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

bbeardb · #1 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 · #2 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.

#3 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 · #4 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.

bbeardb · #5 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...

boneheaddoctor · #6 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

#7 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.

diametricalbenz · #8 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 · #9 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!!!!

rurik · #10 10-21-2005, 05:23 PM

I know it's heresy to say thing like that on this forum, but a typical diesel car sold in Europe is not all that "clean". Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of a diesel engine as much as the next guy, and I used to believe that the only real problem with cleaning up diesel exhaust in the high sulfur content in US diesel fuel. Once ULSD standard kicks in, and they start selling diesels with normal catalytic converters, I thought, diesels would be even cleaner than gassers due to lower fuel consumption. I kept thinking that until I had to spend a couple of weeks in Barcelona, where there's lots of diesel cars (seems like way more than half, but that could be reticular activation speaking), and fuel is already ULSD. I had to walk from the hotel to a customer site each morning, about 15 min along the Diagonal Ave. That is a pretty busy street -- not congested beyond hope, but busy. Let me tell you -- air quality along that street was BAD, way worse than anything I've had a chance to experience in US cities. I started considering taking a longer route just to breath cleaner air. The problem? NOx emissions. Sulfur or not, diesels burn hotter than gassers, and thus produce more NOx. A good catalytic converter can take break some it down back into N2 and O2, but apparently not all of it. A more advanced device, like an urea injection thing MB touts, is necessary to bring NOx level down further.

European cities do suffer from air quality problems, caused in large part by diesels. Google it. German cities are particularly hard hit, and under a new law there citizens are allowed to sue cities if the level of air pollution exceeds a preset level, which happened already in several cities. German automakers are now scrambling to make more advanced emission control devices standard on all new vehicles, something they hoped to postpone until 2008 or so due to cost.

So EPA may be nazist in nature (Tom DeLay used to say it's Gestapo back during his exterminator days...) but diesel emissions are not a problem some tree hugger conjured out of thin air just to piss you off. It's a real issue.

boneheaddoctor · #11 10-21-2005, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewBenzOwner

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!!!!

Mercedes makes a lot of less expensive stuff....all of it with diesels...

what they don't want to do is sell them to the great unwashed masses here...in the USA.

They only care about selling cars the the very well off that can afford $60K plus for a car....

#12 10-21-2005, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

Mercedes makes a lot of less expensive stuff....all of it with diesels...

what they don't want to do is sell them to the great unwashed masses here...in the USA.

They only care about selling cars the the very well off that can afford $60K plus for a car....

Also, MB now owns Chrysler and the last thing they want to do is compete against themselves in the US. It makes sense for them to keep the MB and Chrysler markets separate.

mdmsp1 · #13 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