|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
mpg on 300d turbo vs 240d??
I have been searching and have found a lot of conflicting opinions so perhaps someone in the know can straighten me out.
If both a 300-turbo diesel and a 240d were driven to maximize mpg and both were well maintained what mpg would get? I assume that the 240d would get better mpg since it is a 4 cylinder instead of a 5. And while the turbo on the 300d increases performance I assume that it either does not add any efficiency or perhaps detracts from it. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
the 300 runs a taller gear in the rear, so it turns slower at the same speed on the highway. the 240 runs a 369 the 300 a 346 so that is maybe 6% difference fuguring in my head. the increase in displacement is 20%. otherwise, the engines are the same. so if both are sticks or both are automatics i would expect the 300 to use 10 to 15% more fuel on a given speed. so if you are getting say 27 with the 240 the 300 would get maybe 23 to 25 under the same conditions. these are just round figures. it all depends on condition of car, driving conditions and driving habits. but the 300 will generally use more fuel. now if you put a 307 gear in the 300 na it will return about the same mileage or perhaps a bit better than the 240.
the turbo cars produce more power and again are fitted with a taller yet gear in the rear. 307 or for the 85 models a 288. and the fuel economy isnt much different than the 300na. generally if the engine turns slower at a given speed you will get better fuel economy and sacrifice quick takeoff. tom w
__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC] ..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
i have both a 240D and a 300 turbo (ok it is a W116, same engine anyway)
both r auto, both are absolutely stock. i drive them on alternate days in very similar fashion on my 20 miles commute (combined city/highway). I get 24-27 in the 240D; and 23-25 in the 300SD Taking in account that the 300SD weights around 500lb more, i would say the mileage is remarkably close for the 616 or the 617A. Now on the performance. well hands down for the 617.950 which i have the impression is more powerful or at least tune higher than the 617.951 and 952
__________________
------------------------------------------ Aquilae non capunt muscas! (Eagles don't hunt flies!) 1979 300SD Black/Black MBtex239000mi 1983 300TD euro-NA. White/Olive Cloth-MBtex 201000mi. Fleet car of the USA embassy in Morocco 1983 240D Labrador Blue/Blue MBtex 161000mi |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I had an '82 240D with meticulous records. Hwy was 29-34. I averaged 32 at 60 mph.
'84 300D same conditions= 29 mpg hwy. About 10% better on the 240D.
__________________
1984 300Sd 210k Former cars: 1984 300D 445k (!!) (Strider) Original (and not rebuilt) engine and transmission. Currently running on V80 ( 80% vegetable oil, 20% petroleum products). Actually not, taking a WVO break. 1993 300d 2.5 275k. Current 120/day commuter 1981 300SD 188k (Hans) Killed by a deer |
Bookmarks |
|
|