Parts Catalog Accessories Catalog How To Articles Tech Forums
Call Pelican Parts at 888-280-7799
Shopping Cart Cart | Project List | Order Status | Help



Go Back   PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum > Mercedes-Benz Tech Information and Support > Diesel Discussion

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 10-21-2002, 10:33 AM
TANK
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
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  
Old 10-21-2002, 12:54 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
Posts: 856
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  
Old 10-21-2002, 02:09 PM
sixto's Avatar
smoke gets in your eyes
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Eastern TN
Posts: 20,841
Quote:
Originally posted by turnne1
some very interesting comments here...about the 3.5 diesel and the 140 chasis car.....yes the 140 is heavy...but slow...i don't think so...
Warren,

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  
Old 10-21-2002, 02:45 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Columbus Ohio
Posts: 709
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.
ok if that is the case then yes I would say there is a big difference in say a V8 140 and my diesel...compared to an 86-87 SDL...I bet I could pull at least 2-3 cars lengths 0-60


Warren
1992 300SD
Columbus Ohio 150K miles
Attached Thumbnails
300 SDL or 350SDL, that is the question!-1992-300sd.jpg  
  #35  
Old 10-21-2002, 03:17 PM
TANK
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Huh?
  #36  
Old 10-21-2002, 03:36 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Columbus Ohio
Posts: 709
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
Attached Thumbnails
300 SDL or 350SDL, that is the question!-1992-300sd.jpg  
  #37  
Old 10-21-2002, 03:47 PM
TANK
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
O, just wondering what data you are using that would make you think it would??
  #38  
Old 10-21-2002, 03:50 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Columbus Ohio
Posts: 709
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
Attached Thumbnails
300 SDL or 350SDL, that is the question!-1992-300sd.jpg  
  #39  
Old 10-21-2002, 04:06 PM
TANK
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
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  
Old 10-21-2002, 04:23 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Columbus Ohio
Posts: 709
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
Attached Thumbnails
300 SDL or 350SDL, that is the question!-1992-300sd.jpg  
  #41  
Old 10-21-2002, 04:36 PM
TANK
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
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  
Old 10-21-2002, 05:11 PM
sixto's Avatar
smoke gets in your eyes
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Eastern TN
Posts: 20,841
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  
Old 10-21-2002, 05:31 PM
TANK
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
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  
Old 10-21-2002, 11:13 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: gold hill ,n.c.
Posts: 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  
Old 10-22-2002, 12:10 AM
oldsouth's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 635
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
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2018 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page