Zero to Sixty study

[pdxman]

Ya know, I realized my 240D was slow (but efficient and dependable) but the other day when I pulled onto the highway from a deadstop I happened to start counting how long it took me to reach sixty mph.

I'm not talking stop watches to the tenth of a second or power braking off the line here. Just flooring it as anyone else does (in a 240D) and doing the 'ol onethousandone,onethousandtwo,etc...

Anyway, I did this and did not reach 60 mph until onethousandthirty. What are other 240D's, 300D, SD, etc... getting on this?

Just a poll.

Thanks.

p.s. Mines a '79 240D automatic.

[Zoonhollis]

Mercy...thirty seconds. I remember now why I sold my 240D. However, I do not wish to disparage its longevity and general dependability; it is, after all, a Mercedes diesel.

I can get to 60 in about 12 seconds in my '84 300D

[73MB280SEL]

Yeah, I'll go sixty. Ok, it is kind of iffy with the bicycle on top and going into a headwind

I'll time it next chance I get.

Sholin

190D 2.2.

[turbodiesel]

Not that you asked, but about 13 seconds on the 300SDL.

[The Warden]

I think it's somewhere between 12 and 14 seconds in my 300D, but I have yet to find a deserted stretch of highway to do a test run.

I'd also hate to see what it was before I adjusted the throttle linkage!

13.5 seconds

alda 2 turns ccw, 13.5PSI, K&N, cold air intake, home made oil seperator.

The following steps will be necessary for proper 240D 0-60 measurement:

1. To do a proper 0-60 time for a 240D it is imperative to have an accurate hour glass.

2. This hour glass must be mounted so that bumps in the road do not effect sand drain.

3. Additionally it should be mounted such that you can easily turn it over quickly and have paper handy for tally marks to keep accurate record of how many times it is turned over.

Good luck,

[Alan S]

About 16 seconds for me. 1985 300D

[Piotr]

17-19 seconds in 190 D 2.2. on a good day.

[BoostnBenz]

I would guess my 84 300D is 11-13, 83 300D is 14-16. I couldn't believe the difference in driving between the two, 83 just seems so slow. I almost think someone toyed with the boost or something on the 84, just feels so much stronger and more responsive.

LOL, like Larry implies, the 240D is a painfully slow car!

[Dcraig]

I think I must be at about 15 seconds on my '85 300cd also, but I don't think my turbo is putting out enough psi. That's on the long list of things to fix on my cars.

Craig

8.5 seconds 0-60. Motor Trend article says 8.6 on track, blah, blah, blah, but we were running several cars (one a 00 f350 turbodiesel) to end an argument so we used gps and stopwatch.

[Rick Miley]

narwhal, we're the kings of the road for a couple more months until the W211 E320CDI arrives here.

Funny with all these responses that nobody has posted a 240D speed for pdxman to use as comparison. I think read a while back it was supposed to be about 20 seconds. I'll test mine as soon I get the clutch repaired.

Rick--one of the things I really like about my car is that nasty growl when I stand on it. I don't know if I would trade the extra .8 or so sec. to ride in a V-6 with no soul (trying to make myself feel better about not presently being able to part with $60K or so for cdi).

[Dcraig]

If I remember correctly, the non-turbo 300D was supposed to be 20 seconds 0-60. Not sure about the 240.

Craig