I'm trying to find out about the specifications for this engine, particularly the later versions, 1995 or so (Mods, if you think this is more appropriate for Technical, feel free to move). It seems to be one of the most highly regarded diesel engines in terms of durability and refinement, without having been saddled with complex and costly-to-fix electronic management systems. I've checked the CBCB and done both a forum and site search here using "300D power", "300D bhp" and just "300D" without finding the information I want. Google has helped a bit, but got overwhelmed by the number of hits without a specific answer!
So please, can anyone tell me specifically about:
- power and torque ratings ... was it always 143 bhp?
- average quoted consumption figures
- any changes in the above in a particular year during this engine's life cycle
- when the engine finally ceased production / was replaced (guessing 1997)
Finally, if anyone's feeling really generous with their time, same questions about a different engine - Merc 250 TD, same era.
In case you're wondering why, I'm researching the viability of using this engine for a project - a big three seater motortrike to run on biodiesel! Hence my preference for an engine that's not overly complicated. Any comments and recommendations are also welcome.
--
andymc
Vroom, vroom - mmm, doughnuts ...
|
Have a look here:
www.w124.co.uk/modelrange.html
The original 300D was 111 bhp and 140lb torque, a friend had a 300TD (estate not turbo) which was leisurely to say the least. The later ones had 4v engines, IIRC the turbos were LHD only. identified by a grill in the, I think, off side wing.
|
Hmm - I wonder if I'm confusing the 300D engine and the earliest E 300D engines, which according to that site had 24 valves and were "high-tech". 111 bhp sounds a bit low to me and another link I found earlier mentioned 143 bhp as standard. The site doesn't say what the 24v power output was though. Thanks for the link though.
--
andymc
Vroom, vroom - mmm, doughnuts ...
|
From the MB E-Class Owner's Manual:
OM602 2.5L (1990-1993)
121 bhp, 165 ft lb (223 Nm)
OM603 3.0L (from 1987)
148 bhp, 201 ft lb (272 Nm)
OM606 3.0L (1995)
134 bhp, 155 ft lb (210 Nm)
Also
tinyurl.com/gmwzk
and scroll down the page.
It's a surprise to see that the 606 is less powerful than its predecessors. It is described as one of the last of the indirect-injection engines (before common rail and all that jazz, I guess) and is said to be quieter, more refined and more efficient than its predecessors.
P.S. There's a general specs site here:
www.carfolio.com/specifications/
|
|
Postscript: I now find from the Owner's Bible that the 606 is normally aspirated and the predecessors are turbos, so all is explained.
|
|
Finally, fuel consumption seems to be a reliable 30 mpg, rising to 35 mpg with care, and it doesn't seem to differ much between models.
|
That's great Roger, thank you. I was guessing that the 606 had a cat installed, which might explain the drop in power (not 100% sure of this). Couldn't find the 300D at first on the carfolio site, but further down the page the list continued without being ordered by year of manufacture.
What interests me is that there's a normally aspirated 6-cylinder 300D listed as producing 160 bhp and 175 lb/ft, but the turbo version is listed at 148 bhp, 197 lb/ft. I would have thought that a turbo would always increase power as well as torque - maybe a cat was introduced at the same time as the turbo. Either version would be more than plenty for my project, and on the one hand an engine without a turbo has one less thing to go wrong, while on the other hand the higher torque of the turbo engine will be more fun for everyday use. Decisions, decisions ...
Another thought is that according to the site, the 1995 5-cylinder 250TD (was this engine only available in estates?) is as powerful as the 300TD at item 673 (not sure of the build-year for this one), but has a bit more torque at 207 lb/ft. It probably weighs less than the 6-cylinder unit too, enough to make a difference. Should certainly stay on my shortlist for now.
That biodiesel site is a nice find, will have to take some time to explore it. Thanks again.
--
andymc
Vroom, vroom - mmm, doughnuts ...
|
250TD:
150bhp @4400rpm
206ft lb @1800rpm
Fitted indirect injection but EGR, Bosch electronic control and catalyst.
Diesel Car December 1996,test.
madf
|
|
Interesting, madf. And to add to my confusion, I've found the 250's bhp ranging from 90 to 126 on a German site specializing in MB. And I guess that different specs for different markets are complicating things, bearing in mind that the Owner's Bible is a US publication. There were certainly three variants of the engine, used in the W201 C-Class and the G-Wagen too.
|
The 250 started in non turbo form. 90hp. then a turbo version for non UK and then the last turbo version in the C class from 1996 (saloon and estate).. then supersceded by the 2200cc Common Rail engine with 20% better fuel consumption...
madf
|
|
Thanks again. So exactly which model (for which markets) was it that Diesel Car reviewed with a power output greater than any of the 3.0L engines? I ask being I'm trying to build up a definitive list of bhp and torque figures for MBs.
|
All UK 250TD model 1996-2001 had the above outputs.
For more details look at specifications on..tinyurl.com/jkabx
madf
|
