A diesel S class????

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by ackee911, Jan 1, 2009.

  1. Uberwagon

    Uberwagon Hardcore MB Enthusiast

    Messages:
    753
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    Car:
    1991 500E
    This is a bit unfair imo.

    The work involved to get engines to a low emissions standpoint is massive, the advances made are huge. To do this actually requires you burn more fuel, if you run for more efficiency then you run hotter, you run hotter you increase your Nox levels. Which you can't do as the limits for the tiers are already in place.

    The new Ford models have an economy range, skinnier tyres, more fuel efficient engines. These have been noted as more noisy, worse response etc.

    If a manufacturer could get the extra 10mpg over the opposition, while retaining the noise, vibration, response levels demanded by the consumer then they would be all over it. It's what the engineers are striving for, they certainly aren't holding back through lack of effort.

    The use of EGR technology to drop emissions levels shows the massive leap needed for the targets to be met. You need to completely re-design the engine to meet new emissions levels. After treatment just wont cut it, which is why CAT America had to sell a large range of engines while paying fines due to not hitting these targets.

    I can't find a good graph to show how difficult these targets are to reach but if you imagine a square, You have Nox, CO and particulate emissions all needing to be in the confines of that square. Now for the next tier of emissions reduce the area of the square by 50%, that's the target you need to meet. It would be like asking someone with an engine that can do 50mpg to make one which now does 100mpg, it's an enormous task. Reduce fuel consumption, at one point in the load curve the emissions stray a tiny amount outside of this box, stop, back to the drawing board.

    Economy = Easy, Response and power = Easy, Noise and vibration = Easy, all 3 at once = Massively challenges!

    Vastly off topic but I have to stick up for my ex colleagues :D

    Dave!
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2009
  2. Diesel Benz

    Diesel Benz Hardcore MB Enthusiast

    Messages:
    4,064
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2006
    Location:
    Europe
    Car:
    222.132 & 221.122 & 213.050 & 906.633
    Not sure if this S320CDI was referring to a W221 or a W220 but you can't do 1% of the time higher top speed than that a W221 does, both are limited to 250 km/h. Of course in practise you can do higher speeds when the bigger engine is quicker reaching that speed.

    I'm afraid this thread has gone quite a lot the wrong way, we were supposed to help the person deciding on the future car purchase and not start fighting who owns the better car. After all, even if I did own the best car for me, a different car can easily be better for someone else.

    The fuel economy of a CDI and the low range torque (meaning engine power at typical engine rpm range) are the CDI advantages (for me also the fuel price which does not seem to apply in the UK). My experience is that an MB with a comparable diesel engine is cheaper or at least not more expensive than a gasoline powered model. The main "problem" is that there is no diesel alternative for an S65AMG and a few other models.
     
  3. Uberwagon

    Uberwagon Hardcore MB Enthusiast

    Messages:
    753
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    Car:
    1991 500E
    Forget the top speed, it's the journey getting there.

    Looking at the practicalities of it in the long run, the Diesel is the way to go, but if we were all practical people we'd all be driving diesel Mondeo estates.

    Take a CDI for a drive and see what you think (To the op) you may hate it, fall in love with it or get a 535D.

    Dave!
     
Tags:

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.