Dan Weeks wrote:
Go with a CD.........
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 10:48:16 -0600, OK Don <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Of course, a 617.952 in a 123.133 chassis (3515lb) ought to be faster
than a 617.951 in a 126.120 chassis (3625lb), if it's raw acceleration
you're after. Then the 240D can be used for chassis parts.
I prefer the 126 over the 123 though --- -- -
I'd heard things about SDs being slower than Ds being slower than
CDs, but the weights of the cars are not a whole lot different.
Although I could get away with using a coupe most of the time, I've
found I really appreciate the cavernous trunk and
stretch-out-in-the-back-seat passenger room of the SD rather
frequently, not to mention all the other chassis and interior
amenities and the bigger brakes. I find SD performance and handling
surprisingly good--it's a very well-balanced car that can be pushed
very hard, on rough, twisting roads, with confidence and comfort. For
autocrossing, you'd probably be a bit ahead with a CD. For real-life
use and road driving, though, I've found the SD to be very
satisfying--Especially since you can generally pick up one for
CHEAPER than a coupe, all else being equal.
The factory rates the 123 300D turbo sedan OR coupe as 1.2 seconds
faster (0-100 km/h) than the 126 300SD - irrespective of year or rear
end ratio (3.07 or 2.88). Any difference between the sedan or coupe is
within normal manufacturing variance.
An 126 is not nearly as agile in the city as the 123. Feels HEAVY.
Marshall
--
Marshall Booth (who doesn't respond to unsigned questions)
"der Dieseling Doktor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
'87 300TD 182Kmi, '84 190D 2.2 229Kmi, '85 190D 2.0 161Kmi, '87 190D 2.5
turbo 237kmi
