Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What always amazes me is the mileage difference - on a lot of vehicles - between driving 55 mph and 75 mph.
We had a couple Dodge Caravans that'd drop from 23-24 mpg (at 55 mph) to 17-18 mpg at 75 mph. But I have to admit that I really never drove less than the speed limit on the Interstate.
well in my truck the 4.11 and 35" tires have alot to do with the bad milage makes my goats fuel milage look like a hybrid LOL
The MB advantage of their diesels in the 60's-70's-80's was a car that got substantially better fuel economy than their gasoline powered siblings and was very durable ... but at a cost. You had to buy one to keep it for a long time to justify the acquisition cost and the operating costs, and not many first owners were those buyers, even though about 1/2 of all new MB's sold in the USA for years were the diesels.
Sunsprit and others,
I have been considering a late '80s/early '90s MB diesel because of the combination of fuel economy, quality/luxury, and affordability. Specifically, I was looking at the '87-'91 190D and the '90-'93 300D. Would any of these be a good purchase for an everyday commuting car? Is there another model you'd recommend, or do you think these cars require too much maintenance? I can't do the upkeep repairs myself and would have to pay someone.
I had an '84 190D. It was a very good and reliable car, but it was no power house at 72 hp! Once at speed though, it would move right along.
The 300D will be quicker. My choice in a diesel would be the 1986-1987 300SDL, which is the big body Mercedes diesel, but only made for two years, then for 1988 they started putting the gasoline inline 6-cylinder in them (which I have). The big diesel Mercedes came back in 1990 or 1991 as the 350SDL, but had rod issues, as did the 1992-93 300SD. Avoid those at all costs.
Mine is easy to upkeep... the older Mercedes were.
You need to visit this site... its a must for Mercedes owners, or potential owners...
I have been considering a late '80s/early '90s MB diesel because of the combination of fuel economy, quality/luxury, and affordability. Specifically, I was looking at the '87-'91 190D and the '90-'93 300D. Would any of these be a good purchase for an everyday commuting car? Is there another model you'd recommend, or do you think these cars require too much maintenance? I can't do the upkeep repairs myself and would have to pay someone.
I have been considering a late '80s/early '90s MB diesel because of the combination of fuel economy, quality/luxury, and affordability. Specifically, I was looking at the '87-'91 190D and the '90-'93 300D. Would any of these be a good purchase for an everyday commuting car? Is there another model you'd recommend, or do you think these cars require too much maintenance? I can't do the upkeep repairs myself and would have to pay someone.
Thanks for any help you can give.
Given that you are going to have to pay for someone else to keep this car on the road for you, you're not going to find any savings in acquiring the cars you've mentioned.
The 190D's were pretty fragile cars in many aspects of their running gear, and niggling problems in the climate control systems (even after the factory programs to upgrade/repair this) will be very expensive to maintain today. The motors weren't exceptionally durable compared to the older cast iron MB diesels, which is why most of these cars are off the road today ... along with transmissions that didn't hold up.
The 300D series you're looking at were plagued with many emissions control systems from MB as they buillt a car that would be a 50-state emissions compliant car. Trap oxidizers and other major changes in the engines made them a challenge to keep on the road getting the fuel economy and performance that they had when new. Some of them didn't get 50,000 miles before requiring major component replacements to keep them running properly, which was OK for the owners during the warranty time. But once the fed mandated emissions warranty ran out, it was a very expensive luxury to own one of these cars.
And I'll extend that concern to the 300SDL series, too. A beautiful car in many respects when new, it was still only an interim car re compliance with emissions standards in the USA. They didn't sell very well when new, and they haven't held up very well over the last decade either. So there's not too many of them around to begin with, and most of them need a lot of expensive maintenance work today. Again, it's hard to justify the operating costs of one of these cars if you're paying retail to keep it on the road.
Similarly, the 300 gasser of that series is an expensive luxury to keep on the road. Nice a car as they were (and might yet be), they have a lot of systems failures in all their electronics, cooling fans, climate controls, and as the miles rack up ... transmissions.
MB was plagued with a lot of build quality issues in these series of cars, trying to deliver "luxury" features (and just plain upscale "gimmicks") at a price point that was competitive with the onslaught of asian and german competitors of the time. Stuff that previously was "bulletproof" for high mileage in their cars became rather fragile and problematic, to an extreme. And you didn't have to abuse the car to experience the failures, they came at no extra charge as the miles rang up until the warranty ran out. Then they got real pricey to keep on the road, and you couldn't operate the car without repairing a lot of the stuff that failed. Expensive for parts, expensive for labor ... very expensive now that MB doesn't particularly support these cars anymore.
So, IMO ... if you really want to drive an MB diesel ... your best option is to find a 123 or 126 series chassis 300Dturbo (which also includes the station wagon, although suspension issues can be lurking in one of these by now). Look for a clean, straight, and in good running order '82-84 car. If you can find one at a reasonable price ... and I'm thinking no more than a few thousand for the car ... then you might be able to justify buying/owning/operating one. These were the last of the sturdily overbuilt series of cars from MB, and even then ... at today's disparity of fuel cost for diesel over gasoline ... I'm not sure you could pencil out any advantage to driving one of these cars unless you're absolutely in love. The best of the lot for sturdy/simple/reliable diesel transportation would be a manual transmission 240D (without climate control or electric windows), but even these are getting scarce in good solid running order ... and these were rather "pokey" performers, at best. The people who could best appreciate how strong those early 1980's 240D's ran were the folks who came out of 115 chassis 220D's, which were heavy and slow workhorse cars of exceptional durability (and 32-34 mpg with a manual transmission), or those who had been driving the older fin-body 200D's.
I'm still driving a '82 300Dt, but I bought it for very little many years ago, and got to drive it when the diesel fuel economics were very much in it's favor ... and I'm the maintenance tech for it. I still drive it when I want a "luxury" car for passengers in nice weather, but at 28-29 mpg on the current low sulfur diesel which benefits from running a quality diesel fuel conditioner additive ... there's no cost advantage over my 2001 Subaru OBW and the subie is even more reliable than the old sturdy 'benz.
Good luck in your search for an older diesel 'benz. Be sure that you have a competent/experienced/reasonably priced diesel tech close to home, you'll be very good friends in no time. And be sure that your tech enjoys working on these old diesel cars, because many import shops (as well as MB specialists) ... don't.
I have been considering a late '80s/early '90s MB diesel because of the combination of fuel economy, quality/luxury, and affordability. Specifically, I was looking at the '87-'91 190D and the '90-'93 300D. Would any of these be a good purchase for an everyday commuting car? Is there another model you'd recommend, or do you think these cars require too much maintenance? I can't do the upkeep repairs myself and would have to pay someone.
Thanks for any help you can give.
Whatever you do, don't even consider the 240d. A semi or city bus will outrun one of those things, and I am not being sarcastic either.
I had a 1984 Mercedes 190D... it was slow on take off, but once you get your rpms up, it was OK. A 240 is terrible I hear. Its only 67 horsepower for the early 80s models... my 190D was a smaller engine, but it had 72 hp, but it was a lighter car. I liked the 33 mpg city and 40 highway though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by las vegas drunk
Whatever you do, don't even consider the 240d. A semi or city bus will outrun one of those things, and I am not being sarcastic either.
My 1984 190D may have been an exception then. It only had 151K and still ran and drove like new. I bought it from the original owners wife... he was an older man that had passed away and it had only see the utmost care. I only sold it because it was too small for my tastes... so I ended up buying a huge 1988 300SEL (W126 extended wheelbase gasser ).
As far as the diesels... I like the W123 (1982-85) and the W126, but recommend the 1981-1985 300SD over the 300SDL. The 1981-85 300SD is about the best one I think.
Loved my 190D though... some pics...
original spare had never been on the road!
big engine... lol
seemed to small and spartan compared to my 300SEL...
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunsprit
The 190D's were pretty fragile cars in many aspects of their running gear, and niggling problems in the climate control systems (even after the factory programs to upgrade/repair this) will be very expensive to maintain today. The motors weren't exceptionally durable compared to the older cast iron MB diesels, which is why most of these cars are off the road today ... along with transmissions that didn't hold up.
I had a 1984 Mercedes 190D... it was slow on take off, but once you get your rpms up, it was OK. A 240 is terrible I hear. Its only 67 horsepower for the early 80s models... my 190D was a smaller engine, but it had 72 hp, but it was a lighter car. I liked the 33 mpg city and 40 highway though.
Yeah, the 240D was 67 horsepower with a curb weight of 3,000 pounds. I recently watched a road test on a new full size Semi with a sleeper. That took 20 seconds from 0-60 so it would blow away the 240D. Really pathetic IMO.
T-storm .... I guess it's all "relative". 151K on a 190D would be a mileage figure that most 123/126 chassis owners would think was "just broken in" mileage. But few 190D's turned in much more than 200K miles before needing major engine work.
Many of the older 240/300D's that my shop serviced were well into the mid 6 figures and still running strong. A few had high mileage drivers that were close to 7 figures on the clock and rebuilt motors under the hood were justified due to the overall excellent condition of the cars.
Having worked on a lot of the systems in the 190D's, they were nowhere near as sturdy as the earlier 1980's cars. Even items like motor mounts were consumables, and suspension components didn't hold up like the bigger cars. I used to laugh at the difference in sheet metal/body integrity ... a friend, who was a delivery driver for a local MB dealership ... used to struggle to deliver a 108 chassis fender, for example. When she was delivering fenders and hoods for a 190, she could take several off the truck and carry them in.
I'd pointed out that the 240D's were "pokey", but they were excellent road cars for high mileage drivers or adequate for local around town driving. I've never had a problem maintaining 75 mph cruise in the Rocky Mountain West ... and the acceleration issue was offset by the fuel economy. The cure for the acceleration concern was to get a turbo'ed 1982 or newer 300Dt or SD, which came with a fuel economy penalty compared to the 240D. The other place a 240D provided exceptional service was for those drivers whose commute involved a lot of stop and go freeway driving ... the cars would deliver exceptional fuel economy and creeping along in dense slow speed traffic didn't make the cars slow acceleration an issue. My dad's 1971 220D would turn in 36-38 mpg in a Los Angeles area daily commute back in the early 1970's ....
In some situations, I'm sure that the pokey acceleration could be an issue ... and some drivers would encounter those situations more frequently than others. But for a lot of drivers, the acceleration was tolerable in light of the cars other virtues ... to the extent that over half of the MB cars sold in the USA for many years were diesel powered models. And there were a lot of small cars sold during the same era that weren't especially quicker or faster .... or had much poorer fuel economy/comfort/handling; even a "quicker" VW air-cooled bug didn't have the hauling capacity/passenger comforts/safety and didn't turn in much better than 20 mpg according to my friends that drove them back then. It was all about what compromises you wanted to make in the cars you drove and the price you were willing to pay for the pleasure ....
FWIW - Aerodynamic drag is a square function of speed and the power reqired is a cube function. So 75 mph is 1.25 times 60 mph and the drag force is about 1.6 times. Power required is 1.9 times. Thus the fuel milage should be about one half as much at 75 as at 60.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). 
I recently watched a road test on a new full size Semi with a sleeper. That took 20 seconds from 0-60 so it would blow away the 240D. Really pathetic IMO.
