|
|
|
|
|
#1
03-04-2003, 12:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
gas milage 1984 VS 1987 300D
Who knows why www.fueleconomy.gov says beginning with 1987, 300D gets 25-30 while older ones get 22-25??? I don't own one yet but shopping and want great milage.
|
|
#2
03-04-2003, 01:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The 87 has a different engine.
Up to 85 all the 300's were 5 cylinder. The 87's have the 6 cylinder. This is my GUESS for MB diesel's mpg -82 240D manual = ?/33 highway 80-85 300D, 300SD = 25/28 86-87 300SDL = 26/30 87 300D/TD = 27/32 87 190D 2.5 turbo = I've heard up to 40 highway early 90's 300D 2.5 = 29/36 and my only experience on these numbers is the 87 SDL based on 60-70mph.
|
|
#3
03-04-2003, 08:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
They say it because its true!. The w124 body diesels have different engines, better technology, lighter cars overall etc. I've owned an '84 300D for almost 2 years and it consistently gets 23mpg, city or highway. It is very unusual for a w123 turbodiesel to get more than 25mpg (despite what everyone will TELL you). If you want great mileage, look for a 190D (few and far betwee), or a w124 300D. You might want to also consider a VW TDI (1996 and newer). The 5-speeds get 42-50mpg.
GregS '84 300D '90 300CE
|
|
#4
03-04-2003, 07:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I guess my 123 is "unusual" because I get 26.8mpg average. Meticulously logged in my PDA over many tanks of fuel. RT
__________________
When all else fails, vote from the rooftops! 84' Mercedes Benz 300D Anthracite/black, 171K 03' Volkswagen Jetta TDI blue/black, 93K 93' Chevrolet C2500HD ExCab 6.5TD, Two-tone blue, 252K
|
|
#5
03-04-2003, 08:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have an "unusual" one, too. My 85 300D turbo
get an average of 27/28 highway running 65/70. And I check my mileage over long distances. The last one was 2267.82 with an average of 27.39. Bill
|
|
#6
03-04-2003, 10:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
My 300D gets between 29 (all city) and 36 (once) on the highway. If I can stay at 65 or less, usually get 32 or so. 75 and up, drops to 30-31.
Still, that's almost 600 miles on a tank of fuel, long past my endurance these days. The 190D 2.5 turbo does better, and has better performance, but they are rather rare. Peter
__________________
1972 220D ?? miles 1988 300E 200,012 1987 300D Turbo killed 9/25/07, 275,000 miles 1985 Volvo 740 GLE Turobodiesel 218,000 1972 280 SE 4.5 165, 000 - It runs!
|
|
#7
03-04-2003, 10:28 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
FWIW, I average around 26 to 27mpg...have gotten as high as 30mpg and as low as 22mpg. In addition, I don't have to worry as much about overheating the engine.
 I love my lil' 617 
__________________
2001 VW Jetta TDI, 5 speed, daily driver 1991 Ford F-350, work in progress 1984 Ford F-250 4x4, 6.9l turbo diesel, 5 speed manual Previous oilburners: 1980 IH Scout, 1984 E-350, 1985 M-B 300D, 1979 M-B 300SD, 1983 M-B 300D Spark-free since 1999
|
|
#8
03-05-2003, 01:58 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Minor correction to the list above. There are 3 different versions of the 190D and each get different MPG. The early 2.2L can get 40MPG with a 5-speed manual. The later 2.5L non-turbo could possibly get 40MPG but mid 30's is more common. But the 2.5L Turbo will never get 40MPG unless it is coasting down a mountainside. I'd expect the same 28-34 that you can get with a good running 1987 300D, which has similar power to weight ratio.
For the record, my 87's get 30-32 on straight highway driving and 26-28 around town. Yes they are much more efficient than the old 617 dinosaurs.
|
|
#10
03-10-2003, 07:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
They are getting on in age now, and the 2.5L turbo was only sold for a year or two, not very common at all. You can tell them because they have a "shark gill" vent in the front fender behind the side marker light.
Peter
__________________
1972 220D ?? miles 1988 300E 200,012 1987 300D Turbo killed 9/25/07, 275,000 miles 1985 Volvo 740 GLE Turobodiesel 218,000 1972 280 SE 4.5 165, 000 - It runs!
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
