Something I've found with drivin commercial diesels millions of miles is sweet spot on *any* diesel engine oughta be configured according to oil consumption. Yer typical 240 will start burnin oil at about 78-82mph. For the 300D that happens at about 84-88+

Yet returning to Texan's question - its about how fast you wanna drive. Turbo 5cyl 300D delivers 10+mph better top end at expense of roughly 15% fuel economy compared with the 240D.

Those numbers sound about right.

My 300 gets better mileage than my 240. Top speed on the 240 is around 80, the 300 will do 110.

I live south of Reno and travel north of Reno once a month, mostly highway. The last time I took the 240, I was running a little late and ended up running floored for a total of 29 miles out of my 41 mile trip. The car was fine. My right calf was sore for days from holding it to the floor so long.

__________________
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 401,xxx miles
08 Suzuki GSX-R600 M4 Slip-on 26,xxx miles
88 Jaguar XJS V12 94,xxx miles. Work in progress.
99 Mazda Miata 183,xxx miles.

Rick,

Regardless of how you come down on the 240/300 question, the car to buy is the one with the best history and service records, so you know what you are getting into. As a Mercedes newbie, you won't know all of the correct questions to ask of a seller (although as a hotrodder you will be better off than a lot of people). The more you can learn from the seller's collection of records, the better will be your choice. I second the advice to take the car to a reputable mechanic for a pre-purchase inspection.

As a hotrodder, you will probably be able to do at least some of your own maintenance. A Mercedes can be very expensive to own if you have to pay someone to do the work and also pay full list for parts. Getting the parts at a discount (via the "Buy Parts" link at the top of this page or elsewhere) and doing the work yourself is a real money saver. The 240/300 question can also be viewed from the maintenance point of view. There's a trade-off between the simplicity of the 240 and the creature comforts of the 300. This is a personal decision.

IMHO, the only significant differences between the earlier and later model years in your range [76-83] are

(1) the change from normally aspirated to turbocharged on the 300 (in 1979? 81? help me, someone).

The 240 was never turbocharged, IMHO. The tubocharged 300 is more powerful (and more complicated) but the fuel economy is the same as the normally aspirated engines.

(2) the change in the climate control system from ACC II to ACC III in 1983.

The manual climate control in many 240s and some 300s is simple and reportedly reliable. The ACC II system (vertical column of pushbuttons in the panel on the dash) has the notorious "servo" mechanism under the hood -- a PITA according to owners. The later ACC III system (horizontal row of pushbuttons) is much more desirable. (There is a modern electronic replacement for the ACC II servo. It is said to be expensive ($500? + labor) but far more reliable than the original.)

My personal choice would be the 1984-85 Federal (not California) 300D Turbo.

Jeremy

__________________

"Buster" in the '95

Our all-Diesel family
1996 E300D (W210) . .338,000 miles Wife's car
2005 E320 CDI . . 113,000 miles My car
Santa Rosa population 176,762 (2022)
Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 627,762
"Oh lord won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz."
-- Janis Joplin, October 1, 1970

1982 was the first year for the turbo 300D.

I think the wagons got the turbo a year sooner.

To me the chief benefit of the 240D is that they were available in the U.S. with a manual tranmsission, and probably half of them on the road today, if not more, are so equipped. There were manual non-turbo 300D's, but they were not officially sold on the U.S. market and are not at all common here.

__________________
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 401,xxx miles
08 Suzuki GSX-R600 M4 Slip-on 26,xxx miles
88 Jaguar XJS V12 94,xxx miles. Work in progress.
99 Mazda Miata 183,xxx miles.

Yes, the first 300TD turbo was 1981.

So its not like my SDL where I start out at 70 and if I don't pay attention look down and find out I'm inching up on 90?

I have driven an auto 240D once, I wouldn't want to drive one on the highway, they make a freaken racket.

__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

Yup, they really do feel out of their element on the highway, but I actually prefer driving it on secondary roads.

Nice little cars. I regret passing up a pretty red one that came up for sale a couple years back. Real clean only like 150k miles for $1,300. I should have dumped that junk SD for it.

__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

Highway driving in my 240 is ok on flat land, it's the hills that really suck. One time I was on my way from LA back to Carson City, fuel and air filters were in need of a change and I was pulling a pretty good grade up 395 at about 7000 feet doing 42 floored in 3rd. I got passed by an International pulling a 53 footer. That was a little embarrassing. I think taking it up I70 in the Eisenhower Tunnel area (11,000 ft IIRC) would be a real (bad) experience.

__________________
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 401,xxx miles
08 Suzuki GSX-R600 M4 Slip-on 26,xxx miles
88 Jaguar XJS V12 94,xxx miles. Work in progress.
99 Mazda Miata 183,xxx miles.

Definitely a second or third car though. My wife uses the 240D to drive about 5 miles to work on 40 mph roads. About once or week it gets a little exercise on a longer trip.