[Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
[Main General Bulletin Board | BBFAQ |
Prev by Date | Next by Date | Post Followup ]
Member Login / Signup - Members see fewer ads. - Latest Member Gallery Photos
Re: MB 240D ....nuts? Posted by Justin VanAbrahams [Email] (#32) [Profile/Gallery] (more from Justin VanAbrahams) on Fri, 8 Nov 2013 11:31:38 In Reply to: Re: MB 240D ....nuts?, Bill Homer [Profile/Gallery] , Thu, 7 Nov 2013 09:29:06 Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup |
They actually don't have a lot of torque. I always assumed the hp number was a poor indicator of performance of those diesels, but when I did some shopping I realized that no, they are in fact really underpowered by all measures.
The early four cylinder diesels made a whopping 80 lb ft of torque. The 240D made 100 lb ft. The five cylinders made 125 lb ft. The turbo fives made 180 lb ft. Those are not big numbers - they're actually very similar, or slightly lower than, contemporary similar-displacement gasoline engines. The famous (infamous?) 2.0l Ford low-compression Lima engine - found in the Pinto - made 108 lb ft of torque. The 3.0l Ford Vulcan V6 made 160 lb ft. These Ford motors were not good nor high performance engines - they were amongst the cheapest motors Ford knew how to make.
Old MB diesels might have been durable and might have been cheap to operate (in Europe), but their performance was indefensible from any angle. They're just old, low-tech motors and not much more. Fuel type notwithstanding, they were *very* low output motors - which may be why they're so durable. ;)
Don't get me wrong, I'd absolutely drive a nice diesel W123 but make no mistake - they are SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW.
posted by 12.195.130...
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.