Hill Acceleration 300d v/s e300? - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

jobadiah · #1 10-09-2010, 09:00 AM

Ok I've searched the forum and found the acceleration of the 95 e300 to be roughly the same as the 90-93 300d, but myself and my buddy were wondering if there is a noticeable difference in hill acceleration with the turbo 90-93? I had a '92 that never seemed to be lacking power but my buddy has a 95 non-turbo like mine and was disappointed in it's hill climbing ability and I noticed similar struggles when going to Asheville once. Any thoughts and please forgive me if this particular question has been answered. Thanks.

vstech · #2 10-09-2010, 09:35 AM

the elevation to asheville should not be enough to trouble a well tuned 95 606. if your filters are due, or if there are timing or injector issues with the motor, it could give you trouble. I had no trouble with power even in my 85HP 79TD heavily loaded wagon.

lee polowczuk · #3 10-09-2010, 10:05 AM

if you are talking about the interstate through saladu pass.....every car struggles in that stretch

vstech · #4 10-09-2010, 10:28 AM

it's what 5%? 6%?

jobadiah · #5 10-09-2010, 11:04 AM

I'm really just wondering if anyone has or had both types of cars which they feel is better at climbing hills, does the turbo make much difference.

sixto · #6 10-09-2010, 02:57 PM

If they feel the same at sea level, the turbo should feel better at altitude. You'd need a stopwatch or a finely tuned butt-o-meter to determine which is quicker uphill. The turbo might feel more powerful if it lags as it starts up the hill then pushes you into your seat as boost builds. It might not necessarily get up the hill more quickly.

Both of you should get 87 300Ds so you know how quickly a 124 Diesel can get up the hill

Sixto
87 300D

Wodnek · #7 10-09-2010, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sixto

If they feel the same at sea level, the turbo should feel better at altitude. You'd need a stopwatch or a finely tuned butt-o-meter to determine which is quicker uphill. The turbo might feel more powerful if it lags as it starts up the hill then pushes you into your seat as boost builds. It might not necessarily get up the hill more quickly.

Both of you should get 87 300Ds so you know how quickly a 124 Diesel can get up the hill

Sixto
87 300D

Indeed! I was quite impressed with my 87 300TD ability in the mountains last year.

babymog · #8 10-09-2010, 10:03 PM

Without a turbo, you lose 3% of your power for every 1,000' of altitude, ... so at 10,000' the '95 will lose 30%.

Does this help?

sixto · #9 10-09-2010, 10:23 PM

I lose 20% lung capacity every 1000 feet up. I can't breath in Albuquerque

Another consideration is rear end ratio. If the 95 has shorter gears than the 2.5's 2.65, it might do better up the hill. How do cruising rpms compare in top gear?

Sixto
87 300D

jobadiah · #10 10-09-2010, 11:01 PM

Good info. Yeah the question kinda peeked my curiousity, so I'm guessing the turbo helps and yes the '87 would be sweet. The '95 is my wifes and my commuter is an '87 190d turbo manual so it pulls nice up hills

. I'll probably start looking for another 300d to replace the 190 since I've given up on my wife ever driving it for a backup vehicle. Also I tried to update my signature cause the '92 was totaled, anyone know how to do that? Thanks.

sixto · #11 10-09-2010, 11:16 PM

Click user CP in the upper left of the peachparts window then click edit signature.

My wife has a perfectly good minivan but she took my 87 300D this evening to visit her cousin. No hills along the way, though

She's still upset that I sold the S420 and crashed the 93 SD.

Sixto
87 300D

jobadiah · #12 10-10-2010, 08:28 AM

Updated sig, thanks!