how quick should a 300D turbo be?
 

I just picked up a very nice 1991 300D turbo. I am wondering how quick this car should accelerate. (0-60?) It feels a bit low on power but it runs very nice. No smoke and very quite.

It all depends on how fast they are chasing you. :D

They are not very fast, particularly if you are used to gasolene vehicles. I don't know the 0-60 time, but when you see a diesel "turbo" that doesn't mean "high performance" :)

It means its fairly close to the performance you might get from a regular gasolene car with the same displacement. Once the turbo kicks in above 2200 rpm or so, that is.

Ken300D

I have a -92 300turbodiesel wagon and I get 0-100 Km/h in just about 9 seconds.

I just tested my car. 60 mph in 14 seconds with one passenger.
The banjo bolt is clear and the hoses do not seem to be plugged.

What else should I be looking for??? Any previous treads on this subject?

300D Turbo 2.5
 

Factory spec 0-100kph (0-62mph) 12.4 secs, they are a little sluggish off the line, but once in boost they go very well. If running correctly. They are difficult to diagnose. Problem is they run OK even if they are not dialed in. You might take it to a Knowlegeable tech and see if they can pull any codes out of the ECM, I believe yours has a seperate altitude compensating servo that the 93 does not have, vacume/digital input into the computer if it malfunctions computer does not give full boost. There are about four pages of diagnosis to run thru, usually a bad vacume servo of one kind or another. once the car is dialed in you will love it. I have owned just about every model of Mercedes diesel starting in 1982 and this series 124 is the best in my opinion. Good luck
1998 E300D sold
1999 E320 AWD WAGON
1993 E300 D
2003 E55
1985 300 TDT
2004 E320 CDI on order

Way back in '85, I test drove a new 300D at the dealer and the saleman excitedly told me that I was driving a "turbo" and that it was fast and I could feel the "turbo kick in." After the test drive, I told the salesman that the car was slow and noisy and opted not to buy the car. Being young and a lover of cars the next year I bought a '84 911 2 years used. The following year, I bought a '87 300E and though it was unbelievably smooth, quick and agile. It handled so much better than the 911 and I was hooked on MB's. Now, I appreciated the diesels for their low maintenance and longevity. What else can you buy that has class, durablity and roominesss at a reseaonable price? After you tune everything up, it's not that slow. Again the quandry is, it runs even if it's not tuned so some people accept it's condition as what it is. Plug the EGR valve for a noticable uptick in performance. I agree with ohcaptainron that the W124 was the best in the line. I might have to find me a '87 300D.

Did Ridge ever post a 0-60 time for his manual tranny 300?

Cap't Ron is correct, the spec is roughly 12.4 seconds, for 0-62.4mph, with two occupants, +/- 7% according to the MB Tech Data Manaul. Or in other words, it should be 0-60 in under 12 seconds if running perfectly. It should get off the line pretty quick, if not, try adjusting the ALDA slightly (1/4 to 1/2 turn CCW) to richen the mixture slightly. This is very common. Note that the 1982-85, 1987, 1990-93, 1995-97, and 1998-99 models are all called "300D" but those 5 groupings all use totally different engines... therefore performance will be much different!!! I agree that the 124 is the best, and of the 124's the 1987 is the fastest (10.9 sec 0-100kmh, or low 10's 0-60).

Ridge still hasn't posted any numbers for his car at all, even after much prodding. That leads me to believe he has tested it and the numbers are lousy; i.e. no better than stock. That was the concern from the start, that the install was beautiful but the power gain was nil - he was comparing it to the stock setup at 8-9psi, which may not have been making full (stock) power to begin with! Might as well do baseline runs on a gas engine with a plug wire yanked off, then show later how much better it was with all wires connected, and attribute the improvement to Slick 50 and fuel line magnets. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

According to Stu Ritter, Mercedes-Benz E-Class owners bible the following; factory spec 121hp,165 ftlbs of torque at 2400 rpm, ZERO TO 60MPH IN 10.7 SECONDS, 27MPG CITY 33 MPG HIGHWAY. For what it is worth I have informally timed mine using a stopwatch and WAAS GPS/ speedometer, 0-60 at less than 11 seconds, I consistantly see 33 MPG in all driving including steady state 85mph highway driving. Best highway 39.3 mpg at 55 mph.
You might want to clean the plastic pressure line from the intake manifold through the switchover/overboost valve to the ALDA baro device, if the line becomes plugged, the ALDA will not sense boost pressure and will not richen the mixture under boost.
Hope this helps.

Yeah, well Stu's book is filled with incorrect data. When I first got it, I noted at least a dozen glaring errors and tried to contact Bentley to tell them. Of course the email address provided was invalid. I gave up. He's flat wrong on the 2.5 turbo specs though - 10.7 is closer to the 3.0L turbo spec.

The factory Tech Data Manual says for the 124.128 (2.5 Turbo), spec is 12.3 seconds 0-100kmh (0-62.4mph), with two occupants, +/- 7%. Note that is for a base model Euro version, and USA versions (with more standard equipment) may be a hair slower. Translating that into 0-60mph with one occupant, it should be a little under 12 seconds. Anywhere between 12-14 seconds and your car is running very well, probably not worth spending lots of money trying to "fix" it.

300d 2.5 turbo
 

gsxr, while I respect your opinion, I have known Stu for a very long time and while that in itself does not make him infallable the man is VERY knowlegeable. Did he get it wrong on the 0-60 time? I do not think so, here's why. Just took my car in for its annual emmissions test here in Denver. The car was put on a chassis Sun dyno. The 0-60 time, no wind, no front tire friction, rear wheels turning only, pressure altitude 5340' MSL 49 F 10.69 seconds. Not bad and very close to Stu's number. This is the same dyno I tested my 98 E300D, which recorded a 8.44 second time. I have a call into Stu to see where the number came from. This 0-60 time is very consistant with my informal testing. Really the time difference we are talking about here for me at least is a distinction without a difference. I find these cars endearing. efficient and technically interesting but if I want to go fast I take my E55 AMG. take care

Sorry, but I have to disagree with Stu on this and I'd be happy to chat with him in person about it (and the other errors in the book). The 2.5 turbo is ~125hp and the OM603 3.0 turbo is 148hp. The 3.0 will get under 11 seconds. The 2.5 simply won't unless it has propane injection or some other mods. Shoot, the factory Tech Data Manual should be proof enough. Dyno numbers don't always translate into real-world results, as you mentioned - they don't take into account rotating mass (wheel/tire weights), aerodynamic drag, tire rolling resistance, brake drag (if any), etc etc. Why not take a stopwatch to your car & see what it does on a flat road, assuming you have stock tire size (195/65/15)?

Some more anecdotal data is that both my 3.0's will do 10.5-11.0, and most people I know are in the 10-12 second bracket. I don't know how you can take away 20% of the power and get the same numbers, particularly when I know people who have driven both and complained about the 2.5 being noticeably less powerful. Here's some data from my AC-22 computer, on my stock 3.0 turbo, which has heavy aftermarket 17x8.0 wheels (50lbs each vs. 35lbs stock) and 238kmi on the clock:

http://www.meimann.com/docs/mercedes/87_300D_blue_perf.txt

:) :)

Best regards,

I'd almost consider that a possibility at sea level, but at 5240 feet above sea level? If you can show numbers from an AC-22, or even stopwatch & GPS, that have a W124.128 doing a sub-11 second 0-60 run at 5000+ feet I'll eat my hat! Or your hat, if you prefer, whichever tastes better I suppose. :D :D