Considering a 300D or 190D..
 

Hey everyone,

Well, I finally found a full time job! Only down side its about 115 miles round trip from my house. The 190E managed to get 25 mpg on the trip up for my interview.

I was considering picking up either a 124 300D or 201 190D mainly for fuel economy reasons and to not beat up my 190E so much.

I came across a 190D in the for sale forum that was in Baltimore on eBay. It hasnt sold, I saw it posted on craigslist as well with a price tag of 5k. I think thats a bit high...
1989 Mercedes 190D 2.5 Diesel


I came across a 87 190DT locally with 70k miles on it. One owner. They want
8700 for it. Thats steep!
Cars for Sale: 1987 Mercedes-Benz 190D in Brookfield, OH 44403: Sedan Details - 324610725 - AutoTrader.com


I found this 300D on Autotrader that seemed to be at a good price or so..

Cars for Sale: 1990 Mercedes-Benz 300D Sedan in Sylvania, OH 43560: Sedan Details - 318430032 - AutoTrader.com

I'd like the your thoughts on this whole thing. Maybe I should just stick with the 190E? I've got a 300SD at my disposal as well but it typically does 26mpg, so not much better than the 190E.

If fuel cost is your joy button, you'll never save the cost of the replacement car and its maintenance on the differences in mileage. Besides, diesel is now more expensive that gasoline. The only one of the three cars that moves me is that green one in Baltimore. It's probably worth near what he's asking judging the condition. Also doubt it gets 40mpg.

Stick with your 190E. Cheaper and easier in the long run even without maintenance, and maintaining an extra car as a daily driver, will be more costly in the long run. Consider insurance as well, plus the time to maintain an additional car.

'85 190D auto gets between 34-38 mpg's. I wonder what the improvement would be with a 5-speed? My son has an '87 190DT and ranges from 27-31 but he's know to have a heavy foot. Your 190E gets 25. Diesel is 10% - 15% higher so my RUG adjusted mileage is around 30-33 if you buy at the pump. You can always explore the alternative fuel supplies but lots of folks warn against?

To begin with, congratulations on the new gig!

Secondly, I personally would make this decision based on the top three criteria for consideration when buying a used car. These three criteria are:

condition
Condition
CONDITION

If you don't get a work car in good mechanical condition, a 20 or 30 percent difference in fuel mileage won't mean much.

I spent a number of years with my office 89 miles from home. I traveled some, but went to the office most days. Condition of the vehicle and proper maintenance will save you more money than a car that gets better mileage but is not dependable and requires repairs.

Hope this helps.

The math never works out for a new/newer car. Say 190E = 25mpg, 115/25 = 4.6gal 190D = 40mpg, 115/40 = 2.85gal. You save 1.75 gal or approx $7 per days. Say you pay $4K for a new car. It will take you about 571 days to recoup your money, or 114 weeks, or 2+ years. That is assuming NO maintenance or other associated expenses.

I would keep the same car or move nearer to work. On the other hand, it you can run alternate fuel, aka WVO, for free then it is a different proposition.

I agree with everything you said, except that where i live, the bottom line 87 octane costs $3.71, whereas the cheapest diesel #2 is $3.62. so these days i drive the 300d a bit more often than my 190e

a 190D manual will get near 40mpg... IF everything is working well.

the turbo will not. BUT it'll be FUNNNNNN to drive!
the 90 300 should do around 35 if babied... again IF everything is working well.

The more I think about this. It just doesn't balance out. Sure the fuel savings sounds nice but when you've got to pay insurance, registration, maintenance, etc on top as well as initial investment. Its not worth it. I still have access to a 300SD so in the event the 190E needs to go down for repairs/maintenance/etc I'll just rock the SD for a few days.

On the surface, its always cool to expand the fleet and diversify but its just not cost effective presently. I dont think I could really justify it in the sense that I'm saving something other than miles from the 190E (225k/~103 on the 103). I mean other than "I want it."

Perhaps down the line when I'm more acclimated to working. I've been unemployed for a while now, it'll be a big dramatic change (that i dread) from my currently lifestyle to a new one. Also having to wake up and leave around 630 to get there by 8... and leaving at 5 getting home about 615-630. I've never been a morning person.

You know, its too bad Mercedes did not continue the trend of fuel efficiency. I was looking at their model lines and they didn't seem to have any that could really compete with these older 124/201 diesels in terms of efficiency. The same thing can be said for most gasoline powered cars as well. I mean the 420SEL got 22mpg highway. My buddy's 06 Charger gets around 28. Thats a ****ty improvement (generally speaking) for nearly 30 years of technological advancement. But I digress..

I appreciate everyone's opinions and value them. Thanks!

oh, I don't know... the 95/96/97 e series got pretty decent mileage. lower 40's I think...

tweaked I think they could get into the upper 40's low 50's... with some hypermileing techniques.
no way you're getting that in a 602.
the 606 was great. but all the EPA/and safety stuff really weighed the car down... diminished the efficiency of the newer motors...
MB does make a great car with excellent diesel efficiency... it's just illegal in the US...
the 250ED (who would name a car after an ailment...)

James Dean-
PM me. I MIGHT be interested in letting go of my 1987 190d 2.5 TURBO. All original with Zero rust. I am not a motivated seller but have too many cars already.

Hmm I've never liked the 210s. Those headlights and the body style...just not my tastes.

My old 190D 2.5 n/a with 5 speed manual used to get around 45-47ish on a daily commute of 100 miles round-trip, running 100% proper BioDiesel fuel....

It was mostly 'freeway' driving, with about 5 miles city driving in the trip each way.
--It did that for around 2 years, then I got the 300D Wagon, and sold the 190....
During that use, it had just regular servicing,--and a pair of rear springs and shocks,--which I put down to age rather than loads...

That some excellent fuel economy. Damn impressive.

So I'm back at the table with deciding on purchasing a 190D/DT.

I was talking with some people and they brought up good points about reliability and the fact that I wont have time to be under the hood (which saddens me greatly).

One of them said just buy a cheap Hyundai... Which I understand the logic but dislike the idea. I love my Mercedes so I think thats where I'll stick. Plus most of my family members and friends would be pleased with such a purchase, not to mention myself. I just can't see it.

That being said... I know the math will never quite work out. It'll never be cheaper to have two cars in the long run. But in the case that something should happen to the 190E and it needs to go down for maintenance or something...It does have 225k on the chassis, near 100k on the motor now. The interior could be in better shape. Typical aging internally.

Your in a delima that most guys ,including myself ,fall into after buying a cheap MB ,their mostly reliable but just like all things mechanical it all fails at once.You really need to make your decision after inspecting the cars your interested in through a shop , once youve done that will you know what your looking at.If you stay with the old 190e and expect another 5 years think again ,it will disappoint you .Sell it cheap then find a couple of service queens .You cant go wrong with a car thats got champion service hanging around its neck.

If car buying decisions hinged solely upon economic factors, we'd all be shopping for bland, 10 year old Toyota Camrys...still reliable, cheap to own, and about bottomed out on resale value.

Come to think of it...buying *any* car makes absolutely no financial sense given the cost of bicyling. An additional logical step leads me to think that even bicyling is an unnecessary expense because a good set of running shoes is much cheaper.

Why do we live in a house when a tent is more cost effective? Etc. etc...

I'm overly exaggerating, I know. But we all draw the fun vs financial line somewhere. I always recommend to go with whatever moves you. If buying another MB doesn't put you in a bind and it's something that you enjoy, then go for it. It's hard to put a price tag on happiness.