Your post is probably illustrative (another reason) why the Zero to 60 mph metric is useless for all practical purposes.
I am unclear of the laws, because I don't do it, but drag racing (premium on Zero to 60 mph?) can be up to a felony? If you kill or cause to be killed someone, participants can be prosecuted for up to murder?
tex, some cars in USA are geared just fine for 100+ . gearing isn't usually the limiting factor is it? either way, let's agree that it's best to keep at 99 & under. could there really be a less relevant discussion for diesels, than 100+ mph? :}
which USA diesel is solid & stable & perky at 100+ ? BMW 3 or X5 maybe?
2,850 rpms with red line @ 5100 rpms (less than 56% of red line), Still get 50 mpg. Life is good. !! Absolutely rock solid. Perky? only app 20 to 25 mph left.
I couldn't help but think of you, as I used the on ramp today, to get on one of the local freeways. (you know straighter than an arrow and longer than long- I can hit 90 mph on this part) A hot late model Mustang (probably closer to the 4 sec Zero to 60 mph metric, you are so very fond of) than this slow frumpy diesel) spun out (near the beginning 1/4 th of the on ramp). It literally got stuck in the mud on the side of the on ramp. Naturally he tried to Zero to 60 it out of the mud, judging by the mud trajectory) I was in front of the blinking light tow truck for several blocks on the surface streets, that was going to pull him out of the mud. Gosh, I hate it when these FAST 4 sec muscle cars make delay parades. It would have been even worse if I was BEHIND the two truck !!!! Wish I was behind him to see him do the spin out. I smiled as I went by a worried looking person, standing off the side of the road waiting for the tow truck.
I am not "so fond of" 0-60. I just understand that in order to GET that sort of performance, you sacrifice some economy, and vice-versa.
The story of some idiot driver in the mud really isn't relevant at all.
None of the vehicles in my fleet are especially quick, though they're not what I'd call slow. It's actually pretty low on my priority list, which is why I'm in a diesel thread. LOL
..."I am not "so fond of" 0-60. I just understand that in order to GET that sort of performance, you sacrifice some economy, and vice-versa."...
The point is and remains the ZERO TO 60 mph 4 second mind set????
Well then, it seems that through all this brouhaha, you actually agree with me !! I think you might have taken umbrage to me describing its lack of practical value. Most folks understand what you understand.
On the topic of diesels that is one of the "benefits", a tad slower (many reasons for this but too many to go over) for way better fuel economy. (app 30% +)I personally am ok with the time shaving for the way better economy on the diesel.
I was thinking a few weeks ago of what would be an "acceptable standard on modern highways" for a 0-60 time, and I thought 8 to 10 seconds is perfectly fine.
I really do not know. I have driven everything from tractor trailers to 4 sec zero to 60 machines. As a point of departure, yes there is logic to what you say.
One thing on my bucket list that I never have fulfilled was getting shot off a steam catapult ( 2 seconds or so ) to 140 or so mph. (I understand the new design in effect levitates you)
Here in DC I think it's the high number of speed cams they've installed recently. 60mph? Yeah right. The limit in most places is 35 tops, and the speed cams nail you at 12 over, so you really can't exceed 47mph.
Having said that, many cars come with different axle options, where you can choose the final drive ratio. It's a simple trade off - acceleration vs. economy. Coincidentally I think the Mustang ruking mentioned is one of the models that has different final drive options, though I checked the EPA site and they only list one EPA mpg rating.
Exactly on target! I always tell them I don't care about your 0-60 or horsepower! Go and get a 5000-12000 pound trailer and I will meet you at the bottom of Old Fort Mtn or Saluda mtn and then we can race. That is an uphill run of perhaps 1100 ft in 5 or so miles 7% grade. Bring it on Tundra.
On road trips, I see those elephant races more than I care to, i.e. when a tractor trailer goes 65.2 mpg and the other tractor trailer decides he wants to pass em @ ....65.4 mpg. :lemon:, two lanes each way... interstate. Time to pull out your sandwiches and eat .... lunch. Ah, no stopping necessary. :surprise:
Just come to Seattle - even 20 seconds is perfectly fine, the chances of the car in front of you even reaching 60 are maybe only 50/50 at best to begin with. When I am in the fintail and people are holding me up, I know it's a slow place.
While I know my four or 5 times recently, in that area is anecdotal and certainly not definitive, I would agree with you. The majority of cars also are NOT diesel passenger cars.
There's a fair amount of old greasel MB diesels here, and VWs as well. The greenie dorks like em. Picture a dirty old Jetta diesel with a peace sign sticker on the back. I've seen a few new E bluetecs on the road too, and I know a guy who recently bought a ML bluetec.
We were just up the coast for lunch. Stopped at the MB dealership to look at the new ML Bluetec. My wife likes the new ML. Very comfy seats. Better than the BMW X5. Lots more legroom in the back seats. No diesels in San Diego County. Pretty much get on the list. He has 3 coming in within 2 weeks. They sell as fast as they come in. Plenty of V6 gassers available with BIG discounts. I don't see where Mercedes breaks down sales of diesel vehicles. He did say the ML is far and away their biggest seller. The ML is up 68% this year over last, must be the diesel bug is catching on. The do say diesels are up by 81% over 2011. Not sure if it mostly E, GL or ML.
Guy I know got a sweetheart lease on a leftover 2011 car at the end of last year - very nicely equipped, something like 56K MSRP, for I think it was $489/month.
If I wanted a ML/GL or even an E, I wouldn't even look at a gas. C bluetec will be a winner too.
I think all the 2011 ML Bluetecs are gone in SO CA. I asked about the ML 250 Bluetec. He said MB does not believe the American buyer is as interested in MPG as they are speed. He said I would really like the extra HP and Torque in the 2012 ML Bluetec. Claims it is faster than the X5 diesel. Which was a real rocket as SUVs go. It blows the doors off my Sequoia V8 gasser. The new E coupe is real nice. If I was interested in a car.
MB usually blows out most of the leftovers by the end of the calendar year. I doubt we will see a 250 series engine in something that big - not here. You'd have to move to an evil socialist place to own that :shades: . Upcoming C diesel should have it though. E coupe is gas only here as well, although in evil socialist places you can get it in diesel too.
$400 a month is probably about the average condo HOA here, or maybe property taxes + insurance on an old tract house. $489/month to rent a 50K+ car isn't a bad deal, with how the market works.
Or perceived lack of market. I don't think the diesel sedan has a hard time selling, and back in the day we did get a diesel coupe that sold just fine too - just haven't had one since 1985. You can even get diesel cabrios in Europe.
Haven't heard bad or good about that particular unit, but I am pretty sure the 7 speed in general has been well received.
I do not think that the 2011 BMW 335D US sales figures were lost on MB. They certainly were not lost on BMW, as they decided not to offer the TDI in 3 series. So even IF they were considering a CDI coupe, seems they took the safer bet. Of course the BMW X5 35D is still considered one of the best in category (crossover SUV).
Being as how the (new gen) E350 (sedan turbo diesel) has been a trooper, it probably was a no brainer to keep it and MAYBE increase the number and percentage of CDI units. The E350 (new gen) seems to be well rated by J.D.P. Other references (and anecdotal information) refer to its use as Euro Taxi's, i.e. durable and reliable. Of course here, that reference might not be so well received. To me, that is overwhelmingly positive.
If you do, please post. I am slightly hesitant about the hybrid CVT. But then again if MB puts a hybrid CVT on a 455# ft of torque monster machine, I am sure they did the R& D, homework, real world testing, etc.
Diesel 3er is no doubt why diesel C-class is coming. They will sell, especially if there is no initial premium. Upcoming A and B class ought to have diesel too, but I don't know if they will. A diesel A class would be interesting.
The taxi rep is something MBUSA marketing loathes. But, it will sell to diesel people. MB has its rep in part because of those industrial grade durable old cars. Even the bad ones survive taxi duty.
I am leery of a CVT too, as my only experience with one didn't have me impressed. If I see anything I will try to remember to share.
I appreciate that. Longer term I don't want to be in time for the technology MB decides to put out to pasture. (hybrid CVT). From what I can glean the CVT is on the ML 350 (SUV) and the E350 (sedan) is still a normal slush box automatic.
I remember seeing or hearing or someone posting about a MB (C class) with a super charger. Normally diesels have been mated to turbos, single/twin.
I am guessing the supercharger is in the mix because normally it kills mpg but can easily have 50 to 100 hp on tap with no turbo lag. The diesel of course compensates for the mpg premium.
What people want, though, is a Diesel *ECONOBOX*. It's these 30-40K+ yuppie toys that don't sell well, because it totally defeats the prime purpose, which is to save money.
I'd have to agree with plekto on this---the more expensive the diesel, the less likely it is to sell well in the "civilian" market.
I don't even think diesel-hybrid is the way to go (kind of self-defeating machine)...just affordable high MPG hatches and compact sedans--go toe to toe with equivalent niche gas engine types.
when the diesel passenger car market was *highest* in the USA, diesel prices were way lower than gasoline prices. So you got to drive a bigger, heavier more luxurious car for the same fuel money as a smaller gas car. That was the lure.
The problem is that it cuts into government revenue, albeit upwards of 30%. We all know they follow the policy of ever increasing fuel prices. Indeed we are penalized for using LESS !!! It is one reason why prices are going ever higher???
They can not BAN diesels, even as they have tried. They can however make it economically restrictive, which defeats the purposes that you have delineated.
So for example, it would be mayhem if the 65-70 mpg Polo was let into the US markets. As you know, the Prius has not been a very good seller across the broader markets and for at least a decade and several redesigns and generations AND despite 42 to 50 mpg. The Volt has experienced a "short" in the sales department (pun intended). That is of course without anywhere near a majority of passenger cars that already get stellar fuel economy.
Indeed most of the passenger cars (75%, albeit MAJORITY) are NOT so called " econo" boxes. Gasser "econo" boxes are a minority, albeit 25%. Of that minority (25%), the MAJORITY of the small car offerings do NOT get anywhere near what (the 38-42 mpg) I get in a 04 Honda Civic. This as you can see already saves a TON of fuel consumption !! So in that sense, the ( buying) opinions out vote you. (aka people that actually have voted with their "pocketbooks"".
The good news is that DIESEL passenger cars have gone from app 2% with 75% of those being light truck diesels, to 5% with more like 50-60% being light trucks. So for example, the savings of say an older TLC @ 15-17 mpg vs a VW Tourareg @ 28 is 75% BETTER. This is literally a MASSIVE savings (app 43%).
Edmunds.com has even done an article on this saying that in effect says that IF the majority of those larger cars could get better fuel mileage over all , THEN that would be better than an econo box getting even better fuel mileage than it already does. Knowing that or to wit, there are no real (larger scale) movements to turn those type of gasser guzzlers cars into much more economical diesel engines even at savings up 30% UP SAVINGS (my sample being 43% LESS) . Hence the vilification of "so called yuppie toys".
So for example, my 03 TDI "fuel guzzler" that gets 50 mpg, (EPA rated @ 42/49) even as I ride it hard and put it away wet" was dumbed down for the US market version. Specifcally to your issues, it gets 2 mpg LESS. So this dumbed down"50 mpg" has been available for a minimum of 10 M/Y's. I had to think long and hard at the time, as it carried a ($286 dollar) premium to the turbo gasser like model.
Indeed you have witness the vilification by multiple people and occasions, here on this thread and others, when I told of what I actually get in a TDI "fuel guzzler". The other truth is that I don't even try. When I do "try" the results even amaze me. I do of course know the parameters of the TDI and manual transmission. I really do not know what I actually get until I do the pen and ink calculations.
So if you were the government and/or oil company, would you rather have an F150 @ 15 mpg for 15,000 per year, draw 1000 gals @ $4 per gal or a TDI @ 50 mpg for 15,000 miles draw 300 gals? Now as a consumer I am fine with 300 gals and want to draw even less.
Or what MB has done in the past, used early customers as beta testers. I am not aware of a supercharged diesel, but I don't follow the movement too close.
Diesel A-class with huge mpg and sub 30K price would be a hit, I think.
I was in a focus group in Y2K which turned out to be about the idea of bringing A class to USA. Possibly my requests/feedback helped keep the A class away. They recorded everything we said as we sat inside the front half of an A class and inside 2 other-brand (both-halves) vehicles, one of which was toyota matrix. There were likely choking noises from behind the "oneway mirror" when I said I liked the A class and would buy one if it were available with: - manual transmission - diesel engine - no visible wood/woodgrain because wood does not belong in cars except maybe for the balsawood/whatever internal frame-reinforcer of C5 corvettes
Yes I think also that I will probably test drive it a little more than I would normally do, just to see how livable it can be. The feeling that I am getting is you are probably DEAD on as this 7 speed auto transmission seems to be BRAND new and the launch was VERY quiet. So much so, the only reason I found out was stumbling on it on a more obscure reference, that it was a 7 speed hybrid CVT.
So for example, I know in the past that MB does/did a real fine job with the automatic (slush box) mating to the diesel engines, probably best in breed. The longer time writing on the proverbial wall was they had/have to take advantage of the better mpg of the diesel and get better mpg from the transmission also. Just as VW and Audi and Porsche have done with the DSG.
We can hope the 7 speed CVT is as decent as the conventional model, which as far as I know hasn't had any real technical issues. Maybe wait a year or so, check for issues, and if none are apparent, feel safe. Or just be sure to always have a good warranty - the best friend of the worrisome MB owner.
the government doesn't want to "ban" diesels---they just wanted them cleaned up, which is happening.
Also the government doesn't control fuel prices, they only respond to them. The only way the government could control fuel prices is to nationalize the oil companies, even if temporarily. This has been done successfully elsewhere.
The biggest adverse effect of higher MPG cars is on funds for highway and related infrastructure repairs I think, which makes one wonder where the hunt for more $$$ will go.
I don't see any reason to relax them---emissions regulations have been a godsend to automakers thus far, as much as they might whine about it at times. I mean, the new small diesel engines are brilliant.
Competition improves the breed, and setting limits on design often inspires brilliance to create innovative solutions.
I think if I found myself homeless a motorhome built on this tractor trailer rig would be the way to go.
The only way the government could control fuel prices is to nationalize the oil companies, even if temporarily. This has been done successfully elsewhere.
That would only work if you produce all your own oil. Unless of course you are saying to conquer all countries we get oil from. Last I checked we only produce about 20% of our oil usage.
Comments
That is the "I have fallen asleep and I didn't give a hoot till you stopped me officer" excuse. Then they wonder why they get tickets?
I think the folks that one shares the road with have a reasonable expectation that folks that drive stay AWAKE !! ??
I am unclear of the laws, because I don't do it, but drag racing (premium on Zero to 60 mph?) can be up to a felony? If you kill or cause to be killed someone, participants can be prosecuted for up to murder?
either way, let's agree that it's best to keep at 99 & under.
could there really be a less relevant discussion for diesels, than 100+ mph? :}
which USA diesel is solid & stable & perky at 100+ ? BMW 3 or X5 maybe?
MB too, I'd imagine, and VW other than the 4 cyl.
Having said that, a TDI is at least adequate.
Not, but that's not what I meant.
I'm just saying that european cars may have different gearing to optimize the driving experience for their higher speed limits.
Different "cycles", for different markets.
Yeah, but they force 5-6 cars out of the lane to do so.
The story of some idiot driver in the mud really isn't relevant at all.
None of the vehicles in my fleet are especially quick, though they're not what I'd call slow. It's actually pretty low on my priority list, which is why I'm in a diesel thread. LOL
The point is and remains the ZERO TO 60 mph 4 second mind set????
Well then, it seems that through all this brouhaha, you actually agree with me !! I think you might have taken umbrage to me describing its lack of practical value. Most folks understand what you understand.
On the topic of diesels that is one of the "benefits", a tad slower (many reasons for this but too many to go over) for way better fuel economy. (app 30% +)I personally am ok with the time shaving for the way better economy on the diesel.
One thing on my bucket list that I never have fulfilled was getting shot off a steam catapult ( 2 seconds or so ) to 140 or so mph. (I understand the new design in effect levitates you)
Having said that, many cars come with different axle options, where you can choose the final drive ratio. It's a simple trade off - acceleration vs. economy. Coincidentally I think the Mustang ruking mentioned is one of the models that has different final drive options, though I checked the EPA site and they only list one EPA mpg rating.
We were just up the coast for lunch. Stopped at the MB dealership to look at the new ML Bluetec. My wife likes the new ML. Very comfy seats. Better than the BMW X5. Lots more legroom in the back seats. No diesels in San Diego County. Pretty much get on the list. He has 3 coming in within 2 weeks. They sell as fast as they come in. Plenty of V6 gassers available with BIG discounts. I don't see where Mercedes breaks down sales of diesel vehicles. He did say the ML is far and away their biggest seller. The ML is up 68% this year over last, must be the diesel bug is catching on. The do say diesels are up by 81% over 2011. Not sure if it mostly E, GL or ML.
If I wanted a ML/GL or even an E, I wouldn't even look at a gas. C bluetec will be a winner too.
mama-mia!
My mortgage is less than $400/month.
Sorry- but the price of things just seems outrageous to me.
The other longstanding one and opaque to most consumers are the 25% or so tariff's for any cars not meeting the "made in America" percentages.
Any word on how folks like the 7 speed automatic hybrid CVT that is said to be on the MB ML 350 35D ?
Haven't heard bad or good about that particular unit, but I am pretty sure the 7 speed in general has been well received.
Being as how the (new gen) E350 (sedan turbo diesel) has been a trooper, it probably was a no brainer to keep it and MAYBE increase the number and percentage of CDI units. The E350 (new gen) seems to be well rated by J.D.P. Other references (and anecdotal information) refer to its use as Euro Taxi's, i.e. durable and reliable. Of course here, that reference might not be so well received. To me, that is overwhelmingly positive.
The taxi rep is something MBUSA marketing loathes. But, it will sell to diesel people. MB has its rep in part because of those industrial grade durable old cars. Even the bad ones survive taxi duty.
I am leery of a CVT too, as my only experience with one didn't have me impressed. If I see anything I will try to remember to share.
I remember seeing or hearing or someone posting about a MB (C class) with a super charger. Normally diesels have been mated to turbos, single/twin.
I am guessing the supercharger is in the mix because normally it kills mpg but can easily have 50 to 100 hp on tap with no turbo lag. The diesel of course compensates for the mpg premium.
I don't even think diesel-hybrid is the way to go (kind of self-defeating machine)...just affordable high MPG hatches and compact sedans--go toe to toe with equivalent niche gas engine types.
when the diesel passenger car market was *highest* in the USA, diesel prices were way lower than gasoline prices. So you got to drive a bigger, heavier more luxurious car for the same fuel money as a smaller gas car. That was the lure.
They can not BAN diesels, even as they have tried. They can however make it economically restrictive, which defeats the purposes that you have delineated.
So for example, it would be mayhem if the 65-70 mpg Polo was let into the US markets. As you know, the Prius has not been a very good seller across the broader markets and for at least a decade and several redesigns and generations AND despite 42 to 50 mpg. The Volt has experienced a "short" in the sales department (pun intended). That is of course without anywhere near a majority of passenger cars that already get stellar fuel economy.
Indeed most of the passenger cars (75%, albeit MAJORITY) are NOT so called " econo" boxes. Gasser "econo" boxes are a minority, albeit 25%. Of that minority (25%), the MAJORITY of the small car offerings do NOT get anywhere near what (the 38-42 mpg) I get in a 04 Honda Civic. This as you can see already saves a TON of fuel consumption !! So in that sense, the ( buying) opinions out vote you. (aka people that actually have voted with their "pocketbooks"".
The good news is that DIESEL passenger cars have gone from app 2% with 75% of those being light truck diesels, to 5% with more like 50-60% being light trucks. So for example, the savings of say an older TLC @ 15-17 mpg vs a VW Tourareg @ 28 is 75% BETTER. This is literally a MASSIVE savings (app 43%).
Edmunds.com has even done an article on this saying that in effect says that IF the majority of those larger cars could get better fuel mileage over all , THEN that would be better than an econo box getting even better fuel mileage than it already does. Knowing that or to wit, there are no real (larger scale) movements to turn those type of gasser guzzlers cars into much more economical diesel engines even at savings up 30% UP SAVINGS (my sample being 43% LESS) . Hence the vilification of "so called yuppie toys".
So for example, my 03 TDI "fuel guzzler" that gets 50 mpg, (EPA rated @ 42/49) even as I ride it hard and put it away wet" was dumbed down for the US market version. Specifcally to your issues, it gets 2 mpg LESS. So this dumbed down"50 mpg" has been available for a minimum of 10 M/Y's. I had to think long and hard at the time, as it carried a ($286 dollar) premium to the turbo gasser like model.
Indeed you have witness the vilification by multiple people and occasions, here on this thread and others, when I told of what I actually get in a TDI "fuel guzzler". The other truth is that I don't even try. When I do "try" the results even amaze me. I do of course know the parameters of the TDI and manual transmission. I really do not know what I actually get until I do the pen and ink calculations.
So if you were the government and/or oil company, would you rather have an F150 @ 15 mpg for 15,000 per year, draw 1000 gals @ $4 per gal or a TDI @ 50 mpg for 15,000 miles draw 300 gals? Now as a consumer I am fine with 300 gals and want to draw even less.
Diesel A-class with huge mpg and sub 30K price would be a hit, I think.
There were likely choking noises from behind the "oneway mirror" when I said I liked the A class and would buy one if it were available with:
- manual transmission
- diesel engine
- no visible wood/woodgrain because wood does not belong in cars except maybe for the balsawood/whatever internal frame-reinforcer of C5 corvettes
So for example, I know in the past that MB does/did a real fine job with the automatic (slush box) mating to the diesel engines, probably best in breed. The longer time writing on the proverbial wall was they had/have to take advantage of the better mpg of the diesel and get better mpg from the transmission also. Just as VW and Audi and Porsche have done with the DSG.
Funny thing, since the year 2000 or so, wood trim has been a delete item in smaller MBs.
Also the government doesn't control fuel prices, they only respond to them. The only way the government could control fuel prices is to nationalize the oil companies, even if temporarily. This has been done successfully elsewhere.
The biggest adverse effect of higher MPG cars is on funds for highway and related infrastructure repairs I think, which makes one wonder where the hunt for more $$$ will go.
Competition improves the breed, and setting limits on design often inspires brilliance to create innovative solutions.
The only way the government could control fuel prices is to nationalize the oil companies, even if temporarily. This has been done successfully elsewhere.
That would only work if you produce all your own oil. Unless of course you are saying to conquer all countries we get oil from. Last I checked we only produce about 20% of our oil usage.