I was looking at the MBUSA site yesterday and it said the E320 CDI goes from 0-60 in 6.6 seconds. I have a european E320 CDI and I was sure the E320 CDI does 0-60 in 7.7 seconds so when I looked at the 0-62 on the MB UK website it said 7.7 seconds and I was right but that got me thinking about the 0-60 for the US E320 CDI's.

I was wondering which one is right and if both are right then why such a difference? Thanks

 

I 've seen the 6.6 number used in the US, I've never timed it but the car is damn fast

 

All I know is that the E320 gasoline is 7.1 (0-60) and the CDI was .5 faster (6.6 sec). I saw this in some specs, but I don't remember where.

I was quite sure that the gasoline E320 is slower than the CDI, but if your spec says 7.7 seconds, then the gasoline E320 is faster.

Who knows the real facts on this?

Steve

 

With the Carlsson C-Tronic box my car has gone from 7.7 secs to 7.0 secs flat.

From 204 hp and 500 nm to 240 hp and 580 nm :p

 

Denver or Baltimore....always running at full power...turbo boost puts you back to sea level and the intercooler turns that cold air into raw torque....the computer knows theres cold dense force-fed air being shoved down the engine's throat, and pours on more fuel to bang out the horses...

What I wonder is if the "official" 0-60 tests are performed with line-braking. I know that if, at 0 mph, you restrain the car with the brakes with your left foot while your right foot throws the coals on her, you LEAP out of the hole like a loaded spring.

If you take your foot of the brake then push the go-pedal, it feels very mushy until the turbo hits, then its a non-linear surge.

One thing that is certain...the trans causes the engine to fall abruptly off the torque peak before hitting 2nd gear. This has to be on-purpose, my guess its to preserve the transmission from upshifting at 369 lb. ft. of twist.

I suspect the CDI could return a 0-60 6.0 sec -6.5 sec time if the trans was told to shift a bit sooner.

The diesel is really best suited to normal driving, not sprints to 60. It is very strong in its ability to climb hills, accelerate going up hill, and to gain speed without downshifting, even going up steep hills.

 

The turbo engines here do tend to compensate quite a bit, but I have to point something out. Just for simplification purposes: Since the normally aspirated car here looses about 15% of its power at sea level (do to the thinner air) one would think that a Turbo could solve this, but it is not the case. (Unfortunately)

One of my very good German friends is a mechanical engineer and explained to me that the way the turbo is designed it will still loose power, compared to sea level, but it will not loose as much as a normally aspirated engine.

The only way that you could get a turbo to make up the difference is if the boost would always wind the turbine until a particular boost is reached. The problem with this is that turbos would burn out. A turbocharged engine is still starting off with 15% less power before the turbo can charge, but then the turbo can not totally compensate for this since the air it is pulling to compress is still thinner.

I have driven a 2004 Golf V TDI up to the mountains a few times and it definitely looses power at higher altitudes, but not as much. However, the last part of your statement is the real thing I like about diesels. The little TDI can run up the passes without downshifting. I can leave it in 5th gear and still gain on people on the 6% inclines. I also get 45 MPGs and I am driving 80 all the way up the mountain! That is why I would want a diesel. If people buy them for speeding up to 60 real fast, you are defeating the purpose of a diesel. Not to mention you are being stupid.

Steve

 

I have no knowledge of the CDI's, but I can tell you that MB tends to list their performance numbers conservatively.

The perfomance spec for my E500 shows it to be about .1 sec slower in 0-60mph than my old BMW 330ci with a manual transmission. However, there is no question in my perception that the E500 is faster.

 

If I read this right you are saying that the US vehicle figure is: 0 - 60mph in 6.6 seconds
UK vehicle 0 - 62.5mph 7.7 seconds.

The 62.5mph is really 100kilometres per hour. The difference is just those last few miles per hour? Or am I missing something?


Regards,
John

 

false, mbusa lies in order to sell more 320 cdi whose weight is 200+ pounds more than 320 petrol one. <-- no offence to CDI owners (see the previous 320 cdi thread)

 

Diesel are heavier. I think the CDI is actually a tad fatter than the E500 and, like you said, a good bit heavier than the regular E320.

Unfortunately, the extra weight is in the front of the car, but at least MB putting the battery in the trunk help a little bit.

Steve, yup, a modern turbo is probably still weaker mountains than sea level. In my old BMW turbo diesel, I have the wastegate turned up to max boost and fuel enriched to match, plus injection pump tuned in lock-step. I have a overboost relief valve, and when the boost maxes out it sounds like air brakes on a truck.

Let me tell you, that little 2.4 BMW diesel runs like a raped ape. In a stoplight derby versus the CDI if it lost it wouldn't be by very much. I don't know how long it will last, but it has endured 9 years of hammer-down driving. It looses no power at higher elevations, it can smoke the tires, and has been known to get the exhaust pipe glowing red on some abusive mountain runs.

Yeah, stupid way of measuring exhaust gas temperature, I know, but I bought the car for $900 and that was nearly a decade ago.

Yes, Glojo, could be the 2.5 MPH. Remember from physics, ET=1/2mv^2, in other words, as speed increases, energy total increases exponentially, plus, you are in a car so you need to push more wind at greater speed.

Other explanation could be technique. Maybe for the US test they held the brakes and gas at the same time before take off. You know, spun up the turbos like a pliot winds up a trio of Pratts to get a 727 with full load of fatties plus luggage of the ramp at Phoenix at 110 degrees outside temperature. Squeeze all the juice out.

 

In comparing gas versus diesel, keep that in mind.

These are automatic trans cars. The torque converter, at 0 MPH, is going to allow 2500-3000 RPMs, max. That's your available power, sitting at the light, when it turns green. That's what you feel when you press the go pedal.

So, go to your torque graph for whatever engine interests you. The CDI is dispensing a lot more torque below 3000 RPM. A CDI is very boring above 3500 RPM, there's nothing there. It lays down at the same RPM an E55 is just getting started.

So what kind of driving do you do?

If you are stop-and-go, town and country, you will be satisfied with a CDI because it moves from stoplight to stoplight in "C" mode leaps and bounds ahead of the regular traffic. At about 1/8 throttle, its very nice, your motor is whispering as traffic becomes the scene in your rear view mirror. You can feel the torque set into the car and it is a very unique feeling starting in 2nd gear, staying there until 35-40 mph, with such a nice linear pull. Really reminds me of an electric motor.

If you hate diesel, get the 320 gas its a great car. You won't be disappointed unless....

....You are a serious leadfoot....get a 500. You can afford the extra gas.

NOW, if you are SERIOUS and have a natural imbalace of testosterone....

get the E55.

Same car, different flavors. Just make sure you get YOUR flavor!

 

Yeah thats right and thats why I dont get it! If the US figure said something like 7.5 seconds instead of the 7.7 for the UK figure I would have ignored it but its a 1.1 second difference. So are our E320 CDI's as fast as the US CDI's or are MBUSA chattin a load a bull?

 

That's very good times. Typically diesels has great torque over horsepower. They have come a long way as our '85 300SD (which has the turbo) did 0-60MPH in about 2 days.

 

I have just had a quick check and the UK figures match the European figures, which match the New Zealand figures.

Over here we have a choice between the 320CDI and the 320 petrol. Obviously economy will effect folks decisions, but the E500 and E55 are purchased so fuel is obviously NOT the over riding factor. However I have not read of anyone in the UK that has bought a 211 320 (no doubt someone has but they are not a common choice at all).

I do know of people that have purchased the S320 in lieu of the 320CDI, and this decision has been made usually on old fashioned believes of how diesels used to perform and not how they perform in the 21st century, although the petrol is very slightly quieter.

The S class no longer offers the 320 petrol, but the

2.8 petrol 0 - 62.5 9.7sec
3.2CDI 0 - 62.5 8.2sec
3.5 petrol 0 - 62.5 7.6sec

The CDI technology is putting diesel engines on a level playing field with their petrol equivalent and things will only get better.

The new BMW 535 diesel is only a 3ltr engine but it is both quicker and more economical than the Mercedes 320CDI.

John

 

SO. . .

Is it safe to say then that the gasoline E320 is faster than the E320 CDI???? Anyone?

All these points just make one very important bigger point; the 0 to 60 numbers are not a really fair or good way to measure a car's performance. Elasticity numbers and 0 to 100 mph would be a nice addition to the 0-60 statistics.

Steve

 

Before buying our car I had nothing better to do than research performance figures. The petrol was better on just one set of acceleration figures.

Unfortunately there is a problem convincing some folks of these improvements. Rumour has it the world is round, steam trains have been replaced by diesel ones. It is amusing reading some of the posts, but it does get tiresome repeating the same thing.

In Europe the Golf GTi is a bit of a cult car, renowned for its performance. There is now a Golf GTi diesel, it goes like the proverbial and races in the same formula. Same sized engine but one is a smoking, oil burning, noisey diesel and the other is supposed to be a high performance fuel injected petrol engine.

Regards,
John

 

I know that MB are very conservative with their figures so maybe the US 0-60 time is correct and the european one is wrong
The other strange thing is that the US CDI's seem to be limited and fitted with small brakes whereas the European version will reach 151mph and has huge great calipers fitted as standard.

 

The US top speed is electronically limited. At 60 mph top gear, I'm turning 1800 rpm. (not scientific...just from my dashboard). So at 151, I would then be turning 4500 rpm. That's a heck of a lot for a diesel.

This is what gets me thinking about axle ratios. Perhaps the UK/ Euro versions have "longer legs"....a higher rear axle ratio, which would reduce the 0-62.5 sprint times, but result in a higher eventual top speed.

Rear axle ratio for the US car is 2.65:1 (from MBUSA.com). (same as E55 US).

Knowing our fastest speed limit is usually 70 mph and most are 65 mph or lower, a higher ratio would yield better acceleration and still be at a suitable RPM for long term cruising.

E55 listed as 4.7 sec 0-62.5 from MB UK.
E55 listed as 4.5 sec 0-60 from MB USA

As a side question, is the US CDI comparable to a EU3 spec or EU4 spec? I noticed on the combined mpg for the UK version, the EU3 claims 40.9 mpg and the EU4 drops to 36.7, fully a 4 mpg drop, according to MB UK. And, EU4 costs over $1000 USD more than EU3.


BTW....regarding MB "lying".....the US website TODAY still lists the "REST" feature for the CDI; its long gone. My car was built 08/2004 and it did not have REST, it was cancelled around 07/2004, nearly 6 months ago.
So does MB lie or overstate or are just unscrupulous about specs/features....yes, they do.

 

I found specs for Turkey...gobble gobble......

Axle ratio US E320 CDI 2.65:1
Axle ratio TR E320 CDI 2.47:1

http://www.mercedes-benz.com.tr/Inte...niktablosu.htm

Thus, if UK cars also have 2.47:1, looks like I may have solved this....slower 0-60 and higher eventual speed, is what you get with "longer legs" (and, in many situations like highway cruising, better fuel economy).

The US CDI would have greater driveability if it had the 2.47, and "C" mode was not a second gear start, but a regular 1st gear start combined with sooner upshifts.

 

cdiken, you are absolutely right my friend, its the gear ratios. the US bound cars are geared for acceleration, hence why the car is "damn fast"

6.6 to 60 is about the same time as an S500, pretty quick for most folks...

 

Hi Ken,
What excellent research. The maximum speed on a public road in the UK is 70mph. Surprisingly enough in Germany where Mercedes-Benz are made there are certain roads where full advantage can be taken of the CDI's top speed

Obviously there will be differing opinions on what is the right ratio, but I am more than pleased with both the performance and economy of my CDI.

Regarding the EU3 vs EU4 320CDI configuration. The EU4 has only just been released and because of the quality of diesel in the US it might not be exported there yet?

There is absolutely no advantage in having the latest spec engine, but there are a few disadvantages. Economy being a big disadvantage as it is thirstier than our 'older' engine.

Thanks again for the very informative post.
John

 

I just read a review on the C-class coupe diesel AMG and thought that some of you might be interested.

I was going to post it on the 203 forum but got 'frit' (Horrible stickies about nasty folks)

Oh for a nice E400AMG diesel in RHD format

C30AMG
AMG hasn't tackled a diesel before. That it has done so now shows how the diesel engine really is on its way to being a viable performance car power plant. Some figures should set the scene. The C30 engine delivers 231bhp from its 3.0 litres and five cylinders (that's the same as a petrol 3.0-litre six-pot manages in a 3-series BMW), plus a crazy 398lb ft of torque. Here is a 155mph diesel car, able to sprint to 62mph in 6.8 seconds and still average 37.2mpg. So, how does it do it?

The extra energy, compared with the C270 CDI engine's starting point, comes partly from a longer stroke and partly through forcing more air into these bigger cylinders. A new intercooling system, using an electric pump to circulate cooling water through the intercooler and a pair of dedicated radiators, is the key here. The pump's electronic controller helps keep the intake air's temperature and boost pressure just where it needs to be for maximum output without wrecking the engine. Other aids to longevity are a reduced compression ratio (the extra boost more than compensates), and an oil-squirt rail cast into the bespoke cylinder block, which aims cooling jets at the pistons' undersides.

It all works superbly, but this is a different sort of performance car. You don't rev it for pace: it loses interest much above 4000rpm, and develops max power at 3800. Instead you skim along on the top of the torque curve, not worrying if the revs drop as low as 1500rpm as the five-speed automatic changes up. You might expect the fire to go out, but it's still burning and off you surge again. Seldom has energy been so relaxing, which neatly sums up the paradox that is the C30 AMG.

One thing which has stood between a diesel engine and true driving involvement is the sound it makes, but here, too, the AMG nudges the rules. Here is a diesel engine with a voice: a deep, slightly beaty, five-cylinder burble from its twin down-deflected tailpipes, which just about manages to win the aural battle with the dieselly clatter and thrum up front (this is not as sweet a motor as the regular 270 CDI, because its bangs are bigger). Add an accelerator response whose sharpness is a bit of a diesel revelation, and the sporty credentials, albeit reinterpreted, are complete.

And in case there's any doubt, the ability to smoke tyres from a standing start and power into torque-heavy tailslides should settle the matter. Don't be alarmed, though; this is a crisp, responsive, beautifully-balanced car with its broadly C32 AMG chassis components, and there's no shame in using the ESP to keep things in line because it's a subtle system whose intervention is gentle and non-frustrating. The other delight is the steering, as accurate and talkative as the regular C-class's is rubbery and soft-focus.

This is a great car, and an intriguing new take on what makes a car fun to drive. It can be had as a Sports Coup頡s here, a saloon or an estate. The first is the cheapest, at around £33,000, but there is a snag. AMG won't make any right-hand drive versions until it knows the LHD buying public has taken to its new creation. So we'll just have to wait, or make do with LHD whose imports start next March


Regards,
John

 

Is the top speed of your CDI electronically limited, and if so, what is that limit?

Doing the math, you should be turning 1784 rpm at 60 mph.

(2.65 X .83 X 811 = 1783.8 rpm)

As an example of the MB site errors, my car is listed as having 3.46s, but in reality it has
3.07s as verified by me crawling under and reading the ratio stamped on the case.

Mine is turning 2074 rpm at 60 mph, and at 80 mph, it's way to high at 2765 rpm.

(3.07 X .83 X 814 = 2074)

I wish it had those taller gears, as even mine has more than enough torque to be pulling them.
If one wants more acceleration, that's what fourth gear is for!

Notice also that along with the taller 2.47s, they also list a slightly taller tire (205 X 60 - 16.)
So it would seem that the engineers figure that this powerhouse can pull a really tall ratio out on the highway.
The question is, why did they decide that the cars shipped to the US needed to be buzzing higher?
Don't we have the long stretches where those taller gears would be beneficial?

Sometimes I think the engineers that decide these things aren't thinking very clearly.

 

Initially, there were worries that the diesel would not succeed here; the taller gears may have been dictated to the engineers so that the car could post a better acceleration number and feel stronger.

Top speed is electronically limited to 130.

****banger Cadillac motors of the 1980's were geared at 2.11:1 in huge, brick aerodynamic boats, with overdrive, and they had less torque.

Gears could easily be 2.47:1 or even higher, and the motor would not complain. The Sprinter, up to 10,000lb gross weight, has a similar motor with ONE LESS CYLINDER....comparable to non-US E270 CDI cars.

 

Hi cdiken,
I'm impressed with all the research. The UK Mercedes-Benz Sprinter with the 2.7CDI is a real flying machine but it is not a very popular choice within the business world. As a goods vehicle it is simply too fast. The speed limit for this type of vehicle is 60mph (drivers would soon be getting banned from driving )

It does however sell the Mercedes-Benz brand because all local authorities that can afford to, buy this vehicle for their emergency services. Ambulances and all types of Police converted vehicles (task forces, firearms, and riot control) have this choice of engine, it is extremely fast, very economical and reliability is second to none.

As an end user with absolutely no connection what soever to Mercedes-Benz, I cannot praise the vehicle highly enough. My own vehicle is the next engine size down and cruising at just over 70mph (our vehicle is classed as a motor car and has a 70mph speed limit) it averaged 36mpg on a 600 mile round trip. Having read your excellent thread I suspect that once again the gearing on our vehicles are different?

Thanks again for the excellent post,
John