19/25 with the stick. Not all that great for a 2.5L. Hell, your SD can beat that.........

Maybe the odo is broke so no way to tell.

__________________
2016 Corvette Stingray 2LT
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/road_tests/index.htm?id=99

Accord diesel with a smaller engine manages quite well in performance as well as economy section. 52.3mpg is the official claim, even if it delivers 40mpg I am happy and would consider it a worthy successor to my 240D, Honda engineers kept everything simple, instead of multi squirt injection for DI combustion, they kept it single squirt for prolonging injector life, now this tells us of their intentions which seem to be longevity.

__________________
99 Gurkha with OM616 IDI turbo

2015 Gurkha with OM616 DI turbo

2014 Rexton W with OM612 VGT

The C240 I test drove, brand new back in 2002 I think, didn't impress me very much. I thought the clutch felt somewhat weak and loose and the shifting was ok, but not very smooth. Both my 240D and TDI shift smoother than that. Also for such a small car like the C-class, the economy was nothing to brag about (it was a V6 gasser) and the car was a bit too expensive. But if MBUSA decided to import C-class manual diesels, I'd definitely give one of them another test drive.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

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

The Honda diesel definitely sounds interesting and the article is right about Honda stealing DC's sales of the C-class CDI's, myself probably being a contributor to it. I'm glad Honda went with a chain instead of belt. That's one thing I wish my TDI didn't have. It sounds like it will be leaps and bounds over VW's current offering, though VW is going to have a new diesel next year too.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

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

Seems I got something started and then missed the action for a day or so. First, the cars that could be available are described in German on MB's website:

http://www.mercedes-benz.de/content/germany/mpc/mpc_germany_website/de/home_mpc/passenger_cars.html

The EPA certification process, and the DOT process are no longer the hurdles they once were for overseas manufacturers. For example, the basic US version of the C class with the existing engine line up is likely an engineering documentation effort away from a DOT certification, regardless of the engine/transmission type. Especially if the final product is lower in weight than the worst case existing, certified version.

The EPA certifications will have to be done, but the process is highly aligned with the Euro certification process of today, as is the emissions control scheme for the new Diesels. The US emissions standards are no longer unique to the international industry, so the certification process for the home market likely covers most of the US EPA requirements "as-is" which means there is no longer a unique $40M or so investment needed. Model proliferation in the various markets is still limited to reduce inventory and training costs. In the US, however, I believe the high cost of warranty work limits the number of models as well.

This webpage has a link for a .pdf file with the technical specifications for the C-Class: http://www.mercedes-benz.de/content/germany/mpc/mpc_germany_website/de/home_mpc/passenger_cars/home/products/new_cars/c_class_saloon_facelift/modelle___technische.html

You can see the specs for the CDI Diesels as of August 2006 (and still in effect today) calls for manual, 6-speed transmissions in each of them as standard equipment. It also shows the engine for the automatic has been tweaked to provide greater torque and achieve a much better 0-62 mph figure. The highway mileage is superior with the manual, as are the city and the combined figures. And those numbers are pretty impressive. 26.8mpg in the city cycle for the smaller engines, to 23.6 for the 3.2 liter, and 45.4mpg for the smaller engines highway, to 42.8 mpg for the 3.2 liter.

So, if you can read German you will see from their website, all MB's have a minimum amount of electronic junk - electric windows, for example are ubiquitous - in the "standard equipment" or stripped models. But not everything else, even in the more luxurious ones. You can get a nice leather interior, nice wood, a Sport Package and some other items, while avoiding extraneous junk. It is noted that many features are linked to others, so you end up with some level of unwanted junk, just, hopefully, not junk that prevents the car from functioning when it fails, if you are careful. That does not equal an econobox from Taiwan or South Korea in my book. IF the basic engine and controls last several hundred thousand miles, it might just be the 240D of the 21st century.

By the way, I drive, or have driven, quite a few MB manual transmission equipped vehicles over the years and find the transmission linkages are typically designed to support a long life for the transmission, and not necessarily lightning quick shifts. The best manual transmission I have driven, for operating feel and quickness/smoothness was a Fiat 124 Spyder - next to no linkage as the shifter went basically straight into the transmission, great ratios, and fun to shift clutchless. But it was not robust. MB manuals were developed, along with those awesome hydraulically actuated clutches, for long life. Overworking synchros is avoided by design. This has caused criticism in the automotive press in recent years with the return of several manual transmission models to the US, which is often repeated here. MB responded by improving the 2005 model year and later C-Classes. My daughter has a 2005 C230 Sport, and the shifter in that is noticeably faster and easier to shift than the early W203 C-Class vehicles. I find the shift linkage in the 190E 2.3-16 a pleasure to operate, while the one in the W124 300E we own is less so. The W123 240D is merely exceedingly functional. And in the old days, the MB column shifters (4 speeds and reverse) were similarly functional, and not "fun" or sporty. But, then the 1967 250S we had was a floor shifter and it was very smooth and a great deal of fun to operate - shifted quick, was light and smooth as butter. Of all these cars, only the W123 (and its predecessors the W114/W115 220D and 240D) were so limiting as to make things like heel and toe a retraining exercise if you ever learned to do it effectively on any other vehicle. And I attribute that to the throttle response, especially on the W114/W115 series, and not necessarily the mechanical transmission linkage.

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 thought the reason for the 99 to be the last year of diesel was because the fuel was so different from place to place that compliance with the EPA is going to be a PITA? Did they change that then?

__________________
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

Hard to say what the actual reasoning was. At one point we were told the 2000 update to the hoodline made the in-line 6 of the W210 E300D unsuitable - wouldn't fit, and we would have to wait for the new V-6. But the Europeans still had the W210 in 2000 with that engine, or its replacement, the 3.2 liter first generation CDI. So I don't think that was the actual rationale.

As for Diesel fuel, the later emissions standards in Europe demanded the low sulfur fuel. The emissions systems were developed for that fuel, so they wouldn't work in the US, but the US standards did not go through a major change as far as I know, for Diesels from 1999 to 2000. So, it seems to me a 2000 model year E300D TurboDiesel should have been possible. I just don't think they were selling well, so MB dropped them.

But all those excuses are washed away with a similar standard for fuel and similar emissions levels and certification methods. Which is what we 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)

Well we have an 06 E320 CDI..... So far it has been great....

From what I have been told, and it makes sense looking at two W210's side by side. When they facelifted the W210 for model year 2000 they dropped the hood a bit and the I6 606 would not clear it. I think that, and along with luke warm sales, not to mention the W210 was being phased out in 2-3 years. Then throw on top of that the need to import a CDI V6 diesel which would have cost a lot of money, to only sell a couple thousand before the W210 was replaced. Throw all those together and you have a perfect storm that killed the diesel in this country for a few years.

__________________
2016 Corvette Stingray 2LT
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

The CDI that replaced the OM606 was an inline 6, not V6. Based on what I've read our MB diesels were still coming to this country with the OM606 engine long after the Europeans started enjoying their CDI's. Probably the cost of certifying the new CDI engine in the US and the luke-warm sales as mentioned (gas was very cheap at the time) were the main reasons for the temporary disappearance of MB diesels in this country.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

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

This from a REVIEW of an English version:


Is there an emoticon for "drool"?

Don't forget that those mileage figures are imperial, though.

I guess it is possible that the first generation CDI, which was an in-line 6, was somewhat lower and fit under the new 2000 E-Class hood while
the 1999 US model E300D engine just wouldn't make it. IF the CDI engine was introduced with the new hood in Europe, that would explain the logic - I don't think MB likes to bring brand new engine models to the US in the first year of production.

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)

Yeah usually the US is one model year behind Europe when it comes to new MB's. But many engines never even make it here or if they do the delay may be much longer than 1 year as is the case with the CDI's.

Based on this website of MB diesel history
http://www.daimlerchrysler.com/dccom/0,,0-5-466459-1-468998-1-0-0-466468-0-0-135-7145-0-0-0-0-0-0-0,00.html
Europeans have had direct-injected MB diesels since 1996 and CDI's since 1997 (not sure if the '96 E290 was common-rail or not, but either way it was direct-injected), while in the US we were still getting the now obsolete OM606, although a turbocharged version was right around the corner or already on the market. This leads me to think that the turbo OM606 was exclusive to the US market, since the Europeans already had their CDI's.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

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