Speaking only of engine and transmission, what's the appeal of the 300D 2.5 and E300 over the 300D? The literature suggests that the 300D is the most powerful of the bunch. I understand that peak torque is not the same as torque sustained over a wide rpm range. The 87 does 0-60mph in 10.5sec, the 90 in 12.4sec, no info on the 95. Anyone?

I ask because there are a couple of 95 E300s on ebay and both are white with grey leather. To me, that's a sign from above

Thanks,
Sixto
91 300SE
81 300SD

Sixto:

The 87 has a six, 603 engine, same as the 2.5 except on more cylinder. More power (duh!). Very nice. I expect the 95 to have even more power as it is, I think, a direct injection diesel (common rail direct instead of indirect). I don't know anything else, except that most people can't tell they are diesels, they drive like gasoline engines and don't clatter.

Peter

__________________
1972 220D ?? miles
1988 300E 200,012
1987 300D Turbo killed 9/25/07, 275,000 miles
1985 Volvo 740 GLE Turobodiesel 218,000
1972 280 SE 4.5 165, 000 - It runs!

The clatter of the 61x and 60x is music to my ears, im not sure i'd be happy with a diesel that dont clatter and smoke a little!

True, but clatter is poor fuel ignition and smoke is unburned fuel! The clatter was "fixed" by a double injection -- a tiny one to start the fire followed by the remainder of the fuel so that it burns immediately (also, a high swirl combustion chamber with a "prechamber" in the piston instead of the head) -- the result is better quieter fuel ignition, more power, and less noise and smoke. They drive like gasoline cars, just get 30% better milage....! Also, they are not imported to the US due to EPA "concerns" about particulats, as if a few diesel cars could generate anywhere near as much smoke as a single Mack!

Peter

__________________
1972 220D ?? miles
1988 300E 200,012
1987 300D Turbo killed 9/25/07, 275,000 miles
1985 Volvo 740 GLE Turobodiesel 218,000
1972 280 SE 4.5 165, 000 - It runs!

The 2.5 diesels are a 602 motor. The 1990-1993 2.5 is a 602.962.

Sixto,

I have both an '87 300TD and a '95E300D. The '95 has a 606 engine which is six-cylinder and non turbocharged. I like both of them equally. The plus side of the later engine is quieter operation, better off the line acceleration, much lower repair bills
in the long run (no expensive oil lines and cooler, no expensive turbo), better fuel economy(30/35 mpg consistently).
What I like about the '87 engine is the feeling when the turbo kicks in! Loads of power is available, especially when trying to accelerate from say 50 to 70 mph. This is the one weak spot in the non-turbo engine.
A couple of other things to consider: the '95s are available now with low mileage and at a good price, while many of the'87s are way beyond their prime. Also the newer car has a climate control systerm that really works.
In either calse I think you will be happy. Let us know which one you decide on.

Steve

The '87 & '90 have 603 & 602 engines, respectively. These are kissin' cousins - same basic design, many interchangable parts. The 602 is just missing a cylinder - it only has five of 'em.

The '95 has the 606 engine - completely new & different. It's DOHC, 24 valve vs. the single cam, two valve per cylinder design of the earlier engines. As well, this version of the 606 is not turbocharged, whereas the earlier two engines are.

The 606 has 134HP, 155ft-lb torque (from memory, don't shoot me if I'm off a ft-lb). The 603 is substantially more powerful - about 150HP/200ft-lbs. The 602 has 121HP, don't know the torque - it's probably the weakest of the bunch.

Acceleration of the '95 falls in between the other two. I recall seeing about 11.5 seconds 0-60 in a magazine test.

The 606 is definately quieter at idle - it barely sounds like a diesel, warm or cold. The 603 is definately a diesel when first started, but settles down quite nicely as it warms up. On the road I don't think you could tell the difference between them based on NVH.

NVH?

Sixto
91 300SE
81 300SD

Noise, Vibration, & Harshness!

The OM602 turbo has 165 lb/ft of torque. The turbo 602 has a little more torque than the OM606 non turbo and a little less horsepower (121 vs 134)

The 602 turbo feels slightly slower than the non turbo 606 off the line but the turbo has better mid range punch.

The 603 turbo is clearly the fastest of the breed but it seems to be slightly more fuel hungry than the other two engine setups in the W124 chassis.

Any W124 diesel is a pretty good choice...