Future diesel models - response from MB - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

benzboy87 · #16 10-21-2005, 02:13 PM

In the 80s my family had three Olds diesels - '82 Delta 88, '83 Toronado, and an '84 Ninety-Eight. All three were excellent cars with every one of them having well over 200,000 miles on them before they were traded for other Oldsmobiles (the Delta 88 had almost 600,000 on it - not the original engine). I do not think the typical American consumer (in the '80s) was ready for a diesel automobile. Keep in mind that my family had driven MB and Audi diesels for a couple of years and were very familiar with diesel-fueled vehicles. All of these cars received top-notch service and preventive maintenance beyond belief.
Sure they had their problems - one being the injector pumps and another the head gaskets - but I always thought they were very good, reliable cars that gave at least 30 MPGs on the highway. And before I get bashed (and I am sure I will) I know my experience with GM diesels was not typical.
Give me a GM diesel over a Peugeot any day!!! (Yes, we also had a 505 diesel once).

boneheaddoctor · #17 10-21-2005, 02:21 PM

THe Dead gasket problems were due to headbolts that stretched..they fixed that problem....although they did it way too late...

IP wasn't the greatest but they were inexpensive...

J. R. B. knows these well....ny brother drove a Olds 88 for over 250K miles with one....then he had glow plug problems that caused a hard start and like many people he squirted starting fluid to get it to start.....resulting on blown head gaskets....

Had he asked me first that car would probibly STILL be on the road....

THat was a huge land yacht adn it never got less than 25 mpg.....and well over 30 on the highway...(better than my W123 or W116)

bbeardb · #18 10-21-2005, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by diametricalbenz

Actually from an inside source at VW they plan to exit the diesel market by 2007 because of emissions stringency the only leverage is mass production use of biodiesel teamed with a catlytic converter which is still overcoming design issues.

Hopefully with higher fuel prices more interest will be placed on clean burning high mileage cars.

That sucks. I forgot about the new emissions rules coming out. I read something somewhere that they are really trying to get it to work without the catalytic converter. Something about it needing to be replaced and there is some 80,000 mile rule... Maybe it was some form or scrubber. I'll see if I can find the article, as it was a really good one.

You know, it might make diesels real cheap. Perceptions, that might have been getting better, will probably go back down the tubes if no one can sell them here anymore.

boneheaddoctor · #19 10-21-2005, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbeardb

That sucks. I forgot about the new emissions rules coming out. I read something somewhere that they are really trying to get it to work without the catalytic converter. Something about it needing to be replaced and there is some 80,000 mile rule... Maybe it was some form or scrubber. I'll see if I can find the article, as it was a really good one.

You know, it might make diesels real cheap. Perceptions, that might have been getting better, will probably go back down the tubes if no one can sell them here anymore.

No intent to make anything political out of this.....but blame your friendly enviro-nazies and the EPA......

I like clean air as much as the next guy..but enough is enough....

ANd I think they have gone way overboard...and its costing us..........we could have cars getting far better mileage than we will ever see with gasser engines. The rest of the world can have them...why not us.

#20 10-21-2005, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbeardb

You know, it might make diesels real cheap. Perceptions, that might have been getting better, will probably go back down the tubes if no one can sell them here anymore.

Don't forget about all the diesel SUV/pick-ups being sold in the US. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting one around here. I think they will help the public perception more than the VWs. Of course, the price of diesel fuel will have to be less than RUG for most people to be interested.

diametricalbenz · #21 10-21-2005, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbeardb

That sucks. I forgot about the new emissions rules coming out. I read something somewhere that they are really trying to get it to work without the catalytic converter. Something about it needing to be replaced and there is some 80,000 mile rule... Maybe it was some form or scrubber. I'll see if I can find the article, as it was a really good one.

You know, it might make diesels real cheap. Perceptions, that might have been getting better, will probably go back down the tubes if no one can sell them here anymore.

I took some notes but what I can remember off the top of my head was that the accountants said that it would cost ~$5000 more per car to develop the catalyst or the urea injection system in the car and still make money. Even then the EPA has issues with that....

Therefore the marketing research says that people won't way 5k more on a $20k car for the diesel to offset the fuel cost which is more than premium at least right now. MB can do urea injection and still make money because the CDI will sell at $60k and so 5k per car of development would be recouped quicker.

Bohous · #22 10-21-2005, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by diametricalbenz

Actually from an inside source at VW they plan to exit the diesel market by 2007 because of emissions stringency the only leverage is mass production use of biodiesel teamed with a catlytic converter which is still overcoming design issues.
.

True. I went to look at a used Jetta TDI wagon at a dealer here in MA a couple weeks ago (sold) so I asked if they kept new TDI's on the lot. According to the salesman many states, including MA , require California Emissions requirements which exclude the sales of new diesels in those states. Any car that has less than 7,500 miles and is newer than '04 MY (I think) cannot be registered in those states, IOW, you can't go to Florida and buy a new TDI and register it in MA. I don't have time to dig up the link to the specifics at this time but a simple Google search should find it.

mdmsp1 · #23 10-21-2005, 02:45 PM

I had read on one of the sites that there was a change in diesel policy proposed by California's Air Quality board. California has typically set the standard that other states follow regarding emission rules. My understanding--and i will try to find the link--is that California has come to its senses and realized that current diesel technology is capable of producing a fuel efficient and quite "clean" alternative. This change in direction could have a positive impact on the availability of diesel cars both in California (where they have not been available) and elsewhere. Maybe some other contributor knows more...

I have to saya that I think it is crazy that there is so much emphasis on hybrids. They make sense for people who commute short distances in city traffic, but they do nothing for those of us who drive long highway distances. In the latter instance, a diesel is clearly more efficient.

A friend of mine thought the new Lexus suv hybrid would be the ticket for his family until he noticed that the highway mileage was so poor. They won't do diesels due to the same old perception issues (noisy, dirty, etc), so I doubt they'd even test drive a 320 CDI, even though it might be a great option for them.

I keep my mouth shut, as I already have bored my friends with how much I love my noisy, smelly (NOT!) diesel.
Mark
'93 300D 2.5

bbeardb · #24 10-21-2005, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by diametricalbenz

I took some notes but what I can remember off the top of my head was that the accountants said that it would cost ~$5000 more per car to develop the catalyst or the urea injection system in the car and still make money. Even then the EPA has issues with that....

Therefore the marketing research says that people won't way 5k more on a $20k car for the diesel to offset the fuel cost which is more than premium at least right now. MB can do urea injection and still make money because the CDI will sell at $60k and so 5k per car of development would be recouped quicker.

But people will pay a premium for hybrid technology. Go figure...

J. R. B. · #25 10-21-2005, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by airbus

This whole thing with diesels in the US is some government BS. Ever since GM ruined the diesel market in the US in the mid 80s by trying to convert a gasser into a diesel, the government is trying everything to keep diesels off the streets. Why? Because the american autoindustry is still unable to build diesel engines for passenger cars (after 20years!). Mercedes diesels are sold in any class (A. B. C, E, S, etc.) in a range from 1.6litre to 3.2litre everywhere around the world except the US. In NY state they're going one step further: it is illegal (impossible) here to register a brandnew diesel powered passenger car. All the foreign automakers have the technology to build reliable, silent, fuel-economic diesel engines at reasonable prices, but the US government won't let them bring them over here, they rather destroy the environment with their gasoline eating cars just to keep the GM and Ford and Mobil manager's pockets filled. I swear I will never buy an american car and probably never again a gasser of any brand.

Anyone who believes and continues to spread the myth that the 5.7 is a converted gasser has never taken a 5.7 diesel and a 350 gas apart and compared engine components. I would like to take a 5.7 apart and rub their noses in the used crankcase oil so they can see the difference for themselves.

boneheaddoctor · #26 10-21-2005, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbeardb

But people will pay a premium for hybrid technology. Go figure...

Some people believe in Alien Abductions.......

Just shows they are susceptible to marketing hype.....like with Slick 50

#27 10-21-2005, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

Some people believe in Alien Abductions.......

Just shows they are susceptible to marketing hype.....like with Slick 50

I've heard than many aliens use Slick 50 for the muffler bearings on their spaceships.

J. R. B. · #28 10-21-2005, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by benzboy87

In the 80s my family had three Olds diesels - '82 Delta 88, '83 Toronado, and an '84 Ninety-Eight. All three were excellent cars with every one of them having well over 200,000 miles on them before they were traded for other Oldsmobiles (the Delta 88 had almost 600,000 on it - not the original engine). I do not think the typical American consumer (in the '80s) was ready for a diesel automobile. Keep in mind that my family had driven MB and Audi diesels for a couple of years and were very familiar with diesel-fueled vehicles. All of these cars received top-notch service and preventive maintenance beyond belief.
Sure they had their problems - one being the injector pumps and another the head gaskets - but I always thought they were very good, reliable cars that gave at least 30 MPGs on the highway. And before I get bashed (and I am sure I will) I know my experience with GM diesels was not typical.
Give me a GM diesel over a Peugeot any day!!! (Yes, we also had a 505 diesel once).

As Bonehead said their problems with headgaskets were due to bad headbolts which were corrected. The injection pumps were RoosaMaster made by the Hartford Machine Screw company which were good pumps. The problem with the pump was the fact that the original governor drive was made of plastic which would disintegrate. These drives could be updated with a metal drive and they would last forever. My Dad and I have rebuilt a number of these pumps and have replaced the plastic drive with the metal one. Another problem that was corrected in the later 5.7s was the camshaft and lifters. The early ones had regular hydralic lifters like gas engines. The later ones had what we call roller lifters much like the heavy duty diesels. If one rebuilds a 5.7 correctly and treats it right you will have a very good engine. Most problems with these engines can be traced to poor maintenance. We have one in a 81 Olds that we rebuilt and the car is very close to 500,000k. The engine was updated when we rebuilt it and looks like it will outlast the car which has terminal leprosy.

diametricalbenz · #29 10-21-2005, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbeardb

But people will pay a premium for hybrid technology. Go figure...

I don't think people have gotten over the imagery and dirtiness of diesel. Smoky semis, engine clatter, the smell, noisiness, vibration, being "slow" etc.

If more advertising dollars were spent, the image would improve. Heck it convinced a ton of people in LA to buy H2's to commute with when they really didn't need them...so I would be interested to see how 50 million in advertising on a economical biofueled diesel/(hybrid?) would result.

NewBenzOwner · #30 10-21-2005, 03:29 PM

Prehaps a agressive ad campaign by MB will enlighten the general public to the benefits of the new diesel. I have seen ONE article about it in a car magazine and it was only 2 pages long and was basically just about how the cars had ran 100,000 without major problems and what they did during the run.
If MB would see fit to produce a less expensive model or at least make it an option, there might be enough people that would want one to make it happen.
By the way, the current specification for sulfur in low sulfur diesel is ~400 PPM, the new specification is going to be ~15 PPM, this is the same as the specification for RUG now, so the question is: How much extra work/parts is it going to take to make the exaust cleaner? JMHO, NOT MUCH IF ANY!!!!