Thats about the kind of driving I do in NW WA. I travel down I5 and have no complaints with my 240Ds going over the passes. I know a nice big SD would be a sweet ride, but my 240s are fun too drive, I'll stick with them:D

Yup, the 240D is a great car if you can live without the top end.

Ok, someone has to do it, three pages is long enough...

Yes. A 240 is slow.

While they may have their up's and downs, their lack of power is well known.

There I said it. Now go drive the vehicle and see if it's something you can live with. But at least the question you asked has been answered.

For the record, I'm a mechanic, and over the years have driven any number of vehicles, from Kenworths (not as slow as you'd think when unloaded) to Ferraris (not as fast as you'd think), and about everything in between. Many an owner will tout their make/model's benefits, but from an unbiased standpoint, 240s are slow.

MV

Well, I live in Miami and I'll get run over here if it's slow. Here's the link in case anyone is interested.

http://fortlauderdale.craigslist.org/car/347325957.html

How about a 1980SD, is that slow and could I live with its a/c in hot Miami??? I want a diesel so bad but am going to patiently wait for "the one."

The 5 speeds give me a nice top end, I usually keep it around 70 but 80, 85 is no problem. The two lanes roads around here are traveled in 4th, 45-50 zones.

SD's have turbos and are a lot faster, as long as the turbo works. An '82 or later 300D would have a turbo as well.

That 240D has a good price, but I'd like to see some interior pics...I think with a car that old you should test-drive it before purchasing. Also, the 4-speed manual is not rare among 240D's.

It will not average 35 mpg as claimed. The most I would expect from a 240D is 30. I've heard from some that the 300D's (5-cylinder) can get better mpg than the 240D's (4-cylinder) simply because the 300D's don't have to be driven pedal-to-the-metal to keep up. :D

I agree, 35 mpg is just not true. You would have to work pretty hard to get 30 mpg, the high-20s are more realistic. I probably get slightly better mileage with the 240D than the 300D, but I don't push it as hard. If you drove a 300D like a 240D (same acceleration, same top speed), the 300D might do a little better (due to higher gears and the turbo engine being slightly more efficient).

I used to have an '82 300D and it got about 4 mpg less than my 240D. I agree high 20's is more realistic and that's what I get. How far you press the pedal doesn't matter. What matters is how much fuel is being injected into the engine. Turbocharged cars inject more fuel at light throttle if the turbo is spooled up.

35 MPG is a tad much to expect as an average but a well maintained 240D, driven 55-60 mph on, say a commute to work will do close to that. I have sold two (4 spds) in the past couple years that are doing just that. I told both buyers to expect about 30 and they reported back with close to 35 MPG. Needless too say we were both happy. This was in the summer and under ideal conditions for the 616.

That would take a much lighter foot than mine, even with a manual transmission.

This thread reminds me of this:

http://www.thebenzbin.com/hotrod.html


street racing with the 240d

LOL
It sounded like they were actually racing...until he mentioned how fast they were going :D