B Dike wrote:
Dieselvolks,
We're contemplating a 220D project. Questions:
1. How does the 0-60 time compare to the 240D?
2. Is there any significant advantage in fuel economy over the 240D?
3. Are there any other major differences between the W115 220D and 240D?
The 220D is about 4 seconds slower then the 240D (same transmission).
Mercedes rates fuel economy of the 220D about 3 mpg better.
The early ('68-69) 220Ds seemed to have some serious cylinder wear
problems. The later 115s were more "refined" but that had both a good
and bad side. Friends that owned early 115s seemed to have a lot of rust
problems - especially front inner fenders. Not as bad in the 240Ds (I
owned a pair of them).
Marshall
--
Marshall Booth (who doesn't respond to unsigned questions)
"der Dieseling Doktor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
'87 300TD 182Kmi, '84 190D 2.2 229Kmi, '85 190D 2.0 161Kmi, '87 190D 2.5
turbo 237kmi
