For what it's worth, the recently resurrected 87 300D with ducttaped and bandaided transmission turns in 29.5 on the daily commute, and on a trip this weekend to san diego was pulling down tanks at 33 mpg. Acts like it has a bit of a lazy turbo, so I'll be checking the usual suspects with respect to boost in my copious free time. Right now, the 87 300TD will walk this thing off the road. ALDA is shimmed, so it's likely that a line is coked, sensor effed up, or perhaps it needs a new turbo - this engine had a trap on it for about 260k... oil consumption is also a teense higher than usual.
As an aside, for those of you who are avoiding the 95s because they don't have a turbo, and instead buying 90-93s, look at the horsepower and torque numbers before you make that decision. Granted, the 606 is more complicated than the 602, but the 95 is a more powerful car. IIRC, they are within ten horsepower of the 87 300D. K On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 11:52:10AM -0500, OK Don wrote: > The '90 300D is getting around thirty in my daily commute and thirty > five on the trip we took to Albuquerque in March. > Don't have exact figures because I haven't fixed the odometer that > broke 50 miles out of Wichita. The figure form the trip is based on > map miles, and discounts the loval driving in Albuquerque. > > On 5/21/06, Kaleb C. Striplin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So what kind of mileage are you getting with it?
