Does anyone know the last year that turbo was offered before 1998 and why? - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

jmbeam · #1 05-29-2011, 07:53 PM

Does anyone know the last year that turbo was offered before 1998 and why it was discontinued the years before 98 and (?)? I love the 1995 E300d I just purchased and will do whatever I can to get back some of the power it once had but I know it will never be a "spirited" vehicle. However it does concern me should one of my young daughters decides to borrow it and do not listen to me about being careful and prudent when entering traffic.

This car has a real hard time getting out of its way. Is there any chip kit that can produce additional power like a chip I received for my TDI VW?

aaa · #2 05-29-2011, 08:54 PM

Look at what JimmyL did to his E300d. He removed something to give it more power, it seemed slow before.

It's not supposed to be that slow anyways, you don't need a chip (there isn't one anyhow).

As for why it doesn't have a turbo, who knows. The s-class typically gets the turbos first so it may have been a marketing reason (the 96 s-class had a turbo).

KarTek · #3 05-29-2011, 10:11 PM

I think the last turbo E class was the '92 E300 2.5 Turbo with the OM602. The NA 606 is not a bad engine but if you're used to a turbo engine, it's missing the "scat" feeling.

The NA engine has more of an electric pull into the upper RPM ranges. I know my friend's '97 had more than enough power.

When merging in a lower powered car, you just have to go all out and hit the end of the ramp about 5+ MPH faster than the traffic and then you can just slow and merge rather than trying to accelerate into traffic.

vstech · #4 05-29-2011, 10:44 PM

I believe all diesel 5+ cylinder motors had turbo until 95... I know the 93 had a turbo... I have one. so the 94 should also, the 95 had the 606 and it had more hp than the turbo 2.5 did, due to the breathing capabilities of the 4 valve 3.0L displacement.
if yours is weak or slow off the line, something is wrong with it, or you live at high altitude...
check the ada if there is one, it may be restricting fuel flow... of course, replace the fuel filters first! that's usually the first thing to cause acceleration issues. followed by a plugged tank screen, or tank vent.

Jeremy5848 · #5 05-29-2011, 11:33 PM

I agree w/John, you may have a problem that is causing your '95 to be slower than it should be. My wife's '96 E300D has the same engine; it is quick enough but you have to let the engine wind up to get any power out of it. The OM606 NA engine has an upper rev limit of 5450 RPM so you won't hurt it by letting it rev up to, say, 4500 to 5000 RPM in second or third gear on the on-ramp.

Jeremy

Renntag · #6 05-30-2011, 12:56 AM

I have several different benz diesels so I can attest to the ability of each. My friend has a 97 E300 and his has more power than my OM617 powered W123 and W126, and the OM603 powered W124 and W126. It has no issue merging into traffic here in DC metro area where traffic goes from Bad to horrible, to "just beam me up scottie".

Bio300TDTdriver · #7 05-30-2011, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renntag

I have several different benz diesels so I can attest to the ability of each. My friend has a 97 E300 and his has more power than my OM617 powered W123 and W126, and the OM603 powered W124 and W126. It has no issue merging into traffic here in DC metro area where traffic goes from Bad to horrible, to "just beam me up scottie".

Perhaps something is wrong with the OM603s that you are comparing it to. Unless he has a euro import with the turbo which would explain it having more power. The OM603 has about 14 more hp than the OM606 NA and a lot more torque.

Jeremy you have both cars, which one feels like it has more power to you?

GregMN · #8 05-30-2011, 01:49 PM

The 606 in the 95 W124 had a 2.87 axle.
The 606 in the 96,97 W210 had a 3.46 axle.

That is why my son-in-law's 95 gets 35+mpg.
My wife's 96 gets 30+mpg.

Providing that your engine is running properly, the best way to get up to speed quicker is to hold the transmission in a lower gear longer and shift it manually.

Next time you pull the intake manifold check for soot build up. The first time I did mine the runners were about 1/2 blocked because the previous owners mostly idled around Sun City at 25 mph.

Bio300TDTdriver · #9 05-30-2011, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vstech

I believe all diesel 5+ cylinder motors had turbo until 95... I know the 93 had a turbo... I have one. so the 94 should also, the 95 had the 606 and it had more hp than the turbo 2.5 did, due to the breathing capabilities of the 4 valve 3.0L displacement.
if yours is weak or slow off the line, something is wrong with it, or you live at high altitude...
check the ada if there is one, it may be restricting fuel flow... of course, replace the fuel filters first! that's usually the first thing to cause acceleration issues. followed by a plugged tank screen, or tank vent.

No '94 turbo diesel in the 124 in the US. The '95 came out early in the spring of '94 with the OM606.

vstech · #10 05-30-2011, 10:48 PM

ahh.
so the 95 model came out early in the 94 year... interesting. was there a 94 model?

Bio300TDTdriver · #11 05-30-2011, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vstech

ahh.
so the 95 model came out early in the 94 year... interesting. was there a 94 model?

Yes, but not with a diesel engine. Just like in '86 when there was no 124 diesel. The '87s came out very early in '86. That is for the US. No idea what they were selling in Europe.

shertex · #12 05-31-2011, 07:49 AM

According to the spread sheet GSXR made, the 95 E300 is actually a hair quicker than the 90-93 300D; the former 0-60 is 12.6 seconds, the latter is 12.8 seconds.

http://www.w124performance.com/docs/mb/other/acceleration_specs.xls

I own a 91 and a 92, and they're both plenty quick, at least as far as safety (i.e. merging) issues are concerned. The few times I've driven my friend's E300, that's been my impression as well.

So time it. If it's just a shade over spec, you'll be fine. Significantly over, then something's wrong. But the problem is not the fact that it doesn't have a turbo.

FYI I had lent the 92 to my daughter for about a year or so, so I understand your concern.

WINGAS · #13 05-31-2011, 12:24 PM

I dont feel much, if any, differnce between the N/A 606 and the turbo'd 5 cyls.

Still havent owned a 606 turbo. That's next.

Goofy thing about the 606 N/A, its more like the solid lifter 427 in my Chevelle, starts pulling at 3000 rpm! Somethign I did not expect.

So rev 'em a bit.

jmbeam · #14 06-16-2011, 09:22 PM

Well it looks like I better pull the intake and clean out everything because this car really is a dog. Pretty sad when my 16 year old (female) with a learners permit says she does not want to drive it because she feels its unsafe when trying to enter a busy intersection. It also pings alot on acceleration. I will let you all know how it turns out. Also want to change the tranny filter and fluid. When I stomp on the pedal this the shifting is so hard it actually gives the driver a jolt through each gear which is why I dont like to stomp on it.

ROLLGUY · #15 06-16-2011, 09:50 PM

I have a '95 with the 606, and it started to get low on power at low RPM's. I did the mod that jimmyL did, and it made a big difference. I did a little different though. I removed the plate all together in the EGR diverter valve (I think that is what it is called) rather than wiring it open, and made a block off plate out of sheet metal to replace the gasket under the EGR valve rather than putting a BB in the vacuum hose. No carbon in the intake anymore, and full air flow after the air cleaner and into the crossover pipe.

I since got a '98 E300 (TURBO), and am really enjoying the more power it has than the '95's N/A engine.