Re: [MBZ] 123 mpg was Re: 2.5 turbo

, January 03, 2008 5:21 PM Subject: Re: [MBZ] 123 mpg was Re: 2.5 turbo > Link doesn't work, don't know if you have a backup of that site or not, > but here's the message: > > Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 11:43:28 -0600 > From: "Kaleb C. Striplin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g

Re: [MBZ] 123 mpg was Re: 2.5 turbo

Yea, thats what I figured. Those were lost. --- Kaleb C. Striplin Cox Auto Trader 730-Tulsa FSBO Supervisor - Original Message - From: "Kevin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Mercedes Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 5:21 PM Subject: Re: [MBZ]

Re: [MBZ] 123 mpg was Re: 2.5 turbo

Link doesn't work, don't know if you have a backup of that site or not, but here's the message: Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 11:43:28 -0600 From: "Kaleb C. Striplin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Diesel List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Su

Re: [MBZ] 123 mpg was Re: 2.5 turbo

Kevin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Mercedes Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 4:37 PM Subject: Re: [MBZ] 123 mpg was Re: 2.5 turbo > With a ton and a half of newspapers in it. Do you still have that picture > floating around? > > On Thu, Jan 03, 2008

Re: [MBZ] 123 mpg was Re: 2.5 turbo

Good point. I drive alone with almost no load most of the time. On Jan 3, 2008 5:37 PM, Kevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > With a ton and a half of newspapers in it. Do you still have that picture > floating around? > > On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 04:36:20PM -0600, Kaleb C. Striplin, work wrote: > >

Re: [MBZ] 123 mpg was Re: 2.5 turbo

With a ton and a half of newspapers in it. Do you still have that picture floating around? On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 04:36:20PM -0600, Kaleb C. Striplin, work wrote: > I used to get 14 with my 81 wagon all the time. ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see o

Re: [MBZ] 123 mpg was Re: 2.5 turbo

I used to get 14 with my 81 wagon all the time. --- Kaleb C. Striplin Cox Auto Trader 730-Tulsa FSBO Supervisor - Original Message - From: "andrew strasfogel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Mercedes Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 4:35 PM Subject

Re: [MBZ] 123 mpg was Re: 2.5 turbo

We need to hold a contest for the individual 123 with the WORST fuel economy. The winner receives a gift cert. to Buymbparts (thanks, Rusty!!) Seriously, can anyone beat the lousy 19.5 mpg for combined (mostly city) driving in my 282K 1983 300TD wagon.? On Jan 2, 2008 4:42 PM, Donald Snook <[EMAI

Re: [MBZ] 123 mpg was Re: 2.5 turbo

Phillip wrote: "I thought the OM603 was too new to have ever been in a W123. Isn't the * OM616 and OM617 the only W123 motors?" Whoops, yes. You are right. I mixed up my engines. I thought someone was claiming to get 30 mpg consistently on a 123. But, yes, you are right. The 6

Re: [MBZ] 123 mpg was Re: 2.5 turbo

Correct. > I thought the OM603 was too new to have ever been in a W123. > Isn't the OM616 and OM617 the only W123 motors? > > -- Philip -- OK Don, KD5NRO Norman, OK "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics." -Benjamin Disraeli and/or Mark Twain '90 300D, '8

Re: [MBZ] 123 mpg was Re: 2.5 turbo

> > Alex wrote: > > "Marshall always said that 30 mpg was at the high end of what > > you could get with a 603 car, and required steady 60-mph > > highway driving. Peter's the only person I have ever heard > > report getting over 30 mpg consistently." > I concur. I had three different 123 300D

[MBZ] 123 mpg was Re: 2.5 turbo

Alex wrote: "Marshall always said that 30 mpg was at the high end of what you could get with a 603 car, and required steady 60-mph highway driving. Peter's the only person I have ever heard report getting over 30 mpg consistently." I concur. I had three different 123 300D's. I usually