2008 C class bluetech
Thread Starter
Super Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 924
Likes: 3
From: Socal
1991 300sl 5 speed manual
2008 C class bluetech
I have the inside that the new c class will look similar to the 07 s class and have a panoroof. Im ordering it with the new bluetech engine for 08 very excited. Anticipate the car hitting the shores In Late Feb or March. I have actually seen the car with my own eyes. So I know you wont be dissapointed. JJ
Super Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 587
Likes: 1
From: New Jersey
2005 E55 Delivered 01/07/05
Originally Posted by jjay911
I have the inside that the new c class will look similar to the 07 s class and have a panoroof. Im ordering it with the new bluetech engine for 08 very excited. Anticipate the car hitting the shores In Late Feb or March. I have actually seen the car with my own eyes. So I know you wont be dissapointed. JJ
Almost a Member!
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
2005 E500 AMG pkg
which diesel engine will be used in the C class? the new 3 liter v6 used in the E320 CDI, or one of the smaller diesels used in Europe by MB?
The 2008 C class will be available in early 2007? for delivery when?
The 2008 C class will be available in early 2007? for delivery when?
Banned
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,116
Likes: 5
From: Federal Heights, CO
1982 300D VNT, 1980 240D 3.0T, 1982 300TD
I feel a chain yanking.
The C-class won't have a diesel next year. Only the E, ML, GL, and R will get the 3.2L V6 diesel option. Even still, CA won't get ANY new diesels from MB.
EDIT: From MBusa.com "The 2007 E320 BLUETEC, ML320 CDI, and R320 CDI do not meet the emissions requirements of California, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, or Vermont and are not available in these states."
"**The E320 CDI Sedan does not meet the emissions requirements of California, Maine, Massachusetts, New York or Vermont and is not available in these states."
The only sedan to get the CDI in 2007 is the E320CDI.
http://www.mbusa.com/models/body-sty....do?body=sedan
The C-class won't have a diesel next year. Only the E, ML, GL, and R will get the 3.2L V6 diesel option. Even still, CA won't get ANY new diesels from MB.
EDIT: From MBusa.com "The 2007 E320 BLUETEC, ML320 CDI, and R320 CDI do not meet the emissions requirements of California, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, or Vermont and are not available in these states."
"**The E320 CDI Sedan does not meet the emissions requirements of California, Maine, Massachusetts, New York or Vermont and is not available in these states."
The only sedan to get the CDI in 2007 is the E320CDI.
http://www.mbusa.com/models/body-sty....do?body=sedan
Last edited by 240D 3.0T; Aug 25, 2006 at 03:25 AM.
Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
From: St. Louis, MO
C300
Originally Posted by 240D 3.0T
I feel a chain yanking.
The C-class won't have a diesel next year. Only the E, ML, GL, and R will get the 3.2L V6 diesel option. Even still, CA won't get ANY new diesels from MB.
<<snip>>
The only sedan to get the CDI in 2007 is the E320CDI.
http://www.mbusa.com/models/body-sty....do?body=sedan
The C-class won't have a diesel next year. Only the E, ML, GL, and R will get the 3.2L V6 diesel option. Even still, CA won't get ANY new diesels from MB.
<<snip>>
The only sedan to get the CDI in 2007 is the E320CDI.
http://www.mbusa.com/models/body-sty....do?body=sedan
Lou
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,285
Likes: 395
Originally Posted by jjay911
Anticipate the car hitting the shores In Late Feb or March.
Also, while I'd love to believe that the new C will look like the S with its bulging fenders, prototypes show a conventional flat side like the current car.
I don't doubt it will have a Pano roof and Bluetec, but the 2008 C-class won't be "hitting the shores" for at least a year.
Trending Topics
Super Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
From: Oregon
Harley-Davidson
Originally Posted by jjay911
. . . with 59 MPG the new E class should let you ride in the carpool lane since it gets better mileage than a hybrid. . . JJ
Originally Posted by jjay911
They sealed the tanks and drove three e class 07 models to florida and averaged 59 miles per gallon on the highway. This test occured in Feb. I am just connected lets say that much. . . JJ
Originally Posted by jjay911
I will find the documtation and take a pic and upload it so you can read it that way the info isnt coming from me reguarding the Miles Per Gallon. JJ
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
10 Most Reliable Mercedes-Benz Models You Can Buy Used
Verdad Gallardo
Senior Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by cyclerider
Did anyone see the posting of this documentation? I must have missed it.
The article is here:
http://www.aluminum.org/ANTemplate.c...ContentID=8774
These results, of course, may never be duplicated by normal drivers. It was just a way for MB to show off the potential economy for the new 300 CDI (Its actually a 3.0 liter V6, not a 3.2).
Senior Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
I read that article again. Every other credible source I have read specify a 35 mpg highway estimate, not 41. At least the recent one's such as the Star magazine. Imperial mpg numbers would be about 41, however.
I dislike inconsistency. If there is a boast, I'd prefer it to be credited from other reputable sources as well.
I dislike inconsistency. If there is a boast, I'd prefer it to be credited from other reputable sources as well.
Super Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
From: Northern California
MBs
2006 E320 CDI
27 MPG CITY
37 MPG HWY
30 MPG COMBINED
Source:
http://www.mbusa.com/
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/
2007 E320 Bluetec
35 MPG COMBINED
Source:
http://www.whnet.com/4x4/diesel.html
http://www.daimlerchrysler.com/dccom...0-0-0-0-0.html
Senior Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
That would be lower than the 2006 E320 CDI.
2006 E320 CDI
27 MPG CITY
37 MPG HWY
30 MPG COMBINED
Source:
http://www.mbusa.com/
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/
2007 E320 Bluetec
35 MPG COMBINED
Source:
http://www.whnet.com/4x4/diesel.html
http://www.daimlerchrysler.com/dccom...0-0-0-0-0.html
2006 E320 CDI
27 MPG CITY
37 MPG HWY
30 MPG COMBINED
Source:
http://www.mbusa.com/
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/
2007 E320 Bluetec
35 MPG COMBINED
Source:
http://www.whnet.com/4x4/diesel.html
http://www.daimlerchrysler.com/dccom...0-0-0-0-0.html
However, I don't know how the EU4 E320 CDI with the OM642 stacks up against the bluetech version. The EU4 CDI, sold in Europe right now, has 221 hp and 376 lb/ft of torque. The Bluetech version we get has 208 hp and 398 lb/ft of torque.
Here's the chart from Europe. The OM642, without the strangling of bluetech, and the automatic 7G:
http://www2.mercedes-benz.co.uk/cont...dels.0004.html
Click on link, find hyperlink on site, open and read statistics via Adobe Acrobat
http://www.mercedes-benz.de/content/..._saloon/0.html
Even Mercedes has specs that conflict with it's sister sites, published for all to see.
How can Bluetech: a system that increases backpressure and reduces power output, actually increase mileage by almost 17%?
BTW, don't mean to sound like an ****.
Super Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
From: Northern California
MBs
How can Bluetech: a system that increases backpressure and reduces power output, actually increase mileage by almost 17%?
BTW, don't mean to sound like an ****.
BTW, don't mean to sound like an ****.
Don't get too hung up on the 17% as it's just the current dataset and might change before it's actually posted on the cars sold at the dealerships. Also, it's comparing two different engines, the OM648 DE32 LA inline six with the 5 speed and the OM642 DE30 LA with 7 speed.
It might make more sense to compare the fuel economy to the E320 CDI (EURO 4) on the German site. Since MB introduced particle filters as standard around October 2003, the consumption figures there should include the particle filter. The major difference to the E320 Bluetec is simply the DeNOx catalytic converter, which shouldn't influence it too much. However the numbers on the German site are given for the European test cycle instead the of the test cycle required by the EPA on these shores, so are not directly comparable.
Senior Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Careful, the torque on both sites you link for the E320 CDI (EURO4) is given as 540 Nm which is 398 lb-ft.
Ah, did we discover the "diesel paradox"?
Don't get too hung up on the 17% as it's just the current dataset and might change before it's actually posted on the cars sold at the dealerships. Also, it's comparing two different engines, the OM648 DE32 LA inline six with the 5 speed and the OM642 DE30 LA with 7 speed.
It might make more sense to compare the fuel economy to the E320 CDI (EURO 4) on the German site. Since MB introduced particle filters as standard around October 2003, the consumption figures there should include the particle filter. The major difference to the E320 Bluetec is simply the DeNOx catalytic converter, which shouldn't influence it too much. However the numbers on the German site are given for the European test cycle instead the of the test cycle required by the EPA on these shores, so are not directly comparable.
Ah, did we discover the "diesel paradox"?
Don't get too hung up on the 17% as it's just the current dataset and might change before it's actually posted on the cars sold at the dealerships. Also, it's comparing two different engines, the OM648 DE32 LA inline six with the 5 speed and the OM642 DE30 LA with 7 speed.
It might make more sense to compare the fuel economy to the E320 CDI (EURO 4) on the German site. Since MB introduced particle filters as standard around October 2003, the consumption figures there should include the particle filter. The major difference to the E320 Bluetec is simply the DeNOx catalytic converter, which shouldn't influence it too much. However the numbers on the German site are given for the European test cycle instead the of the test cycle required by the EPA on these shores, so are not directly comparable.
I could've sworn it was 376 lb/ft! Didn't it used to be... Before EU4? The OM642 statistical outputs posted online seem a little too dynamic in relevance to MBUSA's claims.
In regards to restriction, if the DeNOx cat will not add any significant backpressure, why is the output on the Bluetech down 13 hp? Since it retains the 540 nM, yet has 13 less horsepower, that may translate into a lower peak horsepower engine speed, and a narrower torque band. But not by much.
I wonder what differences in testing there are between the EPA and European test cycles.
Super Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
From: Northern California
MBs
In regards to restriction, if the DeNOx cat will not add any significant backpressure, why is the output on the Bluetech down 13 hp? Since it retains the 540 nM, yet has 13 less horsepower, that may translate into a lower peak horsepower engine speed, and a narrower torque band. But not by much.
I wonder what differences in testing there are between the EPA and European test cycles.
I wonder what differences in testing there are between the EPA and European test cycles.
Dieselnet has an overview of some testcycles here: http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/cycles/
