 600 feet above sea level. higher altitudes and slower speeds do dramatically better.

tom w

Uriah · #3 11-19-2005, 10:23 AM

When I lived out in Utah, my last 240D stick SUCKED, badly. I about swore off Mercedes diesels as trying to make a run up the mountains was a joke. However, I found somebody with the same vintage 300D turbo/automatic that I traded for. That thing was like a sports car compared to my 240D, and it got about 3mpg more, I'm assuming as it wasn't working near as hard in the mountains, even when pulling my motorbikes on a trailer.

Right now, I've been thinking of building a 300CD as a work beater, but with the kids should stick with 4 doors... I guess.

what I was getting at is although I love 240s, they don't seem to do THAT much better (if any) then 300s on economy. They have simplicity and reliability on their side, but power and economy, not really.

t walgamuth · #4 11-19-2005, 11:50 PM

would be alot better in lowlands than mountains.

the turbo motors rule in the mountains (high altitude).

tom w

#5 11-20-2005, 12:05 AM

My mileage experience is similar. My 300D turbo usually gets in the 25-27 range on the highway (75-80mph). I'm sure it gets less around town, but I've never bothered to check. My 240D does more like 28 on the highway (65-70mph). They might be about the same if I drove them the same, but I tend to drive the 300D faster (because I can). I wouldn't really consider a 240D for extensive highway use. It's a great car for getting around town, but it just doesn't have enough power for long road trips at highway speeds, especially at higher elevations.

t walgamuth · #6 11-20-2005, 08:50 AM

many miles on the freeway in my various 240ds. they like running 72. that is getting slower every day.

i made a run to indy (70 miles) in my sdl yesterday with the cruise set on 83. i was passed plenty.

tom w