I think the '97 is rated at about 12 - 12.5 seconds. About the same as the 300D 2.5 turbo.

Of course, the testing for acceleration times is done in a specialized manner: Braking against the torque converter, and releasing to get the maximum launch.

0-60 mph, done in a conventional manner should be a bit slower, since the turbo takes a tick to wind out.

So 9 - 10 seconds sounds about right for a conventional approach. Don't forget to average two runs in different directions on the same stretch of road.

These aren't CL65's, but any car that can get to 60 mph in under 10 seconds is fine by me. Anything less than 6 seconds is really overkill, IMHO.

__________________
1987 300SDL (324000)

1986 Porsche 951 (944 Turbo) (166000)

1978 Porsche 924 (99000)

1996 Nissan Pathfinder R50 (201000)

Yeah, I'm not crazy about putting my T.C. through that just to test optimum 0-60 times...I figured my 9.8 seconds was about right for the car. I usually test it from a stop at a local toll booth which has a nice long stretch of level on-ramp so when I am stopped I reset the stop-watch on my wrist and give it full juice, stop the watch as I cross 60 MPH and read the watch. It averages right in the 9.7-9.8 range.

And, no I don't choke the attendant...it's a coin-drop toll.

__________________
Marty D.

2013 C300 4Matic
1984 BMW 733i
2013 Lincoln MKz

That sounds about right. And the factory does quote 8.5secs for the turbo engine. I've owned both - - there is NO comparison in performance. The non-turbo car's performance can be described in one word: lethargic

__________________
1998 W210 diesel (wiped out by a texter)
Baum spring compressor "for rent"

I think that most of M/B's ratings are "conservative". The SD is rated at 14.5 seconds and I've clocked it at 12.7 seconds with the G-tech pro. The vehicle is also fitted with the taller 2.88 diff.

I'd bet that a properly tuned '97 would make 11 seconds. The W124 has a couple of hundred pound weight benefit as compared to the W126.

According to Edmunds, the '99 E300D's 0-60 time is 9 seconds while the '97 does it in 12.1 seconds. I've driven both (and I have a non-turbo '96) and there certainly is a big difference in acceleration, but for cruising around town and on flat highways, the non-turbo is more than sufficient. Only on steep inclines around 7000 ft or more did I feel like I could use a turbo.

By the way, the '96 model has the older style vacuum transmission from the W124 and from what I've heard and seen myself, it's a good, reliable design. 1997 was the first model year of the electronic 5-spd one, which can have some issues from what I've heard.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

Pretty happy with my 99. It is what it is. Not as good as my 99 C280 in terms of peppiness but with the chip, the wife and I find it acceptable. Therefore, I doubt we would have been even close to that chip or no chip on the NA version

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

Where did you get this information?

the only E300 that Edmunds tested was the 1998 at this link

http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=44173/pageNumber=1#1

And they state:

"We drove the E-Class cars all over the Texas countryside, and in addition to great fuel economy, we found that the vehicles offer surprisingly powerful performances. Zero to sixty times were not officially tested out of respect for our MBNA driving partner, but we were surprised to find that the diesel-powered car gets up to speed as fast as most gasoline-powered cars; Mercedes claims 8.5 seconds, and we have no reason to argue. The gas powerplants, surprisingly, are not much faster."


That is the only review I have ever seen on edmunds of the E300D if you can provide a link where it shows they test a 99 it would be great.

__________________
2005 SL65
1999 E300
1995 E300
1994 SL320
1988 560SL
1987 300TD
1982 300D
1955 300SL

http://www.edmunds.com/used/1997/mercedesbenz/eclass/217/specs.html
http://www.edmunds.com/used/1999/mercedesbenz/eclass/12694/specs.html

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

What exactly do you consider to expensive? How much are you trying to spend for the 97 or older diesel and what restriction do you have like mileage, equipment colors etc?