 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Mercedes-Benz Cars / September 2004Diesel purchase question
I'm looking for a nice older MB TD. I'm seeing 5 cyl & 6 cyl, and hearing only rumors of what is best. What are the recommendations of such knowledgeable folks as you? As new as you can afford... full service record is best... bring a buddy who knows alot about MB or take it to a MB tech to have it inspected... And test drive it well... so you get an idea what is normal and what is not. >I'm looking for a nice older MB TD. I'm seeing 5 cyl & 6 cyl, and hearing >only rumors of what is best. What are the recommendations of such >knowledgeable folks as you? The 5cyl in mid 80's and older diesels has a cast iron block and head, you can't kill them. The later 6 cyl's (3.0 L) had aluminum heads, that could warp or crack if overheated. The 3.5L 6's had trouble with the cylinders...not sure of it is the correct term, warping, changing from round to oval shape. I've owned a 77 240D, 80 300SD, 84 300SD and (currently) an 87 300TD, so I've had experience with 4, 5 and 6-cylinder diesels. All are excellent, but I feel the best engine overall is the 6-cylinder in the 86 and 87 models. It is the smoothest, most powerful and gets fuel economy comparable or better than the older diesels. Yes, if overheated the head can warp. Mine has over 220K and I've never had the head replaced. I had a new radiator installed two years ago. If you're careful and keep the cooling system in good condition head warpage should not be a major issue. I would definitely stay away from the 3.5 liter 6-cylinder diesel found in the early 90's cars. They had a disasterous record. > >I'm looking for a nice older MB TD. I'm seeing 5 cyl & 6 cyl, and hearing > >only rumors of what is best. What are the recommendations of such [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > trouble with the cylinders...not sure of it is the correct term, > warping, changing from round to oval shape. >I've owned a 77 240D, 80 300SD, 84 300SD and >(currently) an 87 300TD, so I've had experience with 4, 5 and 6-cylinder >diesels. All are excellent, but I feel the best engine overall is the >6-cylinder in the 86 and 87 models. It is the smoothest, most powerful >and gets fuel economy comparable or better than the older diesels. The only diesel i have owned is my current 86 300SDL with the inline 6, which gets 22city/25 highway, compared to (told from owners) the same generation 300SD's with the inline 5 with gets 28city/32 highway. They get almost 600 miles to a tank where i am on empty just over 400 and i have a bigger tank. > Yes, >if overheated the head can warp. Mine has over 220K and I've never had [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> trouble with the cylinders...not sure of it is the correct term, >> warping, changing from round to oval shape. Those mileage claims for the 5 cylinder are bogus, unless the gallons are imperial gallons! 24 mpg in commute driving is about the real number. >Those mileage claims for the 5 cylinder are bogus, unless the gallons >are imperial gallons! 24 mpg in commute driving is about the real number. I was a hair off, but not much. Original EPA ratings were 26city, 30 highway (for a 300SD w126). Any idea why they stopped production of the w126 diesel after 87 until the 350SD and SDL came out? If the body style was still popular and diesels were still being used in other models and again in these, why the gap? > >Those mileage claims for the 5 cylinder are bogus, unless the gallons > >are imperial gallons! 24 mpg in commute driving is about the real number. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > style was still popular and diesels were still being used in other > models and again in these, why the gap? The gap was likely the falloff in sales of diesels in general because of the decline in fuel prices in the late 80's, not any inherent flaw in the diesel engine themselves. Among the most talked-about and highly sought after diesels are the 86/87 300SDL and the 87 300 TD-T. Low mileage specimens in excellent condition are readily sold on the used market. Regarding fuel economy, I maintained my diesels in excellent condition, used primarily Mobil 1 oil changed regularly, Red Line Diesel Fuel Catalyst and got regular valve adjustments. My 80 and 84 300SD's got about 25/25 in mixed driving and 27/28 MPG highway. The 87 300TD gets 26/27 MPG in mixed driving and 28/30 highway. As I said, I liked all the diesels but given the choice would pick the 87 6-cylinder as the best all-around engine. (Just make sure the trap oxidizer was replaced under the factory recall - and you get a new exhaust system in the process!) > Those mileage claims for the 5 cylinder are bogus, unless the gallons > are imperial gallons! 24 mpg in commute driving is about the real number. My newly purchased UK spec '95 250D (non turbo) has just covered it's first 300 miles in my hands on 34.58 litres of Diesel.... 38MPG (imperial) or thereabouts???? >Those mileage claims for the 5 cylinder are bogus, unless the gallons >are imperial gallons! 24 mpg in commute driving is about the real number. Such is my experience. >>Those mileage claims for the 5 cylinder are bogus, unless the gallons >>are imperial gallons! 24 mpg in commute driving is about the real number. > >Such is my experience. I got 30 + avg MPG in my 95 diesel, 5 cyl. The 3.8 litre gallon or the 4.5 litre gallon? DAS  SignatureFor direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- > >>Those mileage claims for the 5 cylinder are bogus, unless the gallons > >>are imperial gallons! 24 mpg in commute driving is about the real number. > > > >Such is my experience. > I got 30 + avg MPG in my 95 diesel, 5 cyl. >The 3.8 litre gallon or the 4.5 litre gallon? > >DAS US gallon 6 cylinders... not 5. The five cylinder diesel is really the old 4 cylinder 240D with an additional cylinder grafted on. That was done in the mid 70s to achieve about 77 HP. In 1978 the internals were strengthened and a turbocharger added for the first 300SD Turbodiesel (110 - 120 HP). The engine's technology is old and quite simple, a great engine for a DIY owner. The engine's maintenance is oil & filter change at 5K miles, valve adjustment at 15K miles and filters at 30K miles. The engine will be good for 250K to 300K miles if it is so maintained. These old fives are all cast iron and very durable machines. Their other advantage is that lots of them were sold so finding a used engine isn't difficult. The newer six is a more powerful engine (148 HP) that's also inherently smoother, being a six rather than a five. It's aluminum head is not as durable, its cooling system must be well maintained to avoid overheating that causes cylinder head and or cylinderhead gasket problems. The internal condition of any diesel will be revealed by a compression test and I suggest you have one done before, not after, buying one. Its $$ well spent to know that you have a good car or to avoid an expensive lesson later on. Is anyone here running their diesels on biodiesel? Thanks > The five cylinder diesel is really the old 4 cylinder 240D with an > additional cylinder grafted on. That was done in the mid 70s to achieve [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > $$ well spent to know that you have a good car or to avoid an expensive > lesson later on. > Is anyone here running their diesels on biodiesel? > > Thanks My girlfriend has been running her 1984 300d on Biodiesel for six months. I just picked up a '79 300sd that I will also be running on B100. I changed the fuel filters after the first tank, and that is about all I had to do for the change to B100. Smells better, runs smoother, smokes almost not at all. I recommend it! Plus it keeps the money you spend on fuel, much closer to home, which I really like. Bernard > us it keeps the money you spend on fuel, > much closer to home, which I really like. Actually this is a bit of specious argument. Go look at the fertilizer used to grow the crops for your biodiesel and you will see ammonium nitrate fertilizers derived from imported oil... Marty >> us it keeps the money you spend on fuel, >> much closer to home, which I really like. > > Actually this is a bit of specious argument. Go look at the fertilizer > used to grow the crops for your biodiesel and you will see ammonium > nitrate fertilizers derived from imported oil... Are you saying that the same amount of money goes overseas to buy part of the fertilizer? Or is your argument a bit disingenuous? I believe self reliance in energy is a vital component of national security that is being completely ignored by the vested interests in power. I feel the need to act as an individual in a way to bring change in our energy policy (at least my own personal policy) I am willing to pay more, for fuel that is not drilled and shipped from places full of those who would do us harm. If there is some amount of oil in the fertilizer that is used to grow the soy, that is used to make the Biodiesel, then it is not a perfect answer, but I think it is *better* by large magnitudes. Bernard >>> us it keeps the money you spend on fuel, >>> much closer to home, which I really like. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >the Biodiesel, then it is not a perfect answer, but I think it >is *better* by large magnitudes. The point he was trying to make, I believe, is that any lessening of reliance on foreign fuel is not happening because the fertilizer could be using the same supply of fuel that you're trying to save, your attempt to feel good about burning less imported fuel is a false savings. > The point he was trying to make, I believe, is that any lessening of > reliance on foreign fuel is not happening because the fertilizer could > be using the same supply of fuel that you're trying to save, your > attempt to feel good about burning less imported fuel is a false > savings. I find it very unlikely that it takes 100 gal of petroleum in fertilizer to make the soy that is processed into 100 gal of Biodiesel. It would tend to be *less* in fact alot less, so even if you are using the same supplier, you end up using less. Unless you think the agriculture industry is so inefficient in this country that the amount of oil used is the same. I actually meet the guy who makes it, so how does he make any money, or the farmer, or the trucker, if it is a zero gain proposition? I have never understood the resistance people have to the idea that an easy, profitable, low impact way exists to start to wean ourselves off of what must inevitably end someday relatively soon. Bernard so much for the 25+ mpg <american> just for getting a diesel + the face that a good diesel will last 300+k miles per engine saving the cost of down time & cost of 2 motors hell screw the fry oil, if it was meant to run on the stuff Ronald would be driving it. 300SD 260K <1/2 QT OIL PER 3K MILES> the case, minus a few cans! > I have never understood the resistance people have to the idea that > an easy, profitable, low impact way exists to start to wean ourselves > off of what must inevitably end someday relatively soon. I have never understood the small mindedness of people that won't look at the whole situation, but want an easy answer. Like "electric cars" are so great, as long as you don't look at how the electricity is produced. Hydrogen cars are fantastic as long as you don't examine too closely where this hydrogen comes from, and Biodeisel is a panacea as long as you close your mind to the goverment subsidies the deforestation and water usage as well as petroleum derived fertilizers that support it. That's not to say I think biodeisel is bad, only that it is no great "solution" to our energy problems. it's simply another idea, which has some promise, but must be scrutinised critically and in great detail before we all go bananas for it. Also, biodeisel is no way "low impact". Think about the cleared land to grow the crops and the water that has to used/moved to make the crops grow, and the fertilizers and pesticides... These are relatively high impact when compared to pumping oil out of the ground. Sorry to rain on your parade, but ultimately I am afraid that the best real approach we can take to making a difference is conservation, not just a different flavor of fuel. Marty > I have never understood the small mindedness of people that won't look at > the whole situation, but want an easy answer. I am talking about a simple way that an individual can *lessen* the amount of cash that goes to oil producing contries and *increase* our energy independace > Like "electric cars" are so great, as long as you don't look at how the > electricity is produced. Hydrogen cars are fantastic as long as you don't > examine too closely where this hydrogen comes from, and Biodeisel is a > panacea as long as you close your mind to the goverment subsidies the > deforestation and water usage as well as petroleum derived fertilizers > that support it. OK, we are not really deforesting the US for farmland anymore, so that does not apply, we may as well subsidize FUEL production, I think that is a legitimate use of government money, so I don't have a problem with that.We use oil in current fertilizers because that is the cheapest current way to do it, this may continue, or not, but is not in my "circle of control" so I can't act on it. > That's not to say I think biodeisel is bad, only that it is no great > "solution" to our energy problems. it's simply another idea, which has > some promise, but must be scrutinised critically and in great detail > before we all go bananas for it. I think that if more people use it, the "economies of scale" will apply and it will get more efficient in the conversion of energy. But people have to start using it for there to be any interest in investing. So I use my cash to buy the more expensive fuel now, in hopes that this will get the ball rolling. > Also, biodeisel is no way "low impact". Think about the cleared land to > grow the crops and the water that has to used/moved to make the crops > grow, and the fertilizers and pesticides... These are relatively high > impact when compared to pumping oil out of the ground. We already have a great deal of farmland that is being underused, I really can't think of anywhere that we are "clearing land for farmland" in the US kansas is pretty clear at this point. we do have water problems, but I think that is not an insurmountable issue, when compared to continued energy dependance and the costs associated with that (IE the current defense budget) > Sorry to rain on your parade, but ultimately I am afraid that the best > real approach we can take to making a difference is conservation, not > just a different flavor of fuel. conservation will just slow the inevitable, it is not an answer, only a delaying tactic. we need a different flavor of fuel or a totally different type of society. I think a new type of fuel is less trouble. Bernard Biodiesel is nice.... but straight vegetable oil is the best... used one which is free... although it does take a bit of work... Hi @ all, >Biodiesel is nice.... but straight vegetable oil is the best... used one >which is free... although it does take a bit of work... I lived with a guy who used rape oil for his 190D. He told me he used it a couple of years. The only thing he had to do was cleaning the fuel filter. He also told told me that it made some trouble in winter time. He removed earlier installed special installations for rape oil. He told me, there was no worth for it - just using the diesel engine is the best. But he said, older diesel engines (e.g. the one of W123) might need additional installations (e.g. a preheater). Right now, there might be a big advantage of using such "fuel"!? BTW, that guy got his rape oil in portions of 50 to 100 litres by a local oil mill. Greets, Roland R. _______________________________________________________________ "Phantasie ist wichtiger als Wissen, denn Wissen ist begrenzt" (Albert Einstein) _______________________________________________________________ Emailadresse ist reply-fähig, wird aber nicht gelesen. Besser: r-2 ät Ge Em Ix . De E > Is anyone here running their diesels on biodiesel? Yes, I'm running mine on biodiesel. I have a '79 240D with the engine out of a 300SD, with 4 speed manual tranny. On regular diesel I was getting about 22-24 mpg both city and highway, on biodiesel I'm averaging more like 26-28. That's in U.S. gallons. Biodiesel costs about 10% more than ordinary, and there is only one station in the area selling it, fortunately, only a few miles from my house, but the increase in mileage is worth an extra 10-15 cents a gallon. Rochelle >> Is anyone here running their diesels on biodiesel? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > fortunately, only a few miles from my house, but the increase in mileage > is worth an extra 10-15 cents a gallon. Where are you? Are you talking about B100? It costs $3.00 per gal. here.Or are you talking about B20? Bernard > Where are you? Are you talking about B100? It costs $3.00 per gal. > here.Or are you talking about B20? > > Bernard I'm in Boise, Idaho. I believe it was B20. Unfortunately, when I drove by the station yesterday, they were closed. :( The other "Kicks 66" stations in our area only sell regular diesel. I hope it is not permanent. Ordinary diesel is running about $1.99 - $2.09, and biodiesel about $2.19 or so. Rochelle |
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.