I have a couple nice 240Ds and I will admit that an automatic, non turbo 300D has beaten me 0-50,60 what ever, did'nt matter he was out ahead and I couldn't catch him. (he wasn't THAT far ahead) this was with my 79 that only has 60k on the rebuilt 80 engine with over size pistons, No way is a manual 240D going too be faster than a well kept non turbo, automatic 300D. And "no" I didn't lose any money Sorry too have too admit this but I still love my 616s

__________________


1985 Euro 240D 5 spd 140K
1979 240D 5 spd, 40K on engine rebuild
1994 Dodge/Cummins, 5 spd, 121K
1964 Allice Chalmers D15 tractor
2014 Kubota L3800 tractor
1964 VW bug

"Lifes too short to drive a boring car"

I LOVE my 616 too, but "PEPPY" it ain't!

And, as far as "fun to drive" ... It's more of a challenge!

Blow a shift and a line of Gassers are up your butt ... Nail the shifting and you have a fuel sipping, head turning, 25 year old Benz that has (& will) stood the test of time!

I cruise @ 75 mph regularly, just takes a bit to get there!

__________________

I <3 my 300D non-turbo. It has never felt "slow" and I honestly maintain that the only time it feels wanting for power is when it can't actually CHARGE up mountains and long hills the way gas cars can, but it reaches about 60 mph and just kinda sits there and won't go any faster. Diesels are good for pulling loads for a long distance though, so I take some solace in that.

Anyhow, a 300D non-turbo is great, and I love the simplicity it offers, and truth be told - a 300D Turbo doesn't really interest me that much (honestly). The OM.617 non-turbo is so beautifully simple, and the extra power is an added bonus over the 240D. Any of these cars won't feel dog slow if you drive them balls out, all the time...and it's fun to drive them in this manner, because they need it. Diesel torque rocks, and it's addicting, and so are W123s. Trust me - W123 diesels are akin to crystal meth. It doesn't matter which one you buy - your list of what to fix on the car in order to make it perfect is neverending.

I have an '81 300D non-turbo, which has the later (non-evil servo) climate control system, and I bought the car with (knock on wood) working A/C and I suggest you do the same (if you haven't bought a car already). Non-functioning climate control is a bizatch.

55-65 is the sweet spot for this car. I cruise at 65 or 70 when I'm commuting, and the car doesn't have a problem, and 70 is plenty fast enough for California freeways (stay in the slower lanes though) and it's not deafeningly loud when it's up there (though it's not quiet, by any means). Any faster than 70-75 is stupid - you're not really going that much faster, it's a lot louder, and you're getting crappy fuel economy. Trust me - when you get any diesel W123 - you'll probably turn into a "cruiser" when you drive, if that makes any sense.

Speaking of fuel economy - right now (winter, where MPG usually is a bit worse) I get 25-26 MPH COMBINED in both city and highway, and I'm not a lightfoot by any means. I'm sure 27-28 is possible during the summer on all highway driving. I think that diesel cars aren't as poorly affected by aggressive driving the way a gas car would be. I have never gotten less than 22 MPG, and that was ONCE. I saw 27 MPG once as well, but on my current routine commute - like I said, I get 25-26 MPG.

Follow the advice of others though - get the car you like, with the best maintenance history, the least amount of rust, and the best price for what it's worth. You will likely love whatever you buy. I love, love, love my 300D.

__________________
2003 Volkswagen Jetta Wolfsburg Edition, "Tiffany," - Black/Black Cloth - 75K miles, Jetta #6; my faithful, turbocharged, BBS-adorned sled

SOLD 3/08 1981 Mercedes Benz 300D, "Elise" - Astral Silver/Black M.B. Tex - 217K miles - I miss her everyday; the best-built car I've owned

Sounds exactly like my turbo D, except it can charge up the mountains with that turbo. I've also gotten around 22MPG worst, and at best around 29MPG. It loves to cruise around 60-75 too, but the extra power above that is always welcome should I need to pass somebody. You're right, diesels aren't as affected as the gassers when flooring it. And this is why I love the turbo, because it has all these benefits plus that turbo, when I need it.

I've driven my friend's 240D today, off the line it was OK but accelerating from low speed is difficult and lacking compared to my turbo. That, or maybe I was just being a conservative driver since it's not my car and I just tested to see how it drives. Both were automatics, if that makes any difference. I've also driven another friend's manual 240D and it was a bit peppier than the automatic, of course, but gaining speed was better with that manual than the automatic 240D.

__________________
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7271/7...144c3fc1dc.jpg

If I were choosing a 123, I'd go for the 300D turbo...plain and simple, it has the most power of the three. Even in the TDI, which has loads more torque (174 ft-lbs), it always seems like I'm out of power whenever I need it most, i.e. passing.

The E300 is just a joy to drive fast...255 ft-lb pulling from 2000 rpm...ahhhhh

__________________
99 E300 TD -- sold
01 540i 6 spd

My '85 300D turbo I had, perhaps about 8 years ago. While I wouldn't say it could "charge" up mountain passes, had a reasonable amount of power. Where a non-turbo would just "die-off" in power delivery at higher engine speeds, the turbo would keep a flat pull up until ~ 4600 rpm.

You really don't need to use anymore than 50 hp for your commute. So what's the point of owning all these massive V8's that so many people drive? I could never EVER consciously drive a 560SEL as my daily driver, just thinking about how must fuel it goes through gives me chills.

That said, get into a tweaked turbo 603/606 Merc, and that argument about power between CI and SI engines is completely nulled. 130 + mph in a diesel is really quite something. Probably still getting 15 mpg, too.

__________________
1987 300SDL (324000)

1986 Porsche 951 (944 Turbo) (166000)

1978 Porsche 924 (99000)

1996 Nissan Pathfinder R50 (201000)

How do you know that?

And what do your teeth look like?

__________________
1991 560 SEC AMG, 199k <---- 300 hp 10:1 ECE euro HV ...

1995 E 420, 170k "The Red Plum" (sold)

2015 BMW 535i xdrive awd Stage 1 DINAN, 6k, <----364 hp

1967 Mercury Cougar, 49k

2013 Jaguar XF, 20k <----340 hp Supercharged, All Wheel Drive (sold)

Tom,

Over the last 36 years, I've owned many manual shift MBs. Yes, I've rebushed them in an effort to improve the feel.

I've also owned many other makes and models with a stick shift.

I LOVE manual transmissions.

But, every MB I've owned has had a very isolated feel to the shifter, and coupled to what I percieve as a dead feeling clutch, and less than optimum ratio selection and/or spacing.

It's MBs design brief to isolate the clutch and the shifter in order to minimize transmission of vibration and noise, and this limits how much improvement you can make to the system by replacing all the wear points.

I'm not at all saying that MB has the poorest feel at all, my 54 Chevy pickup with three on the tree is much crappier. What I am saying is that a manual shift MB, when compared to the excellent 722 4 speed automatic in the same vehicle, leaves me somewhat disapointed. My wife's 68 MGB roadster is a much better transmission setup, for example. A pleasure to shift.

Former MB manuals over the last 36 years:

1956 190SL
1959 190SL
1967 250SL
1969 220D
1969 220D
1970 250C
1977 240D
1983 240D
1986 300E
1987 190D 2.5

Jim

__________________
14 E250 BlueTEC black. 45k miles
95 E320 Cabriolet Emerald green 66k miles
94 E320 Cabriolet Emerald green 152k miles
85 300TD 4 spd man, euro bumpers and lights, 15" Pentas dark blue 274k miles

Very impressive documentation.

I have had extensive experience with mb sticks too and other stick equipped cars myself. Are there other cars I have driven that have a nicer "feel"? Yes, but not much better, IMHO. But a well maintained Benz stick shifts "just fine".

Any car in which the shifter sits directly on the tranny will have a better, more direct feel....including any sports car where the tranny sits far enough back for this and my '66 international scout, for example.

For a car which uses a remote shifter like a benz does, the benz is pretty good....as good or better than a 911 porsche, IMHO. Of course in a benz the possibility of having the shifter sit directly on the tranny does not exist.

I went back to your op and found your statement was that the benz stick was "not great"....so I believe we are probably, basically, in agreement.

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.

I have only owned stick shift MB including my current one. I would agree here with Tom about the feel of the typical MB clutch and stick, aloof is good word to describe. Incidentally the same MB clutch and tranny exists on my Gurkha as well. In this case, its among the most involved and slickest shifting manual trannies, you can virtually shift with your fingers. Gurkha being a purpose built off road vehicle has no need for any kind of luxury atonements so there is no isolation for the clutch or tranny.

__________________
99 Gurkha with OM616 IDI turbo

2015 Gurkha with OM616 DI turbo

2014 Rexton W with OM612 VGT

people seem to think the 300d turbo is less reliable. Why? I admit, it may last a few thousand miles less than the 240d, but honestly, Ive never seen a 617 with a dead turbo, and all the alda crap will still work, just not right, if its neglected. Meaning it will still run and be a reliable engine.

__________________
1981 300SD 512k OM603

I have a turbo 84 300D and an 81 240D auto and recently sold an 81 N/A 300D auto. I love the 240. I was presently surprised by how fast it really was. It was as fast or faster than the N/A 300. The car has 92,xxx miles with an engine replacement at 47,xxx. My grandpa ran over something on the highway in 1992. The object cut the oil cooler lines and resulted in a seized engine. The engine was replaced with an MB crate motor, not a rebuilt motor. This is just what I have been told. Anyway, the 240 easily keeps up with traffic and does not lose speed on gentle NC hills.

__________________
1984 300d turbo

With my 83' 300D I pulled a 1500# trailer from New Hampshire to California and my worst tank was 21.5 mpg. Climbing the rockies outside of Denver was slow and steady but it did it just fine in 3rd. Granted, I had to pull over twice to let it cool but the undersized cooling system of these cars is agreed upon. It was also June at 12:00 in the afternoon which doesn't help, but try that in a 240D!

__________________
1983 300D 280,000
1983 300TD 125,000 Killed by oak tree.
1983 240D Sold
1986 Ford F250 Diesel 6.9l 169,000

Tap the brake there chief! I will allow you to say a 240 is not slow, but you are not allowed to use fast and 240 in the same sentence. {I have 2 so I am allowed to comment....}

__________________
Jimmy L.
'05 Acura TL 6MT
2001 ML430 My Spare

Gone:
'95 E300 188K "Batmobile" Texas Unfriendly Black
'85 300TD 235K "The Wagon" Texas Friendly White
'80 240D 154K "China" Scar engine installed
'81 300TD 240K "Smash"
'80 240D 230K "The Squash"
'81 240D 293K"Scar" Rear ended harder than Elton John

4-spd 240D to me is the "sportiest" most comical and challenging sedan of its class. Driven aggressively it will work you to death. An hilarious adventure, all kinds of special effects with far noisier and more rackety engine than 300D. Seems to rev faster and harder too. Like it begs to be driven balls to the wall and you will be constantly shifting gears to sustain engine speed at max perform level in narrow power band just to keep up with normal traffic. For example between varying speeds of 30-55mph you gonna be constantly paddling through the gears up and down, so busy you caint even light a cigarette. Every day is an italian tune up with 240D pedal to the metal.

And what nobody is saying: automatic 5cyl diesel has tons more maintenance issues than the 240 especially being 25 yr old vehicles with more than 220k miles. Rack dampener? ALDA? Trans vac/modulator? ACC? ...all of em unheard of with 4-spd 240. Nevermind routine DIY stuff like replacing the alternator, starter, motor mounts etc on turbo 300 compared with the humble 240. Heck even valve adjust can become knuckle duster with 5th cyl up against the firewall.

Much as i love my 1980 brand new 116 land-yacht 300SD, alot of me misses the 4-spd 240D.