I am going to call my stealership today to see when these will enter the showroom. My wife commutes 500 miles per week. I cannot believe that someone has finally stood up and realized that diesel is the future of fuel economy - not hybrids. THANKS TO DAIMLER CHRYSLER.

It also looks like the design engineers have finally started using their heads again as far as fuel efficient designs. The answers are in nature and have been all along. I can't say its my favorite look like my old 300sd but at least the wife wouldn't be sucking up so much fuel back and forth to work every day. Looks like a winner as far as a commuter car.
Four cylinder common rail direct injection engine, particulate filter, selective catalytic reduction. 1991 Cubic centimeter displacement. Torque is 221 pounds at 1600-3000 RPM, autotronic transmission with continuously variable automatic. Zero to 60 MPH in 7.9 seconds. top speed 118 MPH. 70 miles per gallon. Fuel capacity 14.3 gallons. Driving Range 746 miles.


http://politics.yahoo.com/s/ap/daimlerchrysler_concept

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________
1982 300SD Light Blue
2002 Honda Accord SE
1974 Toro Wheel Horse Tractor
2000 Toyota Tundra Pickup

If recent history is any indicator we will be the LAST country to see it.

Point of comparison...the SMART came out when? Do we have it yet?

__________________
Proud owner of ....
1971 280SE W108
1979 300SD W116
1983 300D W123
1975 Ironhead Sportster chopper
1987 GMC 3/4 ton 4X4 Diesel
1989 Honda Civic (Heavily modified)
---------------------
Section 609 MVAC Certified
---------------------
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche

i saw that car featured somewhere else not sure where. i thought it was a diesel hybrid.

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

I will predict that the US will NEVER see that car except for a few individuals who will inevitably grey market them in. This is not a vehicle that would make it in the US market.

In Europe, streets are narrow and cities are crowded. In 2000 through 2003 when I was traveling throughout Europe I was amazed at how many Smart cars were on the streets. I even saw a few on the Autobahn and the freeways in other countries, but it would never be a seller in the US.

The A Class is bigger than the Smart and is a four seater, probably about the size of this concept car. It has never made it to the US for the same reasons.

Don't hold your breath.

Have a great day,

70 mpg? Ok, yeah......But it's not very nice to look at every morning.

__________________
1987 300SDL (324000)

1986 Porsche 951 (944 Turbo) (166000)

1978 Porsche 924 (99000)

1996 Nissan Pathfinder R50 (201000)

When gas prices will soar past $3.00 you will be surprised how much things as we know will change

__________________
Peter
1984 300D MB "Klara"
1996 4Runner SR5 "Toy"
1997 Impreza Outback "Subie"
80's Diesel PU Rig (to be purchased)

Why does the US market accecpt fuel inefficient cars? Seems to me that VW has a tough time keeping up with the demand in sales on their diesels which sip so little. I'd think other makers would jump and produce basic fuel efficient diesels. Its more of an inconvienence for me to stop for fuel than to roll up a window. I'll gladly give up luxury for economy, enviroment.

I've always wondered why the older MBs diesels(617) were guzzlers. Realistically 20-28mpg is the norm. I would think it should do better, much better since a 5.9l cummins rolling six tires around does 20-24, older VWs will do in the 40s. I'd expect something in between. Say 30-35mpg.
What makes them so hungry? 200K+ miles? Did they ever do better?

Been out lately??

The U.S. does not accept fuel inefficient cars. The fuel efficiency of a the cars that it does produce is too high.

Therefore, because the public can't accept the high fuel efficiency (28 mpg) of the typical sedan, they go out and purchase a $hitbox that has more acceptable fuel economy, in the order of 13 mpg.

Then they don't get frightened by fuel economy numbers that are too great.

I also was amazed by the quantity of smart cars when I was over there in 2002....they have a ton of them. Our C220 cdi was a bit faster though, we whizzed past many smart's in the truck lane on the autobahn And we still averaged over 36mpg in normal highway driving! Lowest we ever got was after a few of our extreme 150-55mph drives....it fell to about 28-29mpg

However, I still want a smart car. A diesel w/manual transmission.

__________________
-diesel is not just a fuel, its a way of life-
'15 GLK250 Bluetec 118k - mine - (OC-123,800)
'17 Metris(VITO!) - 37k - wifes (OC-41k)
'09 Sprinter 3500 Winnebago View - 62k (OC - 67k)
'13 ML350 Bluetec - 95k - dad's (OC-98k)
'01 SL500 - 103k(km) - dad's (OC-110,000km)
'16 E400 4matic Sedan - 148k - Brothers (OC-155k)

Comparing the 617 to a VW or Cummins is apples & oranges, IMO. Not only is the Cummins a much more recent design (TDI), but is one of the best diesels ever made. Compare Ford and Chevy diesel mileage to the Cummins. The 617, while usually seen in cars from the '80s, is mid-'70s technology. It would be better to compare it to an engine from the same era, like a late '70s VW. I once had a 1977 VW Rabbit diesel, and I had no choice but to keep it under 65mph. Its 1.4 liter, naturally-aspirated engine only produced about 45 horsepower. The car got 45mpg highway, but weighed less than 1800lbs, and still had a top speed of about 65mph. My 300D gets 29mpg with the A/C off (the VW had no A/C) if I go no more than 65mph. The 617 turbo in my 300D produces about 80 more horsepower, making it nearly 3 times as powerful as the VW. It is also pushing a car that is nearly twice as heavy, it has MUCH better acceleration, and has a top speed that is at least 30mph faster. In light of all this, the 15mpg or so difference between the two doesn't seem so significant.

__________________
1982 300D, black w/ palomino leather, 203K
2001 E320, champagne, 105K (Mom's)
1999 Dodge Dakota, squeaky & battered, 142K

I am old enough that I have seen this movie before. In 1973 gas prices tripled, yes tripled in a period of a month or two. I saw MANY irrational things like people trading in a 13MPG car that was paid for, taking on a big payment only to get 20MPG. Many people get fixated on the fuel bill and can't do the simple math involved when looking at the big picture. Some people went to smaller, foreign cars, but those cars were limousines compared to vehicles as small as the Smart.

Gas prices are $6 per gallon and more in Europe coupled with narrow streets and crowded cities. The Smart car and other four wheel motorcycles work okay for commuting in places like Milan.

The US is a different story. A Volkswagen is a BIG car compared to something as small as this fish inspired little commuter car. I can promise you that in the US market, even with $6 per gallon gas, this will not be a car that will sell enough units to warrant the expense of having it EPA certified by the maker.

Here the typical commuter drives in from the suburbs. In places such as Milan, people already live in the inner city and traverse the narrow, crowded city streets. There are MANY motor scooters, even ones with enclosed cabs for such use. The Smart is a step up from that. We do NOT have such a situation here to deal with.

Also, you have no idea how small that car is by looking at the picture that you showed us. They call it a four seater and for many Europeans, you could get four of them into it. In Europe, obesity or even slight overweight is not at all common

Until we have the SERIOUS population density that is present in Europe there will be no appreciable market in this country for such a car, high gas prices or not.

Have a great day,

I would also like to see what the 200 lb door of a 1980's caprice will do to those plastic panels at a mall parking lot, or worse yet how about a 65mph accident on the interstate with something as small as a Honda Accord or one of the nearly 2 million new Rams, Silverados or F150's that enter into service in our roads every year. I think on a side impact the driver doesn't stand a chance.

__________________
87 300d Turbo 241K with original #14 head (blue)
87 300d Turbo 198K will run great again someday (silver)
84 300sd sold ( buyer drove it to Paraguay )

A one ton truck would barely notice running over one.....

__________________
Proud owner of ....
1971 280SE W108
1979 300SD W116
1983 300D W123
1975 Ironhead Sportster chopper
1987 GMC 3/4 ton 4X4 Diesel
1989 Honda Civic (Heavily modified)
---------------------
Section 609 MVAC Certified
---------------------
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche

1980's GM sedans are actually one of the least safe cars on the road. Why does everyone seem to deny and find it hard to accept that new Honda Accords and Camrys are VERY safe cars?

I agree completely! I can't see these being popular in East and NE Texas, the high number of obese People there are unbelievable. Few if any in that part of the world would give up their SUV or pickup truck for a tiny little car, even if gas was $10 a gallon! Some of these people could't possibly fit in one of them cars!

__________________
'95 E320 Wagon my favorite road car. '99 E300D wolf in sheeps body, '87 300D Sportline suspension, '79 300TD w/ 617.952 engine at 367,750 and counting!