TemjinX2

but now your comparing a 3.0L 210hp diesel to a 3.5L 268hp petro...its not really a apples to apples comparison given the different engine sizes and significant difference in hp.

210hp moving 4000lbs, i think that would make the car feel pretty anemic and your paying more money for it. I understand power isn't everything but why would someone want to spend $53k on a car thats slower then a $16k civic other then the badge factor.

Carl Lassiter

Better space, luxury and economy etc etc. Also diesel has been priced higher than gas in Europe since the turn of the century. 35mpg vs 25mpg makes an extra 20cents of so more per gallon mean very little.

V8 diesels are fundamentally flawed as they can't hit 30mpg which is a minimum requirement of a diesel in sedan and they also have something which weighs close to a boat anchor ahead of the front axle. Now big capacity diesels have their place for tow vehicles but otherwise a 6cyl is plenty.

TemjinX2

then i guess the turn of the century run must've just ended, becaused depending on which european country you look at, diesel is cheaper then petrol. France, germany and denmark...diesel is cheaper.


http://www.aaroadwatch.ie/eupetrolprices/


I don't understand why your bring in v8's, when the two engines we were speaking about are v6's.



i'm not saying diesels are bad, i'm just saying i don't think they will have wide spead acceptance in the US like in Europe. Most people in the US will not pay higher up front costs in the cost of the vehicle and fuel to make it up later down the line in savings.

e85 has made some progress because of the cheaper initial cost in fuel, even though they lose economy due to the less potential energy of ethanol when compared to gas.

HLG600

A couple things. First off, horsepower has nothing to do with moving weight; torque does. There is over 130 ft-lb's more in the diesel over the petrol variant of MB's V6. With more on demand torque much lower in the power band, the diesel will feel more powerful, not the other way around. As for why people love oil burners? Well, the mountain of torque and hybrid-smashing fuel economy alone are enough to convince me.

Addicted2Speed

Where are you getting the 210hp from? The new 535d has 270bhp and 413lb-ft torque. Even bone stock, it has more torque than E60 M5 and you can get close to 500lb-ft torque with an ecu tune!

TemjinX2

horsepower is the relation between torque and rotational speed. Torque, gearing and rotational speed are all important in how quick a vehicle can travel. Its not just torque thats important, its the combination of the three.

Keep in mind gearing multiples the torque you put to the ground. Higher rotationals per min allows for more aggressive gearing. Given that most people don't want to study all thoses factors, horsepower is the generally accepted measure of how quick a car can be. It doesn't matter what you butt dyno saids.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with diesels, other then the fact i don't believe they will be as popular in the US as it is in Europe. For the reason's i stated above.

TemjinX2

it wasn't comparing the bmw's. It was in comparison to what urbertekhiem said between a e320 3.0L 210hp bluetec diesel for $53775.00 and base e-class model e350 3.5L 268hp petro at $52,775.00.

Go back and read the posts above.

GMBALL

Forget about bluetec diesel. They sell here normal 320CDI engine that has 224BHP and 500NM while 350 V6 has 272BHP and much less torque.

And just by the way, my stock ML320CDI is faster than a stock ML350. What is the point of paying for same or less performance with much bigger consumption?

CrazyDonkey

first service isn't due until 10,000 miles either.

TemjinX2

the bluetec diesel was a huge accomplishment for mercedes. A normal diesel wouldn't even come close to passing california smog standards for a passenger cars.

Diesel does produce a lot less c02 then a petro but diesel also produces a lot more nox and sulfur then a petro engine. If you live in a densely populated area, the increased nox and the sulfur would do more harm to the population in terms of air quality and acid rain then any petro engine.

The bluetec was such a accomplisment because it reduced those nox and sulfur levels similar to a petro engine. Only draw back was that it does make the bluetec more expensive to produce then a normal diesel engine.

But i would only consider the mercedes bluetec and i believe vw has a diesel using similar technology as a good petro substitute.

Untertürkheim

I am pretty sure the sulfur output is determined by the amount of sulfur in the fuel, and now with the LSD, soon to be ULSD, that will not be an issue. In fact, Shell V-Power diesel (not available in the US) is made from natural gas using gas-to-liquid technology, so there is no sulfur and it burns amazingly clean.

The NOx emissions are not remidied by the SCR system on the bluetec, which is expensive to produce, but the customer only pays a $1000 premium over the 350 gas.

Untertürkheim

Well, if you want a true "apples to apples" comparison, we should compare the E280 (3.0 V6-gasoline) to the E320 Bluetec (3.0 V6-diesel), but the E280 is not sold in the US, so that comparison would be useless for most people here.

Yes, the 350 has a 58hp advantage, while the diesel has a torque advantage of 142lb-ft and a huge fuel economy advantage, I would gladly pay $1000 more for that.

GMBALL

I know the bluetec. It was introduced here as well. Only thing was that people didn't much care about it and bluetec quikcly became something that people forgot.

Perhaps in California it makes sense, but not here...

Untertürkheim

It does not make much sense in California ever since Schwarzy changed his mind not to allow it.

It does well in the US considering how much MBUSA limits the options available on that model.

TemjinX2

are you sure about that? i can build a bluetec e-class on the mercedes benz fletcher jones newport beach website.

TemjinX2

if your going to use natural gas, wouldn't it be better just to use compress natural gas as the fuel source rather convert it into diesel? Since natural gas would produce less emissions and not use any foreign oil.

Untertürkheim

I am 100% positive on that, I have been trying to buy one for a few years, always being told "next model year.."

Also, you can read the fine print in the brochure or on MBUSA.

Untertürkheim

Well, MB does sell a dual-fuel (CNG&Gaslone) E-class in Europe, but MBUSA apparently feels that the US would not want it.

If the souce of the diesel is natural gas, it does not really matter, it is a matter of processing. It would still be sourced from wherever the gas comes from.

TemjinX2

then you should start shopping, i already found a couple of used e320 bluetec diesels in southern california..

It looks like bluetec does reduce nox emissions. I remember thats why bluetec was such a accomplishment because it was one of the first 50 state legal diesels.

take from the mbusa site.

some used blutec model links

http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.js...ce=&cardist=16


http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.js...7&rdpage=thumb

Untertürkheim

I know I can get a used one, I want a new one since most of them have low equipment levels.

TemjinX2

i don't get it, weren't you saying you can't get a bluetec diesel in california becauze arnold wouldn't allow it?

Untertürkheim

I meant I cannot buy a new one.

HLG600

I know all this. You said that 210 bhp moving 4000 lbs would make the car feel anemic. The short and sweet is that the 210 bhp has little to do with physically moving that weight. The diesel will "feel" more powerful than the petrol because of a flatter and much larger amount of torque in the power band, not the other way around. Where they fall short is up top, due to a lack of horsepower to carry it to higher speeds as quickly as the gasoline powered one. As much of a petrolhead I may be, I still love the durability, efficiency, and friggen' tunability of modern diesel power plants.