CornishPasty

I am looking to order the T-model (estate / station wagon) E class 220 or 350d. I currently have a C-Class C250d sedan which has a good power to size/weight ratio with 204bhp, however, the E220d only has 194bhp.

Can anyone give advice on which model to go for? I know it is highly subjective, but knowing that the E220d would suffice in terms of power may save me quite a bit of cash.

Thanks!

400ixl

Do they not do a E250 in the W213? I have the the E250 A207 and it is by far the best all round answer.

joshg1001

I dont have any experience with the latest 220d vs 250d as we dont get them in the states, but you are not going to be able to tell a difference in the 10hp you are losing. I know psychologically, 194 sounds bad because of the "1" in front, versus something with over 200 hp. The engine in the 220 is a completely new generation diesel engine and I understand from reading the reviews that it is leaps better than the previous 250d engine, way more refined in sound and feel. If you haven't test driven it, I think you will be surprised with it.

c4004matic

A 6 cylinder vs a 4. The answer seems obvious unless the highest milage is the most important concern

Mike__S

The new, all aluminum OM654 four cylinder has twin counter balance shafts, making it remarkably smooth compared to the very heavy, noisy OM651 that was use in the US and everywhere else since 2008. 2008 is about when Noah's Ark landed in terms of Diesel technology compared to this new motor series. There is 3.5 billion investment on that new motor Diesel family.

The new OM654 is 13% better fuel economy that the old 2 liter OM651. It has 400NM torque from 1600-2400 which 0-60 in ~7,5 second. Quick enough for most people.

The problem with the V6 is it is 2005 Diesel technology and it not near as efficient as the new 4 cylinder. However it has 50% more torque. Realize this only lowers the 0-100 time by a little over 1 second. The V6 difference in power will be felt best in the 100-200 kph range or in acceleration up steep mountain roads. However, I know that the current V6 is so much heavier than the new 4 cylinder that there will be a very noticeable loss of agility around mountain curves with the very heavy V6 sitting in the front of the car. I would go with the 4 cylinder for several reasons and agility is high on that list.

The six will give you a higher price to pay and significantly higher operating costs. Based on 20.000km per year the additional fuel cost is between sFr.4.000 and sFr.6.000 over five years driving, plus another sFr.1750 in additional displacement tax (Kanton Zürich). The variation is between high 60%=all city vs. low 60%=all 50-100 kph. Even at 10.000km/year this is a goodly pile of cash. Let fuel prices rise again to sFr.2 and the costs will really open your eyes. They could rise again that high in the foreseeable future. Not a risk I would take if owning a car for 6-10 years today. The American cousins can now understand why people still by Diesel engines.

Next year there will be the new in-line 6 based on the OM654. Now there you can take 75kg off the nose of the car in weight savings and about 10% off the damage outlined in the previous paragraph. Unlike the V6, the new motor will be absolutely silky smooth, and a joy to drive as only a inline 6 can be. With either six cylinder, you will fit the seat better too with all that extra cash missing from your wallet every year.

Just go drive the two liter and if it is really disappointing at least you tried it. But, I think you will find it quite satisfactory. This image is the secret of the new OM654 smooth feeling:

DubVBenz

Why oh why won't they bring the OM656 to the US?! I wish I could get an inline 6 diesel W213 here in the states, but I can almost guarantee that it'll never happen.

That limits me to one of two sedans going forward (from my OM642 W211): US 535d (EU 530d), which I am suspicious of in terms of quality and the OM642v2 240hp/455ftlbs W221 S-Class, which I would prefer to avoid because of airmatic, size and weight.

I cannot bring myself to purchase any VAG diesel product, so the A6/7 & Porsche Cayenne are non-starters... so please please MB, bring me an inline 6 CDI E!

Mike__S

The real problem right now is not the VW scandal, knowing it certainly did not help, instead, it is the extremely low price of fuel that has now become the real culprit. The savings Diesel represents in fuel economy is trivial until something on the order of $4 per gallon in typical yearly average miles driven situations.

I also am a great proponent of Diesel, but I do keep my ear to the ground for new technical possibilities. There are technical alternatives appearing for fuel economy, particularly the Miller combustion cycle engines.

The cost advantage of Diesel over Gasoline has practically been reduced to the difference in the heat content between the fuels when using the Miller cycle principle. This difference is because Diesel has more energy potential per gallon by some 13.5% over gasoline as a fuel. Lets say a Diesel gets 44 mpg. In similar driving the Miller cycle will average 38 mpg, and Diesel does not have the city driving advantage against the Miller that Diesel has over Otto cycle gasoline engines, thus a typical Diesel city average of 32mpg will become 28.5 mpg using the Miller cycle. This is not a huge price spread, and the advantage of Diesel going forward is diminished compared to earlier engine management technology.

Currently, several economy engines are partial or full Miller cycle engines. Most notable is the Audi A4 "Economy" option engine. And, not a word is mentioned about the Miller technology employed in this engine. The 1.8 VW turbo is, believe, partial Miller cycle.

In a stringent regulatory environment, the nitrous oxide control is less expensive using the Miller cycle. This leads to the possibility of Hybrid Miller Cycle powered cars that rival Diesel when overall cash costs and environmental costs are considered. One cannot predict the future, but I would keep an eye out for such a development.

Then, we get back to the present cheap fuel equation which limits big Diesel engine demand. As I pointed out the the post above the operating costs of three liter engines in Europe are significantly higher than two liter, nice as they may be to drive. By lowering European consumer demand for these three liter engines through tax structure, it also makes them expensive to develop and sell. This is the reason all manufactures are going to a three liter straight six engine built off the basic drawing of the popular four cylinder two liter engines. The same is true for gasoline engines for that matter.

These bigger engines then must be tested for US/Canada regulations, a process that has become increasingly expensive. With the low demand for them in the US and Canada the recovery of unit costs raise the price of these cars to an unattractive premium over similar gasoline power.

And, ironically, the present ultra low cost of fuel limits the recovery of this premium paid by the buyer. It has become a vicious circle and a dilemma for marketing managers. They won't make money with Diesel because the consumer cannot earn significant payback with Diesel right now At least not significant enough to make for any demographic purchase swing towards diesel.

This means US and Canadian drivers are unwilling to give away the sweet top end performance of a gasoline engine, simply because there is no incentive to do so. In Europe just the opposite is true. Diesel (and gas) is incentivized by the tax structure and we have 1.4 to 2.0 Diesels as the main power choice.

Given the US current government, and the shale oil production in the US that is capable of sustaining $50-60 per barrel oil production for a couple decades, for the moment it looks as if this senerio is not going to change.

In Europe, they are much more vulnerable to price shocks due to reliance on external oil supplies. So, because of this risk premium in Europe compared to US/Canada, we will continue to see highly divergent government fuel policies between the two regions. And, a pitifully low demand for Diesel in North American market.

BelaMeca

Hey Friend

I see you are in Zurich...What up

Bought my 220D last week.Very happy with the Car.It drives great.Very smooth in C and in ECO too smooth.When in S or Plus you get some crisp shifts and some sideways driving.

I was lucky enough to have a good who works as a Sales Manager at a MB and let me test drive the Car for as long as i wished,so i can get a good idea what i might be buying possibly.

Some good Points to get the 220 D over the the other Engine is the Insurance Cost and the Registration Cost.Believe it or not you pay only around 50 Swiss Francs for the Registration.And for the Full Coverage Insurance with all options i paid around 1600/Year.

Look the Torque is great which is good for the City driving,and on long roads the 220 coupled with the 9 speed gearbox is as smooth as a Babys butt.

Let me know if you need anything.

Dean

c4004matic

Diesel has never been popular in the US and every time it has gained any momentum it has been quickly killed by one dilemma or another. The fact is that for all it performance and efficiency advantages diesel is a dirty, dirty fuel. Simply take a stroll in "dirty" LA and one in Paris the difference is immediately apparent the stench of diesel is oppressive in any European city, moreover, that diesel "perfume" is not only bad for your sense of smell, its also deadly. As the VW fiasco has exposed NO car company has developed a practical diesel engine that can be as clean as a gas engine. That should come as no surprise given that Honda spent a decade trying to develop a clean diesel and after 10's of millions of dollars it gave it up completely basically saying it couldn't be done.

BelaMeca

@C404Matic

You are aware of the fact that todays Diesels run Cleaner than the Gasoline Engines?

joshg1001

cleaner? depends on your definition. Even with the advanced systems we have in place, I believe diesels still emit more particulates and smog into the air than a comparable gas engine, leading to bad air quality for breathing.

400ixl

Particulates yes, not good for you, but not as bad as hydro carbons which gasoline engine produce more of.

One is bad in one way, the other worse in another.

However, the big focus was on CO2 then NOX which cause visible pollution issues. Hydrocarbons don't cause visible pollution, but are more deadly to humans being more easily absorbed into the blood stream and a cause of cancer mutations amongst others.

So cleaner, no not really, but less lethal to humans then yes. However the do good brigade are more focused on visible pollution causing smog in cities, not what actually kills us.

c4004matic

You must lay off the pipe! Haven't you read a newspaper in the last 2 years?????


Virtually every manufacturer of diesels has been cheating emission regulations for years. Even with urea injection, diesels spew incredible amounts of NOX during acceleration which no manufacturer has been able to adequately address (that's why VW cheated) and the reason why, at this time, MB offers exactly zero diesels in the US. The diesel fiasco is the reason all of a sudden Mercedes and other European manufacturers have rushed to introduce all sort of hybrids and battery cars. In the US the level of acceptable NOX is four times lower than in Europe. No diesel vehicle can even dream of ever qualifying as a PZEV a designation that almost all gasoline car models sold in the US qualify for.

400ixl

Measure the wrong things and you drive the wrong behaviour. All too typical really and the public swallow it.

There is passing the emissions test on what they prioritise vs the emissions which are most harmful to humans which they don't test on. Its about smog, not pollutants so an engine can be cleaner in terms of human harm but not as smog friendly. So really depends on your priorities.

Electric is the real answer but not going to get there until the range is longer and the charge times are in low numbers of minutes. Once we get there, both gasoline and diesel are toast.

c4004matic

The unfortunate thing about the whole deal is that you would think that diesels have fewer CO2 emissions since they use less fuel, unfortunately that would be wrong too since on a per volume basis diesel emits 10% 15% more CO2 than gasoline! The big difference in favor of diesel is organic compound evaporative emissions. However, that is a physical attribute of a less volatile compound, in the real world, evaporative emission on modern gas vehicles are almost zero. The other area that diesels produce less emissions is in fuel production since making diesel takes a lot less refining. That is also changing since "cleaner' (less sulfur, higher octane) diesel fuel takes additional refining!
There are no free lunches.........

ua549

When it comes to electric vehicles, one must also consider the emissions from all of those dirty power plants. In the US 67% of the electricity comes from fossil fuels. Electric vehicles are no cleaner than the others.

400ixl

That is changing year on year though and more people will end up with personal renewabe sources.

In 10 years that will be quite a different percentage.

400ixl

The latest versions in Europe actually have less CO2 from Diesels than petrols, but thats only recently been the case.

Shipping diesel engines produce more emissions than all of the cars put together by quite a magnitude.

As you say, outside of city centres in some cities, its not vehicle emissions which are the issue really. This is why they focus on smog and not what are the really harmful emissions. The 1% problem out weighing the rest.

c4004matic

Our electricity carbon footprint is steadily decreasing since coal has become only a fraction of what it used to be. On the other hand, only God knows what our Putin certified, idiot new president is going to do

c4004matic

Don't take me wrong like with batteries I would love a powerful, clean diesel engine to exist but were not there yet. The Japanese certainly have passed on diesel altogether and the Germans are closer to the same conclusion they are simply a lot more invested on diesel so they are having a longer transition period to some sort of hybrid technology.

400ixl

Indeed, but what he says and does seem to often be poles apart. So hopefully it won't be all coal fired steel mills.

ua549

I doubt that the sources of electricity will change much over the next 10 years. It is especially difficult for city dwellers to unplug from the grid due to urban zoning issues and reliance on apartment and condo housing. New fossil fuel power plants are popping up regularly all over the world. The coal fired plants shutting down in the US are being replaced by other fossil fuel plants, not zero emission plants. In addition non-fossil fuel biomass power generation which is cheap has significant greenhouse gas emissions. (We have 2 in Florida.) They are pretty much off the table as is nuclear at least in Florida. Duke Energy that serves much of central Florida has shuttered one nuclear complex and abandoned construction of another leaving rate payers paying billions of dollars for electricity that will never be generated.

The bottom line is that electric vehicles will be as dirty or dirtier than internal combustion vehicles for the foreseeable future.

c4004matic

Not really, many coal plants are being replaced by renewables particularly wind, the natural gas plants are there to add capacity when needed. Even the gas plants that are simple direct replacements (admittedly most) are a vast improvement in C02 emissions compared to coal. Total emissions in the USA have decreased to less than 2010 levels while increasing capacity by 30%. Electricity is so cheap now that utilities are even closing nuclear plants because they are not cost competitive!

ua549

In 2015 Florida produced 1.4% of its electricity using renewable sources excluding biomass. Electricity is not inexpensive here where it cost 40% more than the national average. I pay 18˘ per kilowatt hour. Gas is even more expensive, but typically it is not available at any price.

Mike__S

A new realization of pollution regulation is the notion of micro climate zones. Electric power, besides the efforts to make clean electricity, is very attractive because we can move the pollution way from sensitive zones, such as the road canyons in dense urban areas, where pollution levels can be genuinely harmful, not just 'unhealthy' as the phrase is used.

Micro climate measurement has only recently be understood. It does not mean measurement stations perched atop urban buildings, but measurements at street level.

What in the press has been labeled as "cheating" and "technology failure" certainly applies to VW corporate climate, but is not all that helpful in understanding the problems or finding solutions to micro climate (read: urban) NOx pollution attributed to Diesel engines.

Responsible authorities in the EU realize that the problem has had long term difficulties in first understanding the seriousness of NOx pollution. This lead to ever more strict NOx regulation for automobiles in the past twenty years.

Only as recently as 2013 was some other problem suspected. Urban NOx levels were rising in spite of tighter and tighter emissions standards. This is where the micro climate notion enters the picture. In testing for urban pollution it was finally realized that the testing standard given to the manufactures, the ubiquitous "tail pipe" test, was inadequate. It was in the process of confirming this fact the the scope of VW corporate manipulation of even the simple tail pipe testing was revealed.

The VW scandal has generated a generalized use of hyperbole such as 'cheating' and 'lying' lying by ALL manufacturers. This is not really accepted in EU regulatory circles, where they themselves realize the difficulties inherent in the regulatory process and the need for cooperation between government and industry. This flexible view is in part generated by a completely different legal system and partially by a more professional senior civil servant infrastructure.

The preset consensus in the EU is that EURO 6 emissions regulations must now be confirmed through real road test of Diesel vehicles. The EURO 6 standards will greatly reduce NOx pollution levels in urban areas. The present question is can present "DEF" injection into the exhaust stream meet these standard in real, 'on-the-road' testing without seriously affecting Diesel efficiency.

If EURO 6 is not met, then Diesel vehicles will soon be banned from sensitive micro climate zones, i.e. urban centers. There is already simple congestion toll schemes in many European cites, whereby the Diesel vehicle ban could be easily effected if it becomes necessary.

Regulators and the public at at large are presently awaiting developments. At the same time, combustion technology of Diesel, Otto and Miller cycle engines continues improvement. So all we can honestly say at present we do not know how successfully the Diesel NOx issue will be resolved, nor what exact regulations and restrictions may ultimately be implemented.

It may prove to have been a typical issue of waiting on more technical improvement. Sometimes we are surprised at new tech advances and other times frustrated by their seeming inadequacy. What can I say?

Or, we may be at a crossroads. The case is if EURO 6 is met, then the urban NOx levels will decline by eventually by some 80% and Diesel will not be the pollution problem anymore than gasoline power. If Diesel cannot genuinely meet EURO6 then it will have to be banned, immediately from alpine and other type valleys, urban centers and perhaps other sensitive micro climate zones and alternative motive power chosen for the future. Mercedes seems confident this latter predicament will not come to pass, but then so did VW. Heavy times.