Parts Catalog Accessories Catalog How To Articles Tech Forums
Call Pelican Parts at 888-280-7799
Shopping Cart Cart | Project List | Order Status | Help



Go Back   PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum > Mercedes-Benz Tech Information and Support > Diesel Discussion

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-20-2004, 07:28 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Seattle WA
Posts: 59
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.

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-20-2004, 10:07 PM
Palangi's Avatar
L' Résistance
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Republique de Banana
Posts: 3,496
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
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-21-2004, 12:28 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Seattle WA
Posts: 59
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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-21-2004, 12:34 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: central Texas
Posts: 17,281
How much can you get it for ?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-21-2004, 01:14 AM
Old300D's Avatar
Biodiesel Fiend
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 1,883
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
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-21-2004, 02:45 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Seattle WA
Posts: 59
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.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-21-2004, 04:29 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: st paul, mn
Posts: 284
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
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-21-2004, 05:01 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: RI shore
Posts: 2,937
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"
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-21-2004, 05:06 PM
Old300D's Avatar
Biodiesel Fiend
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 1,883
Quote:
Originally posted by v8volvo
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.
I consider my NA 300D "so slow that it can't get out of it's own way." But I'm already a mile up in altitude, and I wouldn't dare take the car up I70 west past C470.

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
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-21-2004, 06:20 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 18,350
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
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2024 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page