|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
2.5 turbo vs. 3.0 non turbo...thoughts?
A friend and I were debating the merits of a '93 300D 2.5 turbo versus a '95 300D non turbo, both 124 chassis. Any thoughts on which engine is more desirable? They must have changed it over for a reason.
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
OM606 is a robust motor for what it is. But that said, it's silly that they built a diesel engine without a turbo.
__________________
'98 E300 turbodiesel |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
well, there were 2 OM606 at your GTG...
come down to mine on the 17th and take my '95 for a ride I have yet to drive a 2.5 compared to my OM603, and my 240D 4speed, my E300 Diesel kinda feels like a turd, and you have no control over what it does...
__________________
Matthew McIvor 2016 E350 4Matic Black/Black 2007 GL450 4Matic with Off-Road Pkg Silver/Black 1995 E300 Diesel White/Gray 1994 S600 Euro Black/ Black Velour 1986 560SL Blue/Blue/Gray 1986 190E Blue/Blue 93k |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
You can take my 2.5 for a ride.
Bobo
__________________
92 300D 2.5L OM602 OBK #59 |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
I've owed a 92 300D (the ex wife has it now) and currently own two 95 e300's (one for me and one for my wife). Personally, I like the E300 because, in my opinion, it is a little easier to work on compared to the one with the turbo.
__________________
Jim |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Thanks guys...good perspectives.
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
"Turd" compared to a 240D? Please explain.
__________________
1979 240D, 4spd manual, Power Sunroof, manual windows, 147k miles, Pastel gray/Black MB Tex. 1991 300D 2.5 - Smokes like it's on Crack! |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Check the front control arms. The ones on the steering wheel.
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
LOL I like the fact that with my 240D 4speed, I can easily control the RPM, traffic, lights, etc... and it does well despite the HP/torque (or the lack there of) with the '87 300D, there's no need for a manual tranny (altho it would be nice) because it has power within 200 rpm of anywhere I cruise at... light tap with the right foot and off I go with the '95 E300, it feels anemic compared to everything else (but don't get me wrong, I love the car as a whole) its just that, from a light... it feels like I'm towing a boat. 20+mph its fine until ball park of 50-60 then I find it once again struggles keeping up with swift moving rapidly changing traffic patterns... (not that my 240D doesn't have that issue... but again, i bring in the 4 speed opinion) the '95 E300 is my choice of highway cruising, which is why I took it to your GTG (that and the E320CDI was in NY) if I set the cruise @ 70+ (it really likes 72) it has no issues going up and down mild hills and maintaining speed, its just the 10% grades that I have it pretty well matted... there's something about it that I'm unsure about... maybe if it was geared in a slightly different manner i'd be alright with it, but its nothing I'm so concerned about to go tearing things apart...
__________________
Matthew McIvor 2016 E350 4Matic Black/Black 2007 GL450 4Matic with Off-Road Pkg Silver/Black 1995 E300 Diesel White/Gray 1994 S600 Euro Black/ Black Velour 1986 560SL Blue/Blue/Gray 1986 190E Blue/Blue 93k |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
I am pleased with the performance of my 2.5. It is a good blend of power and economy. Plus, there is ample space to work in the engine compartment.
__________________
1993 W124 300D 2.5L Turbo, OM602.962 2000 Chevrolet Cavalier, 2.4L DOHC 2002 Ford Explorer, 4.0L SOHC 2005 Toyota Prius, 1.5L http://www.fuelly.com/sig-us/40601.png Last edited by Oldwolf; 10-01-2009 at 09:21 AM. Reason: spelling |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
I agree with Oldwolf. I get 30MPG. And when you fully open the hood, Plenty of room.
__________________
92 300D 2.5L OM602 OBK #59 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Well the guy that owns a 2.5 turbo will tell you 2.5 is better and the guy that owns 3.0 non-turbo will tell you that his engine is better. My question is WHY MAKE A DIESEL WITHOUT TURBO? Yes if you have turbo there are more things to go wrong but why even buy a non-turbo charged DIESEL engine?
__________________
1993 Mercedes 300D 2.5 1987 Mercedes 300D 3.0 2000 Volkswagen JETTA TDI diesel 5 speed 2002 Lexus ES300 2006 Lexus GS430 |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Anyway, I would be happy with any diesel engine if it was reliable and economical.
__________________
1993 W124 300D 2.5L Turbo, OM602.962 2000 Chevrolet Cavalier, 2.4L DOHC 2002 Ford Explorer, 4.0L SOHC 2005 Toyota Prius, 1.5L http://www.fuelly.com/sig-us/40601.png |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
We (the wife and I) get an honest 35 mpg in our 95 E300's which if I am not mistaken is better than the 2.5turbo.
__________________
Jim |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
I think their EPA ratings are higher, so you are probably right.
Isn't the 95 also more powerful? Seems like 121 V. 134 if memory serves me. This leads me to believe the 95s feel slower, but probably reach 60 mph sooner. I've found a couple road tests of the 2.5 Turbo, back when they were new. Zero to 60 times are in the mid to high 10 seconds. Great video from Motor-Week on You-tube shows 10.7. Pretty impressive, I can hardly wait to get mine up and running. (Bear in mind my point of reference is the 617 Turbo.) How does the 95 compare? I haven't looked lately, but I seem to have a vague recollection of 60 in 9.9. Feel free to correct and enlighten me if I'm wrong.
__________________
1979 240D, 4spd manual, Power Sunroof, manual windows, 147k miles, Pastel gray/Black MB Tex. 1991 300D 2.5 - Smokes like it's on Crack! |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|