'97 E300D vs '98 E300TD (and '99) - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

#1 09-13-2006, 02:51 PM

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 ?

scott19_68 · #2 09-13-2006, 03:05 PM

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.

#3 09-13-2006, 03:14 PM

Thanks Scott.

nhdoc · #4 09-13-2006, 07:35 PM

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...

Californian · #5 09-14-2006, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nhdoc

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.

husk · #6 09-14-2006, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nhdoc

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...

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

nhdoc · #7 09-14-2006, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by husk

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.

sokoloff · #8 09-14-2006, 05:56 PM

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

nhdoc · #9 09-14-2006, 06:38 PM

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?