OM606.91X v. OM606.96X: Some Questions
 

I looked at the specs for the 606 Turbo & Non-Turbo -- first I saw the NA specs and though, "Gee, that's pretty good. 137 HP & 155 lb-ft of torque @ 2200 RPM". Then I saw the turbo specs: 174 HP and 234 lb-ft @ 1600 RPM! Holy moley! I thought the 617.95X was powerful!!!!!

:D

So then I have two questions:

1) Are there known issues related to the OM606.96X (turbo)? I thought there were, but can't recall them.
2) Is the NA or Turbo more efficient? They are rated by the EPA as same in the city while the Turbo gets an extra MPG on the highway, but that may be due to the Turbo coming with a 5-speed automatic while the NA only got four speeds...

I can't comment on the turbo engine, but the NA engine has an issue with resonance flaps on its intake - I'm very familiar with a lot of threads on this forum dealing with this issue. Not something that leaves you by the side of the road, but still an issue.

The '97 NA E300 did get the 5-speed. Don't know the EPA numbers on it though.

1995 E300D: 23/29/25 (old numbers -- 26/32/28)
1997 E300D: 23/30/26 (old numbers -- 26/33/29)