View Single Post
  #8  
Old 04-30-2006, 11:13 PM
Hatterasguy's Avatar
Hatterasguy Hatterasguy is offline
Zero
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Milford, CT
Posts: 19,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by pawoSD
In theory doesn't the engine last longer w/out a turbo too? Less heat/stress on the engine? Seems like the 240d's and 300d N/A's all go longer between rebuilds than the turbo engines.....then again the 603SDL's seem to go 400k often without one.... so who knows.

I'd love to have a 1995 E300, that'd be awesome. However, lack of $$.
In theory yes, in practice no. In regard to MB's they overbuilt the turbo engines so much the lifespan is the same if not greater then the NA engines. Now if you want to make a case that turbo charged engines don't last as long, say with CAT 3208's well you could, but thats a different animal.

The 606 is probably the most durable MB diesel around. I have personaly seen two examples with north of 300k on them that still burned zero oil, and had zero blow by. The 606 may actualy be the engine that proves those 500k mile claims true...
__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200
Reply With Quote