In a message dated 1/15/2006 1:34:26 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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? Bruce, Either car would make a stout vehicle that should run until it rusts away. I had a 66 200D and a 74 240D both with 4speed manual transmissions. We drove each of them well over 100,000 miles after I overhauled them. The 200D, being lighter, would accelerate about even with the 240D, which had about 5 more horsepower. As to the differences: The 220D will have a 4.08:1 axle vs the 3.69 of the 240D, so it would top out sooner and be much more buzzy at 75 MPH. Engine speed does not seem to affect MPG so the lighter 220D will get better mileage. The 240D (3205#)is 200# heavier than the 220D (2997#). Most important, both of mine smoked like crazy at high atltitude as they had no altitude compensation. For this reason, I would recommend that you look for a 75-76 version of the 240D, 115 chassis, as they did have the ADA, an altitude compensator on the fuel injection pump. I am sure this injector could be retrofitted to the earlier fours if you already have a car in hand. Finally, the 76 model got a 20.6 gallon fuel tank vs 17. 2 for earlier models of the 115. Have fun! Jim Friesen Phoenix AZ 79 300SD, 262 K miles 98 ML 320, 140 K miles
