Parts Catalog Accessories Catalog How To Articles Tech Forums
Call Pelican Parts at 888-280-7799
Shopping Cart Cart | Project List | Order Status | Help



Go Back   PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum > Mercedes-Benz Tech Information and Support > Diesel Discussion

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old 09-29-2011, 11:25 AM
sixto's Avatar
smoke gets in your eyes
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Eastern TN
Posts: 20,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zacharias View Post
Expensive bits: check whether it has Nivomat self-levelling rear shocks...
Is that a deal breaker? Can Nivomats be replaced with conventional shocks or do the springs have to be replaced as well?

This looks like a deal - BOGE Nivomat shock absorbers set of 2 Volvo 244/264 | eBay

Sixto
87 300D

Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-29-2011, 04:11 PM
Orv's Avatar
Orv Orv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by SUNRG View Post
i've owned a non-turbo 940 and it was horribly slow
They're slow compared to the turbo version, and definitely slow compared to a lot of modern cars, but not really slow compared to a 240D or even a 300D Turbo. The B230 makes 110 to 120 horsepower in normally-aspirated form. An OM617 turbo makes 125 horsepower. You do have to rev the Volvo engine a little harder because it's gasoline and the torque peak is higher.

It's definitely not the smoothest engine the world -- 2.3L is big for a 4-cylinder -- but if he's had a 240 in the past he already knows about that.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-29-2011, 05:05 PM
Zacharias's Avatar
Not so amused
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: West Quebec
Posts: 4,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by sixto View Post
Is that a deal breaker? Can Nivomats be replaced with conventional shocks or do the springs have to be replaced as well?
Deal breaker? Well that would be a personal opinion. If the car is in cherry condition, then the Nivomats would be more or less taking the bad with the good... in my opinion anyway. It isn't that hard to make the switch--I had a 760 Turbo back in the day and got the springs and shocks out of a wrecked 740 Turbo quite cheap as I recall.

Springs and shocks have to be replaced. The springs don't do much when the Nivomats are installed so they're too weak for regular shocks.

The Nivomats are redunkulously expensive.
__________________


Mac
2002 e320 4matic estate│1985 300d│1980 300td
Previous: 1979 & 1982 & 1983 300sd │ 1982 240d

“Let's take a drive into the middle of nowhere with a packet of Marlboro lights and talk about our lives.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-29-2011, 05:52 PM
Diesel forever
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orv View Post
They're slow compared to the turbo version, and definitely slow compared to a lot of modern cars, but not really slow compared to a 240D or even a 300D Turbo. The B230 makes 110 to 120 horsepower in normally-aspirated form. An OM617 turbo makes 125 horsepower. You do have to rev the Volvo engine a little harder because it's gasoline and the torque peak is higher.

It's definitely not the smoothest engine the world -- 2.3L is big for a 4-cylinder -- but if he's had a 240 in the past he already knows about that.
Yeah, a 2.3L powered Volvo is a veritable speed-demon compared to my 240D auto!!
I suppose I've made a habit of owning acceleration-challenged vehicles over the last several years, the slowest of which was a Mercedes camper-conversion van (406D) equipped with a similar 2.4L n/a as my 240D! I've had diesel Land Rovers and Land Cruisers. My 4cyl Camry wagon was probably the fastest car I've owned. I don't know what I'd do with a fast car, to be quite honest... I've gotten used to driving at or below the speed limit, and driving smart to maneuver through traffic in spite of low HP. Fuel economy is more important to me than speed, any day of the week. (having said all this, If money/space was no object, I wouldn't mind having a Porsche 911 in my "stable" )
__________________
1983 300TD 240K - 1982 240D 215K - 1996 Dodge Cummins 70K
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-29-2011, 05:55 PM
Orv's Avatar
Orv Orv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 698
Heh, I hear you. My slowest was a Vanagon Diesel camper. 48 horsepower to move two tons.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-29-2011, 06:52 PM
wildest's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Southern Pines NC
Posts: 261
940=no nivomats

I'm pretty sure that the nivomats were only on the higher end vehicles, the ones that end in '60' (760, 960). The 945, being a replacement for the 745 shouldn't have them.
__________________
1985 300D-189k The 'UD', Ivory and Pinkamino
1979 300D-211k Dark Gray, Parchment
A 1980 Harley-~166k and
A 1994 Ford diesel pickup-349k and
A 1990 gasser Volvo wagon-145k
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-30-2011, 01:18 AM
Zacharias's Avatar
Not so amused
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: West Quebec
Posts: 4,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildest View Post
I'm pretty sure that the nivomats were only on the higher end vehicles, the ones that end in '60' (760, 960). The 945, being a replacement for the 745 shouldn't have them.
Your rationale is completely correct up until the 900-series. Then things went a bit askew in terms of model designations.

For example, Volvo sold a "940se" with the IRS from the 960 and Nivomats.

Cars badged as 940 turn up with front ends from 960s, 940 Turbos, sometimes mild variances on the late 740.

I think Volvo in Sweden and Belgium started to lose track of what they were sending to Halifax for bolting together.

In any case I just wanted to flag the Nivomats issue. For me they were always a close second in the pointless feature sweepstakes behind their version of the PRV V6....
__________________


Mac
2002 e320 4matic estate│1985 300d│1980 300td
Previous: 1979 & 1982 & 1983 300sd │ 1982 240d

“Let's take a drive into the middle of nowhere with a packet of Marlboro lights and talk about our lives.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-30-2011, 09:52 PM
Diesel forever
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orv View Post
Heh, I hear you. My slowest was a Vanagon Diesel camper. 48 horsepower to move two tons.
Woh, that sounds brutal! I can just imagine going up a hill with that camper. Reminds me of a nasty steep curvy hill on a 2 lane secondary road that I just managed to clear with the MB camper with all its 68hp! Finally had to downshift into 1st, with a whole lineup of cars behind me, and just barely cleared the crest of the hill, praying and cussing at the same time . Man that truck was slow, but a thing of beauty inside, all wood cabinetry, old-world craftsmanship. And those large 70's MB delivery vans were built like tanks! Ahhh, memories...
__________________
1983 300TD 240K - 1982 240D 215K - 1996 Dodge Cummins 70K
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-30-2011, 11:06 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Carson City, NV
Posts: 3,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstl99 View Post
Maybe I've been going about this the wrong way my whole life, and like the vast majority of folks, should be buying new or nearly new cars, keeping them 8-10 years, then buying another new one. But I suppose I'm wired the way I am and hold fast to my beliefs that newer is not necessarily better and certainly not cheaper. In these days of economic uncertainty, solid older cars make a lot of sense to me. I know a lot of you also feel this way, which is one reason I like to hang around this forum (and similar ones for older Volvos etc.).

Cheers!
It depends. For a non-DIYer it's said to be most cost-effective to buy a car about four years old, do scheduled maintenance, and then get rid of it when it gets too junky or something expensive breaks, which by my figuring should be 6 to 11 years for well-selected used cars, depending on how much you drive and what the corrosion environment is like. OTOH, if you DIY, all this goes out the window. There's an alternative view that consists of buying the cheapest thing that runs, driving it until it quits, and repeating. I did that in high school and don't think it's actually the cheapest way.
__________________
Whoever said there's nothing more expensive than a cheap Mercedes never had a cheap Jaguar.

83 300D Turbo with manual conversion, early W126 vented front rotors and H4 headlights 400,xxx miles
08 Suzuki GSX-R600 M4 Slip-on 22,xxx miles
88 Jaguar XJS V12 94,xxx miles. Work in progress.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-01-2011, 09:32 AM
Diesel forever
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippy View Post
It depends. For a non-DIYer it's said to be most cost-effective to buy a car about four years old, do scheduled maintenance, and then get rid of it when it gets too junky or something expensive breaks, which by my figuring should be 6 to 11 years for well-selected used cars, depending on how much you drive and what the corrosion environment is like. OTOH, if you DIY, all this goes out the window. There's an alternative view that consists of buying the cheapest thing that runs, driving it until it quits, and repeating. I did that in high school and don't think it's actually the cheapest way.
You're right Skippy, there are several ways to go about car ownership and maintenance. I always said I'd eventually migrate toward the non-DIYer approach you indicate (buy a 3-4 year old car in good shape, maintain it well, and unload it several years later), especially since I'm slowly but surely ageing myself and am not as keen about DIY as I used to be. But for reasons I don't always fully understand, I'm always drawn toward older cars, such as the ones favoured by folks on this forum, the older diesel Benz's.

I think part of the reason for that is a hard-to-get-rid-of belief that simpler is better and cheaper to maintain, in the long run, than complex. The new breed of cars are obviously not designed with the DIYer in mind, and the complexity of computers, sensors, relays, solenoids, and other sensory and control paraphernalia, turns the car into a "black box" almost impossible to figure out without training and sophisticated instrumentation, meaning that dealers become almost the only ones who can maintain the cars, contributing to their profit line. If a car was a benign and reliable appliance like a washing machine, I wouldn't mind too much, just get in, turn the key, and go. But as we know, car components wear out and break down regularly, and diagnosing and repairing those problems is costly and disruptive.

Obviously, the reality is that the kind of car that is relatively simple, easy to figure out and fix at home with commonly available parts, is getting rarer with time, given the ravages of time (rust, accidents, neglect). So one day I may just say "the heck with it" and join the crowd driving newer and similar-looking cars. But for now at least, I'll still keep looking for good 15-20 year old cars such as the Volvo RWD or W123/124 Benz that was the subject of this post.

Cheers.
__________________
1983 300TD 240K - 1982 240D 215K - 1996 Dodge Cummins 70K
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 10-02-2011, 12:15 AM
Zacharias's Avatar
Not so amused
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: West Quebec
Posts: 4,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippy View Post
There's an alternative view that consists of buying the cheapest thing that runs, driving it until it quits, and repeating. I did that in high school and don't think it's actually the cheapest way.
I lived that lifestyle for several years following a job loss when I was living from contract job to next contract job.

I must admit it was remarkably cost-effective, but obviously not for everyone. Worrying about transporting a family in vehicles that are one step from the recycler would taxe one's nerves. Being single, I didn't have that concern....

I purchased a series of $300-500 cars that were at the end of their use for most people but that I could keep on the road with a combo of my limited wrenching skills and a cheap shop we had locally at the time.

Ever since then I defend old Dodge Caravans against all comers . The best beater was the $350 Volvo 740 Turbo with 455k... but I managed to park that on the lawn of the local police station in an awful snowstorm (the lawn was ok but climing the curb destroyed the rear suspension).

That was a waste of a good car....

__________________


Mac
2002 e320 4matic estate│1985 300d│1980 300td
Previous: 1979 & 1982 & 1983 300sd │ 1982 240d

“Let's take a drive into the middle of nowhere with a packet of Marlboro lights and talk about our lives.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

Last edited by Zacharias; 10-02-2011 at 10:09 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2024 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page