300TD or Volvo 940 wagon? - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

rstl99 · #1 09-28-2011, 05:34 PM

I've owned my 240D for close to 12 years, and have nothing bad to say about it. It's been cheap to maintain and drive, and still looks great (no rust, since I don't drive it in the winter). I need a year-round car and would like a station wagon (sooo practical). I used to own a 92 Volvo 240 wagon for 3-4 years which was great but was getting pretty worn out so I got rid of it. Picked up a Camry wagon which served me well for 2-3 years until the head gasket and brake lines went (damn). Got rid of it. Now I'm looking for a wagon again, and hopefully one I can keep and maintain for many years.

A couple months ago, I saw a local '83 300TD for sale for $4K firm (I think it's still available). 250k miles, rebuilt engine and trans and front end, not much rust (been winter stored most of its life), interior is worn (family car, same owner since 84), engine seals leak oil. My 240D is in much nicer shape, but it's not a TD, so I was tempted.

Recently someone has offered to sell me a very nice Volvo 940 rwd wagon (auto, no turbo, great body and interior) with only 60,000 miles for $5K. Much as I'd like to own a TD, I think the 940 will be a bigger bang for the buck, and provide more trouble-free driving given low mileage and condition. Both are great cars, but I can only have one, and am leaning to the Volvo.

Any thoughts?

Orv · #2 09-28-2011, 05:38 PM

I'd get the 940. It will get pretty close to the same fuel economy, and it's an excellent and very durable car. The only reason to prefer the 300TD would be if you wanted to run veggie oil in it or just couldn't live without having that hood star in view.

moon161 · #3 09-28-2011, 06:58 PM

Never drove a 940. Drove Volvo 240's for about 20 years on and off. Would take a clean W123 diesel over a like volvo 240 any day. All the volvo 240's I drove felt like such plodders in comparison.

You may be looking at $$ if you have to do the rear seal and don't DIY.

JB3 · #4 09-28-2011, 07:17 PM

never drove a 940 either, but owned an 88 Volvo 740 5-speed wagon for 6 or so years. Id take the volvo if its anything like the earlier 740. MB wagon would be nice, but personally I wouldn't want to deal with the SLS suspension through corrosive winter environments, that alone would put me in the volvo.

Owned a 300TD that had nearly every part of the SLS destroyed by corrosion. Regular springs are just way less complex. Don't think I ever had a single occasion to service the rear suspension on my 740, despite the rust getting pretty bad after a while.

Only issue was on that wagon, the fuel pump and filter are underneath kind of exposed under the rear passenger seat. Easier to service, but pretty susceptible to corrosion. Don't know about the 940.

sixto · #5 09-28-2011, 07:41 PM

Is a Diesel viable in winter where you are? The Volvo might be the better choice just because it'll start.

Sixto
87 300D

SUNRG · #6 09-28-2011, 08:10 PM

i've owned a non-turbo 940 and it was horribly slow - i would never buy one again. i also owned a volvo 760 turbo wagon - now that was fantastic. the 300TD isn't "fast" but it's got the power/torque to really be functional - i.e. hauling gear, canoe on top & family inside, towing. imho the build quality of the MB far exceeds the Volvo.

even if you don't speak German this video Mercedes Benz E-class Estate S123 Development - YouTube is a fun look at the design and utility of the 300TD.

Mark DiSilvestro · #7 09-28-2011, 08:39 PM

That 940 can't be any slower than my automatic 240D.
If you're OK with the horsepower, go for the Volvo. 60k vs 250K!
No SLS, or other potential high-mile headaches like how long will the TD's automatic, vacuum-pump or timing-chain last. Unless that TD has significant maintenance records....

Happy Motoring, Mark

billhard · #8 09-28-2011, 09:24 PM

Daughter number 1 drives a 300d daughter number 2 drives a volvo 740 turbo 5 speed both cars 250K miles +. I have a more romantic attachment to the benz but the I have to say in comparison:

MPG equal
acceleration volvo way faster
upkeep volvo has required very little benz seems like constant little things like vacuum lines.
price of unleaded vs diesel advantage volvo
safety equal
comfort and build quality the benz

just my 2 cents

Orv · #9 09-29-2011, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUNRG

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.

rstl99 · #10 09-29-2011, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orv

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"

)

Orv · #11 09-29-2011, 06:55 PM

Heh, I hear you. My slowest was a Vanagon Diesel camper. 48 horsepower to move two tons.

wildest · #12 09-29-2011, 07:52 PM

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.

rstl99 · #13 09-30-2011, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orv

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...

rstl99 · #14 09-28-2011, 09:56 PM

Thanks for all the great thoughts!!

The 940 is a bit more comfortable version of the 240/740. Same great engine and transmission, rwd, bit nicer interior than the more spartan 240. Some say it's the last of the great RWD volvos (they made 940's until 1995 I believe). I know they are plodders without the turbo, but have reputation for being bulletproof and reasonably easy to maintain, with knowledge of their few idiosyncracies. I learned on the Volvo 240 (bosch fuel injection, etc.), and could readily maintain this 940 for many many years, since it's barely broken in.

As someone said, the Volvo is better designed for winter, and indeed one reason I don't drive my 240D in the winter is that I prefer an easier-starting gas engine up here in the Great White North. The Volvo trunks are the most spacious of any station wagon, probably even more than the TD, though it might be close.

I suppose the 93 940 has a few more safety features than the 83 TD, so that might be a plus. The interior on it looked excellent, compared to the somewhat beatup interior of the TD.

All in all, consensus seems to be the 940 (hard to compare 60 vs 250k miles!). Hopefully the seller will come through with it (he just showed me the car and said he would fix a few cosmetic things before he's ready to sell in a month). I have fondness for the older Volvos, so would be kind of nice to own one of each (W123 and x40 Volvo).

Thanks again, I always respect the balanced opinion of people on this forum! Cheers.

vstech · #15 09-28-2011, 11:12 PM

ok, you've GOTTA give it more than one day to glean opinions!

the volvo has that flat rear end, so more LARGE cargo room, but the MB has all the split and fold down seats, and that AWESOME SLS. I'm not sure how cold it gets where you are though. below -20F and Diesel is a real bear to deal with. PERFECT glow system, and good antigel help immeasurably, but gas is simpler to be sure.
I'm sold on the MB wagons, I've never been stranded in one, though, I really baby my cars, and give them everything they need at the slightest wimpering.
the 83 would be a turbo Diesel, so power should not be an issue.
that said, 4K for a wagon in rough shape does sound pricey... I've gotten all my wagons for under 3K, and I have 2 87's!