neuromb

This is my first post, at least for a while. I am considering a GL320 diesel. The reasons:
1-Need a large SUV
2-Want to save on gas
3-Want to help the environment

I am clear on the first two reasons, but I am not sure I am doing much for the environment with this diesel engine. I can't find a good explanation of why the GL 320 CDI does not meet California emissions. What is it about the CDI emissions that they do not meet CA requirements? They say it is a cleaner diesel, but is it clean afterall? Does the GL450 has lower emissions, despite its poor gas mileage? It seems the 450 does meet CA emissions. I would probably go with less MPG if I knew the vehicle caused less harm to the environment. Also, is biodiesel less clean, and am I helping by using B5 and its paltry 5% biodiesel? And does anyone know when the GL Bluetec will be out? Will that be the answer to all these questions? Thanks!

neuromb

Follow up comment:

GL450 has a LEVII emission certification and the diesel has a "Federal" emissions certification. Can anyone explain what this means?

Nevada Jack

See the MBUSA site...it explains most of what you are asking.

http://www.mbusa.com/campaigns/alter...fuels/index.do

StapleGun

You may want to google it - I found this right off the bat LINK
California aka the left coast is not a place I'm moving to any time soon, so I really don't care. But if you're interested in those items goto google - type in Low Emission Vehicle, CARB, emission certification, etc...

weimingmri

My understanding is that CDI emits less greenhouse gas , but more micro particles comparing with gas engine.

mbslk350

This page also provides some info

http://www.whnet.com/4x4/emit.html

I thought that the GL320 was Tier 2 Bin 8, but this link says Bin 10. I'll have to dig deeper and see if this link is correct.

UPDATE: I looked at the MB german site, where the GL320 is classified as EU4 compliant. Here are the EU4 limits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_IV

This means that the GL320 is very close to Tier 2 Bin 8 with NOx levels and particulates way below Bin 10 limits. Plus, as already noted, the GL320 burns 20% to 30% less fuel, which is very environmentally friendly. And it takes less energy to refine Diesel fuel than gas.

boxboss

It means that CA requirements are crazily strict. If you need to fulfill reason 1 then the GL320 is the way to go. It will save on gas and help the environment because it saves on gas.

If you were to compare all the "large" SUV's available, the GL diesel gets probably the best mileage. Regardless of it meeting CA standards or not, it uses less fuel per mile...meaning less gh gasses and petro reserve depletion. All diesels have higher particulates. Those particulates drop out of the atmosphere and don't contribute to smog as much as gas burners.

CA has, IMO, a weird situation. The 320 doesn't meet their standards so all GL buyers in CA will get the gas version which contributes more to environmental problems than the 320. Waiting for the CA approved version will just cause more problems than if they had allowed the 320 in the first place.

oknish

BINGO. No diesel GLs for CA till BlueTec comes out, is my understanding from my sales rep.

Welcome to the crazy state of mind called CA. We let things get worse unless the solution meets our exact high standards. There is no gray here, everything is either black or white.

neuromb

Thanks a lot for your responses, which have been very helpful. mbslk350's link is very telling. Of note, the table refers to MB vehicle emissions in grams per MILE, not per volume of burned fuel. After studying this, googling, and reading this table, I come to a few hair splitting conclusions, presuming the table is accurate:

1-The GL 320 CDI does not meet CA guidelines because it has a CO emissions that are 45% over the limit and nitrous oxide emissions that are 50% more than CA guidelines, for trucks. Therefore, I conclude the GL 320 has more greenhouse emissions per mile and that the GL's diesel creates significantly more GH gases per volume than the V8 and that the V8 is currently a more environmentally friendly vehicle.
2-I agree the GL CDI seems to contribute to the petrol reserves and to gas expenses for the individual driving it.
3-There are diesel particulates and their effect in the environment and, more importantly, specific systemic and pulmonary involvement, is not really known, but there is significant evidence that diesel exhaust may be carcinogenic. Levels and pollution control systems in passenger vehicles likely prevent this, of course.
4-Hopefully the new bluetec will address many of these issues.
5-Unless someone here shows me the flaws in my conclusions, I probably would either get a GL450 or an X5 and all its rumbling V8 power.
6-If I cared more about the environment than I do, and I admit I should, I should buy a Highlander or an Escape hybrid...or better yet, take my bike to work.
7-I am emitting way too much CO2 with this exercise, so I will stop now.

Thanks!

mbslk350

I updated my posting above with some additional info. By passing EU4 limits, the GL320 handily beats the CA guidelines for CO and barely misses the guideline for NOx. I believe that the GL is considered a Car, not a truck, so the .25 NOx rating misses the .20 CA car guideline for NOx.

Bottom line...The Bin 8 spec is more restrictive than the EU4, and EU4 is more restrictive than Bin 10. The GL320 misses Bin 8 but meets EU4. The actual GL320 emissions are somewhere between Bin 8 and EU4.

Nevada Jack

With all this concern for the environment and being so critical of the GL320CDI, how did you ever make a decision to purchase a E63 AMG? I would love to see your rationale and your justification for that buy...LOL

neuromb

There was no rationale. It was pure emotion. I am sorry, mother nature, about what I did. Can I say that I have grown a conscience since then? I would add though that despite its 14/20 MPG rating, which comes with a gas guzzler tax, I have averaged 20.5 MPG through the first 7,000 miles (80% highway). Which makes me wonder if any of you notice that the MPG ratings for MB's are accurate, since it is the second MB I have that has averaged more than the highway rating.

rleggs

there are much worse environmentally cars than the relatively friendly cdi !..

*honda pilot4wd, pathfinder, cx-9, 4-runner, fj-cruiser, lx470, landcruiser, qx56 and even the 07 mdx [9.7 tons of greenhouse emmissions/yr > than the cdi..]...see a pattern?..and all these are gas!

harkgar

If you drive an E-63 you do not need to save gas to appease your conscience. You are cheating yourself though you sleep better at night.

The GL is a big heavy truck and if you really want to save gas buy a minivan. The GL 450 has more vrooom.

I traded in my E55 for one of the last of the non-particulate filter, non-SCR and best of all non-California compliant E320 CDi straight six, the last of the "freedom diesels" to blow some black smoke!

I sleep very well at night and love trees. They make good firewood.

harkgar

Maybe thats why the governor wants to get rid of pesky MB Bluetec GL320 CDis?

I wonder if his Hummer is the 1 or 2? Hummer 1 models came only with a diesel engine which does not meet the current emission rules. They are so nutty they want to eventually ban school buses with diesel engines.

16 wheel trucks next? Bicycles only?

boxboss

What about an E64?

mbslk350

My SLK350 is rated at 25 mpg highway. I never get less than 26 and usually get 27 or 28. I even hit 30 mpg once. The GL320 is also rated at 25 mpg and I'm hoping for similar numbers as the SLK.

oknish

One word - SWEETNESS