Parts Catalog Accessories Catalog How To Articles Tech Forums
Call Pelican Parts at 888-280-7799
Shopping Cart Cart | Project List | Order Status | Help



Go Back   PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum > Mercedes-Benz Tech Information and Support > Diesel Discussion

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #46  
Old 06-13-2008, 05:51 PM
Registered Hack
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForcedInduction View Post
Hybrids + Diesels, its a no brainer yet nobody will do it.

Think it's b/c there is so much effort to reduce weight in a hybrid since there is less power?

Why are diesels heavier? High compression needs stronger parts?

__________________

Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 06-13-2008, 05:56 PM
Registered Hack
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig View Post
It's still not cost effective, you would have to pay a premium for both the diesel and hybrid. Diesels are already more efficient than gassers during off-peak operation so there will be less advantage to tacking on the hybrid gimmick. Fuel is still cheap and there wouldn't be enough market.

I don't think hybrids are cost effective to begin with - they would need to harnessing all the lost energy from average driving without requiring the motor to charge them.. the battery should not require an engine to survive - only for assistance.

fuel price has little to do with it maybe? Marketing is very strategic and tons of cash is spent on just knowing the market. I would bet America is just less receptive to the diesel b/c there prissy nature and inflated sense of self worth.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 06-13-2008, 06:43 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Reno/Sparks, NV
Posts: 3,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bajaman View Post
Again, gassers and diesels are starting to become basically the same.
I don't think we're quite there yet. Diesels still have significantly higher compression which alone requires more robust construction.
__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 06-13-2008, 07:57 PM
I'm thinkin, I'm thinkin.
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington, Texas
Posts: 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig View Post
I don't know; was it real or a concept car?
I'll try to find the link when I get home. It was on The Car Lounge on VWVORTEX.... Not a concept. It was rated at 69.6 mpg if I recall correctly.
__________________
Sharing my partner's 2012 Forte 5dr SX til I find my next 123 or 126..
-
Do I miss being a service advisor ???
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 06-13-2008, 08:44 PM
rcounts's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kent, WA
Posts: 1,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by lutzTD View Post
...seems like I remember also reading somewhere that a diesel train engine gets 400MPG
That is in a TV ad and what it actually says is that the train is so efficient it moves freight at the equivalent of 400 mpg.

It is comparing trains to trucks. If a truck moves 50k pounds of freight @ 8 mpg, and a train moves 2.5 million pounds of freight @ 1 mpg then the train is moving the freight 50 times more efficiently than the truck - or the equivalent of a truck that gets 400 mpg (instead of 8 mpg).

Not really a valid comparison since the train runs on steel wheels and a steel surface (almost zero rolling resistance), it never has to pull more than a VERY modest grade (3 or 4 percent), and the train can get up to speed and then go pretty much non-stop all the way to its destination. On the other hand, the train can't drive to every address in the whole country either.
__________________
1984 300 Coupe TurboDiesel
Silver blue paint over navy blue interior
2nd owner & 2nd engine in an otherwise
99% original unmolested car
~210k miles on the clock

1986 Ford F250 4x4 Supercab
Charcoal & blue two tone paint over burgundy interior
Banks turbo, DRW, ZF-5 & SMF conversion
152k on the clock - actual mileage unknown
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 06-13-2008, 08:52 PM
lutzTD's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Lutz, Florida (N of Tampa)
Posts: 2,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcounts View Post
That is in a TV ad and what it actually says is that the train is so efficient it moves freight at the equivalent of 400 mpg.

It is comparing trains to trucks. If a truck moves 50k pounds of freight @ 8 mpg, and a train moves 2.5 million pounds of freight @ 1 mpg then the train is moving the freight 50 times more efficiently than the truck - or the equivalent of a truck that gets 400 mpg (instead of 8 mpg).

Not really a valid comparison since the train runs on steel wheels and a steel surface (almost zero rolling resistance), it never has to pull more than a VERY modest grade (3 or 4 percent), and the train can get up to speed and then go pretty much non-stop all the way to its destination. On the other hand, the train can't drive to every address in the whole country either.

it was said a little bit tongue in cheek. My point is that the engine on the train runs at a set speed and the electrics drive the train. this is where it gets its efficiency. on a smaller scale a diesel genset running at 1800rpm constant just to provide charge while the car runs on the batteries and electric motors would be an equivalent system. and the genset can be small and run after the car stops to balance the trip requirements against the genset output. in this way you caould run with a really small diesel motor, like in the 10-20 HP or maybe even smaller
__________________

1982 300CD Turbo (Otis, "ups & downs") parts for sale
2003 TJ with Hemi (to go anywhere, quickly) sold
2001 Excursion Powerstroke (to go dependably)
1970 Mustang 428SCJ (to go fast)
1962 Corvette LS1 (to go in style)
2001 Schwinn Grape Krate 10spd (if all else fails)
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 06-13-2008, 09:29 PM
rcounts's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kent, WA
Posts: 1,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt20 View Post
Think it's b/c there is so much effort to reduce weight in a hybrid since there is less power?

Why are diesels heavier? High compression needs stronger parts?
Right on both counts. The higher compression - PLUS the higher BTU content of the diesel fuel - results in a more powerful explosion of combustion. That means the crank, rods, block, valves, etc. all have to be built much more heavy duty to handle it. Heavy duty means heavy weight.

The weight is a problem not only because of the limited amount of power the electric motor puts out (the more power it has to put out the faster it drains the battery) but also every extra pound you have to push around reduces efficiency. It takes energy to move weight.

So, the fact that a diesel motor weighs 50% more than a gas motor of equivlent size and producing the same amount of power is a bit of a disadvantage. But the increased efficiency of the diesel motor more than makes up for having to push around the extra weight.

A diesel hybrid would be the ultimate in efficiency, but I think that the limited market for hybrids, combined with the limited market for diesels, would add a double premium to the price. The more limited the production of an item, the more expensive that item will be to produce - especially when you're talking about something that requires as much tooling and production equipment as a vehicle.
__________________
1984 300 Coupe TurboDiesel
Silver blue paint over navy blue interior
2nd owner & 2nd engine in an otherwise
99% original unmolested car
~210k miles on the clock

1986 Ford F250 4x4 Supercab
Charcoal & blue two tone paint over burgundy interior
Banks turbo, DRW, ZF-5 & SMF conversion
152k on the clock - actual mileage unknown
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 06-13-2008, 09:49 PM
anghrist's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Lancaster, CA
Posts: 558
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcounts View Post
...On the other hand, the train can't drive to every address in the whole country either.
That's a problem. Probably want to do something about that sometime soon. Local trucks could run on batteries and ship from a distributed rail depot system.....

Oops, I forgot, we did that back in the 20s thru 50s, until OTR trucking picked up pace. Of course then it was small local trucks and real "horse"-power instead of battery power.

Los Angeles had a pretty good rail transport system in the 1920s, but ripped it all out when cars became more popular.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 06-14-2008, 01:40 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: southern CA
Posts: 416
Angry bmw 118d

This BMW diesel hybrid is the best of both worlds...just not in the USA!



http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/03/bmw-118d-wins-w.html
__________________
1972 280SE 4.5
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 06-14-2008, 01:46 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Southeast
Posts: 1,848
Diesel vw Jetta gets 50 mpg hwy

I think the Jetta gets 42 city/50 hwy. That's a bit smaller car than I'd like for a car, but it's certainly adequate for many people.

jeff
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 06-14-2008, 01:55 AM
Unofficial wormcan opener
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Ashland, MA
Posts: 2,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbach36 View Post
I think the Jetta gets 42 city/50 hwy. That's a bit smaller car than I'd like for a car, but it's certainly adequate for many people.

jeff
The last year the Jetta diesel 5 spd was imported (2006), the EPA has it at 30 city 37 highway.
__________________
1987 300TD 309, xxx 2.8.2014 10,000 mile OCI


Be careful of the toes you step on today, as they may be connected to the ass you have to kiss tomorrow. anonymous

“Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don’t matter, and those who matter won’t mind.” Dr. Seuss
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 06-14-2008, 02:50 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Reno/Sparks, NV
Posts: 3,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bio300TDTdriver View Post
The last year the Jetta diesel 5 spd was imported (2006), the EPA has it at 30 city 37 highway.
I get about 42 MPG in mine and that's about 50/50 highway/city driving. The new EPA rules tend to underestimate the mileage, especially of small diesel cars. Gas hybrids on the other hand are now a lot more accurately rated than they used to be.
__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 06-14-2008, 06:25 AM
RichC's Avatar
Internal Error 404
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 963
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForcedInduction View Post
That was due to poor demand and high costs, not oil companies.
.

Where did you get that information ?

RichC


.
__________________

When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
Jimi Hendrix
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 06-14-2008, 01:54 PM
Unofficial wormcan opener
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Ashland, MA
Posts: 2,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by barry123400 View Post

From my past experience I really believe about 70 mpg on the american gallon might have been a possiblity. Without thinning the car out so much it is hardly still a car. The volkwagon jetta is very strong as is in accident situations.

My wife fortunatly was driving ours when she totalled it. Hit a telephone post with the car upside down at speed about fifteen feet off the ground. There was not one piece of glass left intact and the only part you could salvage from the body was the front bumper.
Car went off the road and launched. The japanese car she now drives would have killed her in an identical accident. Of this I am pretty well positive. Same with most if not all american cars presently sold.

She was hurt in the jetta but the passenger cabin stayed intact. You could even still open and close what was left of three of the doors. The telephone post hit the door directly behind the drivers door. It would not open but the damage did not make it into the passenger compartment. . It was almost impossible to get my stuff out of the trunk. Took about an hour with large bars to pry metal around. Eventually got the front hood up to disconnect the battery. It would never close again. Impact distortion present almost everywhere. The car launched from it's side after going off the road. Probably cartwheeled during launch phase as quite a bit of glass was there. The rest around the base area of the pole about fifty feet away. The roof of a lot of current offerings would have collapsed as well when the car dropped down the pole upside down onto it's roof. The jetta got a few roof dents.

First we will evaluate the japanese products when they appear. I suspect they might be better fuel milage wise. Time will tell. If volkswagon is about the same will buy the jetta again. Simply to pay a little more to keep it running perhaps but that money may save your life. I really think it did hers.

Jettas are well known to have one tough body assembly. I just never knew how tough till then. I knew the body was warrantied for twelve years against rust. After the accident found a heavy layer of what looks like another metal over the steel. It is very thick not like a flash coating. Perhaps 1/16 of an inch or more.
The five year old toyota out in the driveway is developing some serious rust issues. They fixed some earlier ones under warranty once already. More problems appeared this winter. This alone negates the value of the japanese products to come in my rust belt area to some extent.
These are factors that indicate milage should not be gained at the expense of serious trade offs in my opinions. It is left up to the purchaser to make that determination.
I am not enthralled with the volkswagon company or product itself but other than It's out of touch planning it is the real leader or potential leader at this time in my opinion. If they only get there current power train revised again in the next couple of years .They are almost unbeatable then in my opinion. They have already incorporated the six speed manual transmission as standard equpment on the upcoming diesels.
I'm glad your wife was OK after the accident. The consensus on the forum is that I'm really unsafe in our 2007 Civic. So I've been looking at crash tests on Youtube and evaluating crash test results. It seems that the new Civic does just as well if not better than the Jetta. There is not crash test for the roof however.
How was she able to launch the car so it hit a pole 15' off the ground?
Attached Files
File Type: doc Civic-VW crash test results.doc (38.0 KB, 114 views)
__________________
1987 300TD 309, xxx 2.8.2014 10,000 mile OCI


Be careful of the toes you step on today, as they may be connected to the ass you have to kiss tomorrow. anonymous

“Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don’t matter, and those who matter won’t mind.” Dr. Seuss
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 06-15-2008, 02:08 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Reno/Sparks, NV
Posts: 3,063
That consensus is wrong. Pretty much all the new cars today are very safe. Your 2007 Civic has a better crash test rating than the average Mercedes from the mid 90's. Of course front crash test ratings are only comparable among vehicles of the same mass, but relatively speaking all new cars today are safer than their predecessors.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

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

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2018 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page