How would a manual transmission 240D compare to an automatic transmissioned non-turbo 300D?

I believe a healthy 240D, manual would keep up with a automatic, non turbo 300, both my 240Ds have plenty of zip.

__________________


1985 Euro 240D 5 spd 140K
1979 240D 5 spd, 40K on engine rebuild
1994 Dodge/Cummins, 5 spd, 121K
1964 Allice Chalmers D15 tractor
2014 Kubota L3800 tractor
1964 VW bug

"Lifes too short to drive a boring car"

I own each. I believe the 300d non turbo is still a little faster overall. The main difference as well is the rear axel. It is a small amount taller in the 300d. Highway cruise is slightly less revs but the 300d could still use a slightly taller ratio. The 240d needs a taller ratio as well but does not really have the power to utilise it. So that leaves any improvement basically to the five speed transmission. Not the easiest thing to get your hands on but I think a worthwhile thing to do. Both cars running gear are in really good condition. In a 1/4 mile I still feel the 300d would get the 240d as well. It might be close though.To qualify this further certain 300ds are dogs and so are some 240ds. I believe both of mine are high average and fairly strong examples for types. Although one of my 240ds seems to have more steam than the other 240d that is identical. This comparison could be an apples and oranges kind of thing perhaps. I really like my 240ds but the 300d can get them I believe. Might be wrong though as the 300d does feel smoother as well overall. Interesting comparison. Now I guess a 240d automatic is in a class all it's own. Yet some people are very happy with them.