| Kris |
Just checked MB site. They are bringing the new diesel engine to states. Spec:
Engine3.0L 24-valve V-6 diesel engine
Net Power 208 hp @ 3,800 rpm Net
Torque 388 lb-ft @ 1,600 - 2,400 rpm
OK, the HP are not very impressive, but look at the torque numbers! This is a monster. And gets 38 mpg, 0-60 in 6.6.sec. Not bad at all. |
|
|
| Stoker |
| Now if we could retro-fit it in a Mo. |
|
|
| Kris |
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker
Now if we could retro-fit it in a Mo.
We are both dreamers, aren't we.....:D |
|
|
| hfelknor |
We should see more and more Diesel engines now that we have clean fuel and clean fuel engines.
Driving a diesel is much different than driving a gas engine. Note the low RPMs.
Homer |
|
|
| njjoe |
TORQUE!!! I'll take high torque specs over high horsepower specs any day.
Unfortunately, it is very possible 388 lb-feet of torque would make mince meat out of our beloved CVT.
-njjoe |
|
|
| Kris |
Yes, I love this torque. Drove recently at least three different cars with diesel engines - MB, SAAB and Peugeot. Interesting experience. I did like them though they were a little too small and underpowered the low end torque made all the difference as they still pulled strongly.
Homer,
low rpm - is nothing wrong with it. Look what Audi TDi did at Le Mans and American Le Mans series! Just blew the competition away! Because of reliability and torque...
Joe,
you right. The CVT would melt with this engine...:D |
|
|
| hfelknor |
Did I say anything was wrong with it?
Homer |
|
|
| Kris |
| No, you did not.....;) |
|
|
| cschmidt |
I've been driving Mercedes diesels for about 4 years now. I bought an '87 Mercedes with 200K on it for $3000 to play with it. 100K miles later (and about $4000 in repairs and maint, I sold it for $2500. A full sized car got 25+/- mpg and was still running well. I traded up to a 93 full sized MB diesel. It weighs 4600# and gets 25 mpg also. It was a $70K car new and was purchased for under $10K. I am hoping it has another 200K miles left in it.
The new MB (06 version) ran an endurance test last year. They ran a sanctioned test ( for whatever that means) on 3 new cars. Took them to a TX test track and ran them 100K miles in 30 days. Ran 24 hours a day and averaged a smidge under 140 mph. All 3 finished. And they got nearly 20mpg at that speed.
MB are not without problems and can cost $$ if something major goes wrong. But they are fun to play with and parts generally aren't terrible. I think we will be seeing more diesels coming around now that the US is converting over to more Eurospec diesel fuel ( much lower sulphur). Check out the article in Car and Driver a couple of months ago about the diesel BMW that is nearly as fast as the gasser and get 30% better mileage.
Chuck |
|
|
| Eric L. |
I think that 38mpg must be imperial gallons. It still puts it in the low 30's for US gallons, which is quite good.
Looking at gas prices though, diesel prices are still higher than gasoline prices, so the savings are probably not as much as you make them out to be.
The MB Bluetec by the way, is going to be in the Jeep Grand Cherokee I think, at least for one year until it loses emissions compliance. |
|
|
| Kris |
quote:
Originally posted by Eric L.
I think that 38mpg must be imperial gallons.
The data was on MB US site so I would assume US gallons.... |
|
|
| Eric L. |
quote:
Originally posted by Kris
The data was on MB US site so I would assume US gallons....
Wow thats mad, considering the VW diesels in 1.9 and 2.0L get around that mileage too. I guess there is more to BLUETEC than the name.
Looking at the MB USA site, the E320 BLUETEC gets 27/37 EPA ratings.
But thats for the sedan.
The ML320 CDI, closer to the MO in size, has a non BLUETEC engine that gets 21/27 EPA ratings (still impressive for a heavy SUV). Looking forward for when BLUETEC goes in other vehicles.
I was wrong about the JGC - it gets the older MB diesel, and is rated only at 19/23. |
|
|
|
