Torque is what accelerates your car. Horsepower is a function of torque & RPM’s (torque equals work, and horsepower is the amount of work produced over a given time increment, aka RPM’s)

Torque is what’s missing in the 606 engine at lower RPM’s versus the 617. The 617 makes much more torque at much lower RPM’s than the 606, but the 617 runs out of breath much earlier in the RPM range. Conversely, the 606 likes to rev at high RPM’s, and that’s where it makes its horsepower.

The gearing in the ’95 should allow it to take off from a dead start pretty well – if not, then something is amiss. The 617 will feel like it has more power during non-kickdown passing maneuvers because of the extra torque produced by the turbo. But if you allow the 606 engine to rev by kicking it down a gear, it will accelerate more strongly than the 617 during passing maneuvers. Take it from someone that owns both, and loves them both equally. It’s just that comparing the two is like comparing apples to orangutans.

P.S. Don’t really expect that type of mileage from either car (28 vs. 38 mpg) unless you are doing a lot of lower speed (meaning the speed limit or less) highway driving AND you are very conservative in your use of the “gas” pedal.

__________________
Current rolling stock:
2001 E55 183,000+ Newest member of the fleet.
2002 E320 83,000 - The "cream-puff"!
1992 500E 217,000+
1995 E300D 412,000+
1998 E300D 155,000+
2001 E320 227,000+
2001 E320 Wagon, 177,000+

Prior MBZ’s:
1952 220 Cab A
1966 300SE
1971 280SE
1973 350SLC (euro)
1980 450SLC
1980 450SLC (#2)
1978 450SLC 5.0
1984 300D ~243,000 & fondly remembered
1993 500E - sorely missed.
1975 VW Scirocco w/ slightly de-tuned Super-Vee engine - Sold after 30+ years.