|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
I have heard that the older 300E's are "hotter" (faster) than the newer 300E's (like 89 and 90 compared to 86 and 87) and that Mercedes has underestimated their HP ratings. What would the true rating be approximately? Please let me know if there is any validity to this rumor, as I have an 87 and feel it is faster than some 89's that I have driven, but this is just my opinion. Thanks alot!
------------------ Chris '87 300E 158k |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Well, of course you will feel that your car is faster than somebody elses However, I have a 92 that is basically stock (except for the wheels) and I outrun an 87 the other day. I have no clue about ratings, etc. though
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
There is no difference in engine outputs between the years stated. The only difference is in 1990 the final drive was change to 3.07 compares to 3.27 of the 89' and older models. The numbers may not be absolutely accurate but it gives you an idea of the change.
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The M103 cars should be the same power. Certain cars will be quicker than others off any production line. At that age, what kind of mechanical condition each one is in can make more of a difference.
As for the differential ratios, I was under the impression that automatic tranny US spec 86-92 MY cars had the 3.07:1, then in 93 when they went to the 3.2/4-valve M104 engine it was switched to a 2.65:1 ratio. Of course, a 5-speed manual could make the difference as well but those were pretty rare and only available up to MY 88 if memory serves. Hope this helps...Lee |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
TommyMB
Don't know the source of your info but my US/ my '88CE has the 3.07 diff in it. I know for sure because I just ckd. it two weeks ago in preparation/planning stages for a driveline swap. TobiasMB 300SE, 300CE, 190/5.0 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
TobiasMB
You are correct the 86' to 89' 300E had the 3.07. The 260E and 300TE had the 3.27. I was going by (bad) memoray on the ratio change from 89' to 90' on the 300E. I now have the spec sheets of the 86', 88', and 89' but have not been able to find the spec sheet on the 90' yet but by memoray I believe it was around 2.89. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
I'm sorry, I'm not to familiar with the different gear ratios. From the very little I know, ratios like 2.9 etc are better for off the line, while higher ones like 3.27 etc are better for higher top speeds. Am I right or completly wrong?
Cool, so then my 1990 300E has a "lower" ratio than other years? - Blizzak454 |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
It's the other way around...
Lower number= higher top speed Higher number= better off the line ------------------ Bill Wood - Webmaster MercedesShop.com, LLC |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Blizzak,
My guess would be that your car has the 3.07. What is redline (specific RPM at a specific speed) in each gear? With that info we should be able to tell which diff you have. A numerically higher diff # (known as "shorter", say...a 3.27) will give you better off the line acceleration while a numerically higher (known as "taller" 2.65) ratio will give you better top-end. Hope this helps...Lee |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Finally find it. The final drive ratio of the 90' 300E is 2.87. Another interesting note is in 1989 the 1st and 2nd gears were made shorter and taller, respectively, to improve off the line acceleration and stronger mid-range.
From all the test reports that I read, none of these changes through the years made much of a difference in performance. So be happy with what you have. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
WOuld a diff from a 260E on a 300E do any good, since it has a higher gear ratio than the 300E. (3.07 to 3.27)?
------------------ '86 300E '87 300SDL '92 190E 2.6 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Champa,
If "good" means better acceleration, yes. As Lee pointed out, a 3.27 rear end in a 300E will give you better off the line acceleration at the expense of lower top speed (largely academic in the USA). In addition, the engine will be revving slightly higher at cruising speed. The difference is 6.5%, or something like 3,200 vs. 3000 RPM, noticeable but not that significant. On my FIAT, I went for a 10% taller rear end in order to have the car cruising at lower RPM. The decrease in acceleration is noticeable (this is not a torquey engine, mind you) so I'm going back to the original ratio. ----------------- AK 87 260E 75 FIAT 124 Spider |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Weren't the later 300E's a bit heavier than the early ones? I'm not sure if the couple hundred pound (?) difference would matter much, given the diff ratio change, but just a thought..
anthony |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
I found this page that seems to back up the idea that the 87's were faster than the 90's 300e. I'm not too sure how accurate it is, but i hope it helps!
http://web.missouri.edu/~apcb20/times.html Oliver |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
I question the integrity of the data, as I'm guessing they're largely manufacturers' claims. F'rinstance, the numbers on my car are the same as those in the literature in my owner's manual, which states the 400 lb. heavier, less torquey 500SL beats a 500E to 60.
I think that each and every car's different within a breed, and I'm sure hp at the rear wheel varies greatly. I've owned slugs, and I've owned overachievers. And I'm sure you'll agree, overachievers are more fun (when they also underachieve maintenance-wise!) ------------------ All the best, Michael 500E 300TE |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Does this time of the year have anyone else down? | TTaM | Off-Topic Discussion | 32 | 12-24-2004 11:03 PM |
Rolling Stone: Top Ten Songs of All Time | GermanStar | Off-Topic Discussion | 44 | 11-22-2004 12:04 PM |
'87 300 SDL, to buy a whole new time relay or not... | peragro | Diesel Discussion | 13 | 08-14-2004 01:34 AM |
SRS light on all the time | akaras | Tech Help | 4 | 06-12-2004 01:07 PM |