Mercedes-Benz Forum banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
116 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I bought a 1985 w123 non turbo (yes I know they shouldn't exist)

I keep thinking maybe I should of got the turbo, Although never drove a turbo.

While this car isn't fast at acceleration it has no trouble with anything else.

Can someone who has driven both thoughts?

Also I am a person who is almost never in a rush and doesn't speed, etc. For example I think my friends newer civic is way to fast. xD
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
116 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
probably in the future will do an engine swap when i do WVO in the future.

my hood pad doesn't have a heat shield though, any spray so i wouldnt have to do a new hood pad when i do that?
 

·
Registered
Daily Drive 82 240D 4 speed
Joined
·
291 Posts
it is quicker, but not anything mind boggling. It's nice for getting on the highway, but if you're going good without it i wouldn't bother. Seems like a pretty substantial work for a rather small gain.
 

·
Registered
1985 300D Turbo Diesel.
Joined
·
55 Posts
I would agree that if you are doing fine commuting with it as is, the cost/improvement ratio just isnt that great. My 300D even with the turbo is still usually the slowest car on the road haha :D ... that is unless Im behind my work buddies 240 :p

That's OK Im not in any hurry to get to work :)
 

·
Registered
Daily Drive 82 240D 4 speed
Joined
·
291 Posts
that's got me wondering actually, what are the 0-60 time on these supposed to be at anyways?

200D=

240D=

300D n/a=

300D turbo=
 

·
Registered
84 300TD, 2004 E320 wagon, 2006 CLS55,
Joined
·
1,051 Posts
I wouldn't own anything other than a turbo. Diesels just don't do well without them.
You obviously do not know much about diesels. Diesel engines last longer without forced induction. 617-912 (which is the non turbo version) has different tranny gearing ratios and keeps up with the 617-95X just fine until about 30 mph. Passing on a two lane above 45 mph is much slower without the turbo however. Having owned both the 912 is just fine unless you want to modify the engine for more power- then you should have the 95X. Posts like you have made in this thread is the main reason Benzworld is second rate to many other MB forums. Too many folks that post dumb things that are just plain idiotic.
 

·
Registered
2001 Volvo V40
Joined
·
2,954 Posts
that's got me wondering actually, what are the 0-60 time on these supposed to be at anyways?
These are the official times for 0-100 km/h. 100 km/h is slightly more than 60 mph.

Manual
200D-55HP = 31.0 seconds
200D-60HP = 27.4 seconds
Automatic
200D-55HP = 33.2 seconds
200D-60HP = 29.4 seconds

Manual
220D-60HP = 28.1 seconds
Automatic
220D-60HP = 29.1 seconds

Manual
240D-65HP = 24.6 seconds
240D-72HP = 22.0 seconds
Automatic
240D-65HP = 27.4 seconds
240D-72HP = 24.7 seconds

Manual
300D-80HP = 19.9 seconds
300D-88HP = 17.8 seconds
Automatic
300D-80HP = 20.8 seconds
300D-88HP = 19.2 seconds

Automatic
300D Turbo-125HP = 15 seconds

The horsepower is according to DIN, which differs slightly from SAE.

Source: w123.de: Portal für den Mercedes Benz W123-Forum Markt Bilder Kaufberatung Termine Treffen Infos - Typenkunde: Produktionszeiträume & Motordaten
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3 Posts
??? wrong.
Yes, you're wrong. The 85 cali model has a trap ox very near the hood. THAT is what the shield is for. All prior models have the big air filter box there.

If your air filter lid is hot enough to damage the paint, your engine is on fire.

I obviously do not know much about diesels.
That is correct.

Diesel engines last longer without forced induction.
Incorrect. Then please explain the huge imbalance in numbers of existing turbo 300D models compared to non turbo models despite equal sales time. Turbo engines run cooler from the increased airflow and are less stressed due to requiring less RPM to make the same power.

617-912 (which is the non turbo version) has different tranny gearing ratios and keeps up with the 617-95X just fine until about 30 mph.
Flat out wrong as well. It has a lower differential ratio.

Posts like I just made in this thread are the main reason Benzworld is second rate to many other MB forums.
That is correct(ed). Its douchebags like you giving out false information that tarnish this forum's reputation.

Too many folks that post dumb things that are just plain idiotic.
Then I suggest you leave so the forum's collective IQ will raise 5 points.
 

·
Registered
Daily Drive 82 240D 4 speed
Joined
·
291 Posts
MTU got OWNED! i was about to say the exact same thing PaleBrown.


Oh, and thanks for the time specs govert. :thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
1985 300D Turbo
Joined
·
149 Posts
hello,

As someone who has owned both a 300d and a 300d turbo, I would say that the turbo is far superior in terms of acceleration and potential highway speed. When I had the 300d it was like a beached whale on highway mergers and up hills ( I always had to drop it into 2nd gear to even make the Hill!) Over 65 the car would rattle alot and not go much faster.

The 300d turbo on the other hand has much faster acceleration (for a diesel) and also can go over 80 mph with ease on the highway (not that I do that too often :)

If I were getting one now I would buy the turbo but since you have the 300d already enjoy it. As it has already been mentioned your car will probably last longer and may get slightly better fuel economy. However I usually am not too concerned about the "additional longevity" because with the right shopping decent cars of either type can be had for 2-3000 dollars if not less. Drive it till it dies and get the turbo next time

Bullet
 

·
Registered
1983 240D 3.0T
Joined
·
242 Posts
I swapped in a turbo 617 for my 616, and it is way faster. That being said, I mated it with the 4-speed and kept the 3.69 rear end. The 240 was just too slow for me, especially on hills. I miss the utter simplicity of the 616, but I love the turbo. It also has much more room for performance improvements that the non-turbo doesn't. From what I've seen, turbos have similar longevity to non-turbos.

And, I doubt I was the only one who noticed, but he's back!
 

·
Registered
82' Euro 240D 84' 300D 01' SLK320 6 Speed Sport!
Joined
·
315 Posts
You gotta know the sweet spot

You have to be familiar with your cars sweet spot. In my 240D I can still bust down the road with traffic just fine at 60-75mph after 75mph its like the feeling of trying to run too fast and your legs cant keep up. I speed all the time with all of the 67hp glory. Watch out when my 300D turbos finally on all four wheels :D
 

·
Registered
123.193
Joined
·
3,124 Posts
I personally like the low end torque from my non turbo more. That being said I'm seriously looking at turbo-ing my non turbo engine.

Shut up before you flame me, I know it doesnt have oil squirters. I also know its a completley different engine inside. But there are plenty of people in europe and US over on STD with 20,000+ trouble free miles on this setup. That being said I probobly would not run over 6-8psi.

With this setup I hope to be able to keep my low end torque but also be able to climp pass's and overtake on the freeway. I might also remove the rack limeter, put on a 83 turbo MW-pump, and run 3 inch straight exhaust.


Too bad Zedd is already banned again :( He always has very intelligent points.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top