Hello everyone,

New to the forum and Mercedes diesels.

I'm in the market for a 78-85 300CD.

Ideally, I'd like to get a turbo model, but i've noticed quite a few of the non-turbo models out there.

I was wondering how big of a difference the turbo actually makes in these cars. Are the non-turbos so slow they are practically impossible to drive? Are they worth buying, or should I just keep looking for turbo models?

Also, are there any specific things or problems I should be looking for when checking out these specific models?

I'd appreciate any help you all can give me.

Thanks!

Best way is for you to judge for yourself, and Test Drive a few....

I personally wouldnt say the N/A is particularly under-powered, but everyone has their own expectations. You should find out for yourself....

__________________
http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z...0TDnoplate.jpg

Alastair AKA H.C.II South Wales, U.K. based member

W123, 1985 300TD Wagon, 256K,
-Most recent M.B. purchase, Cost-a-plenty, Gulps BioDiesel extravagantly, and I love it like an old dog.

W114, 1975 280E Custard Yellow,
-Great above decks needs chassis welding--Really will do it this year....

IMO, others will chime in, non turbos are slower. on the contrary, there is one less thing to fail on a 25-35 year old car. when i buy an old mb i prefer the naturally aspirated models with absolutely no electronics.
my 1981 300d was non turbo and wasnt terrible to drive in the pocono mts of pennsilvania. but on my new 220d it seems like i need an appointment to cross an intersection.

__________________
95 E320 24k
07 E550 4matic 20k Soon to go
1977 240d 481k
2013 SL 600


Non MBs

02 Ford F250 Lariat 4 Quad Cab 7.3 Diesel 95k
01 Chevy Suburban 249K LT 5.3 V8
88 Saab SPG Convertible 32k
06 Lincoln Mark LT 59k
62 VW Bug
52 Bentley Mark IV
53 GMC half Ton Pickup
08 VW Beetle convertible 2k
07 bmw x5 4.8i 17k
03 bmw x5 4.4i 40k
08 Range Rover S 9K

Not at altitude. The difference between an NA and a Turbo is substantial at 10,000ft. Sea level is different.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

I would be driving the car at sea level.

Are the turbos known for going out, or are they usually pretty good?

No substantial difference in lifespan or durability of the turbo vs. the NA. The turbo is one more item to fail but they rarely do.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

Very few turbos fail. If anything, sometimes the o-rings/seals need to be replaced on the oil return lines but its not too big of a deal. Turbo 617s also tend to lose their boost after 30 years so a decent tuneup is usually a good thing to perform right off the bat. That being said, the NAs are good too--just test drive and make sure you are comfortable with it.

__________________
TC
Current stable:
- 2004 Mazda RALLYWANKEL
- 2007 Saturn sky redline
- 2004 Explorer...under surgery.

Past: 135i, GTI, 300E, 300SD, 300SD, Stealth

It's really up to you and what you want to do with it. If you just want a daily driver NA is fine. I've been driving ,mine for 2 years and rarely feel that it's under powered. If you think however that at some point you might want to get into performance modifications buy a turbo and the sky is the limit (well mostly your wallet, but you get the idea)

Dustin Where are you located at?

I'm located in the Los Angeles area.

Well you're in the "land of the Benz". one guy was saying how a 240d fits LA just fine--because you aren't going anywhere. The light ahead is gonna turn red just before you get there--same on the freeways.
I have been looking for a 240d for my older brother who's-bypolar, There was a kickass desert red one in thousand oaks a few weeks ago on c-list- for 1500 But im sure it was snagged the next day for markup.
Twalgamauth says a non turbo cd with a 5er could consistently get 35 mpg. I got a green 81 spare one here in asshatt land.

I find 617 turbos to be slow, but its all a matter of opinion. As previously stated the best thing to do is go drive one. If its a private seller you may voice your concern about the power and tell them part of why you want to drive it is to see how the car feels to you power wise.

__________________
68 280SL - 70 280SL - 70 300SEL 3.5 - 72 350SL - 72 280SEL 4.5 - 72 220 - 72 220D - 73 450SL - 84 230GE - 87 200TD - 90 190E 2.0 - 03 G500

Nissan GTR - Nissan Skyline GTS25T - Toyota GTFour - Rover Mini - Toyota Land Cruiser HJ60 - Cadillac Eldorado - BMW E30 - BMW 135i

The non turbo has a higher ratio rear end so you rev higher on the highways. Also the turbo gets better fuel milage in the five cylinder versions.

Same car basically in simular condition at about the same price grab the turbo. Also the automatic transmissions are a little stronger I think. There is nothing to be gained from the non turbo but a little more simplicity.

Also the non turbos have a very expensive climate control system to deal with unless you get a true euro model with a simplifed system.Overall I would not buy the non turbo given a choice myself.

The NA is not well suited for highway speeds these days. Not only what Barry said but the turbos got additional sound proofing. Great in town to drive.. The exception might be the 240D but I would swore off NA after my 1980 TD.

__________________
http://superturbodiesel.com/images/sig.04.10.jpg
1995 E420 Schwarz
1995 E300 Weiss
#1987 300D Sturmmachine
#1991 300D Nearly Perfect
#1994 E320 Cabriolet
#1995 E320 Touring
#1985 300D Sedan
OBK #42

Welcome to the big ole benz forum!