View Single Post
  #6  
Old 11-12-2001, 01:34 PM
krasuskyp krasuskyp is offline
Large Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: top of 3rd
Posts: 185
Your 2.8l is slower than your 3.0l??? Something sounds amiss. My wife and my previous cars were a '93 2.8 and a '90 3.0, respectively. We pitched them at about 145k. Now, I'm confident her 2.8 was notably more powerful than mine, and mine ran real nicely.

Especially noticable was how much quicker hers took off the line, and I'm well versed in how to do the 1st gear start in the older models. The 3.0 had more upper end power, the 2.8 seemed to have 2 'phases' of power. The 2nd came on strong again at about 4200 or so if I remember. Now, where my 3.0 smoked her car was top end. On a flat stretch of CT highway, the 3.0 saw 135.5 or so. Her 2.8 on the same flat was getting real winded somewhere around 124-126 and didn't feel it had much left.

So, to try and answer your question, I'd suspect you may have a tuning issue. Does yours 'surge' at all at idle in drive with foot on brake? The 2.8 is notorious for this, and requires a thorough going through of the carbon canister (?) and EGR (?), if I remember correctly (don't ask me the details, my tech didn't get overly deep with me on what he did). But it did help. I've got a MB tech's home # who does work on the side, email me and I'll get it to you, he'll give you the full scoop. Good luck!
__________________

Paul

'02 ML320 3rd row - wife's
'01 //S8 Alumi*****
'87 930 Sport Seats / LSD
'58 TR3A commuter

previous

'95 //S6 6gang
'87 190E 2.3-16
'88 ///M5
'98 ML320
'93 300E 2.8
'90 300E 3.0

http://blogs.europeancarweb.com/index.html (Sgt. Schultz)
http://randomstupidity.tumblr.com/
http://www.sfest.com/gallery/
Reply With Quote