Green E-300 DT

Really?

Do you know where the word smog originated?

Do you know how, why, and when?

If you did, you would not be making such a bold and ridiculous statement!

Talbot

If you live in the US and you think you're not rich, it is maybe because you've not met enough POOR people (from outside of the US) to know just how rich you are.

carsinamerica

You're right, of course, that even underprivileged people in the US are better off, generally, than the poor in the LDW. Poverty remains a somewhat relative thing, though. I'm certainly not well-off by American standards, though, thanks to the joys of paying one's way through college. Here, I'm from a middle-class family. In Luxembourg, I'd be poverty-stricken. In Bangladesh, I'd be well-off. And I've met plenty of poor people, around the world, thank you very much. I loathe poverty and its effects, especially on children, which is why I adore UNICEF and campaigned for them since childhood. Everyone: donate to them, and help give kids a fighting chance against easily preventable diseases! End of plug.

The term smog dates to the early 1900s, and was derived in order to classify the thick fogs that blanketed London during the Industrial Revolution/Victorian Era. It was coined by a British or French scientist. What's your point? It's not an Americanism.

And yes, smog is a part of the American landscape, especially notable in the effects in the Shenandoah, as well in the urban areas itself. HOWEVER, London had the killer smog of 1952, and it's more in London that I'm thinking about building damage. Look what it took to restore Westminster Abbey, Big Ben, and the like. I'm not sure if they've gotten around to St. Paul's yet. Now, perhaps the US just spends more to keep facades clean in the first place, or perhaps the EU's later harmonization of tougher legislation (although the UK's clean air legislation predated the US version by some time), coupled with the greater proportion of diesels, just made the problem worse. I don't know. It's a wide range of causes, too, but there is no doubt that particulate emissions from cars play at least a part in the damage.

My point, though, is that I have never personally seen a major American city as blighted by soot deposits as some parts of London. And I've never heard of American smog killing 4000 people at a crack. I will grant that the London Fog of '52 was not primarily induced by automobiles, but it was lethal as can be, and demonstrated the danger as clearly as anything could. At least, that it, until the PRC came to monopolise the Top 20 smoggiest places list. Of course, I have seen acid rain damage in America, but it's harder to spot, generally, until it's in the very advanced stages.

Either way, "strangling" engines to sharply reduce evaporative AND particulate emissions is one step, but a crucial one, in helping to control both smog and the greenhouse effect. I hold out some hope for fuel cells, though I fear they may make Seattle even rainier than it already is....

harkgar

Mr. Carsi,

The Chinese and Indians would like to be able to sit on high horses like you too. You were born in England and had a century to do all the damage to the environment. The London smog was due to the industrial revolution and coal burning. In fact coal was burned in English houses (in those nice living room fireplaces) right up to the early nineties and catalytic converters mandated about the same time with unleaded fuel.

It is fair to let the poor Asians have a crack at the whip. They too want to be developed and rich some day.

In North America the internal combustion engine is not a major cause of pollution. As Mr. P. J. O'Rourke told it in one of his many books it is very difficult to commit suicide by breathing exhaust fumes.

Loosen up young man. Life is too short for low output engines. Vroooooooooom!

carsinamerica

I had a century to destroy the environment? I'm only a quarter-century old. The problem is that we couldn't afford the damage then, but we absolutely can't now. If people don't work together, globally, then we die together. Full stop.

The same argument about the right for high-pollution development could be made for empires. England had an empire, so the Dem Rep of the Congo should be able to, as well. The United States got away with genocide, so Sudan should be able to, too. It doesn't work that way. The West is drenched in the blood of the atrocities it committed, but at some point a line must be drawn. No more killing. No more injustice. No more building Western fortunes on the backs of the poverty of the rest of the globe. What we have done, what some of our governments, especially in the States, continue to do, is abhorrent. But we try. Nothing can undo the stain of colonialism or neo-colonialism, but neither can it repeated for another cycle.

Moreover, in economic paradigms, it doesn't have to work that way. Consider phone systems: the LDW goes straight from no phone service to wireless telephony, without ever building a wired infrastructure, because the technology is there and available. That's what we have to do with power-generating, motive, and manufacturing technology. Subsidise it. With higher taxes and low-interest loans from the West, if need be, but it has to be done.

It is also an absolute fact that given current consumption habits, the planet simply cannot support the PRC or India, much less both, much, much less both of them plus the rest of the LDW, if they build up to the level of the USA economy. This is unfair and injust, but that does not change the underlying reality. A different strategy of development, somewhat influenced by the Kerala experience, is the only option at this point. We are already skating on a knife-edge, and there is no longer a margin for error. The US will also have to make trade-offs for the sake of everyone else, and that won't be popular, but so be it. And I'm sorry, but vehicles are a major source of pollution, which is ONE reason why smog tends to accumulate over big cities with lots of cars. So they'll be one sacrifice. Cars are less important than seeing the entire country of Bangladesh vanish into the sea. If you really care about Asians and others in the LDW, that should be of concern to you as well.

Life may seem short for you, but I'd like to have grandkids and great-grandkids someday. That won't happen if the planet becomes unliveable in the meantime. Do you know what will happen if the Gulf Stream stops? Neither do I. I just know I don't want to see it, if the Sahara is any indication.

carsinamerica

And now, to try to steer this conversation back on track:

I don't think I can see the S320 Bluetec arriving here anytime soon. Six-cylinder flagships sedans simply do not have adequate cachet to the typical buyer of such vehicles. 221 horsepower just isn't enough motivation for such a large car, not to an American buyer, unfortunately. Consider the not-so-impressive sales of the 2006 S350. Granted, that was partially just a flush-out-the-production-line maneuver by M-B, but it speaks to the larger issue of why M-B (and Audi) haven't offered any other six-cylinder flagship sedan in the US since '99. It's been even longer for BMW and Jaguar; Lexus and Infiniti never have done so in the LS or Q. It's just not a winning proposition here in 0-60-worshipping land.

Therefore, IMO, it'll have to be the 420 CDI first. The S-Class Hybrid would probably do even better.

Germancar1

I agree for the most part, I forgot about the S420 V8 diesel. I wonder though if they go through the trouble of certifying the V8 for the U.S. market what other models will they put it in. I can see a GL420 and maybe a ML420. I wonder when the hybrid will arrive? I don't see diesels taking off in sufficient fashon to warrant bringing the V8 here though. They hybrid is the better bet. I still think MBUSA is going to try a S320 CDI or Bluetec or even possibly a more powerful S350 CDI/Bluetec.

M

frogstaple

240D 3.0T

It's inflammable.

harkgar

240:

You are right. Are you first generation American? The British says "inflammable" for anything which ignites easily while Americans ususally say "flammable" for same.

240D 3.0T

No, I just know that inflammable and flammable mean the same thing.

harkgar

Any photos of your 18 inch AMG wheels? I bought a set of CLS-500 wheels for my 2006.

frogstaple

Precisely.

frogstaple

I don't have any clear shots. If you don't mind my three sons in the way....

harkgar

What rubber do you have on the rims? Are the rims CLK AMG?

Nice kids. I have 3 sons and a daughter, all adults except youngest one - 13 year old.

frogstaple

Pirelli PZero Nero M&S - 245/40 front 275/35 rear

The wheels are AMG 5-spoke from Tire Rack

Thanks! At the rate they are growing, it won't be too long before I will need to upgrade to an S-class.

harkgar

Mine are:

Fronts: 18 x 8.5, 245/40R 18
Rears: 18 x 9.5, 275/35R 18

Tires are Michelin Pilots, HX MXM4.

Do you need M + S in Washington too? I thought it is too warm there. Toronto is another story altogether. No snows no go in winter.

harkgar

Ever considered the R320 CDi? You can have AWD, diesel and third row seat all for less than the S-Class.

Friend of mine had just bought a GL 320 CDi. I think it is heavier and more expensive than the R but is not any better. It is also a unitary body vehicle and not body on frame like the old ML.

frogstaple

I'm seriously considering a GL320 CDI. Rs are just too homely.

I have a '99 ML 430. I believe it's a unibody. To get a body on frame you need to step up to the G-class.

harkgar

If body on frame (BOF) is important to you then you must do some research to confirm it. From what I read the new GL is uni-body and so is the new ML.

The old ML is body on frame (your 430).

I am a great fan of body on frame cars and trucks. The Honda Ridgeline is the only BOF car with uni-body bolted onto it. It is supposed to be very very strong.

frogstaple

I stand corrected. I thought the old ML was a unibody. I don't care either way; I appreciate a solid, comfortable ride.

harkgar

Agreed. The E320 CDi is a unitary body car and yet it feels rock solid. MB is good at making cars that feel as if they had been carved out of a block of steel. There are very few creaks and there is a great sense of quality. This partly explains why they are still selling OK even when the JD Powers rating is dropping.

If they can only sort out the fancy electronics.

Untertürkheim

This is actually a question I very much want an answer to. I've been wanting to buy a new diesel for quite some time (and I don't like SUVs), so my only choice is the E Bluetec. Any word on the diesel S coming here? I heard also about a diesel CL being developed, but who knows if that will come Stateside. Any news is greatly appreciated. Just to clear up some much earlier confusion, the first diesel S sold OUTSIDE North America was the 1996S300 Turbodiesel, (W140 OM606A), which was also the first one not sold IN North America. The original 116 body 300SD from 1978 was developed specifically for the United States and sold in North America (like the 300CD). Same goes for turbodiesels in gereral, the first turbo diesel sold outside North America was in a W124. European diesels were NA until then.

tex07

im selling my MB for a ridgeline right away!

tex07

and the R looks like a dodge magnum crossed with a hearse.