|
|
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
I think I just realized why .....
the SD I looked at "seemed" to no have a lot of room in the back. We have been spoiled today even by small cars because of the fairly new "cab forward" design. Although the SD (and sdl)is a large car, much of the interior room is probably lost in the body unlike today's designs. If the sd and sdl had a cab forward design, we would probably need speaker phones to talk with the rear passengers!
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
There is a BIG DEAL DIFFERENCE in the back seat leg room between the SD and the SDL ... even in the W140s (obviously, doesn't have the L designations).
I have a variety of folks who ride in the backseat of my 350SDL and invariably they comment - somewhat independent inputs. On the speed of the various cars ... I have owned '85 300CD with turbo, '81 300 TD with turbo, and my current 350SDL ... no comparison. The 350SDL is quicker to any speed, but the others would eventually get to my limit (about 100 mph). The 3.5L curve is different and more flexible for traffic ... differences in turbo, likely, as well.
__________________
George Stephenson 1991 350 SDL (200K and she ain't bent, yet) former 2002 E320 4Matic Wagon - good car former 1985 300 CD - great car former 1981 300 TD - good car former 1972 280 SEL - not so good car a couple of those diesel Rabbits ...40-45 mpg |
#33
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I think you took this one out of context. I believe turbodiesel meant that a W140 with a 603.96x would be slow compared to a W140 with a proper 603.97x. Sixto 91 300SE 87 300SDL 83 300SD |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Warren 1992 300SD Columbus Ohio 150K miles |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Huh?
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
what I meant was there would be a big difference in say a 500SEL/S500 and my vehicle(in regard to acceleration)...
BUT I bet my 140 diesel could pull 2-3 car lengths ahead of a 86-87 300SDL |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
O, just wondering what data you are using that would make you think it would??
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
you can look at 0-60 numbers(per MB)....also if you have driven the two back to back...I don't think there is any doubt
I think the difference is similar to the earlier generation 81-85 SD compared to the 86-87 SDL Warren 1992 300SD 150K Columbus Ohio |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
0-60's
Did a search on this one -
1987 Mercedes-Benz 300TD 10.3 That's pretty quick! Here's another - 1980 Mercedes-Benz 240D (4spd) 19.7 source: http://www.missouri.edu/~apcb20/times.html#Mercedes |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
I agree with the TD numbers...but the SDL is pulling about 1000 more lbs with the same motor....add about 3 secs 0-60
if you want to see quick look at the 98-99 E300 turbodiesel stats very clsoe to an E320 of the same vintage and better mileage than any of the 80 diesels Warren 1992 300SD 150k Columbus Ohio |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Sure, I wasn't using that as an inference to the SDL. I couldn't find the numbers for either of our cars. I thought 10 sec was pretty fast though. I have seen sites where diesels with bolt ons like bigger exaust can make lots more torque and overall power, but I don't know how healthy that is for the car..
|
#42
|
||||
|
||||
turbodiesel has spent time with a 300SDL and 350SD. Maybe he can enlighten us on the seat-of-the-pants differences.
I hear that the 603.97x makes anything it's in go like a bat out of hell. I also hear that the 603.97x bends rods like there's no tomorrow. Too much hearing, not enough experiencing Sixto 91 300SE 87 300SDL 83 300SD |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Wait a minute!
I totally forgot, about 2 years ago I drove a 126 with the 3.5 on a test run! It was a very clean car, seemed healthy, it had a lot of power, but if I had to compare from memory, I wouldn't say there's enough difference to matter. I definitely wouldn't give it 2-3 car lengths ahead or any length for that matter (again not to say their isn't a difference just my recollection). I kept thinking it was a 300 all this time, until a friend reminded me.
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
thanks turnne1 for the postive comments on the 3.5 engine.i too sometimes wonder where are the negitive comes from.i have a '95 350s and my buddy has a '91 350sdl and neither of us has had any of the bad experiences we continue to read about on these posts.before i bought my 350 i went to a man who has worked on diesel mercedes[my own 300d with 178000miles] in this area for 25 years and asked him about the 3.5 engines.his exact words were "i service 3-4 in the area right now and none have had any major problems." some were very high mileage cars. that was good enough for me .i 've been enjoying the big ride ever since.mileage is 26 mpg. i would never discourage anyone from buying a 140 .i drive the heck out of my diesels and if they ever do break, don't panic--just get it fixed!
|
#45
|
||||
|
||||
lukemus - I agree
tank- If the 300TD will run to 60 in 10.3, it will outrun my S-350. By the way I have had my car weighed on certified scales and it is as follows. Front- 2440 lb Rear- 2260 lb Total- 4700 lb This is full of fuel and with a 175 lb driver.
__________________
1995 S-350 370K + SOLD 1952 220B Cabriolet 39K kilometers + SOLD 1998 E300D 310K + 2012 E350 BlueTec 120K |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|