AGAIN, there are many in this thread that are comparing oranges to apples. These are two different cars, designed 30 years apart for different markets.

The comment about throwing parts at it is one that I am prepared to take issue with. I have a very detailed log book for my half million mile 240D. I didn't start the log until a little after 140,000 miles, but there were virtually no repairs before that mark.

The parts that I "threw at" that car were so minimal for so many miles that it is incredible. I never replaced a u-joint, ball joint or tie rod end until a little before the 500,000 mile mark. It went through a few starters, a couple of alternators a couple of clutches, a vacuum pump during this course of time. At 380,000 miles I did an overhaul because it seemed time due to the rear main seal suddenly beginning to leak profusely. Once the engine was apart, however, everything was in amazingly good shape with very little bearing or piston/cylinder wear. There was the beginning of a ring land failure on one piston. It was in good enough shape that it is very possible that had I simply replaced the rear main, it would have made it a lot farther.

I turned the car over to my son at 450,000 miles on his sixteenth birthday. His goal was to see a half million miles on it before he left for college and he made it.

Another thing about that car which is hard to describe is the UNBELIEVABLE reliability and dependability it offered. Almost the whole time I drove that car I was driving 60 to 70 thousand miles a year covering several states. It was just another average day for me to jump in that car at 3:00AM for a six hour drive to an important meeting. That car NEVER, EVER caused me to be late for a meeting. It came close one time when a belt broke, but luckily I had enough pad in my schedule that I showed up on time and this was about a five hour one way trip. Given the cars designed in the sixties and seventies, I doubt that very many of them could give you that kind of serious dependability. I didn't even carry a tool kit in the car until it had about 300,000 miles on it and just about every time I started it up I was going for at least an hour and a half drive.

As I said in a previous post, this car cost fewer pennies per mile ALL EXPENSES included, than any other car I ever owned that I purchased new or near new. Ammortizing the original cost and ALL operational expenses including insurance gave me the cheapest cost per mile of anything I ever drove. I wish I could say that for my 124 car.

Wasn't that a gasoline car?

I've heard the Jetta described as the best diesel sedan available in the US for under $30K. If there were a small diesel in a C class, M-B would probably be getting pretty close.

The '06 Jetta is great to drive. It handles very well and feels solid. The steering on the '96 Benz feels just a bit more disconnected from the road, but otherwise it handles every bit as good as the Jetta.

But if you're a passenger, the Benz is hands-down a much better ride under all circumstances. There is no comparison. You don't seem to feel all of those road vibrations when you're driving.

No wonder 240D lasts forever. There is nothing to break since there is no turbo which also makes it a turtle to drive. In todays world I would rather walk than drive 240D since 0-60 I can walk faster :)

wow....

Yes Jim, My 124 is a manual transmission 300E. Beyond the engine, the car has required much more attention than any 123 car I ever had.

I have never driven an '06 Jetta. I think the newest I have driven is my nieces and it's an '03 or '04. In a straight line it's fine. In a turn it's just another front engine car that feels like a phone booth on a skate board. Maybe I need to drive a later model to find one that handles well.

I think that you need to enter the Olympics!

The new platform drives a lot better then the old one. Better rear suspension, better front suspension, etc. Plus VW put cheap struts on the US market cars so on the previous gen ones they front struts would be dead by 80k.

-J

96 Benz VS 06 Jetta??? 10 years apart... how about 06 Passat TDI and 06 MB E320 CDI?? Would you like to compare them?? They are at the same level. Jetta is equivalent of C class Mercedes, lets level the field if we are going to compare.

They are many Diesel Mercedes models and every one of them is miles ahead of any VW...unfortunately not a single one of them is for sale in the US :mad:

A-170; A-200CDI ; B-170 ; B-200CDI ; C 200 ; C220CDI ; E220CDI... just to mention a few...
Every one of the above models is capable of returning 45+ MPG without breaking a sweat.

A great point! When it comes to diesel powered automobiles, In the US we only see a TINY FRACTION of what is available in the world.

In 2000 through 2002 I spent a LOT of time in Europe, about half of that time in Germany. When you pick up your rent car in Europe and then start seeing the fuel gauge get low, you have to start investigating what fuel is required. With some of those cars you absolutely cannot tell that there's a diesel engine under the hood by driving it. They are quiet, powerful and smooth.

To VW's credit, they have been one of the few that has explored the US diesel market. There are better examples by other manufacturers to be found. As much as I disliked driving it, I rented a Citroen sedan in Sophia, France. It had a crazy manual load leveling rear suspension that made it a TERRIBLE car to drive, but it had the most quiet, powerful and smooth diesel engine I've ever driven. At one point I had gotten out of it and got a tiny tinge of diesel smell that made me investigate before fueling it up.

I am not proposing that we drive Citroens here, because it was a terrible car in many ways, but it gives you a glimpse of what diesels can do.

LOL the Jetta is the *only* diesel sedan available in the US for under $30k. That's like saying the E320 CDI is the best diesel sedan in the US above $30k. Hard not to be 1st place in a field of 1. ;)

Don't get me wrong, I like the new common-rail TDI, but if Mercedes sold the C220 CDI here (with a manual gearbox), I'd leave work right now and buy one today.

170 hp, 47 mpg, and that lovely styling that the new C class has. Mmmmmmm.

Yes, there is a ten-year gap there. You might even expect that the newer car had a better ride, and you would be wrong.

I am saying that the ten-year-older car is much more comfortable. Yes, a Jetta is more equivalent to a C class (but still not up to par with it). But as I can't buy a new C class diesel, well, what should I have done?

I would love for my comparison to be between the Jetta and an '06 E class diesel, but alas, I don't have one of the latter. I would expect that the '06 E would blow the doors off of my '96 in about every possible way.

I don't know why we're even making these comparisons, but I could compare the '09 Jetta TDI with the '09 E320 Bluetec, even though the Bluetec costs twice as much. I've test driven both of them. The E-class is more comfortable to sit in, especially in the backseat, and it's more powerful but naturally more thirsty. It's also not as clean and it's more complicated, particularly the climate control. What really bugs me about all MB's is why the heck can't I control my own air recirculation and why it has to be automated. Also I think the 7 gears in the automatic are a bit overkill.