|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
Fastest 0-60 from STOCK diesel? (pre-1990)
What pre-1990 Mercedes diesel has the fastest 0-60?
__________________
I suggest we solve high gas prices with environmentalists... unfortunately they don't burn well. 1982 300CD, 220K miles: This vacuum system will be the death of me yet! (OBK #26) 1977 F150 400 C6 2wd, 10.2 sec 1/8 mile with 2.75 gears. 1965 Mustang. Mostly stock... LOL! 2001 Ram 2500, cummins, 5spd, 202k miles.(girlfriends) |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
1987 300D Turbo with the 6cyl 603 engine.
__________________
-diesel is not just a fuel, its a way of life- '15 GLK250 Bluetec 118k - mine - (OC-123,800) '17 Metris(VITO!) - 37k - wifes (OC-41k) '09 Sprinter 3500 Winnebago View - 62k (OC - 67k) '13 ML350 Bluetec - 95k - dad's (OC-98k) '01 SL500 - 103k(km) - dad's (OC-110,000km) '16 E400 4matic Sedan - 148k - Brothers (OC-155k) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Concur
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
I know an '82 300CD hits 60 in about 15 seconds. How fast is the '87 300sd?
__________________
I suggest we solve high gas prices with environmentalists... unfortunately they don't burn well. 1982 300CD, 220K miles: This vacuum system will be the death of me yet! (OBK #26) 1977 F150 400 C6 2wd, 10.2 sec 1/8 mile with 2.75 gears. 1965 Mustang. Mostly stock... LOL! 2001 Ram 2500, cummins, 5spd, 202k miles.(girlfriends) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
My '86 with the same engine can just nip the 11 second mark. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Ah, ok. Thanks. With only 20 more HP why are they so much faster than a w123 300d?
__________________
I suggest we solve high gas prices with environmentalists... unfortunately they don't burn well. 1982 300CD, 220K miles: This vacuum system will be the death of me yet! (OBK #26) 1977 F150 400 C6 2wd, 10.2 sec 1/8 mile with 2.75 gears. 1965 Mustang. Mostly stock... LOL! 2001 Ram 2500, cummins, 5spd, 202k miles.(girlfriends) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
What about the 190D w/ the turbo? Available 1 yr only, as I recollect.
The 123 was only avail w/ the 617 turbodiesel, not the 603. Plus, I believe the 123 is a heavier car, though I could be wrong. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
A good running 300D should be in the 13.5 range. My SD runs 12.7. The W124 has a much more streamlined body and it's weight is about 150 lb. less than the W123. The additional 25 hp represents an increase of 25% over the 617. So, all else being equal, the ET's are going to drop proportionally.
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
My nonturbo 300cd runs 0-60 in 22 seconds. It needs some new filters, diesel purge and an italian tuneup among other things...
__________________
1980 240d 1999 SL500 |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
You're right, if a OM617 300D can do 0-60 in 13.5 seconds. Mine does about 15 seconds, even with increased boost. The fastest OM617 300d I know of is only down to 14 seconds at best, and highly modified at that.
Pulling out the good old F=MA rule... OM617 300D 2937N=3500lbs(1587Kg)x60mph/14.5sec(1.85m/s/s) OM603 300D 3873N=3350lbs(1519Kg)x60mph/10.5sec(2.55m/s/s) That's a 32% increase in apparent power. 123HP to 147HP is only a 20% increase. There must be a significant increase in low end torque, much earlier turbo spool up, or something to account for that. That or one of our numbers is wrong. Curb weights are notoriously inaccurate, and who knows how conservative Mercedes is with it's power figures.
__________________
I suggest we solve high gas prices with environmentalists... unfortunately they don't burn well. 1982 300CD, 220K miles: This vacuum system will be the death of me yet! (OBK #26) 1977 F150 400 C6 2wd, 10.2 sec 1/8 mile with 2.75 gears. 1965 Mustang. Mostly stock... LOL! 2001 Ram 2500, cummins, 5spd, 202k miles.(girlfriends) |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
If it cannot achieve 13.5 seconds, then the body is severely hindering the performance and the W124 would have a serious benefit in wind resistance. That would be the reason why the numbers are so discrepant. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
I hear the 124 gets better mileage due to lower wind resistance. Just surprised that is has that much effect in a 0-60.
__________________
I suggest we solve high gas prices with environmentalists... unfortunately they don't burn well. 1982 300CD, 220K miles: This vacuum system will be the death of me yet! (OBK #26) 1977 F150 400 C6 2wd, 10.2 sec 1/8 mile with 2.75 gears. 1965 Mustang. Mostly stock... LOL! 2001 Ram 2500, cummins, 5spd, 202k miles.(girlfriends) |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Well, I know my older, non turbo 300CD's, are slower than molasses, off the line, and only marginal in the top speed department. The Turbo cars, do only a little better, but still basically can't get out of their own way. I know they weigh a lot, and have very few horses to move them. I never timed anything, or cared to though.
|
#14
|
||||
|
||||
And a close second goes to 87 300TD Turbo with the 6 cyl. 603
__________________
-justin 1987 300TD, 1987 300TD 2008 R32, 2000 Passat Wagon |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Lowest wind resistance of any production car at that time, still pretty respectable to present-day cars. The 124 rocks.
__________________
-justin 1987 300TD, 1987 300TD 2008 R32, 2000 Passat Wagon |
Bookmarks |
|
|