This is a pure intellectual exercise in terms of performance estimates: Frankly, I find the B-17 to have been a far better design for the role it was intended for and am glad the B-18 didn't win out (in the long term anyway -- it did in the short-term). I just find it strange how the DC-2 went from being a fairly streamlined design for it's time, to such a clunk the B-18 became.
If it retained lines closer to the DC-2, which is something like the B-23: I'm curious how much better it would have performed. The B-23 (R-2600) had a different engine than the B-18 (R-1820) which was greatly more powerful (1275-1600 vs 850-1000 hp). I don't know what cruise power settings were the norm on either engine, but based on the normal rated power figures with the cube-root formula, and the listed speed of the DB-1 being 233 mph, I get 248 mph. Admittedly the R-2600 had a higher altitude (12200' vs 10000') than the R-1820 of the DB-1/B-18 design, so that would lower the speed a little bit, and there might have been other differences as well to the shape of the aircraft and nacelle.
The Model 299 (B-17) had a top speed ranging from 236-256 mph (depending on source) at 10000', which actually raises some interesting questions as to who would win.
I believe Warner Brothers released an informational film showcasing the performance of the B-18 Bolo. It is entitled "Falling Hare" and was released in 1943.