240d with 65k miles!
 

I've just come upon a 78 240d with only 65k miles today. From the pictures that were sent to me, the body looks to be in good shape. The owner (second) says that all maintainence has been done and he's asking $3500 for it. I'm going to check it out over the weekend, but I'm wondering if there's anything in particular that I should look out for.

The main thing that I'm concerned about is whether or not the engine will be "powerful enough." I drove a 300d turbo a few weeks ago that had 85k miles on it, and thought the performance was quite good. From reading past posts by LarryBible, it seems that the 240d with a manual would give around the same performance, though I'm not sure what tranny this car has. Thanks for any input that you might have.

The 240D stick would be close to a auto 300D but nowhere near a turbo,point is,240D is slow but extremely reliable and frugal,those are its true attributes,don't expect quick accelerations but on highway,it is willing to run at 80mph for sustained period.

The stick is a lot more fun than the manual. My best friend (still is) had a 240D with a stick and we drove the schnikees out of it. Normal driving consisted of shift - throttle to the floor - shift - throttle to the floor. For extended highway cruising, we just put the throttle to the floor and left it there - for 14-15 hour stretches.

Personally, the only way I'd own a slow dog of a 240D is if it had the manual. It's the only way to spice it up.

Ask him how long the odometer has been broken. :) Bet it happened just last week. :) Seriously, don't believe the odometer without records verifying it.

Len

[QUOTE=POS]The stick is a lot more fun than the manual.
QUOTE]

huh??:)

yeah the stick is more fun than an automatic.

I have found that if the trip meters are broken an display 000
9 out of 10 times the miles are no longer accurate even if the speedo works.

On the other hand, if you check it out and it looks straight and clean and the driver's seat isn't sacked, it's probably got another couple hundred thousand miles left. How often did these odo's break at such low miles? Agreed, though, must have a manual.

I was either not clear in what I wrote or you misunderstood. A manual 240D is about as fast as an automatic 300D NON TURBO. The 300D turbo is indeed considerably quicker.

The manual transmission in the 240D makes LOTS of difference. What is absolutely a slug is an automatic 240D. That is the slowest of the slow.

Good luck,

Hey Larry, what do you think of...
 

A euro 300D with a manual tranny? Notably faster than the 240 with a stick?

Yes, except for the extra cylinder making things more difficult to access in the engine compartment the 300D manual is a pretty ideal 123 car IMHO.

I looked at one that was for sale many years ago and drove it. I would have bought it except it had an enamel repaint. The paint would have gone away quick. The car was refreshing to drive after driving a manual 240D so long.

Good luck,

Awesome. Yet more enthusiasm building inside me. :) Thanks!

Thanks for the input guys, I will definitely check the records to verify the odometer reading. I understand that the 240d is slow, but I haven't driven one before so I'm not sure if I really understand how slow it is :).

i could run a carfax for you, it may or may not shed some light on the mileage

the 300 non turbo stick
 

is like a 240 in reliability but much much faster and more fun to drive. i had one with a fresh motor. with the original 346 rear or the 308 that i swapped in later it would go 100. with the 308 it would do 30 mpg reliably at 75 mph . it was an 83 euro motor in an 83 us 240 bod.

tom w

Hey Carson, could you run a carfax on this engine I just picked up? It's WDB12313010302452. Thanks a ton for sharing. :)