Hi all.
I'm thinking of looking for a 300D(123 series) but also looking to keep things simple as in no alum head, no turbo, no AT. I'm trying to narrow down the range of years to be looking for. So far from my minimal knowledge of these, I'm figuring somewhere around 1977-81 seems to be the range? Could someone help me with these questions?

-What was the last year for the iron head in the 300D's?
-Were all US versions auto tranny equipped or did some have the 4 speed manual trans?
-What was the last year of the non-turbo motors?
I suppose I'll have to live with either the turbo or AT but for sure don't want the aluminum head version.
Thanks.

All US equipped cars have automatic transmissions. Last year for the non turbo was '81 or '82, I think '82. Last iron head was '85 617 (five cylinder) motors.

The normally aspirated 300D's theoretically have 25% more torque, but because of the mandatory automatic, you are just giving that power back to the automatic.

If you want simplicity, stay with your manual transmission 240D. I wouldn't take two perfect 300D's for an average conditioned manual transmission 240D. That's just me.

Good luck,

Thanks for the reply Larry. It sorta confirmed what little research I've done. With what little knowledge I have of these things I agree a 240D w/4 spd would seem to be better than a 300D w/AT. Same power but not have the expensive grief/hassels of the AT. Thanks.

Larry,

Not questioning you, just wondering how the non turbo can generate more torque than a turbo 300d? The engines are the same as far as displacement right? I know the non turbo is lower in HP and I would think would also have a lower torque output.
When it comes to how these things are put together and operate your the man

Sorry Larry, 1981 was the last year of the non-turbo in the US.

The non-turbo 617 had about 88hp while the turbo had 120hp.

I don't mean to speak for Larry here but what I got out his reply to my post was: the 300D non-turbo is about 25% more powerful than a 240D. But since the 300 has an AT I'd loose the 25% gain because of the AT in the 300 eating up the extra power? That's just the way I read it anyway.

Ok, no more stupid questions from me I can see that was what LB was talking about now.