|
|
|
|
|
#1
11-13-2013, 10:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
240D vs 250 W115 Fuel consumption?
Hey folks,
I've been offered a pretty solid deal on a '71 250 this week. I was just wondering how fuel consumption on the 250 would compare to my '74 240D? Would be nice to have a little more oomph when driving up a hill (and then I could take my 240D off the road and sort it out properly perhaps ) Any thoughts? 
|
|
#2
11-13-2013, 10:41 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
From what I know the gas 6 cylinder cars get mid to high teens
 -J
__________________
1991 350SDL. 230,000 miles (new motor @ 150,000). Blown head gasket  Tesla Model 3. 205,000 miles. Been to 48 states! Past: A fleet of VW TDIs.... including a V10,a Dieselgate Passat, and 2 ECOdiesels. 2014 Cadillac ELR 2013 Fiat 500E.
|
|
#3
11-14-2013, 08:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
This website suggests that the 240D gets 25 mpg and the 250 gets 20 mpg.
Kategorie:W114/W115/en 20 mpg seems high for the 250 based on other comments I have read about them.
__________________
1968 220D, w115, /8, OM615, Automatic transmission. My 1987 300TD wagon was sold and my 2003 W210 E320 wagon was totaled (sheds tear).
|
|
#4
11-14-2013, 10:58 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
In today's world, neither car gets good mileage.
Both cars have their own problem set, it's condition that's important, not the economy. If you're concerned about mileage, get a newer car that can get in the mid thirties, and save the money for one old project car, not two. Jim
__________________
14 E250 BlueTEC black. 45k miles 95 E320 Cabriolet Emerald green 66k miles 94 E320 Cabriolet Emerald green 152k miles 85 300TD 4 spd man, euro bumpers and lights, 15" Pentas dark blue 274k miles
|
|
#5
11-14-2013, 08:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I can't imagine a 250 gas getting over 15, and it wants premium....
|
|
#7
11-14-2013, 10:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#8
11-15-2013, 08:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fuel consumption on the older gassers is pretty mediocre, due mainly to their rear-end gearing that favors performance over economy.
I had a '72 automatic W114 250 for many years. The '72s had reduced compression to use regular unleaded gas, but mine had a M130 six out of a '70 250C so higher compression and premium fuel. 13-15 mpg city, 19- 21 mpg highway. All things equal, I'd expect the lower compression '72 engine would get about 1 or 2 mpg worse. Then I drove a tired '60 manual-shift Fintail 220S for a few years. It got maybe 1-2 mpg better than the 250. I currently own an '82 stickshift 240D, getting around 20 mpg city, 30 highway - not bad for a low-tech 3200 pound car. But I do miss the smooth refined power of those old sixes! Happy Motoring, Mark
__________________
DrDKW
|
|
#9
11-17-2013, 02:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I only use the car on weekends and evenings really. Have another vehicle during the day... just wondered if there was much of a difference given the age of them both. I'll probably stick to my 240D then unless the 250 is spectacularly great!
Thanks for the info guys 
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
