04 TL vs. 96 S320
12-24-2003, 05:06 PM
#1
The Oracle of Acurazine!
Thread Starter
04 TL vs. 96 S320
hey guys....
my cousin owns 96 s320... and he wants to race with me... he's been bothering me for days now.... and i wanted to wait till break in period... currently i got 450 miles on it.... well neways
only thing i know about this car is that its V6.... well can any one tell me the HP, LITER AND ETC.....
and which is faster? 04 TL or 96 S320
thanx
my cousin owns 96 s320... and he wants to race with me... he's been bothering me for days now.... and i wanted to wait till break in period... currently i got 450 miles on it.... well neways
only thing i know about this car is that its V6.... well can any one tell me the HP, LITER AND ETC.....
and which is faster? 04 TL or 96 S320
thanx
12-24-2003, 05:15 PM
#2
Moderator Alumnus
Re: 04 TL vs. 96 S320
U would win, absolutely....
96 S320 is at least 4500 lb, it should be similar to current E320 (221hp/232lb)... or less...I guess...
Happy Holidays....
96 S320 is at least 4500 lb, it should be similar to current E320 (221hp/232lb)... or less...I guess...
Happy Holidays....
12-24-2003, 05:47 PM
#5
Racer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yea you'll beat him but not sure about off the line..i'm sure the S320 has a bit more torque...
i'm sure he'll be staying close tho
unless he's hiding a Kleeman charger under there...if so then
i'm sure he'll be staying close tho
unless he's hiding a Kleeman charger under there...if so then
12-24-2003, 07:05 PM
#6
Originally posted by UA5-TL
yea you'll beat him but not sure about off the line..i'm sure the S320 has a bit more torque...
i'm sure he'll be staying close tho
unless he's hiding a Kleeman charger under there...if so then
yea you'll beat him but not sure about off the line..i'm sure the S320 has a bit more torque...
i'm sure he'll be staying close tho
unless he's hiding a Kleeman charger under there...if so then
the MB may beat him in the first 2 feet!!!, but the TL has the rest ...
12-25-2003, 12:33 AM
#7
Comptech Freak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Age: 40
Posts: 6,555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lol
i had the 92 S320 too....and it has a 0-60 time of 8.6 sec with the SWB model
the LWB model takes 8.9 sec
it has an INLINE 6 engine that has 231hp, but then reduced to 228hp for the later models...
it weights at least 4600lb compare to our TL's 3600lb, but it's already so gd for the S320 to get under 9sec~
and it has a top spd of 230km
i had the 92 S320 too....and it has a 0-60 time of 8.6 sec with the SWB model
the LWB model takes 8.9 sec
it has an INLINE 6 engine that has 231hp, but then reduced to 228hp for the later models...
it weights at least 4600lb compare to our TL's 3600lb, but it's already so gd for the S320 to get under 9sec~
and it has a top spd of 230km
Trending Topics
12-25-2003, 01:29 AM
#8
Senior Moderator
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Better Neighborhood, Arizona
Posts: 45,641
Received 2,329 Likes
on
1,309 Posts
The S class is a heavy car that is almost pointless in having anything less than the 4.3 liter engine.
S320 is just pointless. Its like putting a Civic 1.6 in the RL.
BTW, your TL makes about the same amount of torque, so in reality you should beat him even off the line.
S320 is just pointless. Its like putting a Civic 1.6 in the RL.
BTW, your TL makes about the same amount of torque, so in reality you should beat him even off the line.
12-25-2003, 03:01 AM
#9
Comptech Freak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Age: 40
Posts: 6,555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Ken1997TL
The S class is a heavy car that is almost pointless in having anything less than the 4.3 liter engine.
S320 is just pointless. Its like putting a Civic 1.6 in the RL.
The S class is a heavy car that is almost pointless in having anything less than the 4.3 liter engine.
S320 is just pointless. Its like putting a Civic 1.6 in the RL.
but i had a S320 b4, and it's not as slow as u think, it has a 0-60 time in just 8.6 sec, which comes close with the camry V6
however the fuel econ is sooooo bad...around 12/13mpg even with the inline 6
the torque from the old Inline 6 available so early that it gets to move around easy but lack of high rpm power, that's y they are using the V6 now, which is lower cost and has a broader power band.
12-25-2003, 10:44 AM
#10
Originally posted by samkws
b4 u riding/driving one, u would think so
but i had a S320 b4, and it's not as slow as u think, it has a 0-60 time in just 8.6 sec, which comes close with the camry V6
however the fuel econ is sooooo bad...around 12/13mpg even with the inline 6
the torque from the old Inline 6 available so early that it gets to move around easy but lack of high rpm power, that's y they are using the V6 now, which is lower cost and has a broader power band.
b4 u riding/driving one, u would think so
but i had a S320 b4, and it's not as slow as u think, it has a 0-60 time in just 8.6 sec, which comes close with the camry V6
however the fuel econ is sooooo bad...around 12/13mpg even with the inline 6
the torque from the old Inline 6 available so early that it gets to move around easy but lack of high rpm power, that's y they are using the V6 now, which is lower cost and has a broader power band.
12-25-2003, 11:11 AM
#11
Advanced
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Plainfield, NJ
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 96 MB S 320 is universally acknowledged as grossly underpowered by all car mags that had reviewed the car when new. 220 or so hp to move a 4000 + lb car is a no go. Why anyone would compare their car to this slow tank is beyond me.
12-25-2003, 01:08 PM
#13
Comptech Freak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Age: 40
Posts: 6,555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by PeterUbers
interesting you say that, b/c before we got our '99 E320, (switched to the V-6 as you know from the same size I-6 in '98) .. all the carmags and mercedes stated the opposite, how the I-6 was much peppier mid-range and high-range, but NO low-end torque that Americans appreciate and crave. So i wonder where you got this from .. Clearly the gearing in the first 2 or 3 gears in the S320 was more aggressive than the E' to account for the extra weight .. hence your horrible MPG. That's the same approach SUV manufacturers use to make their blocks of steel w/ wheels semi-quick to really-quick... aggressive gearing.
interesting you say that, b/c before we got our '99 E320, (switched to the V-6 as you know from the same size I-6 in '98) .. all the carmags and mercedes stated the opposite, how the I-6 was much peppier mid-range and high-range, but NO low-end torque that Americans appreciate and crave. So i wonder where you got this from .. Clearly the gearing in the first 2 or 3 gears in the S320 was more aggressive than the E' to account for the extra weight .. hence your horrible MPG. That's the same approach SUV manufacturers use to make their blocks of steel w/ wheels semi-quick to really-quick... aggressive gearing.
the car is brisk from a stop, 8.6 sec is a very impressive time for this heavy car.
the E320 is a lot faster, 7.1sec with the old I6, and probably 6.9sec for the V6 coz of the lighter engine and a better high end~
btw my car revs at 3100rpm at 60mph, which is not so gd for hwy driving, that's y it has the horrible MPG
|
12-25-2003, 01:16 PM
#14
Moderator Alumnus
Originally posted by jdone
Wasn't the '96 S-320 the Princess Di car. Shame she didn't buckle up.
Wasn't the '96 S-320 the Princess Di car. Shame she didn't buckle up.
Which rich guys would fasten their seat belts in the rear seats? I never heard of it.
Happy Holidays.
12-25-2003, 03:14 PM
#16
Comptech Freak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Age: 40
Posts: 6,555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by jdone
Wasn't the '96 S-320 the Princess Di car. Shame she didn't buckle up.
Wasn't the '96 S-320 the Princess Di car. Shame she didn't buckle up.
and guess what? i never buckle up at the rear seat of my S320 too...
12-26-2003, 11:17 AM
#17
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Louisville
Posts: 1,506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by samkws
that was a S280
and guess what? i never buckle up at the rear seat of my S320 too...
that was a S280
and guess what? i never buckle up at the rear seat of my S320 too...
12-26-2003, 12:27 PM
#18
You all know, however, that in Europe, they used to (and probably still do) put 4-bangers to 12-cylinder engines in the S Class .. there is such a wider array of engine options in Europe that it's bizzare to read about the S220 or S280 ..
http://www.mercedes-benz.co.uk/pc/in...?model=s_class
click on "model range" .. you'll see the S280, S350, etc... those people aren't concerned about the "badge" .. they just want a car large enough for their needs, power isn't one of them.
http://www.mercedes-benz.co.uk/pc/in...?model=s_class
click on "model range" .. you'll see the S280, S350, etc... those people aren't concerned about the "badge" .. they just want a car large enough for their needs, power isn't one of them.
12-26-2003, 12:43 PM
#20
Moderator Alumnus
those people aren't concerned about the "badge" .. they just want a car large enough for their needs, power isn't one of them.
The small towns and crowded cities are everywhere... and, environmental protection regulations and tax would kill them if they're not rich enough to support their big engine cars...
12-27-2003, 01:35 PM
#22
Comptech Freak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Age: 40
Posts: 6,555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by PeterUbers
You all know, however, that in Europe, they used to (and probably still do) put 4-bangers to 12-cylinder engines in the S Class .. there is such a wider array of engine options in Europe that it's bizzare to read about the S220 or S280 ..
http://www.mercedes-benz.co.uk/pc/in...?model=s_class
click on "model range" .. you'll see the S280, S350, etc... those people aren't concerned about the "badge" .. they just want a car large enough for their needs, power isn't one of them.
You all know, however, that in Europe, they used to (and probably still do) put 4-bangers to 12-cylinder engines in the S Class .. there is such a wider array of engine options in Europe that it's bizzare to read about the S220 or S280 ..
http://www.mercedes-benz.co.uk/pc/in...?model=s_class
click on "model range" .. you'll see the S280, S350, etc... those people aren't concerned about the "badge" .. they just want a car large enough for their needs, power isn't one of them.
my another BMW 525i is much more livier and atheletic
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
DiamondJoeQuimby
Car Parts for Sale
1
09-10-2015 11:40 AM
