what does your RPM read at?
07-28-2004, 11:51 PM
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The transmissions are completely different. We're comparing the electronic 726.xxx series(apples) to the old mechanical used since '60's and '70's 722.xxx series(oranges) transmissions.
The differentials should be checked underneath the car, scrape off the grease, and look for yourself. I was always confused as to whether the 320 used the 2.87, like the diesel E300(non-turbo 4 sp.).
The differentials should be checked underneath the car, scrape off the grease, and look for yourself. I was always confused as to whether the 320 used the 2.87, like the diesel E300(non-turbo 4 sp.).
Last edited by DslBnz; 07-28-2004 at 11:55 PM.
07-29-2004, 04:24 PM
#29
Super Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Murrieta, Southern California
Posts: 783
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Late Built 2005 W-211 E-320 CDI
Correct readings for 3.08 gears with overdrive.
That would be correct for a post '96 W-210 E-300 TD or E-320 because they both have 3.08s. Now if yours was an W-210 E-420/E-430, you'd have 2.82s which still aren't "tall" enough for me.
Mine has enough torque to have the 2.65s that MBZ finally included in the new W-211 2005 E-320 CDIs. Makes for very relaxed cruising to be sure.
The new car will be doing 101 mph where mine is doing only 86.5 mph at 3000 rpm!
07-29-2004, 10:24 PM
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Green E-300 DT
That would be correct for a post '96 W-210 E-300 TD or E-320 because they both have 3.08s. Now if yours was an W-210 E-420/E-430, you'd have 2.82s which still aren't "tall" enough for me.
Mine has enough torque to have the 2.65s that MBZ finally included in the new W-211 2005 E-320 CDIs. Makes for very relaxed cruising to be sure.
The new car will be doing 101 mph where mine is doing only 86.5 mph at 3000 rpm!
You still have 400 more revs until redline, so that isn't fair.
Factor those revs in, and there is not much difference between the CDI and yours.
Are you searching for better fuel economy? Less engine noise? What? Wouldn't you rather keep your 3.07 gearing and 8.5 second 0-60 times(unless you have a chipped or well broken in example or vice-versa)?
07-30-2004, 10:47 PM
#32
Super Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Murrieta, Southern California
Posts: 783
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Late Built 2005 W-211 E-320 CDI
Yes, I think?
Originally Posted by DslBnz
Your engine is much more compliant at higher rpm than a CDI. From what I've read, 320 CDI's like the revs kept lower for better power.
You still have 400 more revs until redline, so that isn't fair. [Don't understand?]
Factor those revs in, and there is not much difference between the CDI and yours.
Are you searching for better fuel economy? Less engine noise? What? Wouldn't you rather keep your 3.07 gearing and 8.5 second 0-60 times(unless you have a chipped or well broken in example or vice-versa)?
You still have 400 more revs until redline, so that isn't fair.
[Don't understand?]Factor those revs in, and there is not much difference between the CDI and yours.
Are you searching for better fuel economy? Less engine noise? What? Wouldn't you rather keep your 3.07 gearing and 8.5 second 0-60 times(unless you have a chipped or well broken in example or vice-versa)?
That 8.5 figure is incorrect. The car is closer to 9.1 seconds 0-60. I don't think that the 0-60 mph time would suffer that much going to "taller" gears either.
As it is, I keep it in "W" most of the time because that first gear ratio of 3.59 X 3.08, or 11.05 is simply too low when given the relatively "loose" T/C and the abundance of low RPM torque available. Second gear starts with the 6.75 overall ratio are much better as the tach passes 1800 almost as soon as the car is moving from rest. As soon as I reach upshift speed, I lift slightly to allow it to go to third as early as possible to get it back into that fat torque curve again.
I'm sure that high speed fuel economy would improve slightly with "taller" gears, and there would be less engine noise with the motor turning slower for sure.
Max. torque is supposed to be from 1800 to 2600 rpm. So why does mine have to be at or over 3000 most of the time out on the interstate? I find myself looking down to make sure that it isn't locked in fourth because it seems to me like it is over revving. Wonder why they haven't gone to an electrically driven fan?
07-31-2004, 12:09 AM
#33
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: California
Posts: 1,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2014 C250 sport
Originally Posted by E-Klasse
That is strange. What year is your E-Class? There might be software differences. It should track your RPMs.
go here
go here
07-31-2004, 07:59 PM
#34
MBWorld Fanatic!
I feel for you there man,,,there's nothing worse than thinking you're hurting your car,,,,when it should be purring.Somethings up with that gearbox.Do advise what you find out.
07-31-2004, 09:21 PM
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here you go,
This is what the E300's hp and torque curve look like. The blue line is supposedly stock.
When I said 400 revs, I was referring to topspeed limitations. BTW, the E300's power curve depends on the quality of diesel fuel you get. If you get good stuff, you can expect proper and consistent combustion until redline. Sometimes, the fuel is lousy, and boost cuts out earlier resulting in reduced topend power.
This is what the E300's hp and torque curve look like. The blue line is supposedly stock.
When I said 400 revs, I was referring to topspeed limitations. BTW, the E300's power curve depends on the quality of diesel fuel you get. If you get good stuff, you can expect proper and consistent combustion until redline. Sometimes, the fuel is lousy, and boost cuts out earlier resulting in reduced topend power.
