The January 2005 Car and Driver had a small sidebar attached to a lengthy aricle on luxury cars. They wrote:

Diesels—Pleasantly Pointless

For the first time in many years, the lineup of eligible cars for 10 Best included two diesels. The
Mercedes E320 CDI and the Volkswagen Passat present two variations of the latest direct injection diesel technology. In some parts of Europe, diesels account tor more than 50 per-cent of new-car sales. Even in countries like the U.K., where diesel fuel costs the same high price
as gasoline, the proportion is 30 percent. But Mercedes and VW must have more hope than expectation of a sales success for diesels in the U. S. These cars both drive pretty well, and the six- cylinder Mercedes with automatic transmission is quiet and smooth, so the untrained or uninterested would not detect the difference from gasoline power. But even at recently increased
fuel prices, 20-percent-better fuel mileage is not a convincing argument for paying more for a diesel with less performance than a gasoline equivalent. Upcoming exhaust emissions rules are likely to outlaw these engines, and those compliant with the new regulations will likely be even more expensive.— Roy Hutton

Im' not sure what he was comparing to:

But Mercedes and VW must have more hope than expectation of a sales success for diesels in the U.S.


Mercedes sold out their first year U.S. allotment of CDI's in five months.

. . . the untrained or uninterested would not detect the difference from gasoline power.


It's hard to miss the wheel-spinning 369 ft. pounds of torque in the E320 CDI.

20-percent-better fuel mileage is not a convincing argument for paying more for a diesel with less performance than a gasoline equivalent.


Beyond the above spec on torque, Mercedes reports the CDI get 30% better fuel economy than the gas E320 and turns in 6.6 seconds in 0- 60 which is faster than the gas version.

Upcoming exhaust emissions rules are likely to outlaw these engines, and those compliant with the new regulations will likely be even more expensive.


The CDI obviously meets EU emission standards which I understand are 58% stricter than the U. S. requirements. The advent of low sulfur diesel in 2006 will make these fuel sippers even more environmentally friendly.

I'm guessing that the writer would be more comfortable recommending a Hummer!

 

Sadly this is par for the course. I have read a number of US reports and most tend to get the authors name correct and then it goes down hill.

Still, why let the truth get in the way of an interesting article?

Regards,
John

 

Very interesting thanks for the info.


JD

 

In another sidebar, a plurality of the editors picked the E320CDI as their first choice for long-distance cruising. For 1-5 hours drives, it certainly seems to be a relaxing car to drive.

David

P.S.
We get about 30mpg on most suburban trips. 24mpg in the city. And 33-34mpg at a continous cruise control montiored 75mph on the highway. What does an E320 get in those circumstances? I don't know, but a C320 wagon loaner got about 22-24, 17, and 26mpg in similar circumstances.

 

27 mpg on the highway and an average of 18.8 in my V8 e500.... Now thats something to behold....
All in all you diesel heads have alot to brag about as far as the gas milage. Truely impressive

 

I just took the longest (10 hours) highway trip in my '04 E500 and averaged the same 27 MPH...

 

My car is not broken in yet (it is just under 4,000 miles). Ever since I got it the mileage has been getting better every time I fill it up. So far, the city running average is about 20.8 MPG My highway driving averages about 26.3 MPG. I have a 4 matic (that is supposed to use more fuel), I have also not taken it on any really long trip yet. If I go by the MFD, I did get 29 mpg on a 350 mile stretch of mountain driving (both up and down hill).

My 300E would get up to 32mpg on long trips averaging about 80 mph. So I fully expect this car to do it, but I think that it needs more miles to loosen up. I have gotten E320 4 matic station wagons as loaner cars and they were doing better MPGs. I suspect it is because it had about 15k miles on it.

I hear that these cars get better numbers on the 0 to 60 up till 30,000 miles. That would indicated that the engine will loosen up and run better with some age.

Steve A.

 

I have to admit that recent fuel price increases have somewhat dimmed the appeal of a diesel. Never the less, I was really pleased with the performance of our CDI on a trip this past Sunday to and from the Air Force museum in Dayton, OH: 568 miles, 15.7 gallons of fuel, for a calculated average of 36.1 mpg.

Some observations and thoughts:

-The trip computer showed 2-3 mpg less than I calculated using the odo miles and the pump gallons!

-This was a heavy-duty trip: Besides driving the 568 miles Sunday, we spent from 9 AM to 5 PM touring the museum. The CDI is so restful and relaxing to drive, the travel was easy.

-At the end of the 568 miles, the trip computer still showed a range of 150 miles!

-Our car now has some 2700 miles on the odo. The master trip register has never been reset, and shows 29.4 mpg overall fuel consumption.

This is a helluva car!

Thanks for posting the curious C&D sidebar.

 

I own an E320 CDI. It replaced my E55. Sure, I am an old guy and value comfort over performance, but the diesel is more than just fuel economy.

I find that the engine is very responsive and smooth at virtually any speed. From rest, there is so much torque that takeoffs feel as powerful as my twin turbo twelve CL600. Once underway, acceleration rarely requires the transmission to kick down. In the E55, I always felt that it was all or nothing, either too little acceleration or too much. I appreciate how easy it is to modulate the throttle in the diesel, it feels connected to my foot in an way that few other drive by wire cars can do.

In my E55 I averaged 18 mpg. In my wife's C320 wagon, we averaged 21 mpg and in the diesel we average 33 mpg, so I feel that I am getting 50% better mileage overall than any of my other Mercedes.

 

I took a 4,800 mile trip in my new (200 miles) '04 E320. I averaged exactly 27 MPG. This is a true average, not the optimistic mileage the computer provides. On the trip, I kept track of what the computer said I got for each tank and what I really got. The computer was always optimistic (up to 1 MPG or more).

I drove in every kind of situation from heavy urban traffic to 80 MPH Interstate to 10,000 foot mountain passes.

It's my humble opinion that if I'd driven a new CDI on the same trip, that I would have got about 5-6 MPG better mileage. Maybe a bit better.

Consequently, I couldn't justify buying a CDI for economical reasons. At least not in the US. In fact, I believe that the CDI is actually more complicated than the E320 V6 so I'm not sure even reliability could be used as justification.

The CDI isn't your dad's trusty old MB diesel. Of course 369 ft. lbs. of torque is a lot of justification.

 

I do a lot of highway travel but overall my E320 has managed 23 mpg since birth (mixture of highway/city).