Happy holidays-
I just sold my 300 SD and now I'm looking for the smaller 300 D prefer turbo but am not opposed to looking at the 240 or 190 D (slower than the) which are not Turbos.
My question is which is faster? The 1985 190 D or the 240 D? or are they about the same, let's stay with AUTOMATIC transmission to be fair.
Bias opinions are welcome.
Frankie

__________________
Frankie
It never ends!
1985 300D Turbo 181K Anthracite grey, "SOPHIA"
1984 300 SD Turbo(sold)
2004 Subaru Forester XT,Cayenne red.

I previously owned a 190D, 1984, and it was very slow. When I first got it, it would not go over 45 but after some filter changing, it sped up to normal. I have also driven a 240D. In my opinion, the 190D seemed to be a little quicker. My guess would be that the 190D weighed slightly less than the 240D. This is just my opinion though, and you know what those are like, earlobes, everyone has two and some have holes in them

__________________
2005 Accord Hybrid (Wifes)
1995 Subaru Impreza L AWD (Snow car)
1984 GMC Sierra 1500 (Mine)
1983 300CD Best $ I ever spent. (Mine)
1984 190D (sold and glad I did)
1983 300D (sold and wished I hadn't)

Off the top of my head, the w201 is only around 2600lbs or so. The w123 is around 3400lbs.

__________________
1973 280 - Current Project Car
1979 240d - 100% Stock
1982 380sl - 100% Stock
1985 190e 2.3 - Heavily Modified

i would imagine a 190D would be quicker than the 240D

Especially a 190D with the 602 in it. No contest there, turbo or NA.

__________________
Dale

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g1...MG_2277sig.jpg

1990 300D 2.5 Turbo -155k
2000 E430 - 103k
2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee Ecodiesel 4x4 - 11k
2014 VW Passat TDI SE - 7k Bro's Diesel
2006 E320 CDI - 128k Pop's Benz

Pre-glow - A moment of silence in honor of Rudolph Diesel

Find a 190D with the 5-speed transmission. I had the smallest of the engines (2.2L), mated with a 5-speed, and I could reach 100mph. Obviously, reaching that speed would take a considerable amount of time, and you would never want to cruise at that speed if you wanted the engine to last.

__________________
Ed
-1984 Mercedes 190D 2.2 5-speed gray market(bought@30,000 miles) (Sold back to original owner@170,000 miles)
-1999 Mercedes E300DT (245,000 miles)
-1999 Mercedes S500 Grand Edition (80,000 miles)

I agree. I had an '86 190D and it was faster than either of my SD's.

__________________
Michael LaFleur

'05 E320 CDI - 86,000 miles
'86 300SDL - 360,000 miles
'85 300SD - 150,000 miles (sold)
'89 190D - 120,000 miles (sold)
'85 300SD - 317,000 miles (sold)
'98 ML320 - 270,000 miles (sold)
'75 300D - 170,000 miles (sold)
'83 Harley Davidson FLTC (Broken again) :-(
'61 Plymouth Valiant - 60k mikes
2004 Papillon (Oliver)
2005 Tzitzu (Griffon)
2009 Welsh Corgi (Buba)

Any more comparisons of 190 D vs. the 240 D? The 190 has a 2.2 liter. How many liters is the 240 D? It sounds like it is a close call. Would the 190 D be a little faster only based on the fact that it weighs less?
I plan to cruise at my usual 70-75 mph (daily driver).


The 190D with a "602" sounds like it is altered, which I might disqualify, sorry.
Frankie

__________________
Frankie
It never ends!
1985 300D Turbo 181K Anthracite grey, "SOPHIA"
1984 300 SD Turbo(sold)
2004 Subaru Forester XT,Cayenne red.

The 190D changed from the 2.2l to the 2.5l engine (602) about '86 (don't know the year for sure). A much peppier engine even without the turbo.

The 190D 2.5 (non-turbo) is listed at 2845lbs in '87, the turbo at 3010lbs, the 300D turbo at 3375lbs. Big difference in final-drive ratio with the non-turbo (3.42:1) vs the turbo cars' 2.65:1 to help it launch.

The 240D was 2.4l, I don't think that changed even in the US. I'm not really confident that the 240D was lighter than the 190D, could have been. Although the 240D might have been built with heavier body steel etc., it had less features and creature comforts than the later 190Ds which add weight (such as sound-deadening and airbags for example).

__________________

Gone to the dark side

- Jeff

The 240d engine is a dinosaur,50 year old design,the 2.2 l in the early 190's are actually the first MB "modern" diesels,easy to start in winter,quiet,many years ago I had no problem cruising on the autobahn in Germany with the 2.2 d at 140km/h for long hours,later same design engine got 6cyl in 1986 on the 300d,300sdl and 5 cyl in the later 190's and 1990-93 300d2.5turbo.

The 240D was heavier (3250 pounds) and it always had a 2.4 N/A engine.

And no doubt next generation diesel modifications explain how the '83 1997cc 190D develops the same 72bhp as the primitive 2404cc 240D..... http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/?man=3932

Well, I own both cars, a 4speed manual 240D with 267000 and a 5 speed manual 190D with 144000 on the clock. The 190D is much quicker compared to the 240D. I'm sure the 240D is a little tired and the valves probably need to be adjusted again. However, the weight difference is significant and must be the deciding factor. Both cars have nearly the same horsepower. I like them both, for different reasons. I still want a 190D 2.5 turbo, or 1999 C43 AMG!

Kevin
1979 240D manual
1984 190D manual

The 190D is faster then the 240d.

I ended up racing a 240d on a long road. And I beat his butt everytime.

Just my .00000002 cents.

VOLARE-
Was that racing in a stick shift or automatic tranny? Were the two cars similar in age or mileage? Factors for me to consider.
I am leaning towards the 190 D. Anyone know if the late 1980 models had problems with bent rods?? Those problems seemed to plague the 300 SD in the late 1980's.
Frankie

__________________
Frankie
It never ends!
1985 300D Turbo 181K Anthracite grey, "SOPHIA"
1984 300 SD Turbo(sold)
2004 Subaru Forester XT,Cayenne red.