|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
NA or turbo? performance vs. mileage
In my search for a good 300TD I have come across one that has a freshly rebuilt engine, which is great. Problem is it is not turbocharged.
I wanted a turbo, but maybe this is OK. I am attracted by simplicity. Which gets better mileage? Can the NA 3.0L 617 hold highway speed? The car will need to go over a mountain pass fully loaded in mid-August--is the NA motor up to that in a big, heavy wagon? Incidentally, if anyone knows of a 300TDT for sale in the PNW PLEASE tell me. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Some will disagree with me on this. The NA 3.0, while certainly not a hot-rod dragster, will have adequate power for everyday driving. Maybe marginal for mountain driving though, if you do a lot of it. What I would back away from on a 3.0 NA car would be the servo type of climate control. You just don't need that kind of grief.
__________________
Palangi 2004 C240 Wagon 203.261 Baby Benz 2008 ML320 CDI Highway Cruiser 2006 Toyota Prius, Saving the Planet @ 48 mpg 2000 F-150, Destroying the Planet @ 20 mpg TRUMP .......... WHITEHOUSE HILLARY .........JAILHOUSE BERNIE .......... NUTHOUSE 0BAMA .......... OUTHOUSE |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I hope this car does not have the servo type CC. How do I tell?
It would be largely an around-town car, but would occasionally have to make a 5-hr drive up two large mountain passes, loaded with five people, a dog, and tons of luggage. Sound like a bad idea? How does mileage compare? This NA 3.0 has only 300 miles on it, so as far as power and mpg wear would not be a factor. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
How much can you get it for ?
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Better get the turbo. I tell you now the NA is not up to mountain driving.
__________________
'83 240D with 617.952 and 2.88 '01 VW Beetle TDI '05 Jeep Liberty CRD '89 Toyota 4x4, needs 2L-T '78 280Z with L28ET - 12.86@110 Oil Burner Kartel #35 http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b1...oD/bioclip.jpg |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The guy is asking $5500, but I do not intend to pay anywhere near that much. He is a mechanic, and rebuilt the motor himself. He says everything that moves in there is new.
Considering how expensive these motors can be, if the car seems in good shape (rear hydraulics, body, suspension, trans, interior), and if after driving it I deem the acceleration acceptable, I think $4500 would be fair. Yes? Also, since it is white, my most hated color, we'd have to factor in the price of a paint job. Starting to sound like I'm better off waiting... As Old300D mentioned, I don't expect to find the acceleration acceptable. I'm used to a V8 with 330 ft-lbs of torque attached to a lighter car with a five-speed. You might say I have been spoiled. I don't need a rocket, but I don't want it to be so slow that it can't get out of its own way. That's part of active safety, and if that protection is missing, I call it dangerous, no matter how safe those big MB bodies are. We'll have to see. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
My 300d n/a is somewhat slower in acceleration than my 81 rabbit diesel was, although the top speed seem is higher. I don't think you are going to go up any mountains at a reasonable speed with 5 people and gear. it will surely be a climb in third gear, you might have to go down to second.
__________________
andy t '78 300d '95 volvo 850, wagon '86 300sdl - engine out, maybe I'll have it rolling by June whole bunch o' bicycles |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Once I test drove a 300TD for sale by a respected local indy. Halfway through the test drive he said "you don't want this car, you want one with a turbo"
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Additionally, just based on my experience with gassers, that a turbo engine is every bit as efficient as the NA counterpart. My 280Z with a transplanted turbo engine, even with a 7.4:1 compression ratio and a stock T3 turbine, gets 27 mpg cruising at 80mph. That's every bit as good as it was with the original engine, and it's rare that I hear anyone with that car getting mileage any higher. I wouldn't expect the 617.95x to get any less mileage than a NA 617 (unless you stomp on it regularly.)
__________________
'83 240D with 617.952 and 2.88 '01 VW Beetle TDI '05 Jeep Liberty CRD '89 Toyota 4x4, needs 2L-T '78 280Z with L28ET - 12.86@110 Oil Burner Kartel #35 http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b1...oD/bioclip.jpg |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Got to agree with old300d. I've got a 77 na and an 85TD turbo in Denver. There's no comparison in the mountains. With that load, you'll be crawling in 2nd gear in the Rockies on a steep grade. On the other hand, the turbo will be flying because it's dumber than the NA. It still thinks it's still at about 2000ft while all the other smart cars know they're at 11,000ft.
__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08 1985 300TD 185k+ 1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03 1985 409d 65k--sold 06 1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car 1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11 1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper 1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4 1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13 |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|