PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum - Discussion on adding turbocharger to a 240D

PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/)

- Diesel Performance Tuning (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/diesel-performance-tuning/)

- - Discussion on adding turbocharger to a 240D (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/diesel-performance-tuning/365554-discussion-adding-turbocharger-240d.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucas (Post 3472656)

Ahhhh. A screen popped up saying "down for maintance". But will check back.

My fsm is 114...

It will be the same chapter number (Mercedes is mainly good and consistent with their FSM numbering system)

I'm new to a 240D and might only use the powertrain in a non rotten pile........ but the turbo idea has been an interesting read at the least.
mine is a 1980 and only says 68 hp. if a turbo could bring it near 100 it would not need to be flogged as hard, and might even get a taller gear set/tire size.

this has been good brain fodder.
prost:D

Quote:

Originally Posted by 47dodge (Post 3441317)

There will always be "the factory did it right" people and they will never except that anyone else can do it differant and have it work well.

That said I did document my build on this forum so anyone who wants to look into building a 616 turbo can see what I have done. I have also posted hill climb data pre turbo and post turbo. As well as compared it to a stock 300 turbo. So the numbers speak for themselves.

As far as long life, think this is more function of how it is driven. Drive it like a mad man and life will be shorter. Let the egts get to high, melt pistons. Watch egts and let the engine live. Before adding a turbo I saw egts go way up 1400 or so for short amounts of time, that is really pushing it. Kind of surprised no meltdowns happened. With turbo, 1000 is about as high as it goes.

I did not want a 617 because of the added wieght. Handling just suffers too much, as I like to have some fun in the mountains with it, and a 300d is more of a highway cruiser, so the better balance of a 240 gives much better handling. I have both so have a real comparision.

I am not saying this is for everyone but it does have it's place and can work very well.

I can tell, having worked for the factory and Engineering in the Big 3 for 27 years, including the Chysler-Daimler merger, that the factory often knows what is right and doesn't do it, because the finance weenies are pressing for more cost savings. The catastrophic failures of the Chrysler A-604 transmission were the direct result of a decision by Engineering VPs to cuts costs and cheapen the product. Most of those transaxles didn't last past 42,000 miles and the warranty was 50,000. So lots of replacement pump kits were made to address that issue and sent to dealers.

Jurgen Schrempp did the same with the MB subsidiary over the objections of certain technical guys, and later, to clean up his warranty mess, they kicked him upstairs and promoted Prof Dr Hubbert to run the technical show. Immediate improvement because the dude was a tyrant when it came to quality. He would listen to bad news but wanted solutions.

Fortunately the 616-617 engines were born before that nonsense became the "corporate way."

I think persomnally that the issues here are these:

If you don't like your 240D engine the way it is, you can change it.

How much you change it and what you do to it is your choice and depends on what parts you add following your own studies.

It's real easy to compare all parts in 240 300D NA and 300D Turbo and change as needed.

Or just replace a 616 with a 617 or a turbo 2.5 from a 190D

Now that there is 30 years from the last W123 in the US, if you are very enamored of the OM616 Indian turbo, buy some selected parts and stick them in your now antique car.

But if you REALLY want to be honest, start collecting data and report in detail on what you did and what the results were.

THEN WE WILL ALL BENEFIT.

Hi there!
I've been running my Turbo 240D for something like 12 years now, and I have to say that adding the turbo was the best thing I ever did to the car. Check out my posts, or feel free to pm me if you have questions.
Cheers
Chris

I might hey going on this soon, we'll see, still undecided on what turbo to use, I'm thinking a 15g (?) since I believe they're pretty small (I think they come on other ~2.5ish litre diesel engines) and should hopefully spool pretty quick but have a low max boost (I don't want to boost past 5-6psi). I need to hunt one up and work on my manifold, probably a shortened 617a with an adapter

It would be better to drop in a turbo charged engine.For one they are built to handle the stress.I would just add propane injection to a non turbo motor.It can give a added 100hp or more.

For argument's sake... propane is harder on engine internals then boost and proper fueling.

Propane and nitrous ignite at a lower temperature which basically creates uncontrolled detonation. Power increases due to the massive spike in cylinder pressure. High cylinder pressure is what causes part failure. Yes it does work but there are much safer/more reliable ways of making power.

Boost on the other hand can be controlled. Monitor EGTs and with proper tuning, an NA-T setup can be reliable. Just don't expect it to make massive power gains on stock internals and last as everything has its limits.

Also keep in mind that the engine was designed to operate at a set power point. As power increases, engine life expectancy decreases accordingly. This holds true for any engine... the further you push the envelope, the faster parts will wear/fail. Sure you can cram enough air/fuel in the cylinders to double/triple the factory power output... But don't plan on the engine lasting 500k+ miles.

Now... my experience comes from pushing the envelope of a small displacement Cummins... but the principals still apply.