From owner-diesel-benz-digest-at-digest.net Fri Apr 16 17:12:21 2004 From: diesel-benz-digest diesel-benz-digest Saturday, April 17 2004 Volume 01 : Number 1419 Forum for Discussion of Diesel Mercedes Benz Automobiles Derick Amburgey Digest Coordinator Contents: Re: [db] Re: Just saw a MB for sale Re: [db] Re: Just saw a MB for sale Re: [db] Re: Just saw a MB for sale Re: [db] Re: Just saw a MB for sale Re: [db] Re: Just saw a MB for sale Re: [db] Re: Just saw a MB for sale Re: [db] Re: Just saw a MB for sale Re: [db] Re: Just saw a MB for sale Re: [db] Re: Just saw a MB for sale [db] 126 vs 123, with a dash of 201 for dessert Re: [db] Re: Just saw a MB for sale Diesel Benz Digest Home Page: http://www.digest.net/diesel-benz/ Send submissions to diesel-benz-digest-at-digest.net Send administrative requests to diesel-benz-digest-request-at-digest.net To unsubscribe, include the word unsubscribe by itself in the body of the message, unless you are sending the request from a different address than the one that appears on the list. Include the word help in a message to stag-digest-request to get a list of other majordomo commands. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:30:09 -0700 From: john meister Subject: Re: [db] Re: Just saw a MB for sale I drove both down the same backroads for years... the 126 didn't have the same feeling... longer wheelbase... didn't feel quite right to me. Overall slightly nicer ride, but if I had to do some serious performance driving I'd prefer the 123 hands down over the 126. I was impressed by the size of those front springs on the 123... looks a lot more complicated then a Jeep suspension. ;) The 126's I've driven and owned just didn't have the same handling characteristics as the 123s I've owned... but like I said before, once you've had a 124 it'll be real hard to go back to either... :) john Robert Chase wrote: > Dunno John, > > I think they are about the same handling wise. The 123 is smaller but > the 126 is only about 100# heavier. The 123's suspension is simplistic > in comparision to the 126 suspension. While the 126 does have some > float factor It sticks to the road very well and is quite composed in > fast curves and turns. I think there is a big psychological factor > involved here. The 126 does look "huge" and obviously a bigger car > would handle worse than a smaller car. The weight is almost the same > and the 126 has a better suspension. It would be interesting to see > skidpad and handling results for both of these cars and see which one > really did handle better. :) > > Robert Chase > > > john wrote: > >> most of the 190's say either 190E or 190D. >> the gassers have 2, 2.3, 2.5... don't see any 2.2's in >> the Nitske book... could be an oiler dude. >> >> nice little rides, but 124's are much nicer... >> >> on the topic of 123 vs 126, I think the 123 handled >> much better then 126, the 126 tended to "float" on the >> backroads, but had a nicer, more "remote" feeling ride. >> >> The 201's are nimble... the 124 is just right... >> >> looks like I'll be in the bay area for three weeks teaching >> a Linux course... kevin, I'll be in touch. ;) it's down >> in Salinas... :) >> >> john >> >> On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Jim Hoffman wrote: >> >> >> >>> -->Hey John, >>> --> >>> --> I just a 190 for sale! I could only see the 2.2 badge on the >>> -->right side of the trunk. Was there a 2.2 gasser or would this >>> -->definately be a diesel?? I'm going to stop tonight and check it >>> -->out further... >>> --> >>> -->Jim/ >>> --> >>> --> >>> >> >> >> ---- >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ** http://wagoneers.com ** ** http://freegift.net ** >> Snohomish, Washington USA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold. >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:32:16 -0700 From: john meister Subject: Re: [db] Re: Just saw a MB for sale well, if I really wanted a performance vehicle I'd be looking at a different line of cars altogether... not sure what exactly, my bmw's were a lot more fun then any benz I've owned, but that is a "distant" memory in a land far, far away... the last bmw I looked at was a mid'80's 530i and it was a piece of junk... I'm in my Benz for economy... that it goes pretty fast and handles well is just an extra perk. :) john Robert Chase wrote: >> they're not as much fun... I had one, don't even look at 'em >> any more... >> >> > They were never built as a performance car. Neither were your 201 or > 124. Perhaps you should look into an E500 or an S55AMG or something > that was built as a perfomance platform. :) > > Robert. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:37:49 -0700 From: Kevin Pekarek Subject: Re: [db] Re: Just saw a MB for sale On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 04:26:33PM -0700, john meister wrote: > I wonder if "normal" people ever activate their ABS... :) I only have one car with ABS, the patrol car (odd, since at the time they were still teaching cops cadence braking, which doesn't work with ABS). I've gotten the ABS to come on several times, and all of them were rather inopportune. For as big as that car is, it really holds its own rather well. Fortunately, the 190D does not have ABS. Then again, I am far from normal. :) K - -- Kevin Pekarek Redwood City, CA (near San Francisco) and Los Osos, CA (near San Luis Obispo) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:43:00 -0700 From: Kevin Pekarek Subject: Re: [db] Re: Just saw a MB for sale On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 07:02:33PM -0400, Robert Chase wrote: > I think they are about the same handling wise. The 123 is smaller but > the 126 is only about 100# heavier. The 123's suspension is simplistic > in comparision to the 126 suspension. While the 126 does have some > float factor It sticks to the road very well and is quite composed in > fast curves and turns. I think there is a big psychological factor > involved here. The 126 does look "huge" and obviously a bigger car > would handle worse than a smaller car. The weight is almost the same > and the 126 has a better suspension. It would be interesting to see > skidpad and handling results for both of these cars and see which one > really did handle better. :) Wow. only 100 lbs heavier? I guess they really DID build those 123s like tanks :) As far as a bigger car handling worse, that is not necessarily the case. Often times, a slightly longer wheelbase can lend a lot to handling, especially if there is not a weight penalty. K - -- Kevin Pekarek Redwood City, CA (near San Francisco) and Los Osos, CA (near San Luis Obispo) 85 190D (601, 5spd) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 19:45:16 -0400 From: Robert Chase Subject: Re: [db] Re: Just saw a MB for sale Perhaps, Personal preference comes into play I guess. I think the 124's are great cars I just dont like how disposable they get when its time for an engine overhaul. The engine overhaul issue completely kills the car for me. I dont look at either the 123 or the 126 as a performance car. Any recent Japanese econobox can easily outhandle and outrun either car. That of course is if you dont have the V8 in the 126. Robert Chase john meister wrote: > I drove both down the same backroads for years... the 126 didn't > have the same feeling... longer wheelbase... didn't feel quite > right to me. Overall slightly nicer ride, but if I had to do > some serious performance driving I'd prefer the 123 hands down > over the 126. I was impressed by the size of those front springs > on the 123... looks a lot more complicated then a Jeep suspension. ;) > > The 126's I've driven and owned just didn't have the same handling > characteristics as the 123s I've owned... > > but like I said before, once you've had a 124 it'll be real hard to > go back to either... :) > > john > > Robert Chase wrote: > >> Dunno John, >> >> I think they are about the same handling wise. The 123 is smaller >> but the 126 is only about 100# heavier. The 123's suspension is >> simplistic in comparision to the 126 suspension. While the 126 does >> have some float factor It sticks to the road very well and is quite >> composed in fast curves and turns. I think there is a big >> psychological factor involved here. The 126 does look "huge" and >> obviously a bigger car would handle worse than a smaller car. The >> weight is almost the same and the 126 has a better suspension. It >> would be interesting to see skidpad and handling results for both of >> these cars and see which one really did handle better. :) >> >> Robert Chase >> >> >> john wrote: >> >>> most of the 190's say either 190E or 190D. >>> the gassers have 2, 2.3, 2.5... don't see any 2.2's in >>> the Nitske book... could be an oiler dude. >>> >>> nice little rides, but 124's are much nicer... >>> >>> on the topic of 123 vs 126, I think the 123 handled >>> much better then 126, the 126 tended to "float" on the >>> backroads, but had a nicer, more "remote" feeling ride. >>> >>> The 201's are nimble... the 124 is just right... >>> >>> looks like I'll be in the bay area for three weeks teaching >>> a Linux course... kevin, I'll be in touch. ;) it's down >>> in Salinas... :) >>> >>> john >>> >>> On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Jim Hoffman wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> -->Hey John, >>>> --> >>>> --> I just a 190 for sale! I could only see the 2.2 badge on the >>>> -->right side of the trunk. Was there a 2.2 gasser or would this >>>> -->definately be a diesel?? I'm going to stop tonight and check it >>>> -->out further... >>>> --> >>>> -->Jim/ >>>> --> >>>> --> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ---- >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> ** http://wagoneers.com ** ** http://freegift.net ** >>> Snohomish, Washington USA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold. >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 19:48:27 -0400 From: Robert Chase Subject: Re: [db] Re: Just saw a MB for sale Actually, I could easily be convinced to turn to the darkside for a 90's vintage BMW 525. If I did not have my 126 I would probably be driving a 5 series. When I was still buying new cars I came really close to ordering a new 525. Thank goodness I left my checkbook behind that day :) Robert Chase john meister wrote: > well, if I really wanted a performance vehicle I'd be looking > at a different line of cars altogether... not sure what exactly, > my bmw's were a lot more fun then any benz I've owned, but that > is a "distant" memory in a land far, far away... the last bmw > I looked at was a mid'80's 530i and it was a piece of junk... > > I'm in my Benz for economy... that it goes pretty fast and handles > well is just an extra perk. :) > > john > > Robert Chase wrote: > >>> they're not as much fun... I had one, don't even look at 'em >>> any more... >>> >>> >> They were never built as a performance car. Neither were your 201 or >> 124. Perhaps you should look into an E500 or an S55AMG or something >> that was built as a perfomance platform. :) >> >> Robert. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 19:50:53 -0400 From: Robert Chase Subject: Re: [db] Re: Just saw a MB for sale Yeah, My brother and I were perplexed how my "barge" was so much faster than his 123. We came down to the fact that there is not much of a weight difference between the cars and the 126 is geared better. Robert Chase Kevin Pekarek wrote: >On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 07:02:33PM -0400, Robert Chase wrote: > > >>I think they are about the same handling wise. The 123 is smaller but >>the 126 is only about 100# heavier. The 123's suspension is simplistic >>in comparision to the 126 suspension. While the 126 does have some >>float factor It sticks to the road very well and is quite composed in >>fast curves and turns. I think there is a big psychological factor >>involved here. The 126 does look "huge" and obviously a bigger car >>would handle worse than a smaller car. The weight is almost the same >>and the 126 has a better suspension. It would be interesting to see >>skidpad and handling results for both of these cars and see which one >>really did handle better. :) >> >> > >Wow. only 100 lbs heavier? I guess they really DID build those 123s like >tanks :) > >As far as a bigger car handling worse, that is not necessarily the case. >Often times, a slightly longer wheelbase can lend a lot to handling, >especially if there is not a weight penalty. > >K ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 19:53:42 -0400 From: Robert Chase Subject: Re: [db] Re: Just saw a MB for sale An After thought, Have you ever looked "under" a 126? While the 123 has a full metal bumper the 126 was the first mercedes with a plastic bumper. Underneath the plastic bumpers is nothing but air. They put chrome on the top to make it look more substantial but the bumper itself is small with plastic facia for better aerodynamics. Robert Chase Kevin Pekarek wrote: >On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 07:02:33PM -0400, Robert Chase wrote: > > >>I think they are about the same handling wise. The 123 is smaller but >>the 126 is only about 100# heavier. The 123's suspension is simplistic >>in comparision to the 126 suspension. While the 126 does have some >>float factor It sticks to the road very well and is quite composed in >>fast curves and turns. I think there is a big psychological factor >>involved here. The 126 does look "huge" and obviously a bigger car >>would handle worse than a smaller car. The weight is almost the same >>and the 126 has a better suspension. It would be interesting to see >>skidpad and handling results for both of these cars and see which one >>really did handle better. :) >> >> > >Wow. only 100 lbs heavier? I guess they really DID build those 123s like >tanks :) > >As far as a bigger car handling worse, that is not necessarily the case. >Often times, a slightly longer wheelbase can lend a lot to handling, >especially if there is not a weight penalty. > >K ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 17:05:20 -0700 (PDT) From: john Subject: Re: [db] Re: Just saw a MB for sale Although I did witness ONE accident that turned out without injury that could have been fatal if it hadn't been for ABS... heading up 203 into Lake Stevens I was behind a late model pontiac grand am cruising along in my Diesel (non-benz, but hey, it WAS a Diesel) and a blonde in a toyota suddenly, and I mean SUDDENLY decided that she wanted to turn left from the right lane onto a road... at 55mph... she vectored the grand am on a course directly for a solid wall of washington state... of course it was raining... anyway, the gal in the grand am was able to steer to the left of the rather large embankment and get it into the ditch and stop before the utility poles... there is NO way she could have done that without ABS, of that I'm certain... my Diesel locked up the tires so fast and hard I killed the engine... the gal driving the grand am was praising the ABS, I agreed completely... She HAD to brake hard AND turn or the impact into that hillside would have been a major mess... It happened fast and thankfully no one was coming down the hill... there was only one lane coming down hill and making the hard left was safer then trying to straighten back out... the ditches up here are brutal... large rocks for water run off... I don't remember what the blonde said, but it was typical... her toyota vectored off the road in the other direction, I think she hit a mailbox... and ended up in the rocky ditch on the other side... So, all things considered, I think that ABS does offer some real benefits... but when I'm coming down my hillside in my Jeep I don't appreciate them. ;) john On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Robert Chase wrote: >-->Kevin Pekarek wrote: >--> >-->>ABS is the worst thing put into cars from a handling perspective. It >-->>removes feel in the brakes, and actually makes the car take longer to >-->>stop. Yes, I know, 95% of the population would just lock up their brakes >-->>and be far worse off. >-->> >-->>Ever try ABS in loose dirt, sand, or mud? you can measure the difference >-->>between abs and normal braking in feet. >-->> >-->> >-->> >-->I hate ABS too. Its more of a marketing gimick than anything. ABS is >-->useful if you apply hard braking in a turn on slick surface but if your >-->putting you brakes on during a turn you should probably either learn how >-->to drive or be a little more observant and look around the curve before >-->entering it at a high speed :) >--> >-->Robert Chase >--> >--> >--> ---- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** http://wagoneers.com ** ** http://freegift.net ** Snohomish, Washington USA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 19:20:11 -0500 From: "Alec Cordova" Subject: [db] 126 vs 123, with a dash of 201 for dessert Now I've never owned a W126, but I thought the suspensions of the W123 and W126 were quite similar. I'm more sure of the back end, where both used a semi-trailing arm setup. I thought the fronts used the same basic layout, maybe just slightly resized on the bigger car. As to speed differences on a W123 300D and a W126 300SD, there was a lot of variance in the actual output of the OM617 turbodiesel. From somewhere deep in the back of my mind, the numbers that emerge are that specification allowed for up to 0.9 bar of boost, but the engines came out ranging between 0.6 and 0.9 bar (or wear and tear over the years has left most of them in that range). This is why the OM617 turbodiesel can be tweaked by judicious adjustment of the ALDA and the wastegate (or some other overpressure relief system). They can often be cranked up to almost a full 1.0 bar of boost. If the ALDA is set to take full advantage of all that extra air by telling the fuel injection pump to push in correspondingly more fuel, these cars can move surprisingly fast. There may even be ways to adjust how soon the turbo and the fuel enrichment kick in, overcoming one of John's concerns about using this motor in a Jeep. The W126 may have had a slightly different exhaust configuration, allowing just a little more power, but I understood the engines and trannies to be otherwise basically a match. I don't know about rear axle ratios. And finally (for now), I wonder if Robert's description of the W126 bumper may in fact apply only to the 1986+ version. Didn't the earlier ones (like John's with the square headlights) have full metal bodies underneath the bumpers? Nope. One other "finally": Most of the W123s and W126s that we drive today could use some serious work repairing worn suspension parts. I'm not sure I really know what a W123 chassis felt like when it was brand new, but it was probably a much better performer than what I have experienced. Oh yeah. For my third and hopefully final "finally", let me just say this: 190E 2.3-16 (and later 2.5-16). Alec ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 17:11:37 -0700 (PDT) From: john Subject: Re: [db] Re: Just saw a MB for sale On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Robert Chase wrote: >-->Perhaps, >--> >-->Personal preference comes into play I guess. I think the 124's are >-->great cars I just dont like how disposable they get when its time for an >-->engine overhaul. The engine overhaul issue completely kills the car for >-->me. I dont look at either the 123 or the 126 as a performance car. Any >-->recent Japanese econobox can easily outhandle and outrun either car. >-->That of course is if you dont have the V8 in the 126. I disagree with you about the japanese econoboxes... my Jeep does better then most of them... and my benzes will flat out leave one in the ditch... Where I worked for a while we had an interesting road that offered some great challenges. :) My '88 cherokee in full time 4wd mode, 30x9.5's, and two inches of lift did better coming through some serious curves at speed then my buddies warmed over rice rocket type sports car... he understeered across a couple of lanes and I was very tempted to blow by him on the inside but since it was a blind corner I didn't want to make the both of us look stupid by ending up in the newspaper and a police report, or much worse hurting a fellow employee coming into work... It might be the driver, but those little econoboxes don't handle well at all... The suspension gets real squirrely when pressed on rough surfaces... Jeeps and Mercedes seem to build systems that work a bit better. ;) john >--> >-->Robert Chase >--> >--> >-->john meister wrote: >--> >-->> I drove both down the same backroads for years... the 126 didn't >-->> have the same feeling... longer wheelbase... didn't feel quite >-->> right to me. Overall slightly nicer ride, but if I had to do >-->> some serious performance driving I'd prefer the 123 hands down >-->> over the 126. I was impressed by the size of those front springs >-->> on the 123... looks a lot more complicated then a Jeep suspension. ;) >-->> >-->> The 126's I've driven and owned just didn't have the same handling >-->> characteristics as the 123s I've owned... >-->> >-->> but like I said before, once you've had a 124 it'll be real hard to >-->> go back to either... :) >-->> >-->> john >-->> >-->> Robert Chase wrote: >-->> >-->>> Dunno John, >-->>> >-->>> I think they are about the same handling wise. The 123 is smaller >-->>> but the 126 is only about 100# heavier. The 123's suspension is >-->>> simplistic in comparision to the 126 suspension. While the 126 does >-->>> have some float factor It sticks to the road very well and is quite >-->>> composed in fast curves and turns. I think there is a big >-->>> psychological factor involved here. The 126 does look "huge" and >-->>> obviously a bigger car would handle worse than a smaller car. The >-->>> weight is almost the same and the 126 has a better suspension. It >-->>> would be interesting to see skidpad and handling results for both of >-->>> these cars and see which one really did handle better. :) >-->>> >-->>> Robert Chase >-->>> >-->>> >-->>> john wrote: >-->>> >-->>>> most of the 190's say either 190E or 190D. >-->>>> the gassers have 2, 2.3, 2.5... don't see any 2.2's in >-->>>> the Nitske book... could be an oiler dude. >-->>>> >-->>>> nice little rides, but 124's are much nicer... >-->>>> >-->>>> on the topic of 123 vs 126, I think the 123 handled >-->>>> much better then 126, the 126 tended to "float" on the >-->>>> backroads, but had a nicer, more "remote" feeling ride. >-->>>> >-->>>> The 201's are nimble... the 124 is just right... >-->>>> >-->>>> looks like I'll be in the bay area for three weeks teaching >-->>>> a Linux course... kevin, I'll be in touch. ;) it's down >-->>>> in Salinas... :) >-->>>> >-->>>> john >-->>>> >-->>>> On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Jim Hoffman wrote: >-->>>> >-->>>> >-->>>> >-->>>>> -->Hey John, >-->>>>> --> >-->>>>> --> I just a 190 for sale! I could only see the 2.2 badge on the >-->>>>> -->right side of the trunk. Was there a 2.2 gasser or would this >-->>>>> -->definately be a diesel?? I'm going to stop tonight and check it >-->>>>> -->out further... >-->>>>> --> >-->>>>> -->Jim/ >-->>>>> --> >-->>>>> --> >-->>>>> >-->>>> >-->>>> >-->>>> >-->>>> ---- >-->>>> >-->>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >-->>>> >-->>>> ** http://wagoneers.com ** ** http://freegift.net ** >-->>>> Snohomish, Washington USA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold. >-->>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >-->>>> >-->>> >-->> >-->> >--> >--> ---- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** http://wagoneers.com ** ** http://freegift.net ** Snohomish, Washington USA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of diesel-benz-digest V1 #1419 **********************************