 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Mercedes-Benz Cars / May 2006Mercedes 220 D
I'm looking for opinion about Mercedes 220 D/ no cdi/ 1998 r - 70 kw. What do you think about the engine? Is it not too week for that auto ? pozdr  SignatureUżywam programu pocztowego Opery: http://www.opera.com/mail/ > I'm looking for opinion about Mercedes 220 D/ no cdi/ 1998 r - 70 kw. What do you think about the engine? Is it not too week for > that auto ? > pozdr 220CDI C Class? It's good for 238km/h, good enough for any kind of driving in Poland. cp > > I'm looking for opinion about Mercedes 220 D/ no cdi/ 1998 r - 70 kw. What do you think about the engine? Is it not too week for > > that auto ? > > pozdr > 220CDI C Class? It's good for 238km/h, good enough for any kind of driving in Poland. > cp I can`t see him referring to a certain series so it might be C-Class sedan or T-model or E-Class sedan. You refer to the current C-Class W203 (next year successor W204 will come), which has a 110 kw/150 PS CDI-engine. Sedan 6-speed manual trans Vmax 180 km/h 0-100 km/h = 10,1 s 5-speed auto trans Vmax 218 km/h 0-100 km/h = 10,3 s Only W203 C-Class model with Vmax 238 km/h is C230 with 7G-TRONIC Juergen > > I'm looking for opinion about Mercedes 220 D/ no cdi/ 1998 r - 70 kw. What do you think about the engine? Is it not too week for > > that auto ? > > pozdr > 220CDI C Class? It's good for 238km/h, good enough for any kind of driving in Poland. > cp I can`t see him referring to a certain series so it might be C-Class sedan or T-model or E-Class sedan. You refer to the current C-Class W203 (next year successor W204 will come), which has a 110 kw/150 PS CDI-engine. Sedan 6-speed manual trans Vmax 224 km/h 0-100 km/h = 10,1 s 5-speed auto trans Vmax 218 km/h 0-100 km/h = 10,3 s Only W203 C-Class model with Vmax 238 km/h is C230 with 7G-TRONIC Juergen I, very sorry about a mess I caused. I meand w202 / 1998/ c-class with automatic gear. I'll be very greatfull for opinion people who are using it. pozdr tolo SignatureUżywam programu pocztowego Opery: http://www.opera.com/mail/ > I, very sorry about a mess I caused. I meand w202 / 1998/ c-class with No mess, no reason to apologize! > automatic gear. I'll be very greatfull for opinion people who are using it. _I_ - and I can only speak for ME - do NOT find the engine is too weak for the car _under normal driving conditions_. In case you fully load the car, tow a trailer and live in the mountains, I would definitely choose a more powerful engine. Maximum speed on Polish Motorways is 130 km/h so 170+ km/h should be enough for that. Juergen > In case you fully load the car, tow a trailer and live in the > mountains, I would definitely choose a more powerful engine. > Maximum speed on Polish Motorways is 130 km/h so 170+ km/h > should be enough for that. From experience, 130km/h in Poland is only safe on a train =) (I'm polish, or at least used to be, ha!) cp > From experience, 130km/h in Poland is only safe on a train =) (I'm > polish, or at least used to be, ha!) Mostly you're right, but it depends where do you live and drive. SignatureUżywam programu pocztowego Opery: http://www.opera.com/mail/ > Mostly you're right, but it depends where do you live and drive. But I have to admit, we polaks are good drivers, maybe when we have more money we'll have Schumachers of our own... Schumanskis ;-) cp Yes. I was on a road north out of Warsaw a few weeks ago (albeit in a -- good -- taxi) and I am sure we exceeded 130 km/h at times without a problem. DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- >> From experience, 130km/h in Poland is only safe on a train =) (I'm >> polish, or at least used to be, ha!) > > Mostly you're right, but it depends where do you live and drive. > Only W203 C-Class model with Vmax 238 km/h is C230 with > 7G-TRONIC Well, the speedo said ~237km/h, from Hannover to Berlin =) does Mercedes exagerate their speedos as well? I hear Audi and others do... cp Your question is a good one - is this 2.2L diesel powerful enough for this car. Depends on the car's use. If most driving is in a city it should be fine. Power is needed for rapid acceleration, passing and hill climbing, so if these are your driving conditions I would suggest you test drive it that way to see, first hand, if its power is adequate or whether a larger, or CDI, motor would be a better choice. Top speed is not the issue, it's the time needed to reach its top speed. > Top speed is not the issue, it's the time needed to reach its top speed. Oh its acceleration to typical highway speed is quite good cp > I'm looking for opinion about Mercedes 220 D/ no cdi/ 1998 r - 70 kw. > What do you think about the engine? Is it not too week for that auto ? If it is an E-Class, then 1998 = W210 (pre-MOPF) 70 kw = 95 PS, non-CDI diesel Sedan only with that engine 5-speed manual trans Vmax 180 km/h 0-100 km/h = 17,0 s 5-speed auto trans Vmax 177 km/h 0-100 km/h = 17,4 s If it`s an C-Class, then 1998 = W202 MOPF 70 kw = 95 PS, non-CDI diesel Sedan 5-speed manual trans Vmax 175 km/h 0-100 km/h = 16,3 s 5-speed auto trans Vmax 172 km/h 0-100 km/h = 17,4 s T-model 5-speed manual trans Vmax 172 km/h 0-100 km/h = 16,6 s 5-speed auto trans Vmax 170 km/h 0-100 km/h = 17,0 s Of course they`re no race-cars, but I can`t see why they should be too weak/slow for normal driving. But of course that`s an opinion only from a guy who once drove for years (in city) 55 PS automatic W123 sedans, Vmax 125 km/h, 0-100 km/h 33,2 s ... Juergen - now faster with 1982 240D auto, 138 km/h, 24,7 s ;-)) 17 seconds???!!! to 100 Kmh? Isn't that a tad slow? > 17 seconds???!!! to 100 Kmh? Isn't that a tad slow? Depends on your view... How long does a UPS truck need for 0-100 km/h? Are they ever late because of their trucks? How important is acceleration for the time needed to go from A to B under normal driving conditions? How important is acceleration in a traffic jam? How important is acceleration when the car is parked? Not that I don`t have cars faster than the 240D, but I can't remember ever to have been late because of the car used. But of course a 95 PS car is not _fast_ - but when one needs a _fast_ car I recommend at least 230 PS in a C-Class, preferably a C55 AMG with 270 kw/367 PS. Juergen > Depends on your view... American mindset. We got rednecks around here burning rubber just 'cause they can. cp LOL... I don't know... I was thinking of how fast American drivers are on highway... and you are trying to accelerate to meet that speed of usually 75 MPH... Ya know... you don't want to get rear ended by stupid drivers. > LOL... I don't know... I was thinking of how fast American drivers > are on highway... and you are trying to accelerate to meet that > speed of usually 75 MPH... Ya know... you don't want to get rear > ended by stupid drivers. "Rear-ended by stupid drivers?" It's the responsibility of the merging driver to match the speed of traffic in the right lane. (Which only makes sense. After all, they were there first.) This is something of a sore subject for me. Many drivers here in Collyfornia don't know how to merge properly. Instead of making use of the on-ramp to acceleratate to traffic speed, they'll dodder onto the freeway at 45-50 miles per hour with no regard to the speed of the traffic that's bearing down on them. That has the effect of conditioning people to avoid the right lane, which increases traffic density in the remaining lanes. (Then there's the way the right lane keeps disappearing due to lane merges and its becoming an exit-only lane, but that's a gripe for another day.) Geoff Signature"That's very interesting, Mr. Lovecraft, and very well put too, I might add, but I think we're looking for something a little different here at VANITY FAIR." Tiger wrote: >> 17 seconds???!!! to 100 Kmh? Isn't that a tad slow? Juergen . <jaguare@bigfoot.com> responds: > Depends on your view... > How long does a UPS truck need for 0-100 km/h? > Are they ever late because of their trucks? [...] It isn't a matter of being late or not, but of being able to accelerate at a rate that's compatible with the flow of traffic. Who wants to be (let alone drive behind) a rolling roadblock? There's also the need to be able to merge onto the freeway safely. I remember a road test of the 220D in one of the major American car magazines (I believe it was _Car And Driver_) circa 1973. The car's zero-to-sixty (mph) time was an appalling *28 seconds.* And mind you, that was when even the emissions-control-strangled cars of the time could typically reach 60 in about 1/3 as long. Geoff Signature"That's very interesting, Mr. Lovecraft, and very well put too, I might add, but I think we're looking for something a little different here at VANITY FAIR." I drove a W123 200D for two years in the early eighties. It took a week to 60 mph. So what? Fine car and I wasn't late (or in danger) either. It was my first company car and a Merc on top of that. DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > It isn't a matter of being late or not, but of being > able to accelerate at a rate that's compatible with [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Geoff > I drove a W123 200D for two years in the early eighties. > It took a week to 60 mph. So what? So you might've gotten underfoot when merging onto the motorway or "accelerating" (I use the term loosely) away from a traffic signal, or obstructed traffic generally, is what. You might've been having a ball, but the drivers behind you might've been...somewhat less happy. Most people prefer cars with enough power to accelerate briskly and attain cruising speed within a short interval. If those things aren't important to you and you enjoyed that car, more power to you. But it shouldn't be hard to understand why others may differ on that score. (*200*D? I didn't know they made 'em that small. When I think back to my late, lamented '85 W123 300D turbo and imagine what it would've been like to drive it in Califor- nia traffic with 1/3 less engine displacement, the little hairs on the back of my neck stand on end. I adored that car, but I it has as little power as I'd ever consider acceptable. Or safe.) Geoff Signature"'Phobic' is the current one-word favorite among liberal dismissals of ideological opponents. It combines instant moral dismissal with instant psychological analysis." -- Dennis Prager See below. DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- >> I drove a W123 200D for two years in the early eighties. >> It took a week to 60 mph. So what? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > but the drivers behind you might've been...somewhat > less happy. DAS: Not so. Just merged with the lorries in the right lane...:-)... (this was in Germany, not the UK). I must say getting the 200D did solve a mystery... I had wondered why a number of Mercs were travelling quite slowly, especially up (gentle) inclines. Having not known anything about diesel engines I had not noticed that the slow-coaches were usually diesels. We all became dab hands at accelerating before hills to maximise the distance we could go before rolling back... I must say that that the fact my territory comprised flat terrain and that I did not have to travel hundreds of km in one sitting helped. My colleagues who had to travel all over Germany especially in mountainous zones, were not so enamoured with the vehicle... > Most people prefer cars with enough power to accelerate > briskly and attain cruising speed within a short interval. > If those things aren't important to you and you enjoyed > that car, more power to you. But it shouldn't be hard to > understand why others may differ on that score. DAS; In those days it was not a problem. Loads of people were already driving diesels in Germany (not in the UK), and all had the what are now considered underpowered engines. May still not be. The key thing, whatever the engine, is to obey the rules, be courteous and stay out of the overtaking lanes when not overtaking. > (*200*D? I didn't know they made 'em that small. When > I think back to my late, lamented '85 W123 300D turbo and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > car, but I it has as little power as I'd ever consider > acceptable. Or safe.) DAS: It is very safe. Just need the appropriate, non-aggressive mindset. Not only 60 PS (up from the previous generation of 55 PS), but a weight of 1400 kg.... Hence irrelevant stats in getting to 60...:-) > Geoff [...] > Juergen - now faster with 1982 240D auto, 138 km/h, 24,7 s ;-)) Juergen, where there any 5spd 300D w123's available? cp > > Juergen - now faster with 1982 240D auto, 138 km/h, 24,7 s ;-)) > Juergen, where there any 5spd 300D w123's available? > cp Yes, 300D (non-Turbo, OM 617.912 65 kw/88 PS), option starting 02/1982. Final drive ratio was identical to 4-speed (3,46), all forward gears were a slight bit longer, 5th was 0,81. 5-speed man trans in the W123 series also was available from 02/1982 on for other diesels, 200D, 240D, 240TD, 300TD plus some exotic versions like 240D long or 240D partly bodied chassis. And earlier - from 10/1981 on - it was available for the gasoline versions 200, 200T, 230E, 230TE, 230CE, 250, 250T, 280E, 280TE and 280CE. Juergen >> > Juergen - now faster with 1982 240D auto, 138 km/h, 24,7 s ;-)) >> Juergen, where there any 5spd 300D w123's available? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Juergen Were the 5 speeds available in the US in a 123 240D? >>>> Juergen - now faster with 1982 240D auto, 138 km/h, 24,7 s ;-)) >>> Juergen, where there any 5spd 300D w123's available? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Were the 5 speeds available in the US in a 123 240D? I've never heard of a 5 speed 240D. I didn't know there was such a thing. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.