new emmision standards - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

#46 01-28-2009, 08:00 AM

Nope.
Look at the Smart ForTwo. 1.0L engine in a 1,600 LB car and it get less than 45mpg.
Doesn't stop it from selling like hotcakes though.

rcounts · #47 01-28-2009, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

Where diesels are smog tested, the only thing that's checked is exhaust opacity and anything below 40% passes, at least here in NV. 40% is huge and your car would have to smoke like a burning pile of tires to fail this test.

Here in WA the opacity standard is 22% IIRC - and that isn't as hard to fail as you might think...

rcounts · #48 01-28-2009, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay Gibbs

Until ALL the car manufacturers quit with the never ending race for higher horsepower every year, we're going nowhere. I had a '81 Rabbit diesel-(wish I still had it!) through college and there was nothing better than getting 40 mpg around town and 50+ on the highway. With fuel costs as low as that, I had more spare beer money than anybody!! Granted, at 52 horsepower it was a slug but was by far the most economical car I've ever owned, and it was a good solid, well riding and handling German car. I think the most recent Jetta TDI with the latest beefed up engine has comparatively pathetic EPA ratings of like 30 city and 38 highway. disgraceful!

If only MB would let the US market have some of the "economical" stripped down versions the rest of the world is allowed to get- put some SMALL engines in!!! like an E200 turbodiesel or a C180 turbodiesel with manual trannies- bet they would get 40+mpg. We unfortunately won't get cars like this as "Mercedes has an image to uphold" and these cars would have a lower profit margin and will "cheapen" the US impression of the brand. BULL....!

There are changes that are already there and waiting to happen...When and Who will have the balls to actually do something as simple as this??

J.G.

Problem is its a (semi) free market - so what is sold is dictated by what sells. With fuel prices so (relatively) low, your '81 Rabbit - or a modern day equivalent - if it were introduced to the American market today probably wouldn't sell. Hell, they could hardly sell them in '81 when the middle east oil crisis was still fresh in everyone's mind!

Americans are so spoiled and enamoured with flash and speed, that the high mileage econo cars of Europe won't sell here - that's why the manufacturers don't bring them here. There was a brief resurgence of interest when RUG was $4 a gallon and D2 was going for $5 a gallon, but now that those prices are back down to about half of that, interest in super economy cars is falling about as fast as fuel prices.

The vast majority of people interested in super fuel-efficient cars are those of very limited means - students, the elderly, the unemployed/unemployable. Trouble is, they don't buy new cars. So there just simply isn't a big market for them.

I'm afraid it is going to take a near permanent climate of $4-$5 a gallon fuel to get the American public to wake up and decide that a car being fuel efficient is more important than it beinig able to go 0-60 in under 5 seconds (on clogged freeways where you hardly ever even get to drive 60), and that a car big enough to fit their needs (as opposed to their wants) doesn't have to be the size of a school bus...

rs899 · #49 01-28-2009, 11:25 AM

Quote:

I'm afraid it is going to take a near permanent climate of $4-$5 a gallon fuel to get the American public to wake up and decide that a car being fuel efficient is more important than it beinig able to go 0-60 in under 5 seconds (on clogged freeways where you hardly ever even get to drive 60), and that a car big enough to fit their needs (as opposed to their wants) doesn't have to be the size of a school bus...

well put (leans down and pets VW Rabbit Pickup )

awsrock · #50 01-28-2009, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rcounts

Americans are so spoiled and enamoured with flash and speed, that the high mileage econo cars of Europe won't sell here - that's why the manufacturers don't bring them here. There was a brief resurgence of interest when RUG was $4 a gallon and D2 was going for $5 a gallon, but now that those prices are back down to about half of that, interest in super economy cars is falling about as fast as fuel prices.

The vast majority of people interested in super fuel-efficient cars are those of very limited means - students, the elderly, the unemployed/unemployable. Trouble is, they don't buy new cars. So there just simply isn't a big market for them.

I'm afraid it is going to take a near permanent climate of $4-$5 a gallon fuel to get the American public to wake up and decide that a car being fuel efficient is more important than it beinig able to go 0-60 in under 5 seconds (on clogged freeways where you hardly ever even get to drive 60), and that a car big enough to fit their needs (as opposed to their wants) doesn't have to be the size of a school bus...

Something that always bothered me is the striking difference in the US between and "economy car" and everything else.
I never understood why, in order to achieve such "economy", you have to settle for some small, stripped down, cheap car. I mean, if that is what someone wants, then fine, but if you need to sacrifice usable space just to achieve some decent mpgs, it is sad. This is why I wish MB would sell some of their lower models over here. I feel like the perception in the US is efficient = cheap.
Why would you settle for a Toyota Yaris 2 door egg thing, if you could just have a normal sized sedan that had a 4 cyl and got the same mileage?? Maybe people wouldn't, but we don't have much of a choice in these horsepower and size wars.
This, I think, is what fuels my anger with regard to 0-60 times and economy cars...
Granted, some economy cars are nice. I wouldn't want a Civic, but overall they are ok. But why does Honda keep making them bigger and bigger? Think if they kept the body style of the late 90's civics, but had newer more efficient engines, with maybe a leather option? I think that would appeal to more people. The fuel economy certainly hasn't changed that much; I think in some cases, it even got worse!
Heck, MB made the 124 for 11 years...
Maybe this is why I always admire VW for having nice cars that are relatively economical. Well, except for the 2.0 that was in the previous Jetta..that thing was (at least when I experienced it) unrefined, slow, and got the same mileage as the 1.8T!!

LUVMBDiesels · #51 01-28-2009, 12:48 PM

I think we have strayed from the original topic which is emission standards to fuel economy. I agree that MPG is something we need to focus on. It would be great to see a wholesale switch to diesels and to smaller vehicles (as long as I can keep my Suburban for when I need to use it)

What I am worried about is emissions standards that are unrealistic and will choke off development in other aspects of automotive design. I am also worried that states like California will institute retroactive standards in order to get older cars of the road. Remember that CARB is not an elected body and is not held to account by the people of Ca. They can do whatever they want. I was watching a show about this on CNBC where they predict that Ca will outlaw any cars built before 2005 causing a huge sell off to other states.

My fear is that our beloved Diesels will be forced off the road in Ca and then in NY, Ma, Ct, NJ, etc.

I am also afraid that we will have multiple emissions standards.
We could end up with a standard for Ca,NY, Ma, Ct, NJ; one for Mn, Wi, Il, and one for Va, Md, WV and then one for the rest of the country. Automakers, especially foreign ones will never import cars that will have to be different for each collection of states, especially if the standards are so varied that a simple trapOx won't cut it

DieselAddict · #52 01-28-2009, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay Gibbs

Until ALL the car manufacturers quit with the never ending race for higher horsepower every year, we're going nowhere. I had a '81 Rabbit diesel-(wish I still had it!) through college and there was nothing better than getting 40 mpg around town and 50+ on the highway. With fuel costs as low as that, I had more spare beer money than anybody!! Granted, at 52 horsepower it was a slug but was by far the most economical car I've ever owned, and it was a good solid, well riding and handling German car. I think the most recent Jetta TDI with the latest beefed up engine has comparatively pathetic EPA ratings of like 30 city and 38 highway. disgraceful!

If only MB would let the US market have some of the "economical" stripped down versions the rest of the world is allowed to get- put some SMALL engines in!!! like an E200 turbodiesel or a C180 turbodiesel with manual trannies- bet they would get 40+mpg. We unfortunately won't get cars like this as "Mercedes has an image to uphold" and these cars would have a lower profit margin and will "cheapen" the US impression of the brand. BULL....!

There are changes that are already there and waiting to happen...When and Who will have the balls to actually do something as simple as this??

J.G.

I hear you. It seems that especially BMW is hell-bent on proving to US consumers that diesels aren't slow (as if that's still a problem - I'm not sure that it is) and they only import their most powerful, expensive and thirsty diesel in the 3-series. I agree it would be nice to have the option of buying a new C-class diesel or a lower-end 3-series diesel. Ditto for VW and I'd say even my 1.9L TDI is more powerful than it needs to be and I wouldn't mind sacrificing a few hp for more mpg, but it's already more economical than any other non-hybrid vehicle out there so I can't complain too much.

DieselAddict · #53 01-28-2009, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rcounts

Here in WA the opacity standard is 22% IIRC - and that isn't as hard to fail as you might think...

I don't know, none of the diesels that I ever had, including my W123 diesels ever tested above 5%. So I'd say something has to be majorly wrong with your car if it can't meet 22%.

DieselAddict · #54 01-28-2009, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUVMBDiesels

I think we have strayed from the original topic which is emission standards to fuel economy. I agree that MPG is something we need to focus on. It would be great to see a wholesale switch to diesels and to smaller vehicles (as long as I can keep my Suburban for when I need to use it)

What I am worried about is emissions standards that are unrealistic and will choke off development in other aspects of automotive design. I am also worried that states like California will institute retroactive standards in order to get older cars of the road. Remember that CARB is not an elected body and is not held to account by the people of Ca. They can do whatever they want. I was watching a show about this on CNBC where they predict that Ca will outlaw any cars built before 2005 causing a huge sell off to other states.

My fear is that our beloved Diesels will be forced off the road in Ca and then in NY, Ma, Ct, NJ, etc.

I am also afraid that we will have multiple emissions standards.
We could end up with a standard for Ca,NY, Ma, Ct, NJ; one for Mn, Wi, Il, and one for Va, Md, WV and then one for the rest of the country. Automakers, especially foreign ones will never import cars that will have to be different for each collection of states, especially if the standards are so varied that a simple trapOx won't cut it

I'm not worried about any of those things as I don't think any of them are likely. And you can always move to another state.

Graplr · #55 01-28-2009, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUVMBDiesels

I think we have strayed from the original topic which is emission standards to fuel economy.

But if car A gets 40mpg and car B gets 20mpg, all things being equal, car B will put roughly twice the amount of emissions into the air.

LUVMBDiesels · #56 01-28-2009, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graplr

But if car A gets 40mpg and car B gets 20mpg, all things being equal, car B will put roughly twice the amount of emissions into the air.

I understand this. However, forcing new emissions standards was the topic, bot the logic of better efficiency = less emissions. It seems like the thread got sidetracked to me.

If government was logical they would encourage diesels with the same kind of incentives they give to hybrids. Less fuel burned would be better.

DieselAddict · #57 01-28-2009, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUVMBDiesels

If government was logical they would encourage diesels with the same kind of incentives they give to hybrids. Less fuel burned would be better.

They already do. Check out the clean-diesel tax credit.

LUVMBDiesels · #58 01-28-2009, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

They already do. Check out the clean-diesel tax credit.

2009 Hybrid Models & 2009 Tax Credits

Ford Escape 2WD Hybrid — $3,000
Ford Escape 4WD Hybrid — $1,950
Mercury Mariner 2WD Hybrid — $3,000
Mercury Mariner 4WD Hybrid — $1,950

Current Diesel Tax Credits:

2009 Mercedes-Benz GL320 BLUETEC - $1,800
2009 Mercedes-Benz R320 BLUETEC - $1,550
2009 Mercedes-Benz ML320 BLUETEC - $900
2009 VW Jetta Sedan 2.0-liter TDI – manual & automatic - $1,300
2009 VW Sportwagen 2.0-liter TDI manual & automatic - $1,300

Looks fair to me

DieselAddict · #59 01-28-2009, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUVMBDiesels

2009 Hybrid Models & 2009 Tax Credits

Ford Escape 2WD Hybrid — $3,000
Ford Escape 4WD Hybrid — $1,950
Mercury Mariner 2WD Hybrid — $3,000
Mercury Mariner 4WD Hybrid — $1,950

Current Diesel Tax Credits:

2009 Mercedes-Benz GL320 BLUETEC - $1,800
2009 Mercedes-Benz R320 BLUETEC - $1,550
2009 Mercedes-Benz ML320 BLUETEC - $900
2009 VW Jetta Sedan 2.0-liter TDI – manual & automatic - $1,300
2009 VW Sportwagen 2.0-liter TDI manual & automatic - $1,300

Looks fair to me

Looks fair to me. The hybrid SUV's get better mileage and thus are cleaner (mainly due to their smaller size). And it appears small gas hybrids like the Prius no longer qualify for the tax credit at all, whereas the TDI's do because they just came out.