I'm contemplating a merger of three cars into one...
 

Ok.

My 87 5 speed has front end frame damage... It looks ok parked, but it will NEVER offer me the proper ride a mercedes w201 should...

I have a great running 87-190D 2.5 turbo with a crappy rusted out rear section, cracking bonds, and an amazing clunk above 30 MPH...

I ALSO have a rust free, totally intact 87-190D 2.5 turbo with a blown or cracked head from severely overheating it on a highway run with no coolant in the motor... Yeah, I felt sick over it... I did it myself... Note to self ALWAYS FIX A KNOWN COOLANT LEAK!!!

Anyway...


I'm thinking of pulling the engine from the running turbo, putting it in the blown chassis, pulling the driveshaft and transmission,pedals and shifter from the 5 speed and putting it behind... And stacking the useful parts left over in my shop for later and crushing the carcasses...

What kind of mpg should I get with the turbo, 5 speed, and a 2.65:1 rear ratio?

How is that different from your current 1987 190D 5-speed? Do you have a shorter rear end in there?

Sounds like a good plan - clean broom - save the good - chuck the bad.

I don't think the NA comes with a 2.65 does it? The turbo will of course be faster. .. but the tall ratio might bog it off the line.

I'll start with a new clutch too...

The '87 190D 2.5 turbo comes stock with a 2.65:1 rear screw, automatic only, to the 2.5na which had a 3.40:1 rear screw in automatic, and shorter with the 5-speed.

My 2.5t was good for around 35mpg highway (EPA rated 32mpg), I saw just north of 40mpg on some trips in 60-ish speeds, never much above 35 on a trip at 75-80 though.

As far as launch, I probably wouldn't do it if I lived in San Francisco and traveled often with 4 large friends, but otherwise I would love to have 2.65:1 gears and an overdrive for the freeway, you should easily be able to launch its sub-3000lb mass and the freeway RPM would be like a modern car, ... quiet and efficient!

Go for it!

40 mpg with monotonous regularity. The 2.65 might be tedious though on take off.

What ratio came behind the 2.2 5-speed? I have one also... and I have access to a 2.2 automatic...

I've also got the diff from a 2.6 gasser 190... I think that's a 2.85?

190E 2.3 5speed & auto = 3.27:1
190E 2.6 5speed & auto = 3.27:1
190D 2.5 auto = 3.07:1
190D 2.5 5speed = 3.42:1
190D 2.5t auto= 2.65:1
190E 2.3-16v 5spd & auto = 3.27:1

All 1987 specs, I do not have the 2.2 5speed ratio.

how about parting out all the cars, and buying a nice used 190e 2.3-16?

:)

I hear reports from 190e turbo guys of MPG's as low as the mid 20's and as high as the high 30's. I don't know who to believe anymore. My buddy who owned a w123 240d manual claimed he got 35mpg with a light foot and empty trunk. I get 23mpg consistently with my w123 300d auto trans.

If anyone can do it, it's you John !

There's a certain degree of happiness achieved by turning 'problems' into gold and clearing out the clutter ...

I might try the 265 but I would think the 307 would be pretty good....or the 288.

This should be useful. :)

http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/...xle-ratios.gif

That's a crazy jump for the 2.5 turbo diesel between 5 speed manual and automatic - perhaps that needs to be checked?

I'm interested in finding out which differential needs the shorter axle lengths as the bigger differentials seem to keep themselves in better shape and don't whine so quickly as the small bodied ones...

That jump in ratios does not seem out of line to me. Getting the car moving with a torque converter is much easier than with the clutch.;)

The 346 was used in the 123 300D na. It'll make a sweet ratio for taking off with the stick. I'd prolly go with the 307 though.