|
|
|
|
|
#3
04-27-2003, 12:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 
|
|
#4
04-27-2003, 04:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have a -92 300turbodiesel wagon and I get 0-100 Km/h in just about 9 seconds.
__________________
/Per MB E300TDT -98
|
|
#6
04-27-2003, 08:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|
#7
04-28-2003, 09:16 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
__________________
85 300CD Signal Red/Tan sold 83 300D Manganese Brown 109K 97 E420 Midnight Blue 197K sold 98 BMW 328i Vert White 100K, sold 95 BMW 525i White 125K, sold 93 BMW 525iT Red 193K, sold 95 E320 Green Wagon 125K, sold 94 E320 White 127K, sold 85 300SD 156K Grey (Annie), sold 84 300D Lapis Blue 170K (Judy), sold 99 ML 320 Black (lease), 1998 C230 White (lease) 00 Honda S2000 Red (lease) 86 Mercedes 300E (sold) 84 Porsche 911 Red (sold), 1965 Porsche 911 White (sold)
|
|
#9
04-28-2003, 02:42 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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. 
|
|
#10
05-02-2003, 01:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#11
05-02-2003, 01:44 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
|
|
#12
05-05-2003, 09:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
Last edited by ohcaptainron; 05-05-2003 at 10:00 PM.
|
|
#13
05-05-2003, 10:27 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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,
|
|
#14
05-05-2003, 11:43 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
