|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Best of all worlds? Neat conversion!!
OK, some will love this and others will hate it... but here is a guy in my town (Portland, OR) selling a 1970 280SE that's been retrofitted with a 300D engine! Personally, I love the 108 body and love the 300D engine but I never thought you could actually pull this off. Take a look and tell us what you think (but you purists, please keep it polite!!)
http://portland.craigslist.org/car/48412004.html Catrinus 73 280C |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
well, the conversion part doesn't bother me, obviously lol!!!! But I personally HATE diesel motors..... So my own thoughts would be "what a waste of money".... but that's my opinion, cuz I hate diesels.....
__________________
http://www.carsponsors.com/images/av...o_mercedes.jpg 1967 Mercedes 250S w/ 350 Chevy V8, stock transmission and rear end. 1968 Mercedes 250S w/ 229 Chevy V6, 350 Turbo Transmission with shift kit, and 1981 Corvette rear end. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Somone here posted that this conversion is/was popular in Europe. Now if only I could find one with a 5-speed....
Happy Motoring, Mark
__________________
DrDKW |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I'd love to put a 603 in mine -- the 15 mpg is killing me!
68_Mercedes: Diesels are great -- same perfomance, 30% better milage, and the normally run 500,000 miles.... 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! |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
http://www.carsponsors.com/images/av...o_mercedes.jpg 1967 Mercedes 250S w/ 350 Chevy V8, stock transmission and rear end. 1968 Mercedes 250S w/ 229 Chevy V6, 350 Turbo Transmission with shift kit, and 1981 Corvette rear end. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Did anyone see this line:
*Paint is a bit worn, but the frame has almost no rust. 'almost' no rust is a code word for rustbucket.
__________________
Regards Warren Currently 1965 220Sb, 2002 FORD Crown Vic Police Interceptor Had 1965 220SEb, 1967 230S, 280SE 4.5, 300SE (W126), 420SEL ENTER > = (HP RPN) Not part of the in-crowd since 1952. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
You're right -- it's something like saying "she's almost not pregnant"!
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Peter: I wouldn't care for diesel simply because I'd be afraid of going outside on one of these cold northeast mornings and cranking my car, only to find out it wont start because my fuel has turned to Jello. Besides, who's to say a well-maintained 4.5 can't get 500k miles? The main reason they don't is because of stuff like my car - runs great, has (probably terminal if not fixed quite soon) RUST! 68 likes his 350, I like my 4.5. You should like your 4.5 too, Peter... Oterwise, find someone willing to "Suffer" through 15MPG! (HELL I wish my 4.5 got 12MPG! I'd be thrilled with 15! 50% better milage! )
__________________
Current: 2021 Charger Scat Pack Widebody "Sinabee" 2018 Durango R/T Previous: 1972 280SE 4.5 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited "Hefe", 1992 Jeep Cherokee Laredo "Jeepy", 2006 Charger R/T "Hemi" 1999 Chrysler 300M - RIP @ 221k |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Well, you do need to use antigell in the fuel.
Pretty much a tossup between the 300D and the 280 4.5 -- very similar performance, but the diesel gets 30+ mpg. Comfort and handling will be very much the same when I get the 280 back into decent shape. 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! |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
To bad they didn't put a turbo diesel in it.
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
I love both. On the one hand, it seems to me that the gasoline engines run quieter, and they're probably more "acceptable" in a sedan, but I love the sound of a good-running diesel. Then again, the better milage is a plus, too...
__________________
Philly 1969 230/8 "Eve" |
Bookmarks |
|
|