New here, looking for any advice on 240D/190D

[spliteye]

Hello everyone, from what I can see, this appears to be the appropriate place to post this long post, but feel free to redirect me if not.

I've been a big fan of the older Mercedes diesels for a long time now and have always wanted to purchase one. In the near future, it looks like I may have up to a 80-100 mile per day commute. Currently I drive around 20-25 miles per day total. I drive an older Ford with a 7.3 IDI that's in good shape, however less than 14 mpg will no longer cut it, so it'll be a secondary vehicle. I've replaced the whole injection system, including the lift pump, injection pump, injectors, and return lines, so I do have a little experience with diesel repair.

I've been keeping my eye out for a 240D in particular, but I'm also looking at the 190D. This commute will average 45 mph or so, with some 65 mph runs. About half of it is through the back roads and over a mountain (not sure about the grade %, but not extremely steep, 35 mph speed limit, lots of corners in this ten or so mile portion).

Can anyone tell me how one of these cars would handle this commute? Is the 240D with a 4 speed more reliable? I'd assume the 240D in good tune could achieve 25-30 mpg and the 190D could achieve 30-35? These seem to sell at the same price around here, $1,500 to $5,000. I figure I can get something that I can work with for somewhere in between those numbers.

I'm not expecting a car without issues, these are old. I drove my 1950 Chrysler as a daily a few years back for 1.5 years and it was the best car I've owned for reliability (sad, but true). I do like normal wrenching though, keeps me busy when I'm not at work.

I'm not too worried about power in a daily driver (see last paragraph). I like pure simplicity and reliability. I hate Japanese econoboxes that dent when you lean on the fender, so I'm looking for a possible alternative, however I know that is the "better" option.

Anyway, just looking for general advice. Is this a terrible idea or just a bad idea? I can deal with bad .

Dan

[Bio240D]

I think its a great idea! I used to put about 1500 miles (really 1500, not a typo!) per week on my 240D. I did tweak it a bit with some 3.07 gears and a turbo for highway driving since about a third of my trip was interstate. This knocked about 600 RPM off my cruise RPM, and gave pretty good milage. The rest of the trip was mixed speeds of 45 to 55MPH, so on that run I could get 36 to 38MPG. Pure highway driving at 70 to 75 gives a solid 32 to 34MPG. I do think the 4 speed manual helps milage a bit. I've run both trannys in the car and could never hit the high MPGS with the auto.

The 190D is a more refined car on the highway. They are easier to get good mileage out of and they are quieter. They are also harder to work on because everything is packaged much tighter than on the 240D. If you get a 190D Turbo, the engine management is more complicated too. Personally, I love them both...

Good Luck in your search.
Cheers,
Chris

[spliteye]

Thanks, Bio240D. I figured that the 240D must be much simpler. I don't mind all that much when something breaks, but I do mind when it's a pita to fix. The 240D looks to be the closest I'm going to get to my Chysler and still have a daily driver that will cruise above 55 mph.

[toomany MBZ]

I agree with Bio…

It's a good idea to have a back up car tho. There will be times it'll be laid up waiting for parts occasionally.

[Phillytwotank]

Sure you are clear...

A 240d is just that. 2.4L 4cyl diesel

A 190d could be either the om601 2.2L 4cyl naturally asperated

Or

The om602 2.5L 5cyl turbo

I can only speak from experience with the '84 with the om601.

It's fairly simple and easy to work on, the w201 suspension is miles ahead of the w123 in comfort and it gets average around 35mpg with up to 40 or so highway with the 5speed.

5 speed manual trans are much easier to come by to mate with the 60x engines than the 61x.

[rscurtis]

I think you'll find that a 300D Turbo is much more available and much more drivable, with only a small fuel economy penalty compared to a 240. '83-'84 are the years you want. You may also consider an '85 with its taller gearing.

[t walgamuth]

For simplicity the 240 cannot be beat. If all is put right on one they will provide decades of good service. As for comfort I would not think you'd see much difference between the 190 and 240. I have a 95 300 d and I don't see much difference between it and the 240. The AC is better but in the 300 its a lot more complex to fix so that makes it a wash in my mind.

Either a 190 or 240 will provide excellent service and minimal upkeep once put right but the 240 with its iron head is a much more bulletproof engine.

The 190 will do corners better but the 240 is pretty good there too.

Can't go too far wrong either way if its a good sound car.

[Deemo13]

A manual 240D would probably fare better in grades just IMO.

My 240D (when it still had the 240D engine) was getting about 30-33 mpg depending on how fast I was driving.

[pj67coll]

I agree with the idea of a manual 240D if you can find one in acceptable shape. When I had mine I commuted with mileages regularly between 28 and 34 mpg's depending on winter/summer diesel.

A hilly commute may not be as easy as mine which was all straight and level but I still think it would be the best option if you can find one.

I've just spent a miserable week trying to find a good 123/116/126 diesel and failed in my quest. So I'm majorly bummed out about it right now. If you are able to acquire a 240D, preferably manual rather than auto - do so.

- Peter.

[ichris93]

I have an '82 240D and an '87 190DT.

I love the 240 for its look, reliability, and simplicity.

I love the 190DT for its speed and MPG...(?) (I haven't really used her much, she needs work)

I think either would be a great choice. Just make sure you find a nice body!

[75Sv1]

I own a manual 240D. I really like the car. Its being painted or waiting to be painted. In very good shape as is. I drive roughly 15 miles each way to work. Basically flat back roads. I get about 25 mpg. I get roughly 30-32 mpg hiway if 60-65 mph. Then it goes down to 28 mpg. I think with that long of a comute, I'd be looking at the 190D. I haven't driven one though. I'd probably update the seats in the 240D if that is what you get. Or redo the padding.
Tom

[bill murrow]

I love my 240 with the 4 speed. Am approaching 400K miles, it runs reliably and I've been getting 33 to 36 MPG after doing away with a regular muffler and installing a pretty much straight unobstructed muffler.
I have done quite a bit of work on the car in the 9 years I've owned it. Left rear control arms seem to be a common problem so check any prospective car for rust in that area. I had to replace mine about 2 years ago.
My rear axles had to be changed out too. The CV joints went bad.
I've also done injectors, glow plugs, power steering pump, some vacuum lines and front/rear window gaskets.
I acquired a junker recently that had a nice interior so I changed out the seats.
Have replaced the alternator too.
Flex discs and the drive shaft bearing [I forget the correct name] are also common problems.
The 240 isn't a power house but once to cruising speed its fine.
Hope this helps.
EDIT...I drive 20K miles a year...

[ichris93]

Originally Posted by bill murrow

I love my 240 with the 4 speed. Am approaching 400K miles, it runs reliably and I've been getting 33 to 36 MPG after doing away with a regular muffler and installing a pretty much straight unobstructed muffler.
I have done quite a bit of work on the car in the 9 years I've owned it. Left rear control arms seem to be a common problem so check any prospective car for rust in that area. I had to replace mine about 2 years ago.
My rear axles had to be changed out too. The CV joints went bad.
I've also done injectors, glow plugs, power steering pump, some vacuum lines and front/rear window gaskets.
I acquired a junker recently that had a nice interior so I changed out the seats.
Have replaced the alternator too.
Flex discs and the drive shaft bearing [I forget the correct name] are also common problems.
The 240 isn't a power house but once to cruising speed its fine.
Hope this helps.
EDIT...I drive 20K miles a year...

Carrier Bearing.

[spliteye]

Hello everyone, thanks for all the responses and advice. It's just what I was hoping for.

Yeah, I know that the 190D is a completely different car with more engine options. They don't really seem to compare much, but I was curious because of the great fuel economy. They just seem a little more complicated than the 240D and I fear the repairs could cost me the fuel savings over the 240D. Am I way off on this?

I'll also be real sure to check good for rust. Cars are usually fairly rust free here in California, however there are exceptions.

Are the "older" 240D cars any good (pre 1977)? I don't know Mercedes names for each body style (W this and that), but I'll learn.

As for the 300D turbo (lets also throw a 300SD into the pot as well, due to there being so many of those available here), how much different will the mpg be, realistically? I assume the auto tranny is good for 200-300K? I did see an '81 300D (not a turbo) for sale for just under 3 grand with less than 130K miles. Looked like it was in decent enough shape, maybe some faded paint. Seemed like a good deal. On a side note, I really love the 300CD...

To Bill, that's pretty good for a car that's driven over 20K miles per year and is old enough to be considered a classic. I've done many repairs on my truck in the year I've owned it and I've put less than 10K on it. Just goes to show you how a previous owners neglect can cost you.

I appreciate all the help.

Dan

Oh, one more thing. How many miles are "too much"? I see lots of 240D cars with 180K or so miles, 190Ds with 160-180K, 300Ds with 180-250K, and 300SDs with well over 300K.

[w123fanman]

I think either one if well sorted would be a nice car to own. I have both a 190D 2.5 automatic and a 240D manual but have only driven the 190D. It rides very well and though I have no idea about if any major engine work has been done, the engine at 315,000 miles runs very well and I feel it has enough power. The automatic transmission was replaced with a remanufactured one as one of the first things when I bought the car and I think it is a very good transmission. The downshift button used in Mercedes with automatics is probably one of my favorite things to use. You are getting up to a hill and push the throttle all the way forward, click the button and the transmission will almost instantly downshift. I wish all cars with automatic transmission had that, I get tired going up a hill and having to wait 5 seconds for the transmission to figure out it needs to downshift in the fords we own. It isn't fast but I feel it has enough power for highway driving, though you may not be able to keep going as fast as you want to on a grade. I have gotten around 37 mpg driving 70 mph on a trip from Florida to Georgia. I can't really say there is any reason why you must buy a 240D over a 190D unless you need a manual transmission or like the look of the W123 more. Either car will be nice The W123 has less complex and slightly cheaper to replace suspension components but the prices for W201 suspension parts are not too bad, especially here on Pelican Parts, and I think overall, parts for the W201 are more readily available than the W123. The OM602 should last you a long time as long as you keep it from overheating, perform the obvious regular maintenance, and have the updated vacuum pump.It is more complex than the OM616 but definitely not that hard to work on. The OM602 is a bit more refined. The W201 is also nice to drive in the city because its turning circle is so small. Also a huge advantage to me of the W201 is the opportunity to upgrade to the 1990 and later seats, they are much more comfortable than the original W201 seats and probably the W123's seats.