Re: Mercedes-Benz hit with suit

My W123 240D auto Euro sedan with 72 PS needs

24,7 sec from 0-62.1 mph and has a top speed of 86 mph so it is _really_ slow.

Of course not.

But the old non-turbo engines are much simpler which also means much easier to maintain, need cheap low-quality dino oil only and are very reliable as they simply do not have parts like turbochargers, intercoolers or electronics.

That is the reason why Indian car manufacturer Bajaj-Tempo still uses this ancient OM 616 in their current verhicles, e.g. an ambulance car

Most other Bajaj-Tempo engines are derivates of the OM 616.

Juergen - drove all the different W123 diesels with 55 to 125 PS in the past 20+ years

Reply to
Juergen .
Loading thread data ...

So don't taut Diesel as the engine of choice except for those short on cash. In America gas is about 4x as cheap as in Europe. Most cars have 150HP plus and at least 6 cylinders. We don't need stinking Diesel when gas is taxed at 30%, not 300%.

As I said...

Yeah, but not because Diesel are so refined that even top MB and BMW use them, as the post to which I replied implied...

From what I hear, it's not uncommon for middle managers throughout Europe to have company cars, something that only general managers and vice-presidents of companies get here in the US.

No, you're assuming that traffic patterns in the US are like in Europe. It is not. My average speed commuting is 40MPH and average fuel consumption of either of my 3400 and 3700lbs, 200+HP V6 cars is

22-24MPG (around 10Km/l).

I spend about $110 (about 6 to 7 tanks) per month to have both cars in use by both I and my wife. Why would I ever want Diesel??? You may have a hard time thinking that not everything that's good for Europe is good for the rest of the world...

Reply to
Neo

In news: snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com, Neo being of bellicose mind posted:

"Neo".... while I do enjoy and share your perspectives about diesel in the US, I did NOT post the above quote (DaimlerChrysler diesels passed ...blah-blah-blah). Have another go at it!

Regarding diesel vs. gasoline emissions .... this may be helpful. Try some of the links. :-)

formatting link

Reply to
Philip®

Yeah ... Peugot slow!

Reply to
Philip®

Al Gore spouts gibberish. Even his home state voted for Bush. LOL

Reply to
Philip®

And what does it say in the opening paragraph?

"...the best attributes of diesels -- fuel efficiency and durability -.."

DAS

--

Reply to
Dori Schmetterling

Let's try again.

People who have top Mercs and BMWs are not usually short of cash, but that doesn't stop them thinking about fuel economy and durability and maybe resale value.

People in Britain are not now suddenly shorter of cash than before (swing to diesel).

Diesel is not the answer for everybody.

Racing in the Traffic Lights Grand Prix has nothing to do with 40 mph commuting speeds. You don't need a 4-litre engine to commute to work at 70 mph (as I did for a year, with a two-litre engine in a W123). In fact, you can cruise at 80 mph / 130 km/h all day in a 1.6 litre engine. But, you need 5 litres to get to 80 in a few seconds, especially if you have a big, heavy car weighing over 2 tons. A Bentley or R-R shifts at unbelievable speeds because of big engines. I would have thought this is all pretty obvious.

Car engines have been big in the USA for a variety of historical and present reasons (and yes, I agree that the price of fuel is one of them) and attitudes to diesel have also been shaped by a variety of factors, but that doesn;t mean things may not evolve. LikeI said, until recently nobody in his right mind would buy a diesel passenger car in the UK but, vive la change! Diesel normally costs MORE than standard petrol in the UK.

DAS

--

Reply to
Dori Schmetterling

OK, thanks for the clarification.

I still don't see Americans setting for the lower performance and smoothness of Diesel engines though...

Reply to
Neo

1st off, car Diesel engines are not nearly as tough as those used in commercial applications. Because of the higher pressures, they're usually built with thicker walls, but it only adds to the weight.

But if you keep reading, the sub topics, you'll notice that Diesel is also responsible for the nastiest emissions...

Diesel is more efficient not much because of the fuel itself, but mostly because of its compression ratio. Direct-injection gas engines can use higher compression ratios and get a fuel consumption within

10% of Diesel, while retaining the simplicity and performance of conventional gas engines (case in point, Audi A4 2.0 FSI and 1.9 TDI on the highway). And that without stratified charge, when it would be able to achieve the same in mixed driving as well (as the A2 1.6 FSI does)...

So I disagree with you, Diesel future looks bleak in cars. It'll be remembered as passing, sad fad...

Reply to
Neo

I beg to differ. I could lease a BMW 5 or an MB E, but I prefer to buy for the same monthly payment. People think that expensive cars translate to being well off, but it's only a matter of personal priority choices.

Exactly, even in Europe.

AVERAGE speed of 40MPH, peaking 70MPH in part of my commute. What I mean is that unlike most of Europe, it's not a bumper to bumper commute...

Actually, you do if you are going to be passing and going up merge ramps...

Exactly. Americans expect comfort and performance from an average car without having to pay premium for either, unlike Europe.

What seems to be not obvious to you is that American driving habits and traffic conditions are quite unlike European ones, where Diesel may make sense in some cases, but definitely not in so many cases to justify the sudden increase in market share.

Evolve??? You can say change, but not necessarily evolve. Sometimes a change can be for the worse and thus hardly an evolution, as the case in point.

I see, change for change's sake. That's so 20th century... :-)

Reply to
Neo

In news:3fc727a1$0$25672$ snipped-for-privacy@news.dial.pipex.com, Dori Schmetterling being of bellicose mind posted:

In context:

"To take advantage of the best attributes of diesels -- fuel efficiency and durability -- -while protecting public health-, EPA, with full support of the Bush Administration, has put in place a number of programs, which together will result in the most dramatic improvement in air quality since the catalytic converter was first introduced a quarter century ago."

This does NOT mean that diesel and diesel fuel is The Answer".... only that efficiency and durability are the attributes most desireable.

So, what's your point, DAS?

Reply to
Philip®

Righty-o. If someone took the broccoli florets GHWBush wouldn't eat and rammed them up Owlgore's nostrils, he'd claim they were an air filter.

Serve him right for treating the electorate like mushrooms - keeping us in the dark and feeding us BS.

-psmith "Humans do not benefit the modern state" -P. J. O'Rourke

Reply to
Phil Smith

But less of other unhealthy pollutants like carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons.

Reply to
Timothy J. Lee

strict 2007

When it comes to comparing like engines, consider BMW diesel and petrol 3.0 straight sixes. The diesel wins on all counts bar outright horsepower. It wins the torque race by a very considerable margin. Inside the car it is silent and smooth. Outside the car, it takes an experienced ear to tell which engine is installed. Mercedes is similar though slightly more cold idle engine clatter externally.

Huw

Reply to
Huw

durability -.."

Car diesel engines are commonly used in commercial applications. Mercedes use the full car range in commercial cargo vans. As far as weight goes, the soon-to-be-launched Ford/PSA V6 CGI block

2.7litre V6, which will find its first application in Jaguar and Land Rover products, is rated at 202hp and 440Nm from an injection system running at 1650bar. It will be produced at the rate of 150,000 per year to start with.

It weighs just 202kgs.

engines

I have not heard of any petrol engine which comes anywhere near

200g/kW/h. Not within 25% of it. Perhaps you have examples, because I certainly don't.

while retaining the simplicity and performance of

Since it has been an expanding market since the early 1960's and in many European countries it now accounts for 50% of the market and it is about to expand into the US, then it hardly a fad.

Huw

Reply to
Huw

I never said that diesel is "The Answer" (to life, the universe and Everything, or motoring). Here I was merely pointing out that the EPA also recognises that diesel has particular advantages.

I did read the rest of the page, of course, but I didn't think I was pulling the EPA remarks out of context by quoting only a few words. Diesel engines as used in Europe (together with the low-sulfur fuel) are already very clean and getting more so. BTW, as an aside, some years ago I read of a study in Germany that tried to determine the cause of many trees dying in southern Germany. Emission monitors were placed by the roadside of motorways and 1 m away. Interestingly, no significant amounts of toxins were found 1 m away. The cause of death of the trees was probably 'acid rain' which had nothing to do with car emissions.

The wholesale rejection of diesel engines (for cars) by some of the contributors here is fine as an opinion, but not supported what is actually happening. Whether diesel is a passing fad...well, we'll see.

DAS

--

Reply to
Dori Schmetterling

In news:3fc9e1d3$0$11178$ snipped-for-privacy@news.dial.pipex.com, Dori Schmetterling being of bellicose mind posted:

The EPA stated there are two attributes of diesel that EPA wishes to preserve in future engines. There is no implication that -diesel- is the best embodyment for passenger cars. California Air Resources Board (CARB) has a lot to say about the matter of diesel too and agrees.

formatting link
"The most recent scientific results from the forests of Germany areconsistent with the conclusion that acid rain is not a primary factorin the various types of regional decline in tree species."
formatting link
"Scientists discovered, and have confirmed, that sulfur dioxide (SO2)and nitrogen oxides (NOx) are the primary causes of acid rain. In theUS, About 2/3 of all SO2 and 1/4 of all NOx comes from electric powergeneration that relies on burning fossil fuels like coal."

Perhaps you didn't know that back in '98 or '99 that my state of California banned new diesel car sales for one year due to .... emissions. It's not just the oil burner technology, it is the fuel we have (though at this time California has uniquely low sulfur diesel compaired to the rest of the US). We (the USA) have had a parade of foul examples of diesel cars both domestic and foreign over the past 30+ years and we're pretty much jaded toward the subject of widespread "European-like passenger car diesels.

Reply to
Philip®

"Dori Schmetterling" wrote . Whether diesel is a passing fad...well, we'll see.

In the grand scheme of things, diesel will be no more, or less, a passing fad than any other oil based energy. One thing is for sure, it can only gain market share in the US in the medium term.

Huw

Reply to
Huw

Ah, but California's Governorship is now in the pockets of the Republicans, who are in the pockets of the oil industry.

I don't think CARB will be getting tough on anyone anytime soon.

--Dan

Reply to
Dan O'Connor

In news:3fc9efb8 snipped-for-privacy@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com, Huw being of bellicose mind posted:

Thank God increasing diesel market share to any significant degree is NOT for sure.

Reply to
Philip®

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.