240d questions

[Cheaper Jeeper]

I'm looking for an older diesel car and am considering the 240d.

Any opinions on what years are best for performance, economy, reliability, longevity, simplicity, etc.? Any years to stay away from? I gather there were no factory turbos, is there much in the way of aftermarket turbos or other performance enhancements available?

Open to for all input....

 

[towcat]

I'm looking for an older diesel car and am considering the 240d.

Any opinions on what years are best for performance, economy, reliability, longevity, simplicity, etc.? Any years to stay away from? I gather there were no factory turbos, is there much in the way of aftermarket turbos or other performance enhancements available?

Open to for all input....

In short, if it's got a slushbox hooked to the hamster cage's butt, don't do it.
The 240 has the world's most underfed and overworked hamsters known to man.
The biggest difference between the MBZ turbo and non-turbo motors is.....piston oil cooling jets. The non-turbo motors just plain don't have them. Hence, there really isn't much in the way for turbo'ing the motor.
I've owned all the varieties of diesel MBZ. The late 70's to mid 80's 240d is my least liked. If you are wanting to be cheap, don't buy a MBZ. If you don't want to follow that advice, then at minimum, the 300d non-tubo would the the baseline. That fifth hamster really makes a difference. If you can find a '86 and up 190d 2.5....buy it. No turbo, but you won't be able to tell that it isn't turbo'd. It actually behaves like a gasser off the line

 

[Cheaper Jeeper]

Hey TowCat, never expected to see you in this forum since there are no MB's in your sig.

Thanks for the advice. The 300 series look great and seem pretty plentiful, but from what I've seen they all have a slushbox, and don't get as good of fuel mileage as the 240s - which is why I was leaning towards the 240 with the manual tranny. Though I have read/heard they aren't much for performance. The oil squirters info is good to know - guess that pretty much squelches the idea of a turbo.

One 300 series I'd definitely consider is a 300CD - either turbo OR non-turbo. They only get a tiny bit better mileage than the other 300 series - due to the decrease in weight - but they are SOOOO damn good looking. Do you even know if there were any 300CDs produced with a manual tranny?

The 190 is my ideal. I'd LOVE to find one in decent shape for a reasonable price. I notice you recommend the 2.5, is it that much better than the 2.2? The reason I ask is that the 2.2 seems to be a lot more common.

 

[The Warden]

The 300 series look great and seem pretty plentiful, but from what I've seen they all have a slushbox, and don't get as good of fuel mileage as the 240s - which is why I was leaning towards the 240 with the manual tranny. Though I have read/heard they aren't much for performance. The oil squirters info is good to know - guess that pretty much squelches the idea of a turbo.

FWIW, the 300D was never sold in the U.S. with a manual tranny...they're all slushboxes. There ARE some Euro-spec 300D's floating around with 4 speeds (and the VERY rare 5 speed manual), but these are generally non-turbo engines, and they usually command a considerable premium due to the rarity.

And...yeah, because of the oil squirters, it's generally not recommended to try and graft a turbo onto an n/a M-B block, and there was never a factory turbo 240D. Some people HAVE taken a 240D 4 speed and swapped in a 5-cylinder turbo and were very happy with the results.

One 300 series I'd definitely consider is a 300CD - either turbo OR non-turbo. They only get a tiny bit better mileage than the other 300 series - due to the decrease in weight - but they are SOOOO damn good looking. Do you even know if there were any 300CDs produced with a manual tranny?

No, no 300CD's with a manual tranny sold in the U.S. market. I don't think I've ever seen a Euro 300CD manual either. IIRC the rear window regulators on the coupe chassis are even more trouble-prone than on the sedan chassis.

The 190 is my ideal. I'd LOVE to find one in decent shape for a reasonable price. I notice you recommend the 2.5, is it that much better than the 2.2? The reason I ask is that the 2.2 seems to be a lot more common.

The 2.2l's a 4-cylinder while the 2.5l is a 5 cylinder. Other than the extra cylinder, they're the same basic engine, so one's as reliable as the other. The real difference is in power. I haven't driven either one, so I can't comment on how drastic the difference is. FWIW, the 2.2l and 2.5l engines have aluminum heads; the 240D and 300D's are all cast-iron.

My opinion...try and drive every flavor you can, and see what you like and/or can tolerate. I've never driven a n/a 300D with a slusher, but I've driven 240D's with autos and manuals, a Euro 300D 4 speed that a friend owns, and a few different 300D turbos. Other than the 240D slusher, I never had any power complaints about any of them, and I could even tolerate the 240D slusher from a power perspective. Even that had far more power and acceleration than my old IH Scout did

Probably, the most economical car to own would be a 240D 4 speed. It's got the fewest options (manual tranny, manual-crank windows, manual climate control, and the vacuum system really only works the brake booster and the door locks), so there's less stuff to break. A turbo 300D is a bit more complicated; auto climate control and power everything (except seats) and a considerably more complicated vacuum system.

I actually think that these cars can be very economical to own. If you want every last little component to function as it would from the factory, these cars will nickel-and-dime you to death, but if that isn't a concern, and if the car wasn't abused by a previous owner, they can be cheap to maintain (if you do your own maintenance and shop somewhat carefully for parts) and operate. That said, if the suspension's worn and in need of repair, the cost of ownership's going to rise considerably. I sold my first M-B, and will be selling my second soon, because of suspension problems...it'll cost more to repair than the car's worth. That said, I had my old '85 300D for about 60K miles and only spent about $800 in maintenance over the course of about 4 years. That's about $0.02 per mile for maintenance ($0.10 per mile total, including fuel)...I don't have much to compare it to, but that doesn't seem too bad to me.

Just some disorganized thoughts on it...

 

[Cheaper Jeeper]

Sound like some pretty cogent and coherent thoughts to me Warden.

What is it about the suspension that is so spendy? Are the shocks gold plated or something? Or is it stuff like bushings, etc. that run into the serious coin?

 

[Michael Fowler]

I owned a 240D with automatic. I would describe its rate of acceleration as " stately", or " dignified". I also drove a 240 with a stick--more fun, but not much quicker. very nice shifting manual tranny.
A friend has a 300CD with the NA 5 cyl. Its has a little more oomph than the 240, but not much.

Surprisingly, my 300SD ( 5 cyl turbo) in the bigger W126 chasis gets almost as good mileage as the 240D. I never get less than 25 mpg and have seen 30.
A 240D with a manual trans, and manual A/C would be bullet-proof.

 

[Cheaper Jeeper]

Ya know, the more I read the better a 300CD with the turbo looks.

Any way to put the 4 (or 5) speed from a 240 into a 300? Will it even bolt up? And if so, will it hold up?

The ideal would be to find a eurospec 300D turbo with the manual tranny and a hammered body, and a 300CD with a blown motor and/or tranny....

 

[Michael Fowler]

I think all MB used the same bolt patterns so the 4 speed manual from a 240 should bold right up. You probably will have to play with the drive shaft to make it work. Everythi8ng should work with factory parts.If you are looking for a 300CD get a later one that is turboed from the factory.

 

[Cheaper Jeeper]

I think all MB used the same bolt patterns so the 4 speed manual from a 240 should bold right up. You probably will have to play with the drive shaft to make it work. Everythi8ng should work with factory parts.If you are looking for a 300CD get a later one that is turboed from the factory.

Wouldn't that be sweet? A 300 CDT with a 4 or 5 speed manual. DROOOOL!

 

[Michael Fowler]

Actually, one of my dream conversions would start at that point. Then I would remove the top off the CD, and turn it into a cabriolet. Its the details that would make it tough to finish off to Mercedes-level quality. Like I said--its only a dream

 

[Cheaper Jeeper]

What do you guys think of an 87 190d with the 2.5 non-turbo and an automatic for $2200?

I've been emailing with the owner and trying to arrange a test drive - probably later this week....

 

[Michael Fowler]

My experience is limited to only W123 and W126 models. Anything newer is unknown to me.

 

[flexneck]

any benz is a good choice, just don't let stuff slide. it will eventually break, and then its pricey to replace, but well taken care of most of the guts will last forever. literally. just ask a million african and middleastern cab drivers cruisn' in 70ies 200/220Ds - they'd drool over the hi-perf 240D!

personally i have a 300SD, which used to be a nice car before my wife, dog and me got hold of it and drove it to Baja California from Vancouver BC. its was a total beater when we bought it 2 years ago, the drivers seat was completely collapsed, the dash more or less dead, etc. the seat is fixed. the rest ... oh well, once i fix the truck...its got the same ridiculous mileage as the F350, just 5 years older, but it never needs anything but brakepads and lots of oil. the tranny would be wonderful if it still could do all the tricks (like come to full stop rolling downhill without braking), but this one has alzheimers and cant find its lower gears under load. this is something to look out for when buying slushbox 5banger turbos, (W116/126(S-class), W123) but once you get used to it, one can use the manual settings quite well - kinda like driving a semi-automatic.
the S-class is a terrible dog at city-speeds with the 5banger turbo, once you get beyond 40mph it becomes a very nice touring car tho' (3500 lbs, 120horsies). however, the W123 300D (maybe 2800lbs?) with the 5banger turbo was the 2nd fastest production diesel of its era, clocking in at 180km/h, 175 for automatic. the only thing faster was a Citroen CX 2.5 turbo, doing just under 200km/h. google that for a **** ride.

anyways, personally, for personal transport, i'm not buying anything but a 70-EARLY80ies Benz again. any one will do.

 

[The Warden]

I think all MB used the same bolt patterns so the 4 speed manual from a 240 should bold right up.

Any tranny from an OM61x engine will bolt up to any other 61x engine...so, yes, a 4 speed out of a 240D will bolt onto a 5-cylinder 300D. That said, a tranny out of a newer car ('86 and newer, I believe) WON'T work...I can't remember if the bolt pattern changed, but the starter mounting switched sides of the engine. Unfortunately, for this reason, finding a 5 speed manual that will work is next to impossible (they exist, but they're VERY rare)...there are a number of 190D 5 speeds around (and, even the occasional '87 300D 5 speed), but these engines have the starter on the driver's side, so the tranny won't work on a cast-iron engine.

If you are looking for a 300CD get a later one that is turboed from the factory.

+1. Also, on '81 and later cars, the climate control system is far less prone to failure.

If you haven't already, I'd recommend reading the two stickied threads at the top. It should give you a better idea of what was available throughout the years, and what engine/tranny combinations are out there.

Re: the '87 190D...a 2.5l and a 5 speed is not all that common. If the car's in good shape and he's letting it go for only $2200, jump on it! But...make sure everything's happy. That car will have an aluminum head, so check carefully for any signs of a blown head gasket; if the gasket needs to be replaced, the head probably does as well, and that can get real expensive real quick. But, if you take care of the cooling system and don't overheat the engine, you should be good to go.

 

[Cheaper Jeeper]

Any tranny from an OM61x engine will bolt up to any other 61x engine...so, yes, a 4 speed out of a 240D will bolt onto a 5-cylinder 300D. That said, a tranny out of a newer car ('86 and newer, I believe) WON'T work...I can't remember if the bolt pattern changed, but the starter mounting switched sides of the engine. Unfortunately, for this reason, finding a 5 speed manual that will work is next to impossible (they exist, but they're VERY rare)...there are a number of 190D 5 speeds around (and, even the occasional '87 300D 5 speed), but these engines have the starter on the driver's side, so the tranny won't work on a cast-iron engine.


+1. Also, on '81 and later cars, the climate control system is far less prone to failure.

If you haven't already, I'd recommend reading the two stickied threads at the top. It should give you a better idea of what was available throughout the years, and what engine/tranny combinations are out there.

Re: the '87 190D...a 2.5l and a 5 speed is not all that common. If the car's in good shape and he's letting it go for only $2200, jump on it! But...make sure everything's happy. That car will have an aluminum head, so check carefully for any signs of a blown head gasket; if the gasket needs to be replaced, the head probably does as well, and that can get real expensive real quick. But, if you take care of the cooling system and don't overheat the engine, you should be good to go.

Good info, Warden. One clarification thought - the 190d doesn't have the 5-speed (unfortunately) it has th automatic. Still sound like a good deal?