So I hit 100mph... - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

#16 03-09-2004, 01:27 PM

Ah Wolf, the 74 Vette is an appreciating asset. Corvettes dominated the Barrett Jackson auctions, and the C3s will only continue to appreciate with the baby boomers getting older, and richer. Nice examples will always command the money.

#17 03-09-2004, 01:39 PM

I to, would have to agree with you wolf walker, I have a 300cd turbo, I can't imagine doing 90-100 in this thing. I also have a 91CE, now this car is very stable & safe at 90-100,(is that possible?). I to have had nothing but Lincoln's since my 1st one which was a 71 mk 111, when I was a kid I ate up a RX7 turbo on I-5, buried the speedo on this car!. Then I got a 69 MK111, this car was even faster doc. at 137mph! I ate up the largest BMW in 94, a 6 or 7 series in OR . I to would agree the lincoln's were the best cars I have ever owned. I have had them all, still have a 42 cont., 71 mk111, etc. However I don't think they have really made a good looking car since the 80's, just another car now.
I must say, now I realy do enjoy driving the W124 series, & do like my 83 CD Turbo., sorry but none of these cars really will hold a candle to the lincoln's of the 60's or 70's, for dependability, solidness, or safety. We had a friend who fell a sleep at the wheel in his 77 MK V, on an E Wa interstate & hit a concrete wall at 70mph, luckly no passanger, because that 460 was sitting beside him, & he walked away!, I suggest you find a beautiful restored MK111, if you want a real car & speed, with reasonable MPG- about 18 on the Hwy. So I know I'll catch it from all the purist MB owners out there!, ( the domestic's have built some good cars, however now I wouldn't own anything but a MB, as my daily driver!!)
Scotty

#18 03-09-2004, 01:48 PM

I to, would have to agree with you wolf walker, I have a 300cd turbo, I can't imagine doing 90-100 in this thing. I also have a 91CE, now this car is very stable & safe at 90-100,(is that possible?). I to have had nothing but Lincoln's since my 1st one which was a 71 mk 111, when I was a kid I ate up a RX7 turbo on I-5, buried the speedo on this car!. Then I got a 69 MK111, this car was even faster doc. at 137mph! I ate up the largest BMW in 94, a 6 or 7 series in OR . I to would agree the lincoln's were the best cars I have ever owned. I have had them all, still have a 42 cont., 71 mk111, etc. However I don't think they have really made a good looking car since the 80's, just another car now.
I must say, now I realy do enjoy driving the W124 series, & do like my 83 CD Turbo., sorry but none of these cars really will hold a candle to the lincoln's of the 60's or 70's, for dependability, solidness, or safety. We had a friend who fell a sleep at the wheel in his 77 MK V, on an E Wa interstate & hit a concrete wall at 70mph, luckly no passanger, because that 460 was sitting beside him, & he walked away!, I suggest you find a beautiful restored MK111, if you want a real car & speed, with reasonable MPG- about 18 on the Hwy. So I know I'll catch it from all the purist MB owners out there!, ( the domestic's have built some good cars, however now I wouldn't own anything but a MB, as my daily driver!!)
Scotty

rickg · #19 03-09-2004, 01:51 PM

Have had my SD up to 95 going across Idaho, and felt solid as a rock. If I had a gas w126, I could see 100+ being very comfortable. The diesel just revs too high at that speed to make me want to do it very much.
Had a '67 Chrysler 300 a few years ago. That 440 engine is an amazing hunk of iron

I pegged the 120mph speedo more than a couple times, and felt very comfortable. Now the brakes on those old things is another matter!!

Hatterasguy · #20 03-09-2004, 03:02 PM

The later W126's seem to handle 100+ no problem if there in good shape. Tired suspension and poor quality tires will hurt top speed handleing. I would think a good W123 would be pretty stable at 100, thats what they were built for.

Btw scottydodah It couldn't have been the fastest BMW a 750IL would destroy that Lincoln, it was probably a 735. The 750 I think is good for over 170. Also MB was years ahead of Ford in saftey and technoligy in the 70's. I don't agree.

Just my 2 cents.

bodyart27 · #21 03-09-2004, 03:51 PM

I'm fairly certain there is a limiter on the 126 300SD at 106mph...

somewhere I read that.... does that ring a bell with anyone else?

DslBnz · #22 03-09-2004, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hatterasguy
The later W126's seem to handle 100+ no problem if there in good shape. Tired suspension and poor quality tires will hurt top speed handleing. I would think a good W123 would be pretty stable at 100, thats what they were built for.

With 15" wheels and a body redesigned for better highway stability(exerts more downforce), yes they were. Both my 350SD and SDL lock to the ground at those speeds and love the curves. They are very fun, there is NO engine noise, and the handling feels like its coming from a different car(very, very tight).

I'm not sure about the older W126's, but the later ones REALLY hold their ground well..

BTW, the Euro W123 280E could go 124 mph. That was the fastest W123, and it too was a lightweight weighing in at only 3200 - 3300 lbs. The 280 gets about 10 - 12 mpg at 124 mph, which isn't that bad.

On a side note, the 300SD of '81 - '85 has a much softer ride. Probably due to the larger tire(70 vs 65).

wolf_walker · #23 03-09-2004, 05:29 PM

Scottydodah, I envy you your Lincolns! There really wonderful cars, I've never felt anything as quiet and solid as an old Mark or Continintal with the posible exception of a Jar. It's hard to beat a true frame for noise isolation and solidity. I'm still in love with the Mark V's lines, but not the MPG..

My 78 was clocked at 138mph once with radar(LEO friend), it was good for mid 140's. It got about 13mpg on the highway at normal speeds.

When I got the 300D, I was looking foreward to a more solid, heavy RWD car again. It's starting to seem like it's not quite solid and heavy enough for the not amazing 25mpg I get out of it. I plan on looking into an SD before I dump money into the suspension on the 300D.

Interisting replies guys, thank you..

And on the Corvette. Going up in value or not, it's still a piece of junk to me. Pretty junk, but junk none the less. It's a race car they made a half assed effort to put on the street. I've completly rebuilt the brakes, suspension and steering on this 74 convertable, which was completly and totaly worn OUT at 125K miles, even the rear diff has a bearing going. And it's been gently lady driven since it was two years old, same owner. I had to have stuff re-welded on the rear suspension because the quality of the welds scared me. The engenering, or lack thereof, is astounding. I fixed the popup headlights yesterday, owner said it's the first time they have ever opened and closed quickly and together, and it was almost new when she got it. There sure pretty, but not for me..

WANT '71 280SEL · #24 03-09-2004, 06:57 PM

You haven't said anything about w116's yet, so i will. I've had my car to 100mph 3 different times. All I can say is that I wish there were more areas where it is safe for me to do this. Once was in Virginia and the other on a local interstate at a bad time. Won't say where the third was since I'm only 18 now I'll have to wait till I'm about 80 to tell that one. Anyways, my car handles it BEAUTIFULLY! It is tight and turns almost exactly 4000 rpms at 100. When I did it once I had 3 other people with me and no one said anything till I said something about it. They all commented on how solid it felt. We had all the windows open and the sunroof so I couldn't hear my diesel roaring under the hood. Since then I have replaced the ball joints and upper control arms along with other associated bushings, but I haven't had any opportunities to take it over maybe 80. My car weighs around 4900 pounds though so it is definitely heavier than yours.
I have had my dad's up to even higher speeds and that was just stupid of me becasue it was vibrating over 90. From my father's example, which I think needs some underbody work, mine is definitely a better high speed car. Sure it doesn't have as much power getting there, but it would surprise you how fast my car really is once it's underway. One more thing, your car has 125 hp and mine only has 110 hp. Don't know what was changed but I can say that I had a better experience getting there and staying there than you did.
Thanks
David

P.S.
Please think about what you are doing before any high speed runs becasue of safety and police. I did mine with new tires and I was confident in my car which I knew was in good condition underneath. Unexpected things do happen and they happen much faster at 100 than 55, so PLEASE, USE YOUR HEAD.
Thanks Again

rwthomas1 · #25 03-09-2004, 07:12 PM

I ran my 84 300D up to 100+mph on the west end of the Mass turnpike about a year ago. It felt no different than it did at 65mph. Running smooth Michelin x-ones, 205/70-14. I think the tach was at about 4000rpm. It was a little noisier than I would have liked but very stable and smooth. I would guess you need to get the frontend in order or you are missing out on the experience. RT

#26 03-09-2004, 09:18 PM

105 in the SDL is very sweet. The engine is turning close to redline at this speed. I think it could probably go 110 mph or so before the governor starts to kick in. It handles well and is very stable at this speed.

The TDI used to scream bloody murder at this speed, but then again, it was direct injection, instead of indirect injection. At 100 MPH, the TDI was turning 3500 RPMs.

On a side note, I did have the TDI up to 136 MPH once... downhill. It was about 50 RPMs away from the 5100 RPM rev limiter. On flat ground, it would pull 115 MPH consistantly (4300 RPMs or so).

DslBnz · #27 03-09-2004, 09:42 PM

At 100 mph, the SDL should be turning about 4K rpms if speedometer is calibrated right. At least, that's what the GPS reads.

Factory rated top speed for the SDL is 119 mph with the trap oxidizer installed. Without it, it should be a little faster.

Anyways, regardless...That should be far and away from its limiter(at least for another 20 mph). When I was at 121 accurate mph, The engine was turning a healthy 4600 rpms(maybe 4550). The full load stop should occur at 5250 rpms(which is 140'ish mph).

wolf_walker · #28 03-09-2004, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by VeeDubTDI
105 in the SDL is very sweet. The engine is turning close to redline at this speed. I think it could probably go 110 mph or so before the governor starts to kick in. It handles well and is very stable at this speed.

The TDI used to scream bloody murder at this speed, but then again, it was direct injection, instead of indirect injection. At 100 MPH, the TDI was turning 3500 RPMs.

On a side note, I did have the TDI up to 136 MPH once... downhill. It was about 50 RPMs away from the 5100 RPM rev limiter. On flat ground, it would pull 115 MPH consistantly (4300 RPMs or so).

hehe.. VW's..

My 85 Jetta TD, 120mph speedo, buried it downhill in mountains, melted front brakes(don't ask). 81 caddy, coasting down a looong 8 percent grade somewhere around West VA, way, way buried the 85mph speedo, friend and I guessed 120ish. They both drove very well at those speeds to be as light as they are.

3500rpm at 100mph.. hmph.. Most of mine turned that at 70mph before I got in the habit of running tall gear gasser trans..

Tirebiter · #29 03-10-2004, 06:23 AM

2,170 pounds. 3.5 twin plug single turbo (K-36). 335X35X15 P-zero rear tires. 935 four speed 80% LSD. Clocked at 228 MPH at Silver State Challenge. Very comfortable up to around 180 MPH. The wind is not your friend at speeds above 180.
Three pretty nasty Porsches and two modified sport bikes in the stable and I spend most of my time in an 84 300D that barely goes 100. I've had two earlier model Mercedes and two later models and none were as pleasant to drive and work on than this one.
A sign of old age creeping in?

The second mouse is the one that gets the cheese.

dabenz · #30 03-10-2004, 06:35 AM

Not sure it's fair comparing the old American iron to MB. Two completely different mindsets, in my opinion. The two fastest street rides I've been in were a Buick with a 450 something and a Ford LTD with a 400. As I remember both in the high 130s using a watch with the mile markers. The Buick's windows were very noisy but the car just glided. The LTD had a high rear end and fought it getting up to speed but once there it just kept accelerating. We never did hit the top end because the the early 400's reputation. GM cars of that era weren't as good at those speeds compared to the Fords and Chryslers. Those 440s of the 1960s/early 1970s were nice engines if you wanted to go really fast.

Part of me misses those days. The other part doesn't. Compared to today's technology, we were very stupid doing that on bias tires with tubes, drum brakes, and no seat belts. But then again, the speed limit around here was 75mph on the two lane and some states didn't have a speed limit (or open container laws).