MarkC

I've read a few online articles regarding MB bringing a 4 cylinder Diesel (in the C-Class and GLK) to the North American market for 2011.

The rumored Bluetec version of the current GLK220CDI sold in other markets is expected to get near 40mpg and be called the GLK250CDI.

If like other MB diesel V6s sold in the US, one would have to keep the urea tank topped up every 10K miles. Detailed article here: http://www.rexresearch.com/articles2/dieselurea.htm


Who here would prefer the diesel over the V6 gas model?

How much of a price premium, of any, should the Bluetec diesel cost over the current 350 v6 gasoline engine?

Would you choose the diesel only if it was the same price? Would you pay 10% more? How about 20% more?

masterflex164

3 words: BRING IT ON!

1st german maker that brings a small diesel SUV (q5, glk) will get my business!

ftttubrgcm

Mickey, I 2nd that! I'm sure they will go like hotcakes.

JT01

Other than fuel efficiency, what is the benefit of diesels?

thebishman

Torque and longevity are two advantages.
Bish

MBRedux

No... if I wanted a high mileage vehicle, it would not be a Benz...

MarkC

Of course, you're right! I mean, who in their right mind would want a more fuel efficient vehicle?

Miric

I agree that when it comes to torque and fuel efficiency, diesel is your best option. However, I have had the chance to drive several diesel vehicles in Europe, and I never had the same pleasure driving a diesel than a gas engine vehicle. Diesel engines are low rev. engines, they don't sound as good as gas engine, etc. therefore, you don't get the same driving experience from a diesel vehicle than what you can get from a good V6 or V8 gas engine.
The Mercedes 3.5 engine is a great engine. Coupled with a full dual exhaust system, it sound great, has plenty of torque and has enough HP to have fun. Personally, I would not trade my 350 for a 4 cylinder diesel engine. Just my 2 cents...

JT01

Seriously though... I don't really get it.

Of course better fuel efficiency is a bonus, both for the wallet and the environment. But its kinda like everything else, is it worth the premium in price and the drop in horsepower?

I mean, if it is guaranteed the increased cash outlay is quickly recovered in fuel expense savings, then I suppose it makes some sense. But if you need to drive over 200K to make it back, then I agree with MBRedux. Plus you lose power.. I think the diesel is only about 225hp.

JT01

Ditto...

NYCGLK

I don't think that was his point. Why would one want more fuel efficient car? To be greener and/or save money. In that case you should not be looking at premium SUV's and new cars in first place. Now when this is out of equation who would really care about more fuel efficient car?

On a side note
Diesel car would be great if it was the same price (not more) and diesel cost at least the same as gas.
While torque is great for town driving, the acceleration up to highway speeds sux, as all you do is shift through gears.
And then reliability of these new diesel technologies is at least questionable.
I see 2 pro's for diesel. Awesome distance per tank, and great towing capabilities.

thebishman

Diesel in my area costs less than Premium.

Have you ever driven a GL 320 CDI? It is a great vehicle and the torque, (398 ft lbs), means it is never without 'power' on the interstate, etc. Even though it only has 215 bhp, it accelerates from a stop very well too, given that it weighs over 6K lbs. A GLK with approximately 200 bhp and above 300 lb ft of torque would fly. My point? Acceleration up to highway speeds most definitely does not 'suk' with modern diesels.

Reliability is not questionable in the least. The German manufacturers have been making high performance diesels for years and selling them in Europe. They haven't been able to sell them in the US until recently because our diesel fuel had too much sulphur content.

There is a lot more than two advantages to the modern diesel, and frankly if you were able to buy a GLK with the engine of our GL 320 CDI, you would never buy one with the petrol engine. The diesel really is that good, and in the much lighter GLK would give the same performance as the gas engine, but would return far better economy.

Bish

NYCGLK

I haven't driven GL 320, and I'm sure it's a great car. I drove E 280 CDI and while torque was very good around town, and it feels quick, once you step on it, constant gear changes make acceleration slower.

Also here are some hard numbers. According to insideline:
GL 450 0-60 6.7 sec.
GL 320 CDI 0-60 8.8 seconds

I'm not saying diesels are a bad choice, I'd def. consider one, but I think many diesel lovers just concentrate on torque and mpg's forgetting advantages of gas engines.

amdeutsch

And those stuck on gas only worry about how fast they get from A to B. Most normal driving you don't need those split seconds. And yes, I know; emergency requirements every leap year. Same can be said for being able to stop.

P.S.
Comparing a V8 against that 6 isn't fair either.

wilfred

The lastest articles I have on the 250 Bluetec engines are these:

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/04/08/n...9-mpg-highway/

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/08/25/m...di-blueeffic/2

I can't find the article I read but I recall US is getting this engine in the GLK & E-class. I would think C-class will get it as well but I doubt US will get it in the S-class.

JT01

If speed off the line, acceleration and travel time from a to b doesn't matter, may I recommend a bicycle. Even better fuel economy than a 320 CDI! Much less expensive also.

If I remember correctly, MB makes bicycles. They are right there in the catalogue I got with my 350.

Seriously though... I am not overly concerned with potential gains in fuel economy. I like the sound of my gas engine... and the mpgs aren't bad at all. The diesel is more fuel efficient I'm sure... but it isn't even available here yet... so....

thebishman

Frankly I'll be surprised if the GLK doesn't come with the 220 CDI engine in a hybrid model. That engine with a lithium ion battery pack/electric motors, will be seriously quick, AND will return incredible fuel economy results. Not sure of the cost however.
I wish since the 320CDI engine was already homologated for the US market, that MB had offered it in the GLK. I wonder if any of us would have bought the gas version if it was available. It would have been as quick as the gas powered version, and probably returned 22mpg city and about 30 mpg highway.
Bish

thebishman

The GL 420CDI ( and what a damn shame we can't buy it here since it's made here), is a much fairer comparison to the GL450. It gets from 0-60 in 6.5 seconds. Not too shabby for a 'slow' diesel. lol
Bish

MarkC

One could also argue; "Why buy a GLK with the large V6 gasoline engine?" "If I wanted a performance car I wouldn't buy an SUV." Sounds silly, doesn't it.

There are many factors that are taken into consideration and weighed in varying amounts of priority when one chooses a vehicle.

By offering a GLK250CDI, MB would be widening the GLK's appeal to a greater audience. There are many VW Jetta/Golf Diesel owners who bought one just to get a 4 cylinder diesel vehicle yet would never had given the gas version a second thought.

A near 40mpg GLK would be the icing on the cake for those who don't place as much value on 0-60 times as they do on economy. Yet it's just not the fuel economy, it's the diesel engine itself, the technology and MBs history and tradition with offering diesels. It's reducing the demand for imported oil. It's about a more authentic European driving experience, as small diesel engines are common and the norm in the EU.

The GLK350 is a fine automobile with the V6 gas engine, no one here would argue that. However it would be nice (to me anyways) to have the diesel option which is currently available in many other markets, for the economy, the tradition & technology, and the driving experience.

JT01

Having the diesel option would not have changed my purchase but I agree that having the choice is a good thing...

MB_Owner

I put a lot of miles on my SUV in the winter and would have seriously considered the 6-cylinder 350 BlueTEC diesel if it had been available. But I don't think I'd be interested in a 4-cylinder diesel...especially after reading the site in this post about small-diesel problems in Europe.

Even if you don't read German, you can get the gist of the 4-cylinder diesel complaints by using Google's URL translator.

ftttubrgcm

My wife will never ever ever "need" the full power of her GLK's 3.5 petrol engine. For those of you needing it, great. I have no idea what the long term maintenance problems are with today's diesels but if they are similar to petrol engines, I'm sold. I am concerned with fuel mileage and it keeps me from my spirited driving nature. My MINI allows me to drive the way I want. While in the UK earlier this year, I drove a MINI Clubman diesel and I was instantly sold. It has great low-end torque so it pulls up through each gear quite nicely. Side note, my UK buddy's E280CDI avantegarde saloon is great pulling away from and/or out of roundabouts to motorway speeds in a flash, all doing that with great mileage.

NYCGLK

yea I would not like hybrid camry speeding up faster from tollbooth and getting better gas mileage

In all seriousness, you are right, in mostly normal driving diesel is great, but it depends what you call normal driving.

P.S.
Neither is comparing 4 cyl. diesel to 6 cyl. gas engine for fuel economy fair

EzioS

Just a quick slight off topic question:

How much is diesel in the States, compared to regular fuel??

Comparison German market:

1 liter of diesel: 1,15 Euro
1 liter of gasoline: 1,35 Euro

This is why 80% of all SUVs are Diesels.

MB_Owner