Confused

[tony.w]

I have set my sights on a pre 1996 MB Diesel spending up to £3k and just for the love of it i am after a five cylinder or more, having just returned from looking at a 1990 E 300 D i am slightly nummed as it seemed to be a bit of a slug i was under the impresion that these were turbo-ed, anyway can anyone let me know whether the 1993 0n engines are better (ecomomy, performance, reliability etc) also going to look at the C 2.5 diesel are these turbo charged or is it just me looking for somthing that is not needed. My current car is a Vectra 2.0 diesel turbo with reasonable performance giving me 46 MPG all round driving. Perhaps somone can let me know the engine changes in the C & E clases...
Thanks

 

[jberks]

The MB pre cdi diesels are in all shapes and guides. The 300d is not turbo'd, the 300td is. The C250 maybe - not sure if they used the td designation on those. You can tell easily enough. If it trundles away, gets to around 2000rpm and then tries to snap your neck - it has a turbo!

However, don't try to compare a modern cdi vectra with one of these. Diesel technoloogy has leapt ahead in huge bounds in the last few years and a modern MB CDI is miles apart from one of the mid 90's models whare a simple turbo was considered high tech. The economy of a C250d will be in the early 30's and a 300d will manage 30 only if you take it very steady. Not bad compared to the mercs of the era where 25 was good, but poor by modern standards. A post 2000 C220cdi will be quicker again and still manage 50+.

 

[Blobcat]

There is no comparrison between a modern CDI diesel and one you are looking at. Although the early engines are pretty much 'bomb proof' they are not very econical or powerful. Pre '96 RHD 300 Diesel MB's were not turbo charged as there was no space for the turbo as the steering was in the way of the turbo. The 300 Turbo Diesel came in with the W210 series in 1996.

 

[television]

I think the Term Common rail was the start of the super deisels.

Malcolm

 

[tony.w]

I get the picture guys, io have been out again and looked at a 300 E now this i was impressed with it drove superbly (maybe a little snatchey on kickdown) the downside well £1600 for a 1990 245k i thought was a little steep. I will keep looking hopefully a 24v next see what the techno is like there.
Regards

 

[hexflyer]

My 1999 C250(5 pot) is turbo-intercooled and is good for mid-high 30's mpg, most are turbo'd but there are some earlier C250's without a turbo about and these are pretty sluggish but will go on forever!.

As said previously its only the newer C220CDI(4pot)/C270CDI(5pot) that have the extra power and economy

 

[BarryG]

I have set my sights on a pre 1996 MB Diesel spending up to £3k and just for the love of it i am after a five cylinder or more, having just returned from looking at a 1990 E 300 D i am slightly nummed as it seemed to be a bit of a slug i was under the impresion that these were turbo-ed, anyway can anyone let me know whether the 1993 0n engines are better (ecomomy, performance, reliability etc) also going to look at the C 2.5 diesel are these turbo charged or is it just me looking for somthing that is not needed. My current car is a Vectra 2.0 diesel turbo with reasonable performance giving me 46 MPG all round driving. Perhaps somone can let me know the engine changes in the C & E clases...
Thanks

My C250d is none turbo so if you require more umph get the turbo version. ONce its up to higher speed though it cruises.
Im averaging 38-39 mpg.
Barry