[MBZ] 617.950 617.952 differences

[John Berryman]

On Jun 8, 2006, at 1:44 PM, Marshall Booth wrote:

> Lot's of people felt that the 617.950 engine in a 116 was faster than
> the 617.951 engine in a 126. Emissions requirements WERE different!
>
> Marshall


	I know my 79 300SD aka the $100 car gets up and goes better than any  
300D, 300CD, 300TD or 81 and later 300SD I have driven. I have owned  
all the models listed, lots of them and driven many, many more. I  
never swapped an earlier turbo engine a la W116 300SD into a later  
123 or 126 but gearing has to have some effect and I believe final  
drive ratios are not the same. Never ran the $100 car until it would  
go no faster but am willing to wager that it will not top out at the  
same speed as any turbo 123 in stock trim.
	Another observation I have made is that right out of the crate,  
without tweaking wastegate and ALDA a 123 turbodiesel from 82 will  
walk all over an 83,84 or 85. Post tweak I detect no difference at  
all. This scenario has been tested by your's truly over and over. Not  
being able to measure actual enrichment besides the tell-tale wisp of  
black smoke at high revs may not be too scientific but I strove to  
attain an even 12psi boost across the board.
	I would expect the 126 w/turbodiesel to lose a drag race against  
123s and 116s. It just stands to reason that being a larger and  
heavier car it should. While I'm at it, in my opinion, nothing  
compares to how the station wagons with good front and rear  
suspension ease on down the road. All the coupes I've owned road  
harsher but cornered flatter and with greater ease.
	I love'em all. What was the question?

Johnny B.
I Mac Therefore I am