(first posted 11/ 15/2016) Diesels were bursting (or smoking and rattling) onto the American automotive scene with full force by the late 1970s, offering strong fuel economy benefits as an antidote to the trade-offs required by lethargic performance and searching for fuel at truck stops. An undisputed leader in the Diesel Movement in the U.S. was Mercedes-Benz. For 1977, Mercedes introduced the new W123 platform to the U.S. and naturally a core offering was the recently introduced 5-cylinder Diesel. Car and Driver ran a long-term road test on the W123 300D, seeking to understand the good and bad over time—their conclusions were reported in the May 1978 issue.
The harsh reality of Diesel operation was that the cost/benefit equation wasn’t particularly strong. For long-term, high-mileage use, yes, the Diesel would ultimately pay off economically. However, for many luxury Diesel customers, the real appeal was in showing off a “fuel efficient” mindset—very much in vogue after the first OPEC crisis. The Diesel, oddly enough, became a style statement for wealthy suburbanites. Things are no different today: Tesla owners bask in ecological smugness and green superiority as they charge their electric chariots at their energy-sucking monster houses.
CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards were also a major culprit in the rise of Diesels. Manufacturers knew that American customers valued size and space, and those attributes would be incompatible with the high mileage figures being required by the Feds. Diesels offered a solution, allowing cars to remain relatively large while still achieving the stricter mileage requirements. GM leapt into the oil-burner fray for 1978 with the introduction of the Oldsmobile 350 V8 Diesel, which soon proved to be a quality and reliability disaster that badly tarnished the reputation of Diesel power in the U.S.
Mercedes-Benz, by contrast, showcased its mastery of the Diesel with the 300D, which offered a performance bump compared to the glacially-slow 240D. The engine reinforced the pragmatic virtues of the Mercedes brand, and the overall excellence of the W123 platform was world-class for the time. Owners who embraced Diesel for their Benz enjoyed the many virtues of the car, even as the suffered through the shortcomings of daily life with a smoker. In fact, the allure was such that at the end of the test, Car and Driver’s own Leon Mandel bought the 25,000-mile test car and made it his own.
Clearly, the all-around excellence of the 300D made it irresistible, even with all the trade-offs involved over the long haul. Given that the test-car in question was painted in a color resembling “Cream-of-Flamingo” soup, that must have been true love indeed.
yup another one of the cars from the 70’s i love. nothing other than a porsche 911 had the solidity that the germans offered at the time. heck even a VW rabbit had doors that gave a nice solid feel. today – i don’t know. mercedes C and E class just don’t have that allure anymore. back in the day when i saw a guy or gal in a mercedes i thought…. that guy/gal must have money. i don’t think that anymore in todays C or E class. maybe leasing has some part in that. they are not unique or rare at all anymore – other than the uber expensive ones.
I had the enormous pleasure and privilege of knowing and working with Leon Mandel in Nevada in the early 1980s. A real character—and an automotive journalist in the same rarefied atmosphere as David E. Davis, Jr. and Brock Yates.
And Henry N. Manney III too
Yr Fthfl Svnt!
As for the 300D and Leon Mandel, yes, a classic automobile and a classic automotive journalist.
Thanks for posting all these vintage articles!
I worked for a guy who drove one of these. He had nothing but trouble with it. The ironic thing was, that if someone asked about it he’d lavish it with nothing but praise. I’d bite my tongue and keep working.
It’s been a long time since I read anything by Leon Mandel. He certainly was a fine writer. Thanks for the look back.
I thought the 300D was more frugal than that; the figures they got seem in the Dodge Dart ballpark, esp. if Chrysler offered it with an O/D trans as the Benz has.
The 4 speed automatic in the test vehicle is not an overdrive transmission….If you look at the chart, 4th gear is 1:1 ratio…..not overdrive.
This article doesn’t do much to endear me to the car, at least not with this drivetrain combo. It’s too bad the 230 was only available for a few years; that would at least offer Volvo-grade performance to go along with the stateliness.
Perry, I think in actuality the 230 was even worse. The 230 was the only gas mercedes my family had until a 1986 260E, and we had a 1975 300D, a 1979 300TD, a 1981 300TD turbo diesel, and a 1982 300D turbo diesel. My dad complained that the 230 was the most gutless car he ever owned. I think we’d have to ask Paul about the performance characteristics of the carbureted 2.3 liter 4 cylinder to learn more details, but I think it had similar horsepower numbers to the 3.0 five cylinder fuel injected diesel with much lower torque numbers achieved higher in the RPM band. Further, my understanding was that the diesel was a much better match for the 4 speed automatic. My guess is that a 0-60 mph race would go to the 230, but that on a windy road or other circumstance, the immediate torque of the diesel was more accessible. And the later 300D Turbo would easily dispatch both.
Well I just looked up the numbers, and it appears that the 230 bests the 300D in both HP and torque at very similar spots on the tachometer. Can’t fully explain my father’s disappointment in the 230, but as an owner who lived with it day to day I have to trust his assessment.
Forgive the detail, but it’s possible that the 230 had higher gearing than the 300D, in an effort to get maximum mpg out of it. My understanding is that the 300D had very low gearing and a 1st gear start until mercedes introduced the turbo, so maybe the 300D had special gearing for maximum performance.
Well, I have no experience with the 230, but I nearly bought a grey-market 230E, which actually felt spry puttering around at low speeds much as a later Volvo 240 does, even with the automatic. With fuel-injection and fewer emissions controls, though, it might not be the best comparison.
Still very annoyed that the particular Benz I reference had rusty rocker panels. It was otherwise sound, fun and very rare in this part of the world.
I agree, I have a 1982 230CE, and it can’t get out of its own way. But, that’s because I can’t drive it as it’s intended. I’m used to torquey V8s, and to drive the 2.3 four with the 4 speed manual, you have to keep it up on the cam, 4k plus. It’s hard for me to listen to an engine screaming all the time. But, that’s when it’s in its element –
According to the Dept of Labor Consumer Price Index, the 1977 price tag of $16,822 is $67,081 in 2016 dollars. At that price, the car better fly like a rocket??
Wow! How much was an S class!! I believe the cost was a factor of multiple issues including both inflation and an unfavorable exchange rate. Within 16 years, a 300E cost $53,000! And yet today, 23 years after that you can still get an E class for $53,000!
The CPI is an average for a “basket of goods”. Some things have gone up more, some less. A house in San Francisco has gone up a lot more, new cars generally have gone up less. Oil oscillates all over the place.
Cars and trucks are made more “cheaply” today, due to design and manufacturing efficiency. Also, the monthly budget for rent or mortgage on that San Francisco home leaves little for that German luxury car lease payment, holding the price down.
Long forgotten now about that time frame, is the poor gasoline quality and primitive state of gasoline engine emission control systems (particularly in CA). These factors resulted in some dismal performance from gasoline cars.
I opted for a series of diesels – Rabbit, Peugeot 505td, 300sd, & 190d. Slugs one and all, but they did what they do very well. (except for the 300sd which really was a POS).
Also, diesel was much cheaper than gasoline back then.
I am always skeptical of the car magazines’ “let’s run the numbers” condemnation of diesels or more recently of hybrids. I feel like they’re willfully missing the point because it doesn’t happen to suit their personal tastes.
First, there are buyers for whom not having to fill the tank as often is a meaningful advantage. If you’re a businessperson who has to drive around a big urban area on a daily basis, the dreadful range of a lot of gasoline-fueled cars of this era would be an obvious hassle. And if you’re a traveling salesperson or in some kind of mobile but image-based field like that, there’s something to be said for not showing up in a Chevette.
Second, the “will you get your money back?” logic dismisses at a stroke the idea that somebody might consider it a priority from an environmental standpoint to burn less fuel. The environmental impact of diesel versus gasoline is a separate, messier argument, but oil consumption and the politics of oil are matters of social concern, and there are buyers who are genuinely concerned about that.
Third, it ignores that one of the big priorities for many economy-minded buyers since 1973 is stability. A car note is a big expense for people who aren’t rich, but it’s also a fixed expense; you know what it is and you can budget for it. Fuel costs are not necessarily stable and can change rapidly and unpredictably due to reasons beyond the individual car owner’s control. There have been periods just in the past decade where the price of motor fuel has gone up significant chunks every three or four days. If you have to commute by car, the cost of your commute could potentially double with little warning and little recourse. Admittedly, Mercedes-Benz buyers are probably not too worried about that, but it’s a concern for a lot of middle-class people and it’s obviously a worry for working-class owners.
Balancing fixed costs against the risk of high unexpected ones is the same principle as car insurance, and I would consider it equally arrogant and obnoxious for car magazines to run articles saying no one really needs car insurance because the individual risk of collision is only XX% and of course you’ll never have an accident if you buy an Exciting Car and Know What You’re Doing.
Also, auto enthusiasts love the idea that stuff like fuel economy and safety shouldn’t be regulated and the Market should decide. Well, that’s exactly what the popularity of cars like this amounted to, or what the rise of modern hybrids has been. And yet if the result of Market Pressure isn’t a wholesale embrace of Exciting Cars, then suddenly “let the Market decide” gets scorn. Make up your minds, kids!
Agreed 100% on all counts, especially the second (also irritating when they’d call the modern VW TDIs “slow” at 7.8 seconds to sixty or whatnot).
The one aspect of running the numbers in this article that doesn’t get too attention, IMO, is that of performance. They seem more focused on the diesel ownership experience. Perhaps focusing on performance is just too obvious, but this car was just distressingly slow. Not in the way which I could justify, either; a Rabbit diesel was slow and got eye-popping fuel economy. This merely gets good economy for its size. The turbodiesel really couldn’t come soon enough.
Not having been around in 1977, I would feel much better throwing my cash at a 530i, despite its poorer mileage and second-rate prestige compared to this Benz. And if I needed a W123, I’d have found a four-speed 230.
Perry, forgive me for answering all your comments! I believe the north american 230 was automatic only. It was a four speed automatic but I’m assuming you were talking about a manual transmission. I believe the only manual transmission w123 in north america throughout the entire model run was the 240D.
Ah, so it was. I guess the W123 in US trim is pretty much irredeemable. A 280E with emissions controls modified or a 300TD with boost control/injection pump modifications seems the only way to go, and once alterations are considered, it’s an entirely different conversation.
^This. In Europe we have been driving cars like these for many years by that time. Of course, our conditions were and are different from those in the US, but that is even the greater argument against cars like this ordered with anything but a 4 or 5sp manual boxes. I never drove an auto 230 or 300D (never mind a 240D!) but I can imagine what it would have felt like. A manual 300D was not a fast car for sure but it was adequate for merging into traffic on the Autobahn and then proceeding to cruise at 130-140 KmH (80-86 MPH).
Having owned a 240d, and a pretty large number of other high mileage classic cars, it felt tighter with over 230,000 miles on it (unrestored) than most passenger vehicles do with half that accumulation. The w123 platform design was solid, built of quality materials, and with a diesel engine and reasonable care can outlast the majority of other cars. I would put these, the box Volvos, and the Peugeot 504/505 in the limited class of realistic lifetime cars.
Guy next to the car looks like Angel from the Rockford Files.
Jimmy, Jimmy!, look, front me the dough to rent this Mercedes and I
can run this payday of a scam !
Well ;
As an early model W123 NA Diesel owner I can tel you the non turbo ones had the four speed automatic but it started out in _second_ gear unless you shifted it after each and every dead stop .
The NA 300D’s were slow , too slow for me and I had Coupes . once up to speed I’d thrash them mercilessly and pas most other cars on my canyon/mountain drives but in daily traffic they drove me crazy with glacial off line acceleration .
My ’82 240D Sedan with slush box just turned over 361,9XX miles and gave 29+ MPG’s , nary a rattle squeak in it .
-Nate
Nate, that doesn’t agree with what I’ve read and what my mother used to say. She had a 1979 300TD (non-turbo) and then a 1981 300TD (turbo) and she always said the 1979 non-turbo was faster. I think she meant quicker off the line. I always thought she was crazy until I came upon a thread on one of the Mercedes enthusiast forums that explained that when the turbo engine was made for the 300SD, the goal was to make it the fastest turbo on the market, meaning the highest top speed, while retaining the best possible MPG figures. The thread explained that this was accomplished with higher gearing and with a second gear start. That seemed to explain what my mother always claimed.
When you’re saying NA, do you mean naturally aspirated or north american, because it’s possible that the gearing of the north american, naturally aspirated 300D was different from other models, but I don’t know.
I say all this because I’ve never driven a w123. I’ve driven many of the models since (r107, w124, w140, w201, w210, r129, w203, w204, r170), and I’ve riden in many w123s, but not driven one so I can’t share my personal driving experience.
Anyone have a definitive answer about the transmissions in the w123?
Naturally Aspirated .
W123’s didn’t get the puffer until 1981 model year .
This second gear start thing was/is a common complaint ~ it was done to increase the fuel economy .
Even the ones that start off in first gear can be slow as my Son was lamenting last night in my ’82 240D as it glacially groaned away from stop signs .
Even my new 36HP Beetle zooms away from it .
-Nate
Think what the 200D taxi was like of the line?. But come on you Americans didnt help matters by insisting on standard fit autoboxes . Granted that they are suited to the torque of a diesel they just sapped what little power they had. Was the 240D 4 speed much slower than the 300D Auto?.
MB diesels were designed for urban taxi work and so acceleration was
irrelevant but as pointed out once they got up to 80-90 mph they could hold it all day unlike most of the American stuff of the day.
The 123 series can still be seen in Spains Canneries isle on taxi routes along side the more plentiful 124s which are over 21 years old!.
The most of the american stuff had no problem to cruise at 90 mph all day long…. Even my 67 Buick can easily cruise at 100 mph all day long. But the engine is smooth and at 1/4 of throttle it’s still quicker than the MB Diesels :), so is the automatic, not like at MB clattering diesel and harsh shifting automatic of this era.
Aber nein! Those shifts aren’t harsh, they’re, ah, teutonically precise!
To – Day as I was heading to my Son’s 37th Birthday I wound the old ’82 240D with 361,XXX miles up to where the speedo’s needle settled against the 85 MPH pin and stayed there….
Worn out engine and all it hummed right along happily .
It’s interesting how many here claim the Mercedes four speed auto tranny shifts too hard when the very first thing Hot Rodders did when I was young was to remove the accumulator springs or whatever to make their American slush boxes shift firmly so they’d last longer .
BTW: you cannot run a Buick or any other American car 90 + MPH for hours and expect it to last over 80,000 miles or so .
Claiming otherwise is delusional .
-Nate
Ya but will your Buick do 700k miles?
@ D :
Very much apples and oranges .
I like older Buicks .
-Nate
Typical city kid, running for shelter when a few cows get loose. No doubt those steers were more afraid of him than he was of them, but a loose steer can do you some damage if you don’t know when to challenge it, and when to get out of its way. (Just like with other traffic, you watch the eyes-if no eye contact, he doesn’t recognize you and it’s time to make sure you are not in his path.) Probably just as well he could get to his car. But he does write well.
I’ve been thinking about the 300D lately because there’s a 1977 300D that I’ve seen around quite a bit, and it’s clearly a very well-maintained daily driver. And I think if I were to choose any 40-year-old car to use as a daily commuter vehicle, the 300D would be it. There is perhaps no car were Mercedes-Benz’s ideals of over-engineering manifested itself more than in this car.
And at this point in my life, I could probably deal with the 21-second 0-to-60 time. But as I waited for the car to gradually accumulate speed, I’d think about how lightning-fast it was compared to a 240D!
I was blown away when the article mentioned “Earth Shoes”. Nothing to do with cars, but my generation was so dispondent over the Watergate fiasco, people were willing to try anything (diesels, earth shoes, All in the Family) to feel good again!! ???
Does that work? Earth Shoes, I mean, for feeling better over a political fiasco. Asking for a friend.
RE: ‘ Earth Shoes ‘ :
No, they were straight marketing hype and crappy quality to boot .
Pops was a Doctor and told me not to waste my money but I thought I’d give them a whirl, they wore out in jig time and weren’t any more comfortable .
-Nate
These cars were horribly slow. And what were you americans thinking? The gas was (and still is) dirt cheap and some where still buying a MB Diesel instead of a bigger petrol engine? Or you could buy a 77 Cadillac Fleetwood, who even with the 425 cid V8 was like a racing car compared to the MB 240 and 300 D.
60 to zero quick and straight and repeatedly, and a relatively great place to be in most any kind of crash. And plenty cachet at the country club. On the other hand, zero to 60 in…ohhhh, probably sometime next week. With the loud. And the stink.
H’mmm…lemme think.
(Interesting that the article deliberately includes a pic of the European-market headlamp/fog lamp assembly with washer-wiper activated, but doesn’t contain the expected textual scorn for the sealed-beam mandate in effect for US-spec cars at that time)
Cream of Flamingo Soup. If only that was the actual color name…
Although I regret that I’ve never owned a Mercedes-Benz Diesel, I’ve always liked Mercedes-Benz Diesel, and I’d buy one if I could find one in decent condition. My favourites have always been the W115 and the W123 Diesel.
TWO fairly good ones in my local Pick-A-Part to – day, one with turbo and t’other a 1980 NA with the EVIL SERVO FROM HELL HVAC ~ that one was the nicer of the two .
The turbo one was taken to bits by 3PM .
Neither one had bad cosmetics, might have been impounds .
-Nate
I thought I wanted a 300D back in the late 70s. That is until I drove one.
It was pitifully slow!
It drove like a truck and it took me less than 2 minutes to see people were buying it because they wanted them to be cool.
Not only was it slow and like a truck, it smelled bad too. All of that combined with the utter inconvenience of finding fuel, made me run from it.
I did buy a 1979 930 Turbo Porsche that I still own.
This article and thread is hysterical.
I drove an 83 300cd from 254k miles till past 375k miles when the rust claimed victory, and then bought a 77 300d for 1k with 219k miles on it. Having lived a hard life, the interior is hammered, the paint stagnant, there is no ac or cruise control operating. The owner at the time could not get it to go over 50.
I drove it home, set the valves, and started exercising it on up hill entry ramps. It will now cruise at 75 all day, runs out of steam at 85 or so, and has 236k miles on it 3 years later. I’ve driven it enough for work that I have been reimbursed the purchase price. As a leave at the train station car it is perfect, and it seems invisible to speedtraps.
I have owned and driven the same 300D W123 in right hand drive since 16 August 1977 – around Europe for 2 years and the remainder in Australia – never missed a beat – still drive it – only modification is a digital radio and blue tooth – a sensational car. Sits on 100kph – the speed limit in Australia. 300D rule!!