So I'm about to get a new job, and I want to keep the miles down on my GLI (way too many miles on it for being 1.5 years old) and I've been looking into either a 240D 4 speed or a W126 300SD. I like the simplicity of the 240D, but the comfort and ease of the 300SD is alluring too. I also love the W126 body style.

Say I have $3500 to spend.

Which is better?

Keep in mind this car is needed to last a while, with maintenance, of course - but it's going to be a highway commuter, so comfort, reliability, and economy are key.

I vote SD. I think you will be more comfortable on the highway.

__________________
Bob
'82 300D Petrol B-G Metallic

I would think a 300D or SD would be easier to live with in leadfooted SUV Orange County. It's going to burn more fuel than the 240D but it would be a 5-6 mpg difference I estimate.

__________________
1974 240D 3.0L 4(M) - 250K -OM617.910 + 300D FW + Rajay turbo power!
1977 6.9 3(A) - 84k

^^^^ what he said!

__________________
OBJECTS IN MIRROR ARE CLOSER THAN THEY APPEAR, ONLY IN A BENZ

89 560SEC
90 350SDL (Rudolph)
91 350SDL (300SDL drivetrain)
87 BMW 635CSi (Swanhild)
89 BMW M6 (euro)
99 Suzuki Hayabusa (Only the fastest thing ever)

One of each!

__________________
-diesel is not just a fuel, its a way of life-
'15 GLK250 Bluetec 118k - mine - (OC-123,800)
'17 Metris(VITO!) - 37k - wifes (OC-41k)
'09 Sprinter 3500 Winnebago View - 62k (OC - 67k)
'13 ML350 Bluetec - 95k - dad's (OC-98k)
'01 SL500 - 103k(km) - dad's (OC-110,000km)
'16 E400 4matic Sedan - 148k - Brothers (OC-155k)

With 125hp, the SD has barely enough power to manage on the highway.

I cannot imagine trying to accelerate to 70 mph with a 240D on a regular basis. Some folks do it all the time.......but, it's definitely an exercise in planning and frustration.

Furthermore, the fuel economy is just slightly better with the 240.........maybe 4mpg or so.

For comfort, the extra margin of speed, and crash safety, I would think the SD would be better. For in town driving the 240D might be better. But I also found the 240D seats to be "bouncy" which was not the case with the larger car.

__________________
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)

I would go for the SD. I just sold a 116 SD that I had and I am driving my 240d now. I found that the turbo 5cyl was just fine on the interstate. The 240d is too slow as has been said over and over. If I were looking for another car I would get a 84 or later 300d. 123 chassis with the engine of the larger cars. just my 2 cents.

__________________
1979 240d 216k (W123) Daily Driver
Volvo 245DL 210k

1979 300D FOR SALE
2002 Tahoe 91k FOR SALE

1980 300sd 177k (W116) Sold
1980 300sd Parts (W116) Junked
1979 240D 121k (W123) Sold
1982 300TDT 298K (W123) (Sold)

I also vote for the SD.

However, if your commute is a long distance highway travel (30miles+ on open highway), the 240D will get better MPG.

I really like the 240D around town but not on the highway, it just doesn't have enough power. Personally, I think the 300D turbo is the best of both worlds, but some folks will prefer the SD for the highway.

I've outrun a good number of cars/SUV's/Pickups on the freeway. They may have more power....but most American cars struggle to see anything over 100ish mph. probably due to bad gearing/inefficient use of torque... My 300SD will pull quite strong all the way to 113mph.

__________________
-diesel is not just a fuel, its a way of life-
'15 GLK250 Bluetec 118k - mine - (OC-123,800)
'17 Metris(VITO!) - 37k - wifes (OC-41k)
'09 Sprinter 3500 Winnebago View - 62k (OC - 67k)
'13 ML350 Bluetec - 95k - dad's (OC-98k)
'01 SL500 - 103k(km) - dad's (OC-110,000km)
'16 E400 4matic Sedan - 148k - Brothers (OC-155k)

At most I would consider the 617 power adequate, you are not going to win many races if the other person knows you are trying to race. It's still more than adequate for most of us old guys. If I need to go fast, I'll break out my bike.

i would vote for the 300SD W126..
it has suffecient power for highway traveling.
if u really want to get serious, swap the rear end gears for lower rpm's and higher fuel economy

__________________
82' 300SD

I think the 300SD is a dog, a turbo charged 617 is as slow as I can imagin going. A 240D would be crazy, with the merge or die on ramps around here. But they are probably good in more rural parts of the country that are pretty flat.


I can just imagin having your foot to the floor on the 240D with a 400hp Esclade coming down on you in the right lane at 80mph.


A stick 240D would be a great car to have around town though. I'd buy one in a second for a city car.

__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

Sure the SUV's and pickups may have more power....but they are not geared for 100+mph driving....so the SD can still beat them....by a little yes, but it can still beat them. My dad and I raced someone in a huge Silverado 2500HD (he was mad ) and we managed to leave him behind around 95-100ish mph. Our '83 easily pegs around 114mph.

Our minivan has a 3.0 gasser with 167hp....and the SD's can both beat that thing too. Not off the line, but on the freeway they can quite easily.

__________________
-diesel is not just a fuel, its a way of life-
'15 GLK250 Bluetec 118k - mine - (OC-123,800)
'17 Metris(VITO!) - 37k - wifes (OC-41k)
'09 Sprinter 3500 Winnebago View - 62k (OC - 67k)
'13 ML350 Bluetec - 95k - dad's (OC-98k)
'01 SL500 - 103k(km) - dad's (OC-110,000km)
'16 E400 4matic Sedan - 148k - Brothers (OC-155k)