I own a nice 82 240D auto (no rust, original paint, good mechanicals, clean interior, working AC, etc.)
Someone locally has a nice looking 81 300D for sale (repainted but looks solid, non-working AC, about 180k miles, etc.)
I realize the 81 doesn't have turbo so wouldn't likely be much of a performance increase over my 240D, and that I shouldn't consider it as a replacement, but thought I'd check the list. Not sure I need/want another W123 in the yard.
I figure if I was going to substitute my 240D for another W123, I had better hold off for a turbo 300D (83-85).
Thanks.

p.s. someone else is offering to sell me an entire 240D manual transmission kit for $300. Not sure I'd be willing to tamper with my nice 240D auto, but was wondering if that kind of price for a kit is reasonable for a potential future project (given that I can't be assured that the tranny actually is in good shape).

__________________
1983 300TD 240K - 1982 240D 215K - 1996 Dodge Cummins 70K

The 81 300D will have a a good bit more power than your used to right now. Howver the 1981 transmission wasn't one of the best. It is fully dependent on vacuum, there is no pressure control cable or rod so making it shift right is sometimes a challenge.

300 is a good price for a full auto to manual conversion package, assuming it has the flywheel, drive shaft, pedals, etc.

If i were you i would hold off and find a nice 1982-1985 turbo.

__________________
1985 300TD Turbo Euro-wagon
1979 280CE 225,200 miles
1985 300D Turbo 264,000 miles
1976 240D 190,000 miles
1979 300TD 220,000

GONE but not forgotten
1976 300D 195,300 miles
1983 300D Turbo 175,000 miles

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e3...e485-1-2-1.jpg

It depends what you want/need, the 240D and the 300D turbo are really different vehicles. I don't know if the non-turbo 300D would be practical for highway use because I've never owned one.

Thanks Mercy.
I didn't know about the transmission issue on those 81's - glad you told me.
Indeed, I'll hold off - though nice specimens at a reasonable price don't come around here too often...

Good to know about the manual kit price. Yes, he said that would include the flywheel and all the bits and pieces, which he took out of a badly rusted specimen (I'll make sure about the driveshaft too). As I said, not sure I want to do that transplant into my nice stock specimen, but could be a neat post-retirement project. Cheers.

__________________
1983 300TD 240K - 1982 240D 215K - 1996 Dodge Cummins 70K

A good running 300d na is a fine highway machine compared to the 240. Of course the turbo car has more torque and a much taller diff ratio so is quieter at a given speed. Fuel economy will be about the same, possibley better with the turbo with the na in stock form.

__________________
[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 like the simplicity of the 240D (temperature control, manual windows, etc.). But could use a bit more oomph once in a while , and have always read about how exceptional an engineering creation is the 617 turbo. Most of my driving is city, with occasional 70 minute runs to the cottage. Haven't driven the 240D much since I acquired the cottage last year, but want to drive it more this summer now that I have more free time to do so.

__________________
1983 300TD 240K - 1982 240D 215K - 1996 Dodge Cummins 70K

I'm not sure it would work in my part of the country; 75 mph speed limits (that are widely ignored), 5000 to 10,000 feet above sea level, and up to 7% grades. The 300D is barely adequate under some conditions.

Yeah, that's a reality check isn't it? Sad but true, venerable 240D's and 300D's not being able to keep up with modern traffic patterns... In my case, thankfully, the road to the cottage is limited (well, in theory anyway) to 60, then 50 mph, mild hills, no altitude. Of course, add at least 10 mph to those numbers for actual average and unchallenged driving speeds...

As I approach 55 in age I find myself more comfortable driving at 50-55, regardless of the car I'm driving (mind you, my "youngest" car is a 96 Camry 4cyl wagon!). Which makes the W123 diesels well suited for me, but with regards to other drivers/occasional morons I share the roads with, it's another matter. Maybe I should be looking at a gasser 123!

__________________
1983 300TD 240K - 1982 240D 215K - 1996 Dodge Cummins 70K

I'm perfectly happy with the 240D around town and the 300D turbo on the highway, but sometimes merging with traffic is a challenge.

Most people do NOT agree with me. I've been through this debate before, but I will offer my thoughts and opinions since you asked for them.

I have driven about 800,000 miles in manual transmission 240D's. My wife had a top notch 83 turbo wagon so I've driven that one quite a bit too. My daughter had an 81 non turbo 300D so I have a little time behind the wheel of that car.

I wrenched alot on all of them.

All that said, given that I do the wrenching myself, I will take a 240D over ANY 300D, NA or turbo because it is so much more straightforward to work on and with a manual transmission has adequate power.

Compared to other cars of all makes the 300D is not too challenging to work on, but compared to a 240D it is a hassle.

IMHO the 81 NA 300D is probably the worst of the late series 123 cars. The engines seem to have oil consumption problems much earlier than any of the others. The transmssion as mentioned earlier is inferior.

After driving and maintaining 800,000 miles worth of 240D's while also having plenty of wrench experience on the five cylinders, I wouldn't trade a good condition manual 240D for three five cylinder 123's turbo or otherwise. With a manual transmission, the 240D in good condition has enough power for highway cruising and some in town traffic driving as well. It's completely managable. Been there done that!

Like I say, I'm probably the only person on this forum that will tell you what I've told you, but that's the way I see it. You asked for opinions, so I offered mine.

All the five cylinder fans can pile on me now.

yeah the manual 240 is adequate. the auto is tired. the auto powered 300D is better for sure, but I did not know about the 81's difficulties. I had an 79 300Wagon (TD) and it was totally fine city and highway. if I got cut off on the highway and had to drop to the high 50's it's hard to accelerate back up to the 70's due to the lack of downshift, but if I am accelerating from 45, it will hold 3rd long enough to get up to the 70's just fine.
a 240 auto just can't have the acceleration of the 300N/A

Every 300D w123 that Mercedes sold in Australia was N/A !! I have 2, my brother had one also. About 1.6 million miles between them all. They are fine on a flat open road, thats what we have here. There was an upgrade to the motor in about 1978, the older ones were bad, like a 240D. The update motor was much better. I have seen many pics on here of turbo 300D's, most are the pre update motor. The older vac only trans was more difficult to get to change properly. Altitude & steep grades will make it hard. My brother had one for a few years & he lives in the hills. It was a PITA first thing in the morning in the winter until it warmed up, he now has a C280.
If I were you, I would hold out for a turbo if you are at altitude or in the hills.

__________________
Grumpy Old Diesel Owners Club group

I no longer question authority, I annoy authority. More effect, less effort....

1967 230-6 auto parts car. rust bucket.
1980 300D now parts car 800k miles
1984 300D 500k miles
1987 250td 160k miles English import
2001 jeep turbo diesel 130k miles
1998 jeep tdi ~ followed me home. Needs a turbo.
1968 Ford F750 truck. 6-354 diesel conversion.
Other toys ~J.D.,Cat & GM ~ mainly earth moving

Well Larry, if everyone agreed it would be a pretty boring world, as the old expression goes! Thanks for sharing your experience and observations on this, as always.

Sounds like there are more benefits than I realized of owning a 240D as opposed to a 300D! I am seriously starting to think that key for my long-term ownership of my 240D will be to retrofit a manual transmission in there. As I said earlier, would be a great post-retirement project for me (just around the corner).

All the best to everyone for chiming in. 240D's and 300D's all have their pros and cons, as everything else in life. Bottom line: they are close cousins in what most agree was one of the best families (W123) that MB ever produced. 1,001 third world taxi drivers can't be wrong eh?

__________________
1983 300TD 240K - 1982 240D 215K - 1996 Dodge Cummins 70K

I'm with Larry on this one, I've had two 240's with manual.
When I was looking for my current one there were lots of autos around but I remembered how darn slow they are even with a stick. So I held out for the right one.

Performance is adequate, great around town, not a problem on the freeway, but I don't run mine over 65. It's spinning its guts out at that speed - there's no overdrive. For a high speed cruiser you need a turbo and more gears.

I have been told, although I have never drag raced to find out, that the 300D was slower accellerating than the 240 manual. That's why they fitted a turbocharger in later years. Now you have something with decent driving performance, however at a cost of lots more complexity. And the cars in general got more complex.

So yeah, the lowly 240 is a great little car because of its simplicity and durability. I'd still like an W126 though, just for giggles.

__________________
Chris Brown
"OC", So-Cal
1979 240D, 122K, 4spd, Colorado Biege w/Tobacco, Pwr Roof, AC, Cruise, Becker Corona - SOLD
Past Benzos: 71 250 • 83 240D • 84 190E • 04 C240 • 11 GLK350 • 13 c250 Coupe
http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/...ine=1276896801

I don't have the experience with other MBs to disagree with Larry or give an oppion to such. I do have an '81 MB 240D with MT. This car replaced a '96 Ford Contour with 4 cyl. It is a bit slower. There are a few places, I could use a bit better acceleration. Still, once I got the accelerator linkage fixed, it runs fairly well. I am mainly on flat land. Very few hills. It handles my daily drive fine. I have had it on the highway a few times. I do have to be a bit more causous than with other cars I own. It will do 65-70 mph OK. It does need a 5th spd. Yeah, I know good luck. Still, it is not as slow and many articles make them out to be.
I would say that this car is a relaxing drive. I actually drive a lot slower in it than other cars. I'd say I am usually the one passing, if driving one of my Contours. I have to remind myself to drive 55 mph on country roads with the 240D. I recently put on new shocks. That really helped. And new tires too. I kind of wonder how many impressions on the driving quality comes from a poorly maintianed 240D. When I test drove mine, I could barely do 55 mph. From what I read, this could be normal. Something told me otherwise. I have spent way more money on this car, than I should have. I plan to spend some more. Ball joints,A-arms, rear axles shafts, rear bearing etc. And paint hopefuly.
I just wired in some new rear speakers. I've been listeng to the radio that past week, and a CD or two. I kind of miss just listening to the diesel clater. Its a car that grows on you, if it suites your daily drive.