Fair nuff

To be honest though, both the trick fork and the boxer heads have saved me on more than just a few occasions, as has (wait for it...) the ABS.

Now that the new hex-head is stabilizing, I'm getting sorely tempted by the R12GS...

(ObDiesel: Still got the sticky shutoff valve.. It sticks _closed_, not open, so I have the opposite of the "won't shut off" problem that's so common.. Maybe when it's warmer out or when I have it in for new oil, all the vacuum lines are pretty old and they should all be replaced due to brittleness IMO..)

__________________
1987 300SDL 411k mi and counting
2001 BMW 1150GS 29k mi and wintering

As far as I can surmise the E320 CDI has very similar fuel consumption to the 1990s 300D but has lots more power and torque. For me the E320 CDI is a little over powered (except it is fun merging onto the FWY), still used to my 300TD . I wonder if an E220 CDI would be that much more fuel efficient (someday available I hope)?

__________________
sophie2
1987 300TD, 168K
1981 300D 220K
1968 250S W115 Diesel Converted,
2006 E320 CDI
2006 Yanmar 3YM30 / Vindo Sloop
29 Vintage Bicycles

Haven't found the car that is over powered yet.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

I suspect benz has decided (probably correctly) that if they want to sell diesels in the U.S. their performance will have to be comperable to gassers of a similar size, especially in this price range. I do not believe they are interested in directly competing with VW TDIs (or whatever ricer clones of the TDI we will see in a couple of years) for the low-end market.

Fuel is still very cheap in the U.S., and I believe the "average" CDI buyer would not accept significantly lower performance in exchange for better mileage. Again, that's probably the correct marketing decision.

If we go the electric or hydrogen route, the cars in 20-30 years will also be nearly maintenance-free and probably much more reliable. We'll probably look back at those early 2000's as the period of over-complicated, unreliable, dirty internal-combustion engines.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

Electric I agree. Nothing could be simpler then an electric engine. Transmission and batteries will be primary failure and maintenance point. I suspect in the long term battery will be similar or less then oil changes and other unnecessary maintenance. Hydrogen IC engine still has the same problems as any IC engine today minus emissions issues. Fuel cells is an electric engine and the fuel cells will be a maintenance nightmare.

I don't understand this fear of electronics. It is rarely the electronics that fail on these modern cars. Now the servos they power maybe. The more stuff put on a chip the less likely it is to blow up. Especially in a controlled electronic environment like a car does not experience exterior power surges.
Yes the LCD screen backlights will fail. I have no clue how much those will cost to replace. Lights will fail. Sensors will fail. You plug into an OBDII and replace. How bad a design is it not to have a fuse between the auxillary water pump and the climate control on a 126? I'm betting in 20 years we will talk about how good the E320, GL, ML and Grand Cherokee CRD are and what a great engine this is much like the 606.

My questions are
1. How durable is the turbo?
2. What is the life expactancy of the IP?
3. How long will the 7 Speed transmission hold up?

All this being said I don't seem myself buying a CDI/CRD for at least a couple of years. I will never take out a loan on a car again. Especially on this expensive. I'll drive 12X diesels or possibly a 210 until then. Unless I marry again and she doesn't like diesels and needs a car.

__________________
My Daily : 96 E-300 Diesel with 195,000 miles
Retired: 92 300D 2.5 T 345K miles and for sale
Retired: 95 E320 157K miles and currently parked with blown engine

Both retired cars are for sale as is my w124 shop inventory

Electric engines don't even need a transmission! Only the batteries and tires will be maintenance items and the batteries should last a long time, at least as long as timing belts do today. Agreed on hydrogen IC engines, but I don't think those will ever be the mass-transportation solution. Fuel cells (electric engines with hydrogen-powered batteries) are more likely and I think it's way too early to tell how intensive their maintenance will be. But I wouldn't expect IC engines to die anytime soon. With still relatively cheap oil and a booming ethanol/biodiesel industry, they may be around for a long time.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

Thats what im talking about

__________________
93 300D 2.5 Turbo, Black/Palomino 273K
09 E350 Black/Black 41K

Forget the E320CDI. Give me that S class with the V8 diesel. If only I were rich....

__________________
Scott
1982 Mercedes 240D, 4 speed, 275,000
1988 Porsche 944 Turbo S (70,000)
1987 Porsche 911 Coupe 109,000 (sold)
1998 Mercedes E300 TurboDiesel 147,000 (sold)
1985 Mercedes 300D 227,000 (totaled by inattentive driver with no insurance!)
1997 Mercedes E300 Diesel 236,000 (sold)
1995 Ducati 900SS (sold)
1987 VW Jetta GLI 157,000 (sold)
1986 Camaro 125,000 (sold - P.O.S.)
1977 Corvette L82 125,000 (sold)
1965 Pontiac GTO 15,000 restored (sold)

I would see the 90-2000 as transition era just like what happened when they were trying to sanitize the carburetter gassers with unreliable electronics.

__________________
99 Gurkha with OM616 IDI turbo

2015 Gurkha with OM616 DI turbo

2014 Rexton W with OM612 VGT

I have driven the CRD engines. They are very powerful little deals. The ex has a Liberty CRD. They definately throw you back in the seat at a about 1600 rpm and keep you there till you let off the accelerator. whipped many a ricers in that thing.....but if you run into my ex don't tell her

As for the CDI engines compared to their gasser equals. I am a massage therapist, I know not much to do with this forum but follow me. For the last few weeks i have been giving a massage to this guy and his wife. He owns one of the local mercedes dealerships here in Denver. He said that the CDI leaves the gasser pantsless. One week he had a ML the next week the new ML CDI i think. The newest Diesel SUV that mercedes has on the market. he also said that in the SUV realm the CDI's got about 2 times the fuel economy as the gasser.

If I had the money I would buy a CRD in a heartbeat. They don't look all that complicated and they come stock with an intercooler . If i had an a$$ load of money I would but a CDI.

I will gladly ask this guy any questions that you may have about the engines or just go talk to his mechanics.

__________________
-Trevor

OBK #12
1980 300SD 333,XXX miles - Totaled
1986 Mazda RX-7 212,XXX miles - impounded and auctioned off
2005 Jeep Liberty CRD Limited 33,000- SEGR, Provent, Fumoto

Power is also a major issue.

Ford's V10 is a prime example.


[Source: Ford]
Technical Specifications
* Type - 6.8L SOHC V-10
* Configuration - 90-degree V-10, cast iron block and aluminum heads with hardened seats
* Bore x Stroke - 3.55 x 4.16 in / 90.2 x 105.8 mm
* Displacement - 415 cu in / 6,751 cc
* Compression Ratio - 9.4:1
* Horsepower - 235 @ 4000 rpm
* Horsepower per Liter - 34.5
* Peak Boost - 18-20 psi
* Torque - 310 lb-ft @ 3000 rpm

Specialized components in the engine include:

* Valves and valve seats – special hardened materials are used to compensate for hydrogen's reduced lubricating properties compared to gasoline or natural gas
* Spark plugs – Iridium tipped plugs allow for increased spark plug life
* Ignition coils – high energy coil-on-plug coils, to manage unique ignition characteristics
* Fuel injectors and fuel rail – Fuel injectors designed specifically for hydrogen and high volume fuel rails
* Crank damper – tuned for hydrogen fuel to ensure smooth operation
* Pistons, connecting rods and piston rings – high output designs to accommodate the higher combustion pressure of hydrogen combustion
* Head gasket – accommodates increased combustion chamber pressures
* Intake manifold – all-new to accommodate twin screw supercharger and water-to-air intercooler
* Twin screw supercharger and water-to-air intercooler – added to improve power output and maximize efficiency
* Engine oil – full-synthetic formulation developed in partnership with BP/Castrol optimized for hydrogen combustion properties

----------------------------------------

Supercharge a gasoline 6.8L V10 to 20psi and you would probably be putting out over 800hp.

The newer generation of Diesels (mid to high 30's mpg) shows spectacular fuel mileage gains for highway driving, compared to the W123 series of Diesels (typically mid to high 20's mpg), mostly due to aerodynamic improvements over the last 40 years. At 70 mph the drag on a W123 body is much higher than a W210 or W211 body. This translates into very good higher speed mileage for the W210 and W211 compared to the W123 series Diesels, while having a power plant that can put out loads of low end torque when prompted, which did not exist for the W123. City mileage is somewhat improved, and can be traced to overall system improvements - lower internal friction, lower loss auxiliary drives, and some thermal efficiency gains from the more detailed control of combustion. That torque availability though, tends to lower the actual, practical fuel economy improvement for some of us.

I would like to see MB bring in a C-Class with a CDI and a manual transmission - kind of as simple a vehicle as they can make to emulate the W123 240D - and skip as much of the electronic gaming and creature comfort features as possible. Imagine a climate control system that was entirely manually set! If you are cold you turn up the heat, or, if you are hot you turn on the A/C and set the temperature based on your sensors and processor. And a car that does zero to 60 in under 7 seconds yet delivers a real 45 mpg. It bugs me that they could have done this with the introduction of the present "C" class and elected not to for god only knows what reason. They could have owned this vehicle class in the market, and really forced a realistic yardstick on the hybrids to evaluate their cost/benefit offering.

As for the safety systems, I don't know about you guys, but in my experience the ABS, ASD and ESP systems, along with airbags and other interior active safety devices, have all been rock solid reliable. After 235,000 miles on a 1986 190E 2.3-16, I have an ABS sensor that needs attention. For me it is not the chassis (although rusting spring perches is a big black mark), or the basic engine, its electronic controls, or the electronic safety stuff that is the problem. It is the rest of the BS. The climate controls, cheesy window regulators, cheesy seat actuators, rain sensing wipers, antenna-less radios, cheesy switches and control input devices, and digital dash/console stuff that is the problem. And, when actually using the vehicle requires these things work (like the climate controls in most of the US in the summer), and they don't, that MB suffers from poor reliability claims.

And, when fuel starts costing $5/gallon and more here, a 20% to 30% mileage improvement in the real world will become interesting. In the mean time, lets hope someone wakes up to the fact that we don't need cars who's primary function in industry is to support the electronic gadget industry. Just think, who would need all those bits of junk they make if cars didn't have all the "features" they have today? Jim

__________________
Own:
1986 Euro 190E 2.3-16 (291,000 miles),
1998 E300D TurboDiesel, 231,000 miles -purchased with 45,000,
1988 300E 5-speed 252,000 miles,
1983 240D 4-speed, purchased w/136,000, now with 222,000 miles.
2009 ML320CDI Bluetec, 89,000 miles

Owned:
1971 220D (250,000 miles plus, sold to father-in-law),
1975 240D (245,000 miles - died of body rot),
1991 350SD (176,560 miles, weakest Benz I have owned),
1999 C230 Sport (45,400 miles),
1982 240D (321,000 miles, put to sleep)

I still don't see the cost justification for a cheap new CDI. Lets assume a new basic CDI C-class was available for $30K, and that it gets 40 mpg. Assume it will depreciate from $30K to $15K over 100K miles, so that's a depreciation expense of $.15 per mile. Let's also assume it costs $4000 for maintenance and repairs over 100K, that's another $.04 per mile. If fuel costs $5/gallon, the fuel cost is $.12 per mile. That's a total cost of $.31 per mile, significantly more if you don't pay cash for the car. I'm not interested in driving a stripped down car for $.31 per mile.

I agree with alot of what you said. A cdi c-class would be a very efficient, interesting car to have. I dont think its all mercedes' fault. The us govt makes it difficult, or damm near impossible, for auto manufactures to import diesel power cars. Yet they will fund and even give tax breaks to hybrids and hybrid owners, effectively trying to kindle a hybrid trend. I think hybrids are the worst idea ever. Fuel mileage is marginal at best on paper, real world data will be even worse. The total cost of ownership is generally alot higher than its "normal" non-hybrid gas counterpart, due to electric/battery expenses/maintenance and higher msrp.

The US loves to shoot itself in the foot.

The vast majority of BMW sales in europe are diesel models. I think thats interesting because tradionally BMW is seen as a drivers car, relatively quick. Who would of thought putting a diesel in a BMW. Truth of it is, most of the diesel models actually destroy their gasoline counterparts in strait line speed tests.

I wish the government would wake up and see the fuel savings diesels can offer. We cant get any diesel cars here in the new england states. They are not as bad at polluting as everyone makes them out to be.

just my 2 cents

__________________
93 300D 2.5 Turbo, Black/Palomino 273K
09 E350 Black/Black 41K