If 240d poverty is the diesel pits, then what's the TOPS? - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Sev · #1 10-08-2009, 02:19 AM

yeah, so everyone here complains, or rather just notes, how slow the 240d is. maybe they're proud of it, too? so, if the 240d is the dog of the mercedes diesel lineup--the slowest, and potentially least-well equipped (say, the poverty model, with no options whatsoever), in terms of overall options availabe to buyers for any particular model, then what would be the opposite: the fastest, most well-equipped, most luxurious mercedes diesel? let's say, in the time period the 240d was made, from 77-85

i guess if you were to expand it backwards there would be other more luxurious and more powerful diesel-equipped chassis, but i don't know too much (just a little) about chassis and models before the w114/115 era.

jt20 · #2 10-08-2009, 02:22 AM

a TD......

duh?

Sev · #3 10-08-2009, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jt20

a TD......

duh?

so a 300td you think is better than a fully loaded, say, 300sd? either w126 or w116? just wondering why you think that

jt20 · #4 10-08-2009, 02:41 AM

v e r s a t i l i t y

tankowner · #5 10-08-2009, 03:00 AM

What the 240D lacks in speed and acceleration, it more than makes up for in sheer simplicity and longevity. To me, "least well equipped" equals desirable simplicity. I thought my '95 300D was a dream to work on when I first bought it, then I found the 240D.

#6 10-08-2009, 04:00 AM

For an actual daily driver, the 240D is the best around town (either W115 or W123 N/A 300D would also be great). For highway driving, the W123 300D is the perfect midsize car, the W116 is perfect if you want/need something bigger (the W126 is too "new" looking for me). If there was something better, I would be driving it.

For pure style/looks, there are several older cars I would drive, but they are not practical drivers.

turbobenz · #7 10-08-2009, 05:25 AM

300SD 81-85

JimFreeh · #8 10-08-2009, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turbobenz

300SD 81-85

Having owned examples of each, this was also my favorite.
Though, I'd limit it to 83-85, for the nicer features on the later ones.

Jim

Shawn T. W. · #9 10-08-2009, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sev

yeah, so everyone here complains, or rather just notes, how slow the 240d is. maybe they're proud of it, too? so, if the 240d is the dog of the mercedes diesel lineup--the slowest, and potentially least-well equipped (say, the poverty model, with no options whatsoever), in terms of overall options availabe to buyers for any particular model, then what would be the opposite: the fastest, most well-equipped, most luxurious mercedes diesel? let's say, in the time period the 240d was made, from 77-85

i guess if you were to expand it backwards there would be other more luxurious and more powerful diesel-equipped chassis, but i don't know too much (just a little) about chassis and models before the w114/115 era.

My 240 came STANDARD with a MANUAL tranny! That is a VERY DESIRABLE feature that your "most luxurious mercedes" don't have and is a pain to convert!

I also have MANUAL A/C, not your "most luxurious mercedes EVIL Servo"!

I am very happy with my 240, I'd rather drive my 240 than walk . . .wanna race? (You on foot of course!)

pawoSD · #10 10-08-2009, 08:15 AM

The 300SD is best, simple as that.

I don't mind the 240d however. It may be slow, but its still fun!

bustedbenz · #11 10-08-2009, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sev

yeah, so everyone here complains, or rather just notes, how slow the 240d is. maybe they're proud of it, too? so, if the 240d is the dog of the mercedes diesel lineup--the slowest, and potentially least-well equipped (say, the poverty model, with no options whatsoever), in terms of overall options availabe to buyers for any particular model, then what would be the opposite: the fastest, most well-equipped, most luxurious mercedes diesel? let's say, in the time period the 240d was made, from 77-85

i guess if you were to expand it backwards there would be other more luxurious and more powerful diesel-equipped chassis, but i don't know too much (just a little) about chassis and models before the w114/115 era.

The 300SD, no question about it. The others are all... well in modern terms, they'd be the E-class. The w126 (the thru-85 300SD OR the 86-91 second generation version), being in the S-class bracket, are by definition going to have more luxury and more features.

Whether they're more or less desirable than the w123 (wagon, 240d, 300d) is something that will be debated on until the last one of each rusts off the road for the last time. And it'll always be a purely opinion question. But there's no changing the fact that the S-class (only one diesel option no matter what year you look in, generally) was built, by the factory, intentionally to be the most luxurious and the most feature-laden.

Speed of these things, class aside, almost expands linearly with time. The larger engines (5 cylinder compared to 4 until 1986) will be faster than their smaller counterparts, newer engines (6 cylinder from 86 until 91 or so) will outrun the old ones, and the newest ones (say, from the 95-99 e300 all the way up to present day models) will outrun everything they replaced. There's a couple exceptions based on the weight of two different cars the same engine drags around, but they're almost negligible.

In my personal opinion, the w126 300SD in the year range you specified is the car that fits your criteria.

okyoureabeast · #12 10-08-2009, 09:50 AM

A 1985 300D.

Why you ask?

It has a better torque converter for the sweet spot in the engine, a 2:88 differential, and they all greet you with a fuzzy hug.

My 85 has power windows, antenna, sun roof, and the automatic heating/cooling. I love it

Brandon_SLC · #13 10-08-2009, 12:15 PM

It's obviously the w126 300SD. One generation newer. You can get them pretty loaded up. The SDL came out well after the 240D had been discontinued, so not fair to count it. The Coupes are pretty neat, but can be just as spartan as they're based on the Plebeian w123. I don't see how anyone can consider a 300DT "Tops" when it doesn't even have power seats. W123s came with loop carpet, while all 126s had the more luxurious German Velour.

Better stereo, power seats, better sound insulation, Large, roomy interior, longer wheels base. IMO the '1983-'84 seemed to be the best of the bunch. With Federal emissions they produced an honest 123HP, with a 1st gear start they were pretty quick.

Many people on this board seem to prefer the taller gearing and hence, better fuel economy of the '85, which is better for freeway cruising. California cars were a little more choked by emissions, especially 1985 Versions.

winmutt · #14 10-08-2009, 12:28 PM

You bad this was limited to those years, its arguable. If it was all years then CERTAINLY the amg cdi would be the winner.