I will agree.. the 617 turbo has enough power to keep up with modern traffic... you don't have to gun it everywhere you go (I still do)...

but if you want to go for it...

I traded my Saab intercooler to James for a new sound system in my w123... but.. Check out MTU's wagon

I find that the power in my 1981 300D (non-turbo) is more that enough power to get me in trouble and chew up the tires...(but, then that is what diesel torque can do). This old gal will give me more than 80mph on the highway and that is all I need. If you really want power then go for a 606 turbo or a gasser.

I contrast there is my 1999 E300.....sweet power. I love power, but as I get older I appreciate the overall effect of a NICE ride. Thus far I appreciate the rides of older chassis more than the new ones.....they are just sprung smooth. I find the ride of my friend's 250SE intoxicating. (He calls it the magic carpet ride) His 1960 190 ride very nice as well. OK, so I am an 'old fogy' a few weeks shy of 44.

Just my two bits.

__________________
Current:
1985 300D aka Miss Margaret
1991 300SE aka Alarice
1995 SL320 aka Samantha
1997 K1500 Silverado
Past:
1999 E300 ex-wife got it and let her son ruin it
1984 190 2.3 ex-wife got it and let her son destroy a great car
1985 300D (CA version) aka Maybelline lost to deer at high speed.
1981 300D aka Madeline (went to salvage at near 400k) rusty, yet best car I ever drove
Wishlist:
McFarlan TV6 (only a few privately owned)
ReVere with Rochester engine
1917 Premier (only one left)

It's underpowered because you can't beat a $hitbox to the next traffic light...........

.

Nitrous

.

http://bankspower.com/im_HotRod_Sept05.cfm

http://www.holley.com/HolleyNews/article.asp?ID=42

__________________

When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
Jimi Hendrix

There's a 300CD 560 on ebay, check it out. Rocketship!!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1982-MERCEDES-BENZ-300CD-5-6-ONE-A-KIND_W0QQitemZ270208514426QQihZ017QQcategoryZ6330QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

__________________
Houston, Texas
1984 300CD 235K miles, Elvira, one owner
1987 300TD 180K miles
1974 TR6 78K miles Sarah Jane, one owner
OBK #27

The 617 is one of the worst engines as a base for a powerhouse. For the amount of money per HP you will spend to get 200hp you could install a new 350 SBC and get 300hp+, 400-800hp if you turbocharge it.

i need to know one thing, NA or forced induction? a NA engine is limited heavily by your wallet. Where as a turbo engine can easily be tuned to provide more horsepower.. One thing you can do as long as your engine is NA (NON turbo) Then you can turn up the full load setting without trouble, because the engine egt's arent going to get too high in NA conditions.

__________________
Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?

As long as they would add one additional commandment for you to keep thy religion to thyself.
George Carlin (Wonder where he is now..)

1981 240d (engine donor 1983 240d) recently rebuilt engine hurray! - No more.. fought a tree and the tree won.

pearl black 1983 240d 4speed (Converted!@$$%) atleast the tranny was rebuilt.

........the signature tells all.........

ahg you got me brian

well.. to what people have said on this website is that 180hp is achieveable on stock interals.. meaning stock valves head bore pistions rods and crank.. thats amazing really.

__________________
Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?

As long as they would add one additional commandment for you to keep thy religion to thyself.
George Carlin (Wonder where he is now..)

1981 240d (engine donor 1983 240d) recently rebuilt engine hurray! - No more.. fought a tree and the tree won.

pearl black 1983 240d 4speed (Converted!@$$%) atleast the tranny was rebuilt.

Incorrect. EGTs will be MUCH higer on non-turbo because there is no extra air to cool the combustion.

are you sure? that doesnt seem right to me.. i understand how the incoming air cools the combustion temp in a turbo engine, but a na engine doesnt have any more air to burn so it simply dumps it out as black smoke (thats how i allways did it) turn the max load just until when you depress the accelerator fully that you see the squrrell tail behind you that means that your getting as much power as possible because your overfueling. The egt's im not sure.. yes this isnt the correct way to do the max load setting but i havent had any problems yet..

__________________
Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?

As long as they would add one additional commandment for you to keep thy religion to thyself.
George Carlin (Wonder where he is now..)

1981 240d (engine donor 1983 240d) recently rebuilt engine hurray! - No more.. fought a tree and the tree won.

pearl black 1983 240d 4speed (Converted!@$$%) atleast the tranny was rebuilt.

Black smoke is PARTIALLY burned fuel. So it is going to increase the EGT. A pyrometer really is necessary to safely turn up the power.

__________________
John Robbins
'05 E320 CDI - 240k
'87 300TD - 318k

Correct. Running rich (black smoke) is very hot combustion.

I believe you've got a loaded answer there, Lance.

There comes a point on either engine where the fuel injected matches the available air. Naturally, on the turbo, that point is at a much higher point on the CFM scale. If you go past that point with fuel, the EGT's will climb in both engines.

The question is whether the EGT's will climb faster in the n/a engine as compared to the turbo engine after a proportional additional amount of fuel is added. What I mean by proportional is as follows:

If the n/a engine is using fuel at a rate of .3 Litre/min at the exact point where the fuel matches the available air, a proportional increase in fuel........say 10%........would be .03 Litre/min.

On the turbo engine, using fuel at a rate of .4 Litre/min at the exact same point.........where the fuel exactly matches the incoming air..........a proportional increase in fuel........say 10%.........would be .04 Litre/min.

So, yes, if you were to give the n/a engine the same amount of additional fuel (.04 L/min), it would be expected that the n/a EGT would climb higher than the turbo. However, if you gave each engine the proportional increase in fuel above what can be burned (one at .03 and the other at .04), I would expect the climb in EGT's to be similar.

My VNT turbo allows a simple test to be performed. At a constant cruise speed my EGTs are at 650*f with 2psi of boost, close the vanes without changing the throttle position and the EGTs drop to 550*f at 8psi boost. No other changes except boost airflow through the engine.

N/A engines have a fine line for power vs temperature and it can only be controlled with the right foot. Turbo engines simply have to increase boost so that there is excess air available to completely burn the fuel and cool the combustion chamber with more cool air. Obviously there is also a fine line for the turbo engine where it can't handle any more boost..