Hi,
Any idea's on which returns the best MPG .
The cars are Mercedes 250D Diesel, 1994, one has a turbo and the other is non-turbo.
My journey is motorway 100 miles per day round trip, I generally travel between 55-60MPH
(keeping the trucks company) , I would expect around 50MPG on diesel for the turbo...would i get more from a non-turbo ?
|
My information is that the C250TD was the first turbo'd Merc in RHD and that no RHD W124 had a turbo. The TD in Merc parlance at that time was for an estate with a diesel engine, not a turbo.
The 250 D in the W124 is dog slow.
|
Ta,
I am definitely talking about a saloon, and I expect the non-turbo to be slow , anyone offer any 0-60 on it ?
Maybe its a w123 ? I'm not that well up on them.
|
If it's 1994, it's a W124.
From the October 1993 issue of MB's Technical data passenger cars, this is the non-turbo:
Five-speed manual
MPG: City 31.74, 90 km/h 52.31, 120 km/h 40.35
0-100 km/h: 16.5
Four-speed automatic
MPG: City 32.1, 90 km/h 47.88, 120 km/h 36.69
0-100 km/h: 17.0
This is the OM602.912 engine with cat, delivering 90 bhp at 4600 rpm and 154 Nm torque at 2400 rpm.
Shout if you want any more.
Edited by Roger Jones on 22/04/2008 at 17:13
|
|
|
|
There is a big difference between a 123 and 124. 123's ended in 1985 so are really now in the classic mode. The 124 diesel is really old technology now. However, this is its best feature. A very simple but sturdy engine that taxi drivers love as it is simple and easy to service. No £600 black boxes. Try to get a late one with twin timing chains. Much stronger. It will never be a ball of fire, but the cost savings are not in diesel but in spare parts etc.
My petrol W124 auto would do 31-31 mpg at your crusing speeds.
|
From the October 1993 issue of MB's Technical data passenger cars, this is the turbo:
Five-speed manual
MPG: City 29.43, 90 km/h 50.44, 120 km/h 38.17
0-100 km/h: 12.3
Four-speed automatic
MPG: City 30.7, 90 km/h 47.00, 120 km/h 35.76
0-100 km/h: 12.3
This is the OM602.962 engine with cat, delivering 126 bhp at 4600 rpm and 231 Nm torque at 2400 rpm.
P.S. If you want convert litres per 100 km to mpg -- as I have just done for all those numbers -- try:
www.convert-me.com/en/convert/fuel
Edited by Roger Jones on 22/04/2008 at 17:23
|
Thanks everyone , thats a great response.
I'm currently using a 1989 260E which is fantastic but starting to drain my wallet !
I drive it pretty carefully and get around 32 to the gallon, a real quality car.
p.s Could be soon up for sale.
|
Thanks for the thanks.
If you're getting 32 from a 260, you're doing well, which I guess is no surprise given your habitual motorway speed.
|
|
|
|
|
Is the turbo LHD, because MB were not able to offer W124 Turbo Diesels in RHD?
|
TBH i don't think you'll see 50mpg from any 124 diesel.
You might get 40 on your type of runningwith the 250, but my 300D's normal return was between 30 and 35, maybe a little more on a run.
As has been rightly said these are extremely old fashioned and simple diesels, not a road burner by any stretch, mind you the multivalve 300 could get a move on, but they will last for years with good maintenance.
|
|
|
|
Hiya youare right in what you say MB didn't make a 124 turbo diesel, there is a company in Yorkshire that used to convert them, i have no idea of their name, but i own both turbo and nn turbo versions of this car, non turbo of course isn't the quickest in the world, but it always gets there, the turbo version does run smoother and is a lot quicker, it has got a Switzer turbo fitted, which is now Borg Warner, so u know it's good, i've recently done a 400 mile round trip in turbo car to collect a complete trim from Cumbria, bought on ebay for 99p, what a bargain?? lol, i used approx 45 quid in fuel, so i am a happy chappy, car never missed a beat,
|
|
|
|
