|
|
|
|
|
#1
07-23-2004, 01:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What’s the difference between ‘87 300D & ‘90 & up w/2.5 motor?
I’ve had a few ‘87’s and like the power of 3.0 and want to try the newer models. Do the 2.5 motors have much less power or any negative issues when compared to the 3.0?
|
|
#3
07-23-2004, 08:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
If memory serves, the '87 603 motor puts out 148 hp, versus 125 hp for the 602 five-banger, which has 165 ft.-lbs. of torque at 2400 rpm.
Don't know about the 603, but the 2.5T tends to run a little warm -- up to 110 C -- for my taste at full load with A/C on hot SoCal hill climbs. Other than that, it's got plenty enough poop for most driving needs, with superior economy, about 33 mpg on the road. Some 2.5T owners report higher mileage.
__________________
'91 300D 2.5 Turbo 330K '00 VW TDI Golf, 190K '67 BMW R50/2 '73 Norton Commando Interstate
|
|
#4
07-23-2004, 08:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I haven't owned the later W124 Diesel but have heard that the engines are bullet proof and that the power was not noticeably less than the 1987 (which I thought was great). Seems like all upside because you don't have the head cracking problems like with the 3.0 and you get the Mercedes "second-half-of-the body style run" improvements to the interior and exterior (more chrome, more wood etc.).
__________________
2008 GL320CDI 6K 1970 280SL 112K 1982 240D 210K (Sold) 1973 220D 220K (Sold) 1967 200D 160K (Sold) 1992 400E 139K (Sold) 1988 300E 148K (Sold) 1987 300D 257K (Sold) 1991 300E 108K (Sold) 1987 300E 131K (Sold) 1978 300D TMU (Sold) 1980 300D TMU (Sold) MBCA Member
|
|
#5
07-24-2004, 08:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
IMHO the 2.5 is perceptably slower than the 3.0, but it seems to deliver 3-4 more MPG than the larger engine.
The 2.5 is no 240D but it's not exactly a rocket ship, there are times when you really need a bit more power (summer, A/C on with a full load of people and luggage) but for most occasions its adequate. The choice is yours.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
