From owner-diesel-benz-digest-at-digest.net Wed Jan 11 19:10:50 2006 From: diesel-benz-digest diesel-benz-digest Thursday, January 12 2006 Volume 01 : Number 2070 Forum for Discussion of Diesel Mercedes Benz Automobiles Derick Amburgey Digest Coordinator Contents: [db] Re: 190 front springs Re: [db] 44.6 mpg Re: [db] 44.6 mpg Re: [db] 44.6 mpg Re: [db] Torque Re: [db] 44.6 mpg RE: [db] 44.6 mpg Re: [db] 44.6 mpg 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: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 01:58:55 -0500 From: "wmpless" Subject: [db] Re: 190 front springs Hi, on 2 W201s I changed the front shocks and in both cases I did not use a spring compressor. Feel, the work can be done safely as follows: loosen wheel lugs, jack up car and secure it, remove wheel, place another jack under wish bone and slowly jack up assembly, stop jacking up when the body starts to lift off the stand, remove nut from the top of the shock, hold shaft off shock with an Allen key. Slowly lower jack located under wish bone and after a while the coil spring will have no tension on it and can be removed. There is no danger that the coil spring will fly out. Prefer this method over a coil spring compressor of dubious quality. Have not tried it but read of foll. method: open the hood, have a couple of friends sitting on the fender on the side you want to remove the coil spring, remove the nut on top of the shock shaft and then the friends, one by one carefully slide of the fender. Then you jack up the car, remove the wheel and the spring. Definitely, prefer the way I have done it. Cheers PS also a good time to replace the rebound stops on the shock shaft. On an older car they disintegrated a long time ago ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 11:48:51 -0500 From: "J.B. Hebert" Subject: Re: [db] 44.6 mpg If you have a TD, it is the 3.0 turbo 6. These engines were very powerful for a diesel at the time, but not the most economical. Bruce's car has the 2.5 turbo 5. Less displacement, less power, more economy. Given identical cars in sedan and wagon form, the wagon will get poorer economy because of the added weight and the self-leveling suspension (which requires a second hydraulic pump to drag on the motor). J.B. At 07:29 PM 1/10/2006, you wrote: >Bruce: > >44 MPG - Wow...what speeds did you drive at and what is the road >like. I have the same year, same model, recently re-timing chained >and adjusted engine and it NEVER gets better than 33 MPG (it is a TD >tho). I comute a cycle that is 10 minutes B highway, 20 minutes >autobahn and 10 minutes city stop and go each way, I have figured my >speeds average 50/73/30 MPH per leg, rolling hills and flatland. I >have to find out what you are doing right and duplicate >it!!!! Does the "D" versus "TD" make that much of a difference?? > >Edward > >Bruce Caruthers wrote: > >>So, Brooke and I went out for a long, scenic drive >>today, since the 300D had been feeling sluggish >>lately. Popped up to Lake Samish and Bellingham >>area. Highway to and from, lots of local driving >>there. >> >>Topped off the tank on the way home (had filled up >>before heading out). We got 174.4 miles on 3.915 >>gallons, which calculates out to 44.55 mpg!!! >> >>Definitely happy. We typically get around 29-31 mpg >>city, which is still pretty good for a full-size, >>13-year old, sedan, methinks... >> >>-bkc >>Lynnwood, WA >>'76 MB 240D [W115.117/616.916] >>'93 MB 300D 2.5 Turbo [W124.128/602.962] (replaces ML) >>'92 Toyota Celica GT (wife's old car) >>'00 MB ML320 [W163.154/M112.942] (to be sold) > > > > > >-- >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/226 - Release Date: 1/10/2006 - -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/226 - Release Date: 1/10/2006 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 13:18:08 -0500 From: "Jim Hoffman" Subject: Re: [db] 44.6 mpg What years would basicly be that same car? I mean, if anyone else is like me, that might be a car at the top of my list along with the TDI VW's. So the year range would be nice to know. TIA! Jim > If you have a TD, it is the 3.0 turbo 6. These engines were very > powerful for a diesel at the time, but not the most > economical. Bruce's car has the 2.5 turbo 5. Less displacement, > less power, more economy. Given identical cars in sedan and wagon > form, the wagon will get poorer economy because of the added weight > and the self-leveling suspension (which requires a second hydraulic > pump to drag on the motor). > > J.B. > > At 07:29 PM 1/10/2006, you wrote: > > >Bruce: > > > >44 MPG - Wow...what speeds did you drive at and what is the road > >like. I have the same year, same model, recently re-timing chained > >and adjusted engine and it NEVER gets better than 33 MPG (it is a TD > >tho). I comute a cycle that is 10 minutes B highway, 20 minutes > >autobahn and 10 minutes city stop and go each way, I have figured my > >speeds average 50/73/30 MPH per leg, rolling hills and flatland. I > >have to find out what you are doing right and duplicate > >it!!!! Does the "D" versus "TD" make that much of a difference?? > > > >Edward > > > >Bruce Caruthers wrote: > > > >>So, Brooke and I went out for a long, scenic drive > >>today, since the 300D had been feeling sluggish > >>lately. Popped up to Lake Samish and Bellingham > >>area. Highway to and from, lots of local driving > >>there. > >> > >>Topped off the tank on the way home (had filled up > >>before heading out). We got 174.4 miles on 3.915 > >>gallons, which calculates out to 44.55 mpg!!! > >> > >>Definitely happy. We typically get around 29-31 mpg > >>city, which is still pretty good for a full-size, > >>13-year old, sedan, methinks... > >> > >>-bkc > >>Lynnwood, WA > >>'76 MB 240D [W115.117/616.916] > >>'93 MB 300D 2.5 Turbo [W124.128/602.962] (replaces ML) > >>'92 Toyota Celica GT (wife's old car) > >>'00 MB ML320 [W163.154/M112.942] (to be sold) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 13:26:48 -0500 From: "J.B. Hebert" Subject: Re: [db] 44.6 mpg I believe the 2.5 liter turbo was available from '89 to '93 in the 124 chassis, sedan only (in the US). J.B. At 01:18 PM 1/11/2006, you wrote: >What years would basicly be that same car? I mean, if anyone else >is like me, that might be a car at the top of my list along with the >TDI VW's. So the year range would be nice to know. > >TIA! > >Jim > > > If you have a TD, it is the 3.0 turbo 6. These engines were very > > powerful for a diesel at the time, but not the most > > economical. Bruce's car has the 2.5 turbo 5. Less displacement, > > less power, more economy. Given identical cars in sedan and wagon > > form, the wagon will get poorer economy because of the added weight > > and the self-leveling suspension (which requires a second hydraulic > > pump to drag on the motor). > > > > J.B. > > > > At 07:29 PM 1/10/2006, you wrote: > > > > >Bruce: > > > > > >44 MPG - Wow...what speeds did you drive at and what is the road > > >like. I have the same year, same model, recently re-timing chained > > >and adjusted engine and it NEVER gets better than 33 MPG (it is a TD > > >tho). I comute a cycle that is 10 minutes B highway, 20 minutes > > >autobahn and 10 minutes city stop and go each way, I have figured my > > >speeds average 50/73/30 MPH per leg, rolling hills and flatland. I > > >have to find out what you are doing right and duplicate > > >it!!!! Does the "D" versus "TD" make that much of a difference?? > > > > > >Edward > > > > > >Bruce Caruthers wrote: > > > > > >>So, Brooke and I went out for a long, scenic drive > > >>today, since the 300D had been feeling sluggish > > >>lately. Popped up to Lake Samish and Bellingham > > >>area. Highway to and from, lots of local driving > > >>there. > > >> > > >>Topped off the tank on the way home (had filled up > > >>before heading out). We got 174.4 miles on 3.915 > > >>gallons, which calculates out to 44.55 mpg!!! > > >> > > >>Definitely happy. We typically get around 29-31 mpg > > >>city, which is still pretty good for a full-size, > > >>13-year old, sedan, methinks... > > >> > > >>-bkc > > >>Lynnwood, WA > > >>'76 MB 240D [W115.117/616.916] > > >>'93 MB 300D 2.5 Turbo [W124.128/602.962] (replaces ML) > > >>'92 Toyota Celica GT (wife's old car) > > >>'00 MB ML320 [W163.154/M112.942] (to be sold) > > > > > >-- >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/226 - Release Date: 1/10/2006 - -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/226 - Release Date: 1/10/2006 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 15:31:50 -0300 From: "Renaud (Ron) Olgiati" Subject: Re: [db] Torque On Friday 16 December 2005 10:39, my mailbox was graced by a missive from Paul Brown Paul Brown who wrote:: >Actually, cubic centimeters make a pretty good substitute for cubic >inches, as do liters. You just need to remember to divide the cubic >centimeters by 2.543. :-) I'd have thought you would have remembered to divide the cubic centimeters by 41.6 ;-3p Cheers, Ron. - -- See, these two penguins walked into a bar, which was really stupid, 'cause the second one should have seen it. -- http://www.olgiati-in-paraguay.org -- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:57:59 -0500 From: Edward Pomeroy Subject: Re: [db] 44.6 mpg Mine is the 1993 300 D with the 2.5 turbo engine, I was assuming JB had a normally aspirated type. Since it appears his is indeed the same 124 body and TF engine, still need to know what is operating right on his and not on mine :-( Edward J.B. Hebert wrote: > I believe the 2.5 liter turbo was available from '89 to '93 in the 124 > chassis, sedan only (in the US). > > J.B. > > At 01:18 PM 1/11/2006, you wrote: > >> What years would basicly be that same car? I mean, if anyone else >> is like me, that might be a car at the top of my list along with the >> TDI VW's. So the year range would be nice to know. >> >> TIA! >> >> Jim >> >> > If you have a TD, it is the 3.0 turbo 6. These engines were very >> > powerful for a diesel at the time, but not the most >> > economical. Bruce's car has the 2.5 turbo 5. Less displacement, >> > less power, more economy. Given identical cars in sedan and wagon >> > form, the wagon will get poorer economy because of the added weight >> > and the self-leveling suspension (which requires a second hydraulic >> > pump to drag on the motor). >> > >> > J.B. >> > >> > At 07:29 PM 1/10/2006, you wrote: >> > >> > >Bruce: >> > > >> > >44 MPG - Wow...what speeds did you drive at and what is the road >> > >like. I have the same year, same model, recently re-timing chained >> > >and adjusted engine and it NEVER gets better than 33 MPG (it is a TD >> > >tho). I comute a cycle that is 10 minutes B highway, 20 minutes >> > >autobahn and 10 minutes city stop and go each way, I have figured my >> > >speeds average 50/73/30 MPH per leg, rolling hills and flatland. I >> > >have to find out what you are doing right and duplicate >> > >it!!!! Does the "D" versus "TD" make that much of a difference?? >> > > >> > >Edward >> > > >> > >Bruce Caruthers wrote: >> > > >> > >>So, Brooke and I went out for a long, scenic drive >> > >>today, since the 300D had been feeling sluggish >> > >>lately. Popped up to Lake Samish and Bellingham >> > >>area. Highway to and from, lots of local driving >> > >>there. >> > >> >> > >>Topped off the tank on the way home (had filled up >> > >>before heading out). We got 174.4 miles on 3.915 >> > >>gallons, which calculates out to 44.55 mpg!!! >> > >> >> > >>Definitely happy. We typically get around 29-31 mpg >> > >>city, which is still pretty good for a full-size, >> > >>13-year old, sedan, methinks... >> > >> >> > >>-bkc >> > >>Lynnwood, WA >> > >>'76 MB 240D [W115.117/616.916] >> > >>'93 MB 300D 2.5 Turbo [W124.128/602.962] (replaces ML) >> > >>'92 Toyota Celica GT (wife's old car) >> > >>'00 MB ML320 [W163.154/M112.942] (to be sold) >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >> Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/226 - Release Date: >> 1/10/2006 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:07:41 -0600 From: "Alec Cordova" Subject: RE: [db] 44.6 mpg May have been an almost exclusively highway run. My 89 300CE with 198K gets 20-21mpg for my standard driving, but I did a trip from Austin down to Houston over Thanksgiving. Takes just about one full tank, and I got a solid 27.5, so maybe 30+% better. Add 30% to your 33 and you get his 44. It's feasible. Alec Cordova Taylor, Texas 89 300CE, 198K, and just stop all your whining right now about only getting 33mpg ;-) > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-diesel-benz-at-digest.net > [mailto:owner-diesel-benz-at-digest.net]On Behalf Of Edward Pomeroy > Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 7:58 PM > To: J.B. Hebert > Cc: jslash-at-execpc.com; diesel-benz-at-digest.net > Subject: Re: [db] 44.6 mpg > > > Mine is the 1993 300 D with the 2.5 turbo engine, I was assuming JB had > a normally aspirated type. Since it appears his is indeed the same 124 > body and TF engine, still need to know what is operating right on his > and not on mine :-( > > Edward > > J.B. Hebert wrote: > > > I believe the 2.5 liter turbo was available from '89 to '93 in the 124 > > chassis, sedan only (in the US). > > > > J.B. > > > > At 01:18 PM 1/11/2006, you wrote: > > > >> What years would basicly be that same car? I mean, if anyone else > >> is like me, that might be a car at the top of my list along with the > >> TDI VW's. So the year range would be nice to know. > >> > >> TIA! > >> > >> Jim > >> > >> > If you have a TD, it is the 3.0 turbo 6. These engines were very > >> > powerful for a diesel at the time, but not the most > >> > economical. Bruce's car has the 2.5 turbo 5. Less displacement, > >> > less power, more economy. Given identical cars in sedan and wagon > >> > form, the wagon will get poorer economy because of the added weight > >> > and the self-leveling suspension (which requires a second hydraulic > >> > pump to drag on the motor). > >> > > >> > J.B. > >> > > >> > At 07:29 PM 1/10/2006, you wrote: > >> > > >> > >Bruce: > >> > > > >> > >44 MPG - Wow...what speeds did you drive at and what is the road > >> > >like. I have the same year, same model, recently re-timing chained > >> > >and adjusted engine and it NEVER gets better than 33 MPG (it is a TD > >> > >tho). I comute a cycle that is 10 minutes B highway, 20 minutes > >> > >autobahn and 10 minutes city stop and go each way, I have figured my > >> > >speeds average 50/73/30 MPH per leg, rolling hills and flatland. I > >> > >have to find out what you are doing right and duplicate > >> > >it!!!! Does the "D" versus "TD" make that much of a difference?? > >> > > > >> > >Edward > >> > > > >> > >Bruce Caruthers wrote: > >> > > > >> > >>So, Brooke and I went out for a long, scenic drive > >> > >>today, since the 300D had been feeling sluggish > >> > >>lately. Popped up to Lake Samish and Bellingham > >> > >>area. Highway to and from, lots of local driving > >> > >>there. > >> > >> > >> > >>Topped off the tank on the way home (had filled up > >> > >>before heading out). We got 174.4 miles on 3.915 > >> > >>gallons, which calculates out to 44.55 mpg!!! > >> > >> > >> > >>Definitely happy. We typically get around 29-31 mpg > >> > >>city, which is still pretty good for a full-size, > >> > >>13-year old, sedan, methinks... > >> > >> > >> > >>-bkc > >> > >>Lynnwood, WA > >> > >>'76 MB 240D [W115.117/616.916] > >> > >>'93 MB 300D 2.5 Turbo [W124.128/602.962] (replaces ML) > >> > >>'92 Toyota Celica GT (wife's old car) > >> > >>'00 MB ML320 [W163.154/M112.942] (to be sold) > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> No virus found in this incoming message. > >> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > >> Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/226 - Release Date: > >> 1/10/2006 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 02:52:09 +0000 From: Bruce Caruthers Subject: Re: [db] 44.6 mpg 1993 300D 2.5 Turbo sedan (had a general cleanup and valve check (adjustment?) just before Thanksgiving by Jim Startup, other than that, no major changes since its repairs back in Minneapolis) As for percentages, let's see... I-5 Exit 181 to Exit 240-something (247? South Lake Samish) Bunch of leisurely wandering around the woodsy roads there (fairly low speed but little stop & start) Then from there to Exit 252 (Bellingham) Misc wandering, a few stops (including car off/on) Exit 250 back down to Exit 189 So, about (66+5+63) 134 miles highway, although broken up a bit by local stuff, out of the 174.4. We've done the overall drive a few times in this car (we pop up to Vancouver, BC regularly) with only the usual 31 mpg. And, of course, we drove it here from Downers Grove, IL, but it wasn't in the best of shape during that (still got 30-31 mpg at the lowest, even when the alternator was broken, and got 35 mpg during a stretch over one of the passes in western Montana) As a possibly-related note, I know back in NY I often found that my family's Acura got much better mileage during its first quarter tank than it did by the half tank. Don't know if that matters here. Normally I fill up around half tank, this was only a quarter down. Cheers, -bkc Lynnwood, WA '76 MB 240D [W115.117/616.916] '93 MB 300D 2.5 Turbo [W124.128/602.962] (replaces ML) '92 Toyota Celica GT (wife's old car) '00 MB ML320 [W163.154/M112.942] (to be sold) On Wed Jan 11, 2006, Alec Cordova wrote: > May have been an almost exclusively highway run. My 89 300CE with 198K gets > 20-21mpg for my standard driving, but I did a trip from Austin down to > Houston over Thanksgiving. Takes just about one full tank, and I got a solid > 27.5, so maybe 30+% better. Add 30% to your 33 and you get his 44. It's > feasible. > > Alec Cordova > Taylor, Texas > 89 300CE, 198K, and just stop all your whining right now about only getting > 33mpg ;-) > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-diesel-benz-at-digest.net > > [mailto:owner-diesel-benz-at-digest.net]On Behalf Of Edward Pomeroy > > Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 7:58 PM > > To: J.B. Hebert > > Cc: jslash-at-execpc.com; diesel-benz-at-digest.net > > Subject: Re: [db] 44.6 mpg > > > > > > Mine is the 1993 300 D with the 2.5 turbo engine, I was assuming JB had > > a normally aspirated type. Since it appears his is indeed the same 124 > > body and TF engine, still need to know what is operating right on his > > and not on mine :-( > > > > Edward > > > > J.B. Hebert wrote: > > > > > I believe the 2.5 liter turbo was available from '89 to '93 in the 124 > > > chassis, sedan only (in the US). > > > > > > J.B. > > > > > > At 01:18 PM 1/11/2006, you wrote: > > > > > >> What years would basicly be that same car? I mean, if anyone else > > >> is like me, that might be a car at the top of my list along with the > > >> TDI VW's. So the year range would be nice to know. > > >> > > >> TIA! > > >> > > >> Jim > > >> > > >> > If you have a TD, it is the 3.0 turbo 6. These engines were very > > >> > powerful for a diesel at the time, but not the most > > >> > economical. Bruce's car has the 2.5 turbo 5. Less displacement, > > >> > less power, more economy. Given identical cars in sedan and wagon > > >> > form, the wagon will get poorer economy because of the added weight > > >> > and the self-leveling suspension (which requires a second hydraulic > > >> > pump to drag on the motor). > > >> > > > >> > J.B. > > >> > > > >> > At 07:29 PM 1/10/2006, you wrote: > > >> > > > >> > >Bruce: > > >> > > > > >> > >44 MPG - Wow...what speeds did you drive at and what is the road > > >> > >like. I have the same year, same model, recently re-timing chained > > >> > >and adjusted engine and it NEVER gets better than 33 MPG (it is a TD > > >> > >tho). I comute a cycle that is 10 minutes B highway, 20 minutes > > >> > >autobahn and 10 minutes city stop and go each way, I have figured my > > >> > >speeds average 50/73/30 MPH per leg, rolling hills and flatland. I > > >> > >have to find out what you are doing right and duplicate > > >> > >it!!!! Does the "D" versus "TD" make that much of a difference?? > > >> > > > > >> > >Edward > > >> > > > > >> > >Bruce Caruthers wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > >>So, Brooke and I went out for a long, scenic drive > > >> > >>today, since the 300D had been feeling sluggish > > >> > >>lately. Popped up to Lake Samish and Bellingham > > >> > >>area. Highway to and from, lots of local driving > > >> > >>there. > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Topped off the tank on the way home (had filled up > > >> > >>before heading out). We got 174.4 miles on 3.915 > > >> > >>gallons, which calculates out to 44.55 mpg!!! > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Definitely happy. We typically get around 29-31 mpg > > >> > >>city, which is still pretty good for a full-size, > > >> > >>13-year old, sedan, methinks... > > >> > >> > > >> > >>-bkc > > >> > >>Lynnwood, WA > > >> > >>'76 MB 240D [W115.117/616.916] > > >> > >>'93 MB 300D 2.5 Turbo [W124.128/602.962] (replaces ML) > > >> > >>'92 Toyota Celica GT (wife's old car) > > >> > >>'00 MB ML320 [W163.154/M112.942] (to be sold) ------------------------------ End of diesel-benz-digest V1 #2070 **********************************