I was wanting to ask if the '83's were a better car with the stick shift vs. the automatic or not? Like for acceleration and like running on the highway.

Sticks will be a bit faster, you control the shift points.

Automatics take some horsepower to even move.

As for once moving, negligible difference.

__________________
83 SD

84 CD

Any year 240D, a manual Transmission is a better set up than one with an automatic transmission. The manual trans wakes them up some.

A manual trans 240 will get better mileage. the acceleration will be better.

My bro in law has an 82 with over 140K miles on it and auto trans, our 80 240d has 359k and a manual trans. A yr and half abo we both went up to Portland, Or. we both filled up at the same Truck Stop in Lathrop, Ca. It is 100 miles east of Santa Cruz here on the coast. We got 100 miles into Oregon and he needed fuel. and we had enough and made it just shy of Portland. had a Motel in Wilsonville. we fueled there, it was 634 miles. we got 33.23mpg and he was getting 27.

I have driven his car, and it is doggy compared to the manual trans.

If you are shiftless, then I guess an auto trans is for you.


These old W123 are old, so when you are looking at one, condition condition condition is important. You are buying deferred maintenance and prior neglect along with rust and accident damage. so which ever one you look at, better check everything over good. I don`t are what the owner says how wonderful his baby is. once you hand over the loot, it`s your baby now. .


Charlie

__________________
there were three HP ratings on the OM616...

1) Not much power
2) Even less power
3) Not nearly enough power!! 240D w/auto

Anyone that thinks a 240D is slow drives too fast.

80 240D Naturally Exasperated, 4-Spd 388k DD 150mph spedo 3:58 Diff

We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics. Funny how that works

I had an 83 240D manual....I liked it fine and found that it had adequate get-up-and-go for whatever I needed to do. But I remember thinking that I would NEVER want to own a 240D automatic...if it were much slower at all than the manual it would just be too sluggish.

__________________
14 E250 Bluetec "Sinclair", Palladium Silver on Black, 153k miles
06 E320 CDI "Rutherford", Black on Tan, 171k mi, Stage 1 tune, tuned TCU
91 300D "Otis", Smoke Silver, 142k mi, wastegate conversion

19 Honda CR-V EX 61k mi
Fourteen other MB's owned and sold
1961 Very Tolerant Wife

sometimes i wonder if there was ever an automatic 200D. aufgh!

__________________
'77 240D, 504H, OM617.952, etc.

As long as the AC was turned off for dead start acceleration, the 240D was a fine car. My Father bought several new 240Ds, and even a new 220D - all automatic transmissions with AC. I was permitted to drive all of them as a teenager.

I've got a little perspective on the original question. I bought my 240D new and for the first 16 years it had an automatic transmission. For the last 14 years it has had a manual transmission. Same car, just different transmissions. Changing the car to a manual transmission was the best thing I ever did to that car. I say find a manual if you can.

__________________
Len
'59 220S Cabriolet-SOLD and living happily in Malta
'83 240D 351,500 miles original owner-SOLD
'88 560SL 41,000 miles - totaled and parted out
https://sites.google.com/site/mercedesstuff/home
'99 E300 turbo 227,500 miles
'03 SLK320 40,000 miles - gave to my daughter
'14 Smart electric coupe 28,500 miles
'14 Smart electric cabriolet 28,500 miles
'15 Smart electric coupe 28,000 miles

These days you will be spoiled for choice, if you actually have enough examples for sale within striking distance to be able to exercise choice between stick and auto in a 240d.

I owned an automatic 240d. It was viable for my driving cycle, which included a minimum of freeway use. For most city use I did not find it objectionable.

There are many factors at play. It will do you no good if the choice is between a solid car with decent compression, which has an autobox, versus a stick that is tired or trashed, to opt for the stick. Apologies if that is obvious, but sometimes the answers on this board tend to the purist, and the 240d question seems prone to that .

In terms of the auto, I suspect many examples may perform subpar not only due to power drain from the automatic, but as well because of badly adjusted throttle linkages and/or issues with transmission shift points. These are potential issues with all the older diesels, but when you have as little power to play with as the OM616 provides, they take on a huge importance.

My car had been doted on for 24 years by its original owner, who drove it far and wide around north america. It was the most sorted and best set up Mercedes diesel (of higher mileage) that I have ever owned or driven. I attribute its performance in no small part to that -- even though the second owner, who had it three years before I got it, ruined it by running unfiltered and unheated WVO (including in upper NY state winters)... three pots had excellent compression, one was barely at minimum.

__________________


Mac
2002 e320 4matic estate│1985 300d│1980 300td
Previous: 1979 & 1982 & 1983 300sd │ 1982 240d

“Let's take a drive into the middle of nowhere with a packet of Marlboro lights and talk about our lives.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

Love my 240D with stick. Quite peppy in traffic and cruises at 70 with no complaints. I don't generally like an auto in anything, they call them slush boxes for a reason.

__________________
Eric, CPO, Submarines, retired.
Here's a sig line...
Mine: '68 Corvette LS1/4L65E, 83 240D, 2000 GMC 4x4, 08 FLSTC Anniv
Hers: '72 Corvette 454/4spd, '99 MB SLK, '93 Metro vert, 78 240D, '92 Silverado, '65 Fjord Rustang, '59 Fjord Fairlane, '17 Slingshot.

The two forty with a manual transmission is a great car. Providing you do not place it in an operational environment where it is strained to meet the requirements of it all the time. I live in an area with a lot of secondary roads and use other cars for long highway runs at higher speeds.

For some reason that I suspect is less front end weight they seem to handle nicer than the five cylinder automatics. Or at least to me they do.

Another vote for 240 in stick. Mine is also a conversion from automatic, best thing ever done to it.

Same as above, cruise all day at 70 no complaints. Much more fun and much more drivable

__________________
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.

Same here. I am on my second 240 4 spd, and plan to ditch the automatic in another one and swap in a stick.

__________________

All Diesel Fleet
1985 R107 300SLD TURBODIESEL
2005 E320 CDI (daily)

LOTS of parts for sale!


EGR block kit
http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/diesel-discussion/355250-sale-egr-delete-block-off-plate-kit.html

1985 CA emissions 617 owners- You Need This!
Sanden style A/C Compressor Mounting Kit for your 616/ 617 For Sale + Install Inst.

Sanden Instalation Guide (post 11):
http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/diesel-discussion/367883-sanden-retrofit-installation-guide.html

Stick. I would never buy an automatic 240D.

__________________
Whoever said there's nothing more expensive than a cheap Mercedes never had a cheap Jaguar.

83 300D Turbo with manual conversion, early W126 vented front rotors and H4 headlights 400,xxx miles
08 Suzuki GSX-R600 M4 Slip-on 22,xxx miles
88 Jaguar XJS V12 94,xxx miles. Work in progress.

This is so true!

Well, on all the positives on the stick shift 240D's it is an up for me. I just purchased a 240D stick shift site unseen. It is a one owner, and was supposedly well maintained. I plan to trip there and drive it home. I am anxious to get possession on it. It is my 2nd Mercedes 240D one owner purchase. My first was an automatic from Orlando. I sold it a year ago after putting 100K plus on it. I saw it a couple of weeks ago, and it just got me flared up about another one. I felt kind of lost without a Mercedes, so I went shopping again. It seems like the Mercedes' gets a grip on ya!