Like Marty said there are always going to be a couple of people that can't be convinced.....

To sum up the positions of the short sighted gasser converts

1) maintenance is a wash
2) longevity is a wash
3) performance is pretty much a wash (I'll admit the CDI might be slightly faster)
4) refinement is pretty much a wash

The CDI does indeed get 30-35% better economy but the fuel costs 25% more (even at your more favorable $4 gas vs $5 diesel ratios) - that's pretty close to a wash in my book.

If you are buying new by all means get the CDI but to pay a 10K premium for a used CDI over an equivalent E350 doesn't seem to be a good deal IMHO.

What is the new price of a E320 CDI v. the E350? I know that the 606 didn't cost much (any?) more than the inline 6 gas engine for my '96.

So why woud you not get the diesel? What makes the gasser a better bargain? You will take a much larger hit on resale than new.

Please show figures which show that longevity is a wash, I don't believe a gas mercedes will last as long as a diesel mercedes.

What is there to be convinced about? I don't see any disagreement between us.

Please show figures to show that a gas MB will not last as long as a Diesel MB.

I fully expect my 119 to outlast the vehicle that is built around it. Neither I nor any indie that I've used has ever seen a 119 in need of a rebuild. Furthermore, the M103 and M104 will run every bit as long as any Diesel of the same era.

Not trying to pick a fight, just saying that they are both great cars!

Probably in the old days diesels were more durable, but I don't think that's the case today. Gas engines now last a lot longer than they used to, probably about the same as diesels, but I don't really have any data to go by. I just know nowadays 200K miles is nothing for just about any engine.

To the OP, not many people on this board have experience with a CDI. I suggest visiting this forum:
http://www.mbworld.org/forums/index.php

Also www.edmunds.com has useful consumer reviews. Overall I've read good things about these cars and it seems that the quality has improved since the 90's.

Once gas engines went to fuel injection the diesels lost a lot of advantages.

We are not talking about SBC's, Mercedes makes such good (and expensive!!!:eek:) gas engines that with some oil changes and a valve job once in awhile...well you will grow tired of the car before you are able to wear out the bottom end. After 300k or so miles the rest of the car is pretty clapped out anyway unless you have been replacing a lot of stuff along the way. Any MB engine gas or diesel will easly cover 300k miles.

I have seen high mileage examples of each, and if taken care of they hold up. Thats why a M119 crate motor cost's $20k...quality isn't cheap.:eek:

The poster earlier stated that durability was a wash, I would like to see where these numbers come from.

Diesels have less moving parts, fewer things to go wrong, fewer adjustments, and are throttled off air. Granted the new ones are way more complicated, but the premise is the same.

Diesels use stronger components because of the higher compression ratio's they are designed for durability. Gassers might be durable, but not as durable as a diesel. Please show me what specific components on a Mercedes gas vehicle lead you to believe that the durability is on par with a diesel motor.

The M104 will not run as long as a 606, (I own 2 606's and a M104) the head gasket issues are a major problem with these motors.

I would like to second SBC. && injectors! we've had leaky a couple times... and yes.. mpg/price is big in our house too... @ the dealership today here in tampa 08 E550 designo graphite package... looking to trade in the SLK and the capri blue CDI on it... sticker is 74xxx they're coming down 13 right off the top plus 0.9%

The valve job might still be a gasoline engine's weakness. It seems that diesel engines don't need it, at least not as often. Gas engines have been fuel injected for decades. I don't see what that has taken away from diesel engines.

Well back in the 50's, 60's and 70's 100k miles used to be about all you would get out of an engine, some wouldn't even get that far. Carb's are tough, they wash the oil off the cylinder walls, and do all sorts of neat things.

Diesels didn't have this problem, they would last two or three times as long.

Absolutely correct. Some are unable to grasp this.

The diesel will always win the economy game over time for overall utility and value.......always have too.

Anyone that says fuel economy doesn't matter, has a very short memory. Nothing new there either.:rolleyes:

I knew that my post would stir up a hornet's nest on this board :D

What I will concede is that the decision to go diesel is not based upon practicality today but still is appealing for other reasons. There is no economic reason to choose a used CDI over its used gas counterpart, period. The cars are basically identical otherwise and to argue the CDI is somehow less complex than the gas engine is truly showing one's ignorance of the CDI design. You could say that you might save 10% overall on fuel costs but for the average (15K miles per year) driver that would amount to about $10-$20 a month - hardly something that should come into the equation for buying a Mercedes-Benz.

Add to this argument the present somewhat untested emissions controls of the current diesel models (4 separate systems which all have to work perfectly) and the diesel is easily more finicky and complex that the gas model. This makes the choice of buying a new diesel over a new gasser less of a "no brainer" too.

People think I am some newbie to the diesel world because of my recent posts critical of the practicality of owning one. I learned to drive on a '74 240D in the late 70s and have been an advocate of diesels since then, but today, conditions have changed and unless you are willing to admit that *maybe* the decision to go diesel is impractical you are probably just fooling yourself.

OK, here's my last thoughts on this subject. My reason for continuing to drive a diesel is not because of economy, longevity or ease of maintenance. It is because in the early 1970s when there were gas lines at every station the truck stops always had plenty of diesel. My dad said "there will always be diesel because the military and commerce depends on it - if trucks can't get to the stores the whole economy implodes". That still holds true today. In fact, last summer when the refineries were having their problems meeting demands in the south for gas there was always diesel available. So, I guess I can admit there is one practical reason for owning a diesel powered car - in the event of another gas shortage I think the odds are pretty good that diesel will still be plentiful. That's my reason for owning one - it is the peace of mind of knowing I am not 100% dependent on gasoline. Not the greatest reason in the world but a good one for me.

People who buy the diesel variants usually drive more than those who buy the gas variants. The untested emission control systems is not that complicated. There is little that can go wrong.


You can run your 606 without a battery for thousands of miles, try that on a gas car.