Hello:
I am a Diesel afficionado from Southern California, own a really nice '80 300SD and an even nicer '85 300CD (with only 46K miles and leather). Both cars have--as most of you might know--the old iron 3-liter, 5-cylinder Turbodiesel engine, rated at 120 horsepower.
Looking for a newer sedan, I today test-drove a '95 E300 Diesel with the 3-liter, 6-cylinder non-turbo 24V engine, rated at 134 horsepower.
Although the newer car is more powerful and lighter than both of my older Diesels, it felt to me that take-off from a complete stop takes longer. The engine is not as noisy, smooth, but doesn't have the bite I expected. I have to say that it has already 128K miles, but has been serviced "open checkbook" to this day, fully documented.
I was wondering if some of you might have driven the old Turbodiesels and the new generation non-turbos and have experienced the same or something totally different. Generally I would guess that the more powerful engine should have a better performance than the 14hp less powerful one but maybe the electronics and Mercedes' attempt to save fuel (38mpg versus 28mpg) might have something to do with it. Who knows?

Mr. "B",

You have eloquently described both of the differences in each engine and
the resulting power (H.P.) and fuel economy characteristics.

Your choice looks like the difference between a "Classic" and the newer generation of Diesels but in that regards they didn't change much over the last 20 years, other than modifications. Though as we speak the new "CDI" is the new generation of Diesels, which even beats the '90's Diesels by "light years" in technology. Which do you like? what are the conditions of the two?

The biggest difference performance wise between my '97 and my '85 is that the '97 was much faster off the line. On the '85 it takes about 2 seconds from the time I stomp it until it starts picking up speed. On the '97, the pick-up was instantaneous. The '97 didn't have the power surge that the '85 did when the turbo kicked in which made it feel like the '97 might not have been as fast once I got going but the '97 was probably slightly faster (especially from a start). I never timed them so it's hard to say.

The biggest difference I noticed was in the fuel economy. The '97 got 34 mpg as opposed to 26mpg in the '85. I could get 600 miles on one tank of diesel. I REALLY miss that.

I also thought I wouldn't enjoy the newer style as much as the classic lines of the older one but after driving it for several months I enjoyed it a lot. They are totally different cars though. Each has its pluses and minuses.

Scott

__________________
Scott
1982 Mercedes 240D, 4 speed, 275,000
1988 Porsche 944 Turbo S (70,000)
1987 Porsche 911 Coupe 109,000 (sold)
1998 Mercedes E300 TurboDiesel 147,000 (sold)
1985 Mercedes 300D 227,000 (totaled by inattentive driver with no insurance!)
1997 Mercedes E300 Diesel 236,000 (sold)
1995 Ducati 900SS (sold)
1987 VW Jetta GLI 157,000 (sold)
1986 Camaro 125,000 (sold - P.O.S.)
1977 Corvette L82 125,000 (sold)
1965 Pontiac GTO 15,000 restored (sold)

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.

I agree that number is high. I got 26 and 34, respectively for each car. That's a combination of highway and city driving.

Scott

__________________
Scott
1982 Mercedes 240D, 4 speed, 275,000
1988 Porsche 944 Turbo S (70,000)
1987 Porsche 911 Coupe 109,000 (sold)
1998 Mercedes E300 TurboDiesel 147,000 (sold)
1985 Mercedes 300D 227,000 (totaled by inattentive driver with no insurance!)
1997 Mercedes E300 Diesel 236,000 (sold)
1995 Ducati 900SS (sold)
1987 VW Jetta GLI 157,000 (sold)
1986 Camaro 125,000 (sold - P.O.S.)
1977 Corvette L82 125,000 (sold)
1965 Pontiac GTO 15,000 restored (sold)