Originally Posted by Green E-300 DT

Several things you say are not correct!

First off, I am from Missouri (the show me state!) not true, as I
am a Californian but 'show me' these figures and the sources.
You are wrong when you say the I-6 has more advertised horsepower. It does not.
Also, MBZ quotes the V6 having more torque, but it does not!
My I-6 does have more torque than MBZ quotes. By at least 15 ft/lb. to the wheels.
And more horsepower too; 211 hp vs the advertised 201 hp.

The 5G transmission is the trans of choice, although I wise I had the 10 percent higher
overall gear ratio that the 7G tranny provides over my five speed.
Many people have complained about how the seven speed trannies (the 7G) are not programmed
properly to the diesel engines and hold the gears too long.

Ask yourself why the S65 the CL65 and the SL65 vehicles still use the
5G transmission? It is because the 5G is the stronger and simplier transmission.

One of the reason many of the CDI I-6 owners talk about their vehicles is because we all know them
to be far superior to the later cars that MBZ brought here beginning with the 2007 V6 cars.

We will agree that the V6 engine is lighter (it is after all, all aluminum!) so why is the 2007 listed
as being heavier than the 2005-2006 CDI I-6 that has a cast iron block?
Could it be that the seven speed trans is heavier than the old five speed transmission?

I want to see some times for the later V6 diesels at the drags before
I will agree that they are faster or quicker than the I-6 CDIs.

As far as fuel economy is concerned, do a comparison for the Fuelly entries for the 2005-2006
CDIs in North America vs the 2007 and later 3.0 liter V6 for North America.
The I-6 blows the V6 away and their fuel economy is not even close.

One of the reason is that their DPF chokes off the exhaust.
Our I-6 CDIs do not require that, so they do breath better.

The same thing happens when comparing the 2007 and later PU diesels with the older models.

I am going to Irwindale tomorrow. Perhaps there will be a V6 diesel there?



DHG

Originally Posted by Hondo78

May I weigh in on this discussion, having a CDI '05 and loving it. Change your fuel supplier and pay your highway fuel tax.
* Big Oil has kept good technology away for many years
* Big Oil keeps the rumor mill grinding to keep Bio fuels off the shelf
* Change your fuel source to locally produced fuels or make it yourself with a co-op if you can.
* Change your politicians to those looking out 15-20 years, when the current products are about gone.
* Buy a centrifuge and a few books on producing bio fuels and supplement your current fuel.
* Diesels are great clean engines, however they are only provided "byproduct" fuel at the USA pumps
* 880 Las Vegas School buses all run on non Dino Diesel

Research the need for Catalyzed particulates and test your vehicle without one, off highway of course. Third world countries thrive with our old technologies.
Convert your muscle cars fuel systems to alcohol mine run better cleaner cooler and faster with an E85 blend, no longer need 105 octane. Sunday cars..
Wake up Americans, these Big Oil supporters are not our friends. Germany does not tax bio fuels to encourage the use by consumers. So your car will run on it safely the German pumps prove it.

Originally Posted by DubVBenz

You really have it out for the OM642. [No, not really, but I prefer to drive the better car!]
Enjoy your dinosaur, I'm happy that you're happy.
Now see if you can find your old buddy whargoul and make [maybe] you guys can engage
in a nice circle jerk about how much better things were in the 80s.
[Don't know who you are talking about and do not really care!
Can't you be objective and admit which car is the better vehicle without getting nasty?
My car is a 2005 CDI (almost the same as a 2006 CDI) and those two years
are considered the best MBZ diesels by many who really do know.]

edit: 10 seconds of googling:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-revi...e320-bluetec-1
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...t-specs-page-2

More HP, More torque, lighter, faster, yours has slighty better fuel mileage and is able to impress other people with the I6.
Enjoy your drive tomorrow. [Sure did! Wish you had been there.]

Originally Posted by Green E-300 DT

Thank you for the URLs. We do appreciate them. Those URLs, along with my afternoon at the drags yesterday,
(every Thursday evening) prove what many of us who own the older models, as you say dinosaurs
know that the 2005-2006 CDIs brought to North America are the MBZ diesels of choice.

I made six runs over a three hour period. These drags are at an 1/8 mile track, not a quarter mile strip!

All of my runs were quicker and faster than what both of those car mags posted for their cars!

At least one of those so-called car magazines is known for posting faster figures than their cars did actually run.

When your 2007 or later car with the 3.0 liter V6 diesel runs quicker and faster than a 9.585 second eighth mile
at 72.62 mph, than and only then will I agree that the V6 is more powerfull and a better machine.
My CDI has done better before, but traction was a big problem yesterday.
An 9.585 second eighth mile equals a quarter mile time of 14.953 seconds according to many available conversion tables.
I believe, as do many other CDI owners, that the 648.961 I-6 will better that 14.9
second figure because the I-6 pulls much harder at higher highway speeds.

Many other MBZ diesel owners, both with the 2005-2006s vs the later V6 models have already proven
which vehicles get better fuel economy. The source: Check the Fuelly entries for both.
I wonder why that is?

BTW, there were no other diesel powered vehicles there.

Most fun was racing and beating a Hemi PU.



DHG

Originally Posted by DubVBenz

I conceded the MPG war. I have yet to take my car to the drag strip, because honestly, I'm not that much of a redneck and have better things to do with my free time than try to show off my eco car in a world where Accords are running 5.4 seconds to 60.
Also, I'd probably have to drive 60 miles to find one near me. The links I provided were the first I found on a google search, here's another one:

http://www.dragtimes.com/Mercedes-Be...ag-Racing.html

The two times ahead of the "real" bluetec number were: one from Car and Driver (which is the one you said was notoriously overstated), and the other one which had a renntech tune and barely beat it. The stock one came in at 1 MPH less in the quarter. Unfortunately I can't find a C&D review of the bluetec so we can show off both of their crazy numbers.

As I said, you can continue to pat yourself on the back and claim anecdotal evidence, but when every single online source shows you're full of it, don't claim they're all biased.

Originally Posted by Green E-300 DT

It's 75 miles from Murrieta to Irwindale, but I do drive the real economy diesel. View my Fuelly entries.
As far as anecdotal evidence is concerned, I go by what I see at the track
and not by what some magazine type says their test-car did supposedly!

Since you admit that you have never run your car, quit saying how it is quicker that the older straight six CDI.
All you have are some magazine tests which are not accurate.

It's like those fools who think that their newer E-63s are faster and
quicker than the older E-55s. It simply is not so by a large margin!

It is really a shame that you do not understand the physics of drag racing.
But I would not expect you to do as well as I do as I have more than 60 years experience.

If you understood the figures, mine is faster than that Renntech tuned car.

Isn't my 60 ft. time of 2.072 seconds quicker than that one listed at 2.125? Do you know what that means?

Isn't my eighth mile time of 9.585 seconds quicker than the one listed at 9.760? Which car will be ahead?

His speed of 73.020 mph is good, and mine was less because of a headwind that day at only 72.62 mph.
It is not the speed at the end but who gets there first that wins the race.
My time was quicker by 0.175 seconds, so who got there first?

I'm glad I do not have the money to waste on a Rennteck tune if that all they can do.
I would really be upset if I spent hundreds of dollars on a Rennteck tune and that's all it would do!

Why are you talking about what a Rice Accord can do here?
Anyone can have one of them, but which car would you rather have, an Accord or a E-Class MBZ diesel?
Will a V6 Accord get tank mileages of over 36 mpg?

If you think your 2007 Bluetec is slow, wait until you drive, or in your case, read about what
the 2010 and later W-212 E-350 Bluetecs do. They are even slower than your car is!
Over 300 pounds heavier and they have no spare and use run-flat tires and need Ad-Blue.
At least yours does not need Ad-Blue fluid.

No floor shifter either.



DHG

Originally Posted by lkchris

See page 21
http://www.bosch.com/content/languag...ads/UWB_en.pdf

OM648 was introduced in 1999.

Originally Posted by kurtismayfield

I believe you wanted the forum below:

http://www.frybrid.com/forum/

This forum, that you must have selected inadvertently, is for the discussion of diesel fuel burning automobiles manufactured by Mercedes Benz. Obviouly you are new to the forum mentality as observed by your pick of a 3 year old thread that had been rehashed twice in 2012.

Originally Posted by Hondo78

I know this is an old thread, however what is the purpose of the exhaust can just behind the Turbo? Is is a form of Cat? I see an O2 sensor on it. This is not a DPF correct? is it a replacement part after say 90K miles?

Inquiring minds need to know.

Originally Posted by Hondo78

Thank you for the clarification on the cat, I have to wonder if MB or a tuner such as AMG has a low restriction unit with a 3" pipe out the bottom. It connects via a Y pipe to the dual pipes to the mufflers in the back. This may make my I6 even more efficient than the "V6 Bluetec".

Originally Posted by lkchris

Easy to understand but it didn't happen, at least for USA models.

Check out pages 49-52 of this 73 page, 22mb document from MBUSA:
http://www.mercedestechstore.com/pdf...)%205-5-04.pdf