 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Mercedes-Benz Cars / July 2007How are the Diesel models?
I have had a 1970 and 1988 sedans both with a gas engine.. I'm thinking of trying a diesel engine now, since gas is so high. How did the mercedes cars fare with a diesel?? any pros/cons to consider? I would be looking at late models, not brand new ones. Thanks for any advice... Y.D., Warren, Michigan Even though my experience with MB diesels is limited - '76 300D - the best answer that you can find is to go back through this group's discussions many months and see what other folks have had to say. The 5 cylinder diesel engines are a legend unto themselves. The really big question is: Do you like diesels? If you understand and like the fact that they are a really different animal than the gas engines that you have become accustomed to. Find a diesel car (or small truck) and test drive it. Once you test drive, the differences become obvious. Good luck with your quest!! > Even though my experience with MB diesels is limited - '76 300D - the > best answer that you can find is to go back through this group's [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Good luck with your quest!! Current MB CDI diesels are totally different from those in the past. You have to go and test a modern diesel, not any truck. You might conclude that it drives better than a gasser at the same price category. Mercedes was and is a leader in diesel engines. Whether you like the fuel is another matter. Even in traditionally 'anti-diesel' Britain sales of diesel cars are still rising. In some European countries they are the majority. Factors such as relative fuel prices, car and road taxation and fashion all play a role. DAS For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > Current MB CDI diesels are totally different from those in the past. You > have to go and test a modern diesel, not any truck. You might conclude > that it drives better than a gasser at the same price category. and, don't forget...with a diesel, you can pull into your local mcdonalds' and fill up on vegetable fat...then away you go, leaving the fabled scent of french fries....:-) seriously, many diesel owners are switching to a vegfat fuel... I'm no expert, but a google should reveal loads of info http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGIH_enUS224US22 4&q=diesel%2bvegetable+oil sherm 05 c240 awd On Jul 16, 7:20 am, <sherm...@comcast.net> wrote: > and, don't forget...with a diesel, you can pull into your local mcdonalds' > and fill up on vegetable fat...then away you go, leaving the fabled scent of > french fries....:-) Actually, it is much more complicated than that. Mcdonalds will not give away their fryer grease. Large chains have contracts with grease renderers. You need to find the little guys like barbecue places or chinese restaurants with owners that are receptive to your desire to take their grease. simply taking it out of a grease dumpster is theft since the greases renderer owns that dumpster, and they want that grease since they can process it and sell it to pet food companies or other places. Once you get the grease you need to dewater it(harder than it seems) and filter it down to 5 microns. It is a labor intensive process that is far more complicated than driving up to Mcdonalds and filling up. If it were really that easy, everyone would be doing it. >Once you get the grease you need to dewater it(harder than it seems) >and filter it down to 5 microns. It is a labor intensive process that >is far more complicated than driving up to Mcdonalds and filling up. >If it were really that easy, everyone would be doing it. Plus vegetable oil is a better solvent than #2 diesel. A buddy of mine in Atlanta has a neighbor that gives him filtered waste oil. He began using it and went through - literally - 20 fuel filters in 100 miles as they clogged up with crap the oil cleaned out of the (admittedly 25 year old) fuel system.  SignatureNeed Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net I have an 84 300D, and it runs well. I have over 190K miles(the odometer goes out in these more often than not... literally... seriously.) It still has good compression. As stated earlier, the performance gets better if the car is newer. Through the years they steadily got more and more powerful. The old 240Ds from the 70's were horribly underpowered. I think they are dangerous to drive they are so slow. But you will find people that love them since they were available with a manual. The 300D had one more cylinder, and from 81-85 had a turbo. That turbo makes a difference. It makes a slow car less slow, but still not fast. An owner of one of the mercedes that I test drove summed it up nicely when he said,"The turbo makes it acceptable. You will hear the turbo kick in... you won't feel it though." It's about as fast as a mid nineties japanese econobox. I'd guess 0-60 around 11 seconds or so on a good day. The late eighties diesels had aluminum heads, which had problems. Through the nineties it was hit and miss. I think Tiger covered the good and bad years there. The newest CDI models are great. My friends father just got one a few months back. They are very refined. Quiet, powerful, quick, and very very clean burning. You really wouldn't know it was a diesel unless you were looking for it. Good luck in your quest. On Jul 15, 3:51 pm, "weelli...@gmail.com" <weelli...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have an 84 300D, and it runs well. I have over 190K miles(the > odometer goes out in these more often than not... literally... [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Good luck in your quest. Having a corvette and a 560SEL along with the 240D has taught me how to drive it properly. I don't consider it dangerous or unsafe. and I don't think MB did either. Look at the production numbers. One must have the ability to adapt to a different driving style. I actually enjoy the hell out the 240D and drive it the most. I've seen the prices rising upwards for the older MB diesels around these parts. >I have an 84 300D, and it runs well. I have over 190K miles(the >odometer goes out in these more often than not... literally... http://www.odometergears.com will sell you a new gear. >test drove summed it up nicely when he said,"The turbo makes it >acceptable. You will hear the turbo kick in... you won't feel it >though." It's about as fast as a mid nineties japanese econobox. I'd Beg to differ on that one. I can sure feel mine kick in. And how many 20 year old Japanese cars will do 115 mph or cruise at 100 all day? SignatureNeed Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net > Beg to differ on that one. I can sure feel mine kick in. Richard, I believe you. However, in the three that I have driven I have never felt it. I'm assuming that yours is tuned properly, or even for a little more performance, whereas all three that I have driven were tired. I need to do some more research on the ALDA and adjust my timing, valve lash, and run lubro-moly through. Anything else I need to do? Bill >> Beg to differ on that one. I can sure feel mine kick in. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Bill I screwed down the wastegate shut to get the factory spec boost and regularly clean the banjo connection. I woodn't call it muscle car performance but you can definitly feel wen it kicks in. SignatureNeed Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net Just your opinion. Only 'dangerous' if YOU drive dangerously. In the early eighties I had a W123 200D with only 72 PS. Perfectly fine, since it cost me relatively little to run (taxed as company car). Mind you, I drove mostly around flat northern Germany. Colleagues from mountainous Bavaria were less pleased with the car's power, but I don't recall anyone complaining about danger. DAS For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] The old 240Ds from the 70's were > horribly underpowered. I think they are dangerous to drive they are so > slow. But you will find people that love them since they were > available with a manual. The 300D had one more cylinder, and from [...] LOL... I remembered I quipped Juergen about the HP figure... He talked about how he went from like 72PS to like 110PS and I was like whoa... what a whopping 50% increase in power... must be fast... He quipped back like you are just jealous that you don't have a diesel... LOL. > Just your opinion. Only 'dangerous' if YOU drive dangerously. In the early > eighties I had a W123 200D with only 72 PS. Perfectly fine, since it cost [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > [...] I just bought (3 months ago) an 84 300D (5 cyl. turbo-diesel), with 260,000 miles on it. It runs strong still. I just changed the oil on it at 262,500 (since I didn't know when it was last changed), and I was fairly pleased with the experience. It was actually slightly cheaper to change the 2 gallons of oil in this car than it was for an oil change in my 2000 Jetta, and actually much less messy than the Jetta (until I dropped the drain plug in the old oil). My engine is rated at 170 hp and 170 ft-lbs of torque. It doesn't feel like it when you start off, but it will set you back in the seat when it shifts under hard acceleration. The turbo definitely helps with that I'm sure. The biggest issue for me in switching to a diesel is being more picky where I fuel up. Not that I am picky, its just there aren't as many choices. Thankfully, I go by two truck stops on my way to work each day, so no problem there, but otherwise I have to be on the lookout for a diesel pump. My recommendation is go for the diesel. (You'll save a boat load on spark plugs too!) > > Just your opinion. Only 'dangerous' if YOU drive dangerously. In the early > > eighties I had a W123 200D with only 72 PS. Perfectly fine, since it cost [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I think the engine is actually rated around 120 hp by MB. Is yours modified? > Just your opinion. Only 'dangerous' if YOU drive dangerously. > Mind you, I drove mostly around flat northern Germany. Colleagues from > mountainous Bavaria were less pleased with the car's power, but I don't > recall anyone complaining about danger. I live in Maryland, where there is all sorts of terrain. My house is at 355 feet elevation, but a river one mile from my house is at 220 feet. There are 14% and 18% grade hills on my daily drive. Also, since I live near two large cities there are some very busy stretches of road where I need to be able to merge either while going uphill, or where there is practically no merge lane. The 300D does fine with this even though it is not fast. However, I've been told that the 240D had 63 horses. When I think about the fact that that is about half of what my car has, and my car doesn't weigh even nearly twice as much, I can't imagine driving that car without winding up being that idiot that has to stop in the merge lane simply because I can't get up to speed in time. And once I had stopped, that would just make things worse. If I lived in a flatter less aggressively driven locale, I could probably live with the 240D's acceleration. For me though, I'd consider it a liability. I may just have a higher threshold for what I consider dangerous. I've heard the same argument from a guy I know that has owned an 87 300D with the 6 cylinder, a 240D, and an early eighties 300D. He called them fast, dangerously underpowered, and delightful respectfully. Although I will admit that my impression of them may be biased by my exposure to this fellow. You've forgotten one thing re 240D and 300D... although the latter has more horses, it's typically "Automatic", OTOH the 240D came typically as a 4 speed manual.... I've driven both and the 240 is much better at accelerating... I guess there is the possibility that the 300D I drove was crap. cheers, guenter >> Just your opinion. Only 'dangerous' if YOU drive dangerously. > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >delightful respectfully. Although I will admit that my impression of >them may be biased by my exposure to this fellow. > You've forgotten one thing re 240D and 300D... although the latter has more >horses, it's typically "Automatic", OTOH the 240D came typically as a 4 speed >manual.... I've driven both and the 240 is much better at accelerating... I >guess there is the possibility that the 300D I drove was crap. and my CDI will wipe any of those, join the 21st century and ditch those 25 year old relics >> You've forgotten one thing re 240D and 300D... although the latter has more >>horses, it's typically "Automatic", OTOH the 240D came typically as a 4 speed [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >and my CDI will wipe any of those, join the 21st century and ditch >those 25 year old relics Yeah, but it is paid for. Of course, but it's fun to reminisce about the slow-coaches. Plus, as you can see, quite a few people still have them. And the engines are probably more robust because less sophisticated. Modern diesels and petrol engines are hard tell apart in the driving. As I have probably said before, a 1.9 l td in a small car like an Alfa Romeo 147... beautiful (to look at and drive). http://www.alfaromeo.co.uk/cgi-bin/pbrand.dll/ALFAROMEO_UK/home.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=no DAS SignatureFor direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > and my CDI will wipe any of those, join the 21st century and ditch > those 25 year old relics > I have had a 1970 and 1988 sedans both with a gas engine.. I'm thinking > of trying a diesel engine now, since gas is so high. How did the > mercedes cars fare with a diesel?? any pros/cons to consider? I would be > looking at late models, not brand new ones. Thanks for any advice... I have a W210 E220 CDI Automatic for two weeks now and it's using 8liters / 100km in the city and 5.8 on mixed highway and country road so far. I'm pretty pleased because that's not much for a car of that size. It's not very quiet but actually I like that Diesel sound. :-) Kind regards robert They are the best. The newer the diesel, the better they drive as far as the performance is concerned. I have 1995 E300D myself. It is a great car and great size for me. I know people say the old 5 cylinders are the most reliable but by now, most of those have already exceeded 200,000 miles where there are major expenses to bring it back to spec and that they are 20 years old or older. The MB diesel to avoids are the 350SDL of 1988 to 91 and those diesels in the W140 body... 1992 to the end of S class offering of diesels... Not all of them are bad as I suspected most of them are rebuilt by now... but just watch out. I would highly recommends the 1998 and 1999 E300TD... they are great... power and economy. If you could afford the CDI's that would be great too... just make sure you buy extended warranty with it. >They are the best. The newer the diesel, the better they drive as far as the >performance is concerned. I have 1995 E300D myself. It is a great car and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >of those have already exceeded 200,000 miles where there are major expenses >to bring it back to spec and that they are 20 years old or older. I dunno Tiger, I got mine with 225K miles on it and now it's got nealry half a million miles on it. I've replaced one turbo for $100 (used). >The MB diesel to avoids are the 350SDL of 1988 to 91 and those diesels in >the W140 body... 1992 to the end of S class offering of diesels... Not all >of them are bad as I suspected most of them are rebuilt by now... but just >watch out. The 5 cyl's were considered so reliable because of the iron head. The 6 cyl aluminum head ones had the "issue" that if they overheat the head usually cracks and of course there's no such thing as a good used head. This is in the 300SDL and 350SDL and 350SD. The 5 cyl 300SD was 80-85. Plus, the 6 cyl onese were meant to use higher cetane fuel than we get in north america and half of the stretched the con rods and had ovoid bores requireing replacement or rebuild. FOr like $12K. SignatureNeed Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net > I have had a 1970 and 1988 sedans both with a gas engine.. I'm thinking > of trying a diesel engine now, since gas is so high. How did the > mercedes cars fare with a diesel?? any pros/cons to consider? I would be > looking at late models, not brand new ones. Thanks for any advice... > > Y.D., Warren, Michigan I've bought two diesels in the past couple years, first a 240D and liked it so much, bought a 300SD a few months later. I've become an addict for that diesel clatter now. Such simple cars to work on, great economy, and reputation for extreme durability. There's diesel experts here that great guys in sharing the knowledge and offering tips. >I have had a 1970 and 1988 sedans both with a gas engine.. I'm thinking >of trying a diesel engine now, since gas is so high. How did the >mercedes cars fare with a diesel?? any pros/cons to consider? I would be >looking at late models, not brand new ones. Thanks for any advice... > >Y.D., Warren, Michigan There are those who say the 300 SD was the best car MB ever built. My '81 is by far the best car I have ever owned. Looks like a junker (Der Klunker) but drives lika a, well, Mercedes. But I have poured a lot of money into it having made the mistake of buying a used up one in the first place. The 5-cylinder 617 engine is legendary. Unlike modern elctronicized diesels, it will run when the battery is gone and as long as it gets fuel and air. It will survive ponds that drown other cars. One gets used to the clata-clata. I rather like it. Find one in really good shape and check it out thoroughly. The engine may run forever but the steering, brakes and suspension won't and a lot of bits may need replacing to bring it back to spec. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.