how much dif. btwn turbo and non-turbo ?
 

how much slower would a non-turbo 1980 300 D be than a turbo 1985 300 D ? Assuming engine wear etc is similar. I ask because someone has a 1980 300 D for sale w/ 210,000 miles locally. I have a turbo model and have never driven any other ones. The car that's for sale has NO RUST and is in excellent condition except for the rear passenger pwr window not working. They are asking $5,000 but the price is not firm, has NO water leaks either. Any oppinions on if this seems like a good deal and how much slower would it be ?

first of all, that is an extremely high price for a NA diesel with that mileage on it.

The turbo will out-run a non turbo. Drive it and you'll see (and feel) the difference.
That said, a non turbo with a stick transmission is the most reliable combination next to the 4 cyl 240D that MB ever made. An automatic transmission on the non turbo is something not well adapted to modern traffic and the way people drive they will be honking at you to get out of the way :(

the turbo gets you from 88hp to 125hp. that is like adding 2 more cylinders!!!!
at low rpm however the difference is less noticeable. NA engines are however supposed to last longer and have less issues (Crud! intead of going 700000 miles on an engine you can only go 600000!!!!) related to cooling.

I assume you have never owned an automatic N/A with working air-conditioning?

I drive my 240D everywhere I go and while it does throw a wrench into the plans of those in the left lane that want to do 90+ whenever I am passing, it is *not* undrivable.

It just asks that you be more observant than others around you, that is all-- It'll make you one hell of a defensive driver.

Oh.. and those little wrestling matches everyone has with road rage... you can't do anything about them... only hollar and wave your hands in anger hahahaha

Wouldn't trade it for anything else (except an s420cdi :D)

You really need to drive it yourself to decide if the power is adequate for your needs, it will be noticeably slower than your turbo. I agree that $5K is at the very high end for a n/a 300D with 200K+ miles. For that price it should be pretty close to perfect. Pay attention to the old style climate control in this car, it can be an expensive PITA.

Thanks for input from all. I may look at it this weekend and see for myself. The seller did say that the price was set by his wife and is definately not firm. I only paid $2,000 for my 85 turbo but have spent another $1,000 on it and it does have some rust:( . I'm thinking maybe a rust free body is fair tradeoff of a slower car ?:confused: ;)

5k is a bit rediculous. Chances are you'd have to put a grand into it anyway, count on that for any used car. Do they have complete service records dating back to the date of sale or something? That seems like it is a very inflated price...

Actually, the OM617.952 only puts about 90hp on the ground.

Is 38% loss typical for the auto trans cars?

How much for the manual trans?

I test drove a N/A 300D once, and with a/c and an automatic transmission, it got along pretty nicely, I got on the freeway without being run down and kept up with the flow. But, it was a Euro, so that may be part of it. Just drive it like you stole it and it shouldn't have any problems. It's top speed is like 90 or 95, which is about right for left lane cruising on the open interstate, albeit VERY loudly.:D

In Houston at least, it would be fine for driving on the freeways in the city around 70-80mph.

I have had the non-turbo 300D for 22 years, the 300SD turbo for
just a few months. The 300SD runs very well, but I cannot believe
how much I enjoy the 300D with no turbo. Not because it has no turbo,
I just love how it runs and good it feels driving it.

If I am doing something by myslef, I use the 300D.

But you do have to adjust your expectations. If I am climbing a hill, I pull over to
the right with the big trucks and putt along.

and iam talking crankshaft output. if the turbo only puts 90hp on the ground then the NA puts something like 55!!!

My non turbo does fine. I am sure that the extra HP would help in some situations, dpending on how timely the turbo is in kicking in.

I used to own a Dodge Daytona 4 cyl. gasser w turbo.
Hardly ever kicked it in to get a jolt. First time I did, I got a speeding ticket. About a year the turbo thang got me into another car.. small crunch.

I appreciate the 300D as a work car cuzz I know I am less likely to get into trouble with mind on many things.(also girl watching !)

Anyway, I just sold my folks' zero rust 240D 1979 with about139K mles for $2500 (All service records included from day one.).

$5K will buy you a 300D COUPE Turbo in excellent condition.

Don't spend on this one. Buy it for $1200 due to mileage.
Maybe a bit more if ALL records are available.

Well, I guess it depends on your definition of "excellent condition," but $5K may buy a decent turbo coupe. $1200 is probably too cheap for the n/a 300D unless it's pretty beat up, maybe $3K is more reasonable if its in good condition.

Well, this part of the post is a very true statement. Half that price would still need to be a nice clean car to justify that cash.

I'm not so sure I agree with this part of the post, no offense to ddh. First, folks act like our turbo 300D's are rocket ships. Any car that can have it's doors blown off by the wife's Toyota van is no rocket.
The turbo is faster than the NA, but having said that, the NA is far far from not working in modern traffic. I also had no problems blowing down the highway in the 70's or 80's. It is a smooth, well performing power plant.
Don't fear the NA 617. Promise.....:thumbsup: