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 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

Reply via email to