'97 E300D vs '98 & '99 E300 Turbo Diesel
 

The turbo version is a bit expensive for me, and I was thinking of getting a non turbo version, then installing a tuning chip from Powerchip . What do you all think ?

I'd go for the turbo version if I were you. The 606.962 (turbo version) is generally a beefier engine and these stock turbos seem to hold up very well. Also, the late '96 & all '97 models used earlier revisions of the 722.6 transmissions that had several costly issues (new ECU's & throttle bodies). Try and get a '99 or a '98 with a build date later than 07/97 - mine is a European delivery model built in 02/98 and only the electrical plug connector along with new fluid & filter has ever been needed.

Thanks Scott.

I can't imagine I would have ever been satisfied with the N.A. version after driving both and I'm far from a speed freak. I find the turbo to be very nice and strong, but not crazy-fast. Rather than looking at 0-80 speeds think about 0-60, like getting on the highway on a ramp. There's at least 3-4 seconds cut off the 0-60 time with the turbo as compared to the NA version. 10s Vs. mid teens...that's a big difference and considering you get that extra performance with ZERO lost economy made it a no-brainer for me...but sure it will cost a few thousand more up front in today's used market. Money you'll get back on higher resale when you decide to move up later though...

I agree, it's nice to be able to merge on the freeway well. I was wondering if a chipped '97 would do the job.

10 Seconds with the Turbo???? Mercedes lists it as 8.5 and with the chip it goes down to the low 7's.

I've never seen it "officially listed" only what some proport to be able to do. Mine, as peppy as it is does 0-60 in just under 10 seconds (9.8 to be exact, and that's a real, honest time).

Maybe it is because it has 136K miles on it? I could probably stand to have my IP timing adjusted which might trim a second off it.

From MBUSA's literature, the 0 - 60 time on the '99 diesel is 8.5 seconds.

mpg estimate is 27. Highway estimare is 36mpg (which I've never seen).

Len

Well, since the N.A. engine from 1997 has 40 less HP (134@5000 RPM Vs 174@4400 RPM) and a lot less torque (the turbo has 244 ft-lbs and it develops it at 1600 RPM and the N.A. is 155 ft-lbs at 2600) I would guess that the N.A's times would be somewhere in the low to mid teens for 0-60...does anyone know MB's official 0-60 time for the '97 E300?

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.

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.

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

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.

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