The S500 and S600 are the models to get, cost be damned.

They have SLS suspension which is nice, also most S320's seem to be SWB. Which is a good or bad thing depending on what you want.

I have racked up a few miles on the S320, it doesn't seem underpowered. Its a lot faster than my SDL, and the 722.6 actualy downshifts without having to beat it; but compared to the S600 or even a new CLK550 its a dog. The S600 also has a much nicer interior, but cost twice what eh S320 did when new. They all weigh about the same, so power comes to play, but of course the S600 and CLK550 would be faster they have about 400hp and all that in torque. The CLK550 has the busy, yet mind reading 7spd. It's a busy box but always seems to be where you want it, I'll give it credit for that.

__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

We weren't discussing horsepower. It was your claim that the diesel would have better driveability due to its torque at low speed. I simply noted that the gasser has more torque than the diesel, thereby disproving your claim. BTW, the claimed peak torque of the diesel at 2000 rpm is simply BS.........the turbo has barely started turning at that speed.

We weren't discusing the CDI versus the Intrepid.........we were discussing the 3.5L diesel versus the 3.2L gasser. The gasser has equal or better driveability at low speeds if the diff is geared properly.

I thought the 95 was still the W140 and had the new OM606 naturally aspired?? This was a great engine, and it got turbo'd in 98-99 but that was a W210 then.

__________________
1985 300D Mango Green with 16" Pentas, Vogtland springs, Euros/ clear corners, 234k, lots to come soon....

The W-140 never had the 606 here in the US. You're thinking of the W124 which had the 606 in 1995 for it's last year. The 210 had it in '96-'97 n/a and it got the turbo in '98-'99.

The W-140 with a 606 would definitely be the vehicle to own.

I don't know if that's true as I haven't driven either the S320 or S350D. I was simply bench-racing here. I still stand by my comment that the diesel has better low-end torque and I don't think the numbers are lying. My TDI's torque starts to peak at 1800 RPM, so the 2000 RPM max torque is entirely believable.

Anyway, it's quite possible that the rod-bending is exaggerated on this forum, much like the OM617 engine is overrated here. Me thinks it might be a good idea to poll all 3.5L diesel owners to see what they've experienced. Was this poll ever done? I would bet the vast majority of these engines make it to 200K miles with no problem.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

You should read up on sixto's W140 300SD.

__________________
Current:
05 E320 CDI
07 GL320 CDI
08 Sprinter
05 Dodge Cummins
01 Dodge Cummins

Previous
2004 E55 AMG
2002 C32 AMG (#2)
1995 E300
1978 300D
1987 300D
2002 C32 AMG(blown motor :[
1981 300SD
1983 300SD
1987 300SDL
2002 Jetta TDI
1996 S420
1995 S500
1993 190E 2.6
1992 190E 2.3
1985 190E 2.3 5-Speed

I think the diesel develops its torque a bit earlier than the S-320, but the difference is not meaningful if the gasser has a bit of a shorter axle ratio. With identical axle ratios, the diesel would appear to have a better pull from a standstill.

But, a lot of the "feel" is dependent on how far you must push the pedal to get a response from the vehicle. Clearly, with the S-320, you'll need to get more revs from it.........and this might lead you to a conclusion that it's "slow". Many manufacturers would find ways around this issue by using fast throttle geometry. You'd get 50% of the engine capability in the first 20% of pedal travel..........talk about the feel of "power"!

It's not exaggerated. We did a poll once in the past. About 30% of the engines suffer from the malady. It's not a majority by any means...........but, if you're part of the unfortunate group, it's going to cost you dearly..........and hence the continued caveats against the purchase of such a vehicle.

If you wear your sealtbelt, the W140 sedans are MASSIVELY SAFE cars.

You could walk away uninjured from a horrendous wreck that could kill you in lesser cars. This alone is a compelling argument for the purchase of one.

This fact is unarguable.

__________________
1991 560 SEC AMG, 199k <---- 300 hp 10:1 ECE euro HV ...

1995 E 420, 170k "The Red Plum" (sold)

2015 BMW 535i xdrive awd Stage 1 DINAN, 6k, <----364 hp

1967 Mercury Cougar, 49k

2013 Jaguar XF, 20k <----340 hp Supercharged, All Wheel Drive (sold)

You need to drive them, because the 603's don't start making power until 3k, I don't care what MB says, I have driven a ton and they are wrong on the rating of their diesels. You can tweak the crap out of them and make the power band very smooth and full below 3k, but 3k is still where the power starts.

The M104 likes to rev, which is fine because it is geared very well, and has an extra gear in the trans which helps a lot. It has a lot more power than the 603 and feels like it. The excellent 722.6 helps a lot in this regard.

I think the S320 is two seconds faster to 60 than the S350, thats a lot...

__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

I agree with the conclusion for the 603.961 engine. However, the slower turning 603.971 might make its peak torque at somewhat less than 3000 rpm. If I had to guess, I'd say it would be at 2600 rpm or so.........but, there is NFW that it makes peak torque at 2000 rpm per the issued specification.

Well I used to have an '87 300D. It's been a while now, but I remember the surge of torque came well before 3000 RPM. IIRC it was much closer to 2000 RPM and that was the higher-revving version of this engine. I don't dispute the fact that the S320 is faster in 0-60 than the S350D. I was just saying the low-end torque is probably better in the diesel, and I still stand by that comment. Alas I don't think I'll ever be buying a W140 with this engine for the obvious reason, like most knowledgeable folks here. If I wanted to buy a W140 I'd just get any of the gassers in the best condition for the best price, regardless of whether it's a S320, S420 or S500. I don't know if I'd want the S600 though. 12 spark plugs is just too many and the gas mileage must be horrible.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

Agreed.

However, what you notice as "a surge of torque" is the point at which boost starts to build. When the ALDA is not properly adjusted, the vehicle will show a significant change in the acceleration rate at the point where the boost begins.........roughly 2300 rpm.

However, don't confuse this with peak torque..........which is well above 2300 rpm. It's at least 2800 rpm and might be as high as 3000 rpm on this engine.

I'm not sure what you mean by the change in acceleration rate, but isn't it normal for the acceleration rate to increase when the boost begins??

The best way to compare the torque values of the two engines in question would be to dyno each one and look at the curves. 3000 RPM may be where the torque peaks on the diesel, but if the torque is only 10 lb-ft lower at 2200 RPM, it's hardly a peak. Don't let turbo lag fool you into thinking that the torque comes later than it actually does. I did some experiments with my Jetta and I've noticed that if I floor it at 2000 RPM it seems like the torque doesn't peak until 2500 RPM, but if I floor it even earlier, say about 1700 RPM, then by 2000 RPM the torque already feels maxed out and it's the same as it is at 2500 RPM.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

A lot of it has to do with seat-of-the-pants feel. I never clocked my 91 300SE vs the 87 300SDL but I expect the SE was quicker off the line even if the SDL felt quicker. I don't wear a watch so for me it's about feel.

Same comparison might not apply to the S320 because it has a proper transmission that starts in first gear. The S420 was okay with second gear start mostly because it wasn't so dramatic about dropping into first when called upon to do so. The 91 SE would hem, haw and wait for congress to approve funding to drop into first, make heck of a fuss about being in first then shift into second with enough harshness to ensure you never did it again. Okay, that was an unhelpful rant

Sixto
87 300D

Oh, I forgot the other point. Even with bent rods and wastegate wide open the 3.5 pulled the 93 SD off the line with more authority than the 3.0 that replaced it. It's not until 20-25 mph that absence of boost is noticed. I can't compare that to an S320 but I expect a 3.5 in a good tune will chirp a 235 tire off the line more easily than a 124 300D can chirp a 195 tire.

Sixto
87 300D