GM Inside News Forum banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,633 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
http://jalopnik.com/5048124/mercede...-prime-shows-off-next+generation-benz-diesels

Mercedes has announced a new C-Class car with its next-generation four-cylinder diesel mill, uniquely titled "BlueEFFICIENCY."

While we're not sure about the name, the specs are certainly impressive: Mercedes claims 204 HP and 369 lb-ft of torque from the 2.2-liter four <2,143 cc >, while returning a combined 45 MPG <US > and meeting EU5 emissions standards in C-Class Prime form.

Mercedes claims the BlueEFFICIENCY engine will replace four separate diesels at the company, and be offered in the E-Class, the new GLK-Class and in a future E‑Class Coupe in addition to the C-Class.
P
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,040 Posts
Wow, very impressive if real. I'd love that kind of mileage. MB is kind of out of my price range however.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,964 Posts
I wonder what car that mileage is based off of because they have quite a range of weight between certain vehicles. If you put that in a C class the thing would feel extemely quick and shouldn't be priced that high.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,633 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 · (Edited)
The interesting thing about this one and the similarly advanced ' best of ' (approx.) 2.0 liter Turbo Diesels from Audi/VW and BMW is that they perform so strongly not only against gassers etc but also against their own in house, fairly recent, 3.0L Turbo Diesel stable mates.

Its an imperfect representation for sure but as a useful approx example , just consider this one vs. the MB 3.0L Turbo Diesel - in CRD (non Blue Tec ) form - ie technically a little 'dirtier' than this MB 2.15L .

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/06/chrysler_introd_1.html

Chrysler Introducing New 3.0-Liter Diesel With 2007 Grand Cherokee
14 June 2006
Crd30
The new 3.0-liter CRD.

A new 3.0-liter turbo Common Rail Diesel (CRD) will make its debut in the recently announced 2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee next year (earlier post).

The Mercedes-built 3.0-liter CRD produces 218 hp (160 kw) of power at 3,800 rpm and 510 Nm of torque at 2,000 rpm—33% more power

and 28% more torque than its 2.8-liter predecessor previously offered in Europe. Built in Berlin, Germany, the new V-6 CRD engine is

entering series production.
Even with the 'true' earlier and corrected dates of introduction, just look at how fast MB diesels of approx. ( loose) the same torque rating have been progressing.

2.8L approx. 400 - 460? Nm

3.0L CRD approx. 510 Nm

2.15L " Blue Efficiency " approx. 500 Nm.

Then consider all the rest.

No wonder MB is replacing so many really good diesels with this thing.

If you go to MB's press release, which I need to recheck for accuracy, I believe this one meets Euro 5 w/o after treatment except a very simple and relatively small particulate filter.

Thats real progress and a great start on Euro 6 and T2B5.


It still seems that you could take about 25 -30 % of our domestic big three product offerings and drop one of these cutting edge 2.0 -2.15L Turbo Diesels in for good effect.

This one is supposedly very compact and was designed with both front and rear wheel drive in mind.

Interesting that - when you consider MB's current product line.

Just for fun, can you imagine a 1.6 -2.0 L variant in a Mini type product ? ( Yes, I know thats for BMW to do....)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,913 Posts
Mercedes claims 204 HP and 369 lb-ft of torque from the 2.2-liter four
This thing will be a slug, with the size and weight of the C class it would seem to be on par with the previous Jetta TDI at 90HP. In other words place your acceleration well in advance.

Us Bin2 Tier 5 is more stringent than Euro 5, thus would be more impressed if it passed US emissions and netted 45 MPG.

Remember the old Jetta TDI (lighter) netted 45mpg highway in US spec trim.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,913 Posts
If only GM would take note....
Question is at what price point? GM already got stuck with the super efficient high price tag Hybrid SUV's. Seems the market put it's foot down on how much is too much for a Hybrid option. Which is really sad, cause outside of the cost the Hybrid full size SUV's they are fantastic in efficiency compared to their gas powered cousins.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,633 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 · (Edited)
This thing will be a slug, with the size and weight of the C class it would seem to be on par with the previous Jetta TDI at 90HP. In other words place your acceleration well in advance.
0 -100 km/h in 7.0 seconds or 0 - 62.5mph on the the way to top end of 250km/155mph - but hey, you'd know that if you had read the article.

Anyway, that beats the snot out out of a Prius at 10.9 - (available on a great day only) - doncha' think ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,633 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Question is at what price point?
About 40 to 55% of a battery hybrid - that won't match the driving dynamics or performance. That would be for a T2B5 compliant vehicle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,957 Posts
This thing will be a slug, with the size and weight of the C class it would seem to be on par with the previous Jetta TDI at 90HP. In other words place your acceleration well in advance.

Us Bin2 Tier 5 is more stringent than Euro 5, thus would be more impressed if it passed US emissions and netted 45 MPG.

Remember the old Jetta TDI (lighter) netted 45mpg highway in US spec trim.

The C-Class is not double the weight of a Jetta, so it is not like the horsepower advantage is canceled out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,913 Posts
0 -100 km/h in 7.0 seconds or 0 - 62.5mph on the the way to top end of 250km/155mph - but hey, you'd know that if you had read the article.

Anyway, that beats the snot out out of a Prius at 10.9 - on a great day doncha' think ?
Compared to other vehicles in class, weight, and for the cost of $58 Large with 204HP its a slug. Now again $58 large for the C Class diesel. A nicely equipped C 350 will run around $41k. The value equasion isn't too hot with this one.

The 0-60 at 7.0 is competent compared to the C 350 of 6.2. What would be more interesting would be to compare a roll from 20-60 or the like where the diesel doesn't hit that 369ft lbs, the slugness factor of the diesel would be more prominent. What the article doesn't say is that it took all of yesterday and part of today to reach 155mph! :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,964 Posts
Compared to other vehicles in class, weight, and for the cost of $58 Large with 204HP its a slug. Now again $58 large for a C Class. What the article doesn't say is that it took all of yesterday and part of today to reach 155mph! :)
I won't be a slug if it has at least a 6 speed tranny to keep it in the powerband. It does put down 369 lb-ft of torque so it will feel very snappy around town. The powerband on a diesel typically starts very low but usually falls on its face pretty quickly so with a 6+ gearbox you will be able to keep it moving pretty good. Sure it's no AMG black version but then it's not supposed to be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,633 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 · (Edited)
Compared to other vehicles in class, weight, and for the cost of $58 Large with 204HP its a slug. Now again $58 large for the C Class diesel. A nicely equipped C 350 will run around $41k. The value equasion isn't too hot with this one.

The 0-60 at 7.0 is competent compared to the C 350 of 6.2. What would be more interesting would be to compare a roll from 20-60 or the like where the diesel doesn't hit that 369ft lbs, the slugness factor of the diesel would be more prominent. What the article doesn't say is that it took all of yesterday and part of today to reach 155mph! :)
No, none of that's not even close to accurate.

You are way wide of the mark on pricing - you need non manufacturer subsidized, humongous EU VAT added, European market pricing to compare correctly. If you are unaware that we in the States are enjoying subsidized prices on the European makes sold here .....

Ironically, the 'roll' you describe would help the diesel, not hinder it. Besides in Europe, most of whats sold won't even break 8, or 9, or 10 seconds for a best 0-100 kmph time.

A very large number won't break 12.

Given the level of expertise you are displaying here, or really the lack there of, suggest you you learn at least a little more about vehicle pricing in the EU and in regards to MB in particular, and try to get a ride in in a modern, high performing turbo diesel - also as sold in Europe.

Also, this engine will be rapidly expanded into other , lower cost C klasse trim levels. There will be other power/ fuel economy combinations as well - this is probably going to be the least fuel economical one - for a while.

Don't be surprised if you see some of the lower powered variants bust thru 50-55 US mpg on the combined EDEC figure mentioned.

I also notice in your numbers you fail to mention the C350 fuel consumption and emissions numbers . There are a great many in the world that would gladly trade 5-10% of their current rides 0 - 100 kmph 'performance' for a 40 to 70 % increase in real world fuel economy numbers - with a possible opportunity to do more - especially if they could do that w/o a 10,000$ battery rapped in a 15,000$ hybrid system - even if its subsidized to hell won't have it by whoever and however.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,336 Posts
joemac,

I think you are off base.
MB nailed this. 369TQ out of a 2.2L engine! That is unbelievable.
+ the fact that it is only 2.2L and has 204hp.
This thing will handily outrun the '99 Intrigue that I used to own and it had 215hp and a bunch less torque.
I just don't see how it could be called a slug. I would also guess that you are the only guy on GMI that thinks it is.

Ex: My wife and I rode from London to Gatwick Airport in a Eclass 2.6L Turbo Diesel and when he merged onto the M it put us back in the seat and just kept accelerating until he let off at 90 mph.
And I think that car only had about 177hp.
........and his average mpg in London city traffic was about 30mpg!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,913 Posts
No, none of that's not even close to accurate.

You are way wide of the mark on pricing - you need non manufacturer subsidized, humongous EU VAT added, European market pricing to compare correctly. If you are unaware that we in the States are enjoying subsidized prices on the European makes sold here .....
Instead of chastising and being overall demeaning why not focus on the conversation and produce the numbers if one is the master on such numbers as indicated?

Ironically, the 'roll' you describe would help the diesel, not hinder it. Besides in Europe, most of whats sold won't even break 8, or 9, or 10 seconds for a best 0-100 kmph time.
How would the roll help the diesel? The diesels with traditionally low peek torque is obtained very low in the RPM range when compared to a gasser and will only hit peak torque in 1st gear when the pedal is matted. Gassers with traditionally higher RPM peak torque will often hit or be very near peak torque on multiple transmission up shifts.

Given the level of expertise you are displaying here, or really the lack there of, suggest you you learn at least a little more about vehicle pricing in the EU and in regards to MB in particular, and try to get a ride in in a modern, high performing turbo diesel - also as sold in Europe.
More chastising without any value add to the conversation. What's the point other than to play keyboard commando? BTW I drive a modern turbo diesel every day, so I'm familiar with diesel driving characteristics.

I also notice in your numbers you fail to mention the C350 fuel consumption and emissions numbers.
2008 C 350, 3.5 V6, 268HP/258TQ, 17/25 MPG US. Emission numbers as long as it meets or exceeds the requirements set by the EPA and surpassing Bin 2 Tier 5 and therefore can be sold in the US. Or is one suggesting that buyers will make a purchasing decision on their Mercedes because one model has 3PPM less CO2 than the other?

There are a great many in the world that would gladly trade 5-10% of their current rides 0 - 100 kmph 'performance' for a 40 to 70 % increase in real world fuel economy numbers -
The typical level of clientele that's purchasing a Mercedes product in the US isn't as affected by gas prices. With the annual volume indicated in the article, unless something crazy happens for the US, there will be few of these here on the streets comparatively speaking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,633 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 · (Edited)
joemac,

I think you are off base.
MB nailed this. 369TQ out of a 2.2L engine! That is unbelievable.
+ the fact that it is only 2.2L and has 204hp......
Great post.

Technically its not even a 2.2L - its a 2.143L or if you prefer a 2.15L.

Another interesting aspect of this engine's peak torque rating - and torque curve, is how it compares to all that's currently offered for sale here in the U.S.

Its a very, very short list as to what outproduces this engine - made even shorter when sales volumes of those engines are accounted for.

Of those that outproduce, most do so by not so much - like the 3.0L MB CRD - which is now down slightly in Blue Tec form.

If you eliminate the HD trucks or focus just on cars ......

Also, nothing comes close on a 'max torque per liter' basis.

Take out the Duramax, Cummins ( turbo diesels ), the ZL1/Z06 motors and the Viper 8.0L V10 and that small list grows appreciably smaller.

Lets also consider what a derivative 3.0L of some sort would produce - 369 X 1.5 = 553.5. :) HP would be of course approx. 307.5

And going the other way, say a 1.4L - 369 x .7 = 258.3 for peak torque with the accompanying HP @ approx. 143.5.

Theoretically speaking, you would need much else other than the range this would provide.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,633 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 · (Edited)
Re: "Mercedes Benz C250 CDI Blue Efficiency Prime"

Compared to other vehicles in class, weight, and for the cost of $58 Large with 204HP its a slug. Now again $58 large for the C Class diesel. A nicely equipped C 350 will run around $41k. The value equasion isn't too hot with this one.

The 0-60 at 7.0 is competent compared to the C 350 of 6.2. What would be more interesting would be to compare a roll from 20-60 or the like where the diesel doesn't hit that 369ft lbs, the slugness factor of the diesel would be more prominent. What the article doesn't say is that it took all of yesterday and part of today to reach 155mph! :)
Your numbers do not match what Mercedes Benz officially publishes for the two C class vehicles under discussion.

http://www.mercedes-benz.de/content...ars/models/c-class/w204/catalogue_prices.html

Although a different country - and not as good a website you can go here if you want most of it - in English.

http://www2.mercedes-benz.co.uk/con...cars/models/c-class/w204.flash.html#chapter=1

Including VAT ( 19% ) but no other tax and fees, prices are as follows ( in Euros in Germany) ;

2008 C350 BASE MSRP - 45,368.50 ( 7G -TRONIC std. )

2009 C250 Blue Efficiency BASE MSRP - 40,638.50 ( 6 speed MT )

Both are similarly equipped although not quite identically - which is somewhat unusual. Both are positioned as 'premium' models.

Neither offer an optional transmission at this time.

( Although not certain, and meaningfully only in an overall sense, these transmission assignments probably favor the C350 at least a little. )

The rest of the numbers are ;

1.) 0 - 100 kmph

C350 6.4 sec.

'C250' 7.0 sec.

2.) Top speed ( governed )

155mph - for both.

3.) Co2 ( grams/kilometer ) / Emissions std.

C350 232/239 - EURO 4

'C250' 138 - EURO 5

4.) Fuel Consumption ( EDEC. Liters/ 100 kilometers )

a.) 'Combined'

C350 9.7 - 10.0

'C250' 5.2

b.) 'extra urban'

C350 13.9 - 14.2

'C250'.....???

c.) 'inter urban'.

C350 7.5 - 7.8

'C250'......???

The C350's numbers float a bit depending on the details - the 'C250's' do not.

This has to do with optional wheels and tires ( I think ) which regardless, affect the C350 only.

Some other;

5.) HP :

C350 - 272

'C250' - 205

6.) Torque (Nm) :

C350 - 350 ( 2400 - 5000 rpm )

'C250' - 369 ( approx estimate at 1800 - 2300 rpm )

*************************************************

So...... using whats available, 5.2/9.7 or 5.2/10.0 ( Liters per 100 kilometers ) means that for a piddling .6 sec on the 0 - 100 kmph time you can

cut fuel consumption to 53.61% or 52.00% of the C350 by moving to the 'C250'.

Put the other way, the ( EDEC combined ) numbers are 23.52 or 24.23 mpg (US) for the C350, and 45.23 mpg (US) for the 'C250'.

For a fairly large amount of users the 'C250' more than doubles their mpg in real world situations.

Somewhat counter intuitively - for an 'American' - diesel's best advantage over gassers is officially measured on the 'extra urban' cycle in the EU.

More than 80 - 90% is typical as far as measured.

Double plus is not hard in real world conditions.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top