240D v.s. 300D

Hi,
My father needs a commuter car.. so he asked me and i came up with a W123.. now the question is 240D? or 300D?.. He will be driving about 70 miles a day.. so what would be the better choice.. i know the 240's came in a 4 speed.. but what would be most reliable and handel the 70 miles a day hes gonna put on it.. Thanks a bunch !

[Jay]

IMHO Look for a 300Dturbo, the 240's are underpowered. My wife's Aunt has her 240D storded in the barn. She said that she is tired of people blowing there horns and giving her the Bird because she is going so slow in the Pa. hills. I good running 300Dturbo has a lot more power.IMHO

Both of these cars are totally underpowered. But for a commuter car, especially if much of this 70 miles is cruising. The 240D manual would be hands down a better choice. The 300 is one more cylinder of the same bore and stroke, this theoretically offers 25% more power, but you give that power to the automatic transmission.

The 240D manual is twice as simple, and probably more reliable because the 300's are fraught with doodad's like climate control, electric windows and sunroof, and a more cramped engine compartment.

For the purposes you describe with the desired characteristics you describe, the 240D manual is clearly a better choice.

Best of luck,

------------------
Larry Bible
'01 C Class, Six Speed
'84 Euro 240D, 523K miles
'88 300E 5 Speed
'81 300D Daughter's Car
Over 800,000 miles in
Mercedes automobiles

[richard u]

300 TD under powered? Compared to what?

I had a V8 Powered Ford before getting the 99-E-300TD.

I see little if ANY difference in every day driving (power wise).

Sure there are plenty of faster MB’s around, but for a family sedan

the 300 TD goes as fast as you will ever need to go, or want to go

if you’re over 35 <G>

I recommend the 300D but only with the turbo. I drive a daily 60 mile RT commute on highway 280 in CA and it is necessary to have the turbodiesel in order to cruise comfortably at the 75-80 mph that everyone else is doing.

Richard,

Jivesh and I are talking about the W123 series car built from '77 to '85. There's no comparison between these and the W210 series that you drive. He is talking about an inexpensive commuter car for his dad, not a $50,000 new car.

Even the '96 E300 normally aspirated diesel that I had delivered twice the horsepower and took half the time to get to 60 MPH than an early 240D. The turbo version is indeed in the same drag racing league as many gas engine cars on the road.

Have a great day,

------------------
Larry Bible
'01 C Class, Six Speed
'84 Euro 240D, 523K miles
'88 300E 5 Speed
'81 300D Daughter's Car
Over 800,000 miles in
Mercedes automobiles

You don't need a turbo to cruise 75 or 80 in one of these cars. The turbo will get you to that speed quicker, but a manual transmission 240D will CRUISE at that speed with very little trouble.

Everyone is focusing on power. Jivesh clearly stated that what they are looking for is dependability. The 240D will provide more simplicity and dependability than one of the five cylinder cars.

Good luck,

------------------
Larry Bible
'01 C Class, Six Speed
'84 Euro 240D, 523K miles
'88 300E 5 Speed
'81 300D Daughter's Car
Over 800,000 miles in
Mercedes automobiles

Jivesh,
No matter what model W113 you choose it will no doubt be a reliable car provided it saw good upkeep over the years. I spent 6 mos looking for the right W113 and found the turbodiesel was the most pleasing to drive. I found the regular diesels and 240s slow and aggravating. Stick with a 83-85 300T.

The 300D-T seems quite dependable. Mine has 336K miles and everything still works. Try test driving both models include some uphill freeway driving and passing manuevers on two-lane undivided highways. Then see which one you are more comfortable with.

Again, Jivesh indicated he wants the most reliable. Power does not seem to enter into his criteria. The 300D's bring automatic transmission, climate control, electric windows and electric sunroofs into the equation. These are all items that offer more possibility for failure and need of expensive repair.

I agree that the 300DTurbo is a more pleasing car to drive. I've driven most every combination of the 123 car. But if reliability, and economy is what you want, the 240D with a manual transmission is the clear choice.

For me the perfect 123 car would be a manual transmission 300DTurbo with manual windows, manual sunroof and no climate control. The only way I could ever have one would be to build it myself. If I could mate a manual transmission to a five cylinder turbo, I might just do that.

Best of luck,

------------------
Larry Bible
'01 C Class, Six Speed
'84 Euro 240D, 523K miles
'88 300E 5 Speed
'81 300D Daughter's Car
Over 800,000 miles in
Mercedes automobiles

Last year I bought an '83 300D-T with 137k for five grand. After a water pump and new glow plugs, EVERYTHING works and it's wonderful.

This will stir up some trouble, but...
I believe that a turbocharged diesel is THE most efficient engine [gas turbines aside], and I don't think that the automatic which robs approximately 5-6% of power diminishes the 30-45% increase generated by turbocharging.

Comments?

[SW]

My thoughts about the 240D stick vs 300D-t:

When I took a fluid power course in college, I wrote a report on auto transmissions and I found that they were 60 to 75% effecient at transferring power. Manual transmissions are around 99% efficient.

I have had both the 240D and 300D-t as daily drivers (100 miles a day). If your drive is mostly highway, either car will do. Like others said, the turbo will accelerate quicker, but both cars are the same when cruising. However, from a stand still, I feel the 240 is quicker up to about 25 mph. The 240's also get better fuel mileage. My old 240 used to get 33mpg at 65mph. The 300 can get 28 mpg. After driving both, I would take the 240D with a manual trans any day. The 300D is super reliable, but a 240D with a manual trans is ultra-reliable.

------------------
'82 300D Turbo 219k miles

300 turbo. Had an 82 that went 250k miles w/o problem, then I sold it. New owner is nearing 300k miles and said tranny is going. Plenty fast, decent accel and good mileage.

Well I have to admit that a 300D-T with a 5 speed would be the ticket. Manual transmissions are certainly more efficient and make cars more fun to drive.

[unkl300d]

I have to agree with Larry.
I used to have a 240d ,albeit 1976,
and it got great gas mileage
and it was real simple, no power
accessories and easy to work on mechanically.
good reliability.
I've read in archives how the manual trans version gets very good mileage
and probably more fun to drive.
Commute with the 240D and save some bucks for your choice of cruiser-bruiser!

300d is good but the gas mileage
could be better!(25mpg)

------------------
1979 300D
133K miles
1989 300SE
1995 C280