No, I completely agree! It's just that most 'Mericans like all the toys, so, generally would prefer the S-Klasse. Having owned an example of each, a 300D and 300SD, for sure the 123 was nimbler. Would get blown into the weeds by the SD, though. (The 300D was a '77, so, non-turboed.)
One thing about the 116 SD; no cladding to trap moisture/road salt, so, no chance for rust there. It IS, however, the heaviest of all the iron-heads....
Mark in Lakewood, CO
To: diesel_mercedes@yahoogroups.com
From: vwnate1@yahoo.com
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 04:28:12 +0000
Subject: [diesel_mercedes] Re : Which One ? (flame Suit ON !)
_thank_ you Alan ;
I keep trying to hammer this into my fellow DieselHead's heads to no avail .
They keep insisting that the improved luxury appointments and fuel economy makes the W-126 a better car but the superior road holding , longevity and all 'round engineering makes the W-123 chassis cars tops to people who really know these things..... =8-) .
-Nate
(hastily zipping up Nomex fire suit)
Alan Wisely & Correctly Intoned :
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Actually as the owner of both 300D's and 300SD's, I think the 300D is by
> far a better car. The SD is built using a lot of the 300Ds components.
> including the engine, trans and a lot of the underpinnings, so you have
> a larger heavier car on top of the 300Ds parts. Also in the rustbelt,
> the vinyl siding on the SD seems to promote more rust. Admittedly the
> 300SD is larger and more luxurious, but I tend to like lighter and simpler.
>
__._,_.___
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment