I had an 84 300DT until last week when a 19 year old with no insurance pulled in front of my wife. Now I have a parts car. I was looking around at different local 300D's and I test drove a 79 with no turbo. I was amazed at the performance it had. It went right off the line, it could have passed for a gas engine. My 300DT was a real dog off the line. I thought I checked everything, the trans was starting in 1st. It seemed to run great after 10-15 MPH. I only tried 1 other 300DT (82) it was a dog also. Was there something wrong with the one I had and the other DT I drove? Or are they worse off the line then the older non-turboed 300's?
Thanks

A turbo doesn't have much more off the line than a non turbo until the turbo boost is enough to increase the HP of the engine. On the 5 clyinder this is maximum at about 2500 RPM. But after 2500 RPM the turbo should run away from the non turbo. This is even more noticeable at high altitudes.

P E H

Actually a lot of people have said that the non-turbo's have more low rpm "oomph" than the turbo's. I felt that way about my 1977 300D. It was actually much quicker off the line than either of my SD's. I know the SD is a bit heavier, and has a different tranny, but I've noticed this on a TDt I drove once too. I never messed with my EGR, so this might be part of it, maybe.

__________________
Bob Roe
Lehigh Valley PA USA
1973 Olds 88, 1972 MB 280SE, 1978 Datsun 280Z, 1971 Ford T-Bird, 1972 Olds 88, 1983 Nissan Sentra, 1985 Sentra, 1973 230.6, 1990 Acura Integra, 1991 Volvo 940GLE wagon, 1983 300SD, 1984 300SD, 1995 Subaru Legacy L wagon, 2002 Mountaineer, 1991 300TE wagon, 2008 Murano, 2007 R320CDI 4Matic 52K, some Hyundai, 2008 BMW 535xi wagon, all gone... currently
2007 Honda Odyssey Touring, 2014 E350 4matic

the non-turboes had a 3.45 to 1 final drive, whereas the turboes had a 3.07. Anybody who's been reading "Hot Rod" regularly since 1956 (I wonder what my heirs will get for that collection of magazines?) knows that with equal displacement and weight, the former will outjump the latter off the line even if the latter has a big advantage in top end power.

I live in Denver.(The Mile HIgh City) I have a 1977 300d. I test drove an early 80's 300dt a few weeks ago. It was WAY FASTER off the line than my non-turbo. I thought there would not be much of a difference until the turbo kicked in but there was. Don't know how to account for it apart from the effect of the turbo at altitude even at low rpm's.