Maintenance is easy as hell on these cars, the only thing easier is probably an air cooled VW or a Harley.

I bought my '78 240D with 312,000 miles for 750.00. Right now it has 367,400. I put new rear shocks and muffler. it runs great.

On the other hand: My girlfriend bought a 1988 honda accord with 120,000 on it, she's put nothing into it and hes put more than 40,000 miles on it. She paid 500 for it.

I think we both got lucky. but both cars were maintained well and had records to prove it.

It seems to all be relative, but id rather be in an accident in my car than in hers any day, at any speed

Agreed. Although a used one will probably have some little issues, there is no better car to have some little issues with.

I am a total noob and I bought a non running car for cheap, which after one $15 part is now on it's way to daily driver status thanks to the simplicity of the car and the help of this forum.

How much are they asking? Whatever you do, do get it inspected by someone with mercedes diesel experience.

OK, for the horror I've rejected was 230K miles, $3.5K. The creampuff has 150K miles for $4.8K. The manual trans I have yet to drive has 250K miles, asking $2.8K.

You might be surprised to learn that the "Cream Puff" low mileage highest price car turns out to be the cheapest car in the long run. Typically you will have 6 grand into fixing up a 3 grand car to the point you are really wanting it to be. Depends on how Cream Puff it really was.

I hear this kind of stuff all the time, but I have never spent more than the cost of the car in repairs. Maybe half - and my cars have not been creampuffs by any stretch and were purchased cheap. I guess it depends on how nitpicky you are - and if you are going for a fully restored car, or just a daily driver that will "do the job."

I am not too picky, but want to be able to count on the car. To be honest, the manual trans is pretty attractive to me...I suspect the acceleration and the mileage are better and there are fewer things to break. The 4 speed also has manual windows, doesn't this mean I avoid all the vacuum system business. I mean, it has 100K more miles, but that is more my style.

Windows aren't vacuum, but door locks are.
A manual 240D is faster than an auto 240D, but nowhere near as fast as a 300D.
Mileage is about the same as a turbo 300D on the highway, if not lower, due to differential gearing. You might see a little better mileage in town.

Of course, manual windows and transmission are nice, and both inexpensive to replace compared to their automatic counterparts.

I will echo sentiments here: a repair history is golden. Nothing is as expensive as a Benz that has been rode hard and put away wet. It is important to know you will not be catching up on years of differed maintenance.

I like the manual transmission just for the fact that your shifting does not get weird due to a vacuum leak somewhere. That can be a pain to track down.

I bought a couple of cheap 240Ds. The $225 '82 automatic needed a left rear suspension arm, upper control arms, motor mounts, and a bunch of other smaller repairs. Doing all the work myself, I've got about $1100 into it, but it did come with 4 new Michelns. With power widows and automatic it's a lazy man's car - great for local errands but very noisy at highway speeds.
My $600 manual 240D is a much better highway car than the automatic. I did have to replace the driveshaft center bearing, flexjoint and motor mounts. I have about $1000 in this one.
As for safety, both 240Ds were very rusty, with extensive cancer in the floor/sills under the front seats. On the stickshift car, the rust had eaten away a rear leg of the passenger seat and so much of the inner sill that the lower seatbelt anchor was attached only to the carpeting! I had to fabricate reinforced repair sections for both cars.

If you want something that's DIY-friendly, and you can live with the low power, go for a good spartan stickshift 240D. There's much less to go wrong on one of these. Unfortunately, the US-market 300D/TD were all saddled with automatic tranny, power windows and automatic climate control. But if you're looking to pay $4K for a 240D, it better not have any rust

If you can find one, perhaps the nicest of the W123 diesels is a grey-market stick-shift non-turbo 300D or TD. These combine the simplicity of a 240D with the power of a 5-cylinder diesel. But they're rare, so you'll pay top dollar for a decent one.
I paid $2900 for an '84 5-speed Euro 300TD wagon with some rust, but the floors had only a few holes, with the sills/seat mounts still intact. This car came with a complete new exhaust system, new brakes, calipers & rotors and a rebuilt driveshaft. I added a new radiator and a few other minor bits, so I've got $3300 in the car now. The ride is stiffer, but it's a hotrod compared to the 240Ds, and the overdrive gear makes for much more relaxed highway cruising, while returning better fuel mileage than my automatic 240D.

Happy Motoring, Mark

Thanks for the nice post Mark...
 

I noticed the 240 auto is racing pretty high at 70mph. At some point, it is unsafe to go 65 or less on today's highways. Are the manuals better in terms of gear ratios anyone?

Both of my kids started out in 123 diesels and it worked very well. I do NOT recommend someone doing this unless they are pretty serious with wrenches and have their brain engaged before reaching for the wrench.

I would recommend a four cylinder car for this purpose EVERY time. They are easier to work on and have less power. For a teenager that's two good things.

My $0.02,

As i read this forum more broadly...
 

As I read more and more threads about vacuum problems, I become convinced that the 240d with a manual trans is the way to go if you are looking for fewer problems. Even the most lovely car I have driven has the "lock the driver's door to make it shut off" issue.

Does anyone want to disabuse me of this notion that the manual all around is for the minimalists amongst us?

Both my 240Ds have been reliable, with no catastrophic side-of-the-road breakdowns, but they're not my sole transportation. The stickshift 240D is definitely more pleasant on the highway.
The rear end gearing is supposed to be the same for both manual and automatic 240Ds - 3.69, but my auto 240D seems to rev higher at 70 mph than my stickshift version.
I suspect slippage inherent in the automatic (there's no lock-up converter) and the lack of a hood insulating pad (PO replaced the hood after his teenager had a fender-bender).

The auto 240D seems happy enough to cruise at 70 so long as I can stand the noise, but since it was former transport for the PO's teenagers, it doesn't owe me anything, so the car is mainly my local errand vehicle, with but occasional runs on local freeways. For longer trips, I have the Euro TD wagon, or my '98 Nissan Altima.
As for the vacuum locks, they're nice when they work, but you can disconnect & plug the lock's underhood vacuum source, if you get tired of playing games.

Happy Motoring, Mark

Nope- it's the Model T of the MB diesel lineup. Find it- fix it (once)- forget it.

Rick