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.

[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.

[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.

[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...

[t walgamuth]

I would not consider anything but a stick in either car because of the expense to repair an automatic. That said if I found a really clean one I'd buy it and gather parts for a conversion and do it when the auto acts up.

Mileage really does not matter if it has been taken really good care of. There is nothing that cannot be fixed on them. I like the 300D's too but for daily driving a 240 with its manual heat controls is the way to go...if you can find a nice one.

[Maxbumpo]

My two cents:

A 240D will be higher quality interior, more robust. Less power, lower mileage, won't brake and steer as well as a 190D. Prone to rust. Classic looks!

A 190D will be faster, handle better, and won't rust nearly as badly. Engine will produce less soot, so you can run extended engine oil drain intervals, up to 10k I'll bet, need to validate with lab analysis. Better mileage. Paint quality not as good as the 240D.

If you can live with the low-rent interior, slightly more complex and delicate engine, get the 190D. Look for a car with complete service record history, buy the best car you can afford/find.

[jt20]

Originally Posted by Maxbumpo

My two cents:

A 240D will be higher quality interior, more robust. Less power, lower mileage, won't brake and steer as well as a 190D. Prone to rust. Classic looks!

A 190D will be faster, handle better, and won't rust nearly as badly. Engine will produce less soot, so you can run extended engine oil drain intervals, up to 10k I'll bet, need to validate with lab analysis. Better mileage. Paint quality not as good as the 240D.

If you can live with the low-rent interior, slightly more complex and delicate engine, get the 190D. Look for a car with complete service record history, buy the best car you can afford/find.

Very accurate. W201 is light and nimble compared to the W123.

I would add that the early 4 cylinder 190 is no different to work on than the 240.
Later 5 cylinder version beginning in '85 cramps the engine bay up in the W201 a little. Slightly more electronics, but nothing that will impair driveability upon failure.