 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Mercedes-Benz Cars / August 2005CDI versus Hybrid
http://www.easier.com/view/News/Motoring/Mercedes_Benz/article-27584.htm Mercedes-Benz CDI engine fuel efficient in coast-to-coast comparison 24 August 2005 Although many may think hybrid technology is the only answer to rising fuel costs, a real alternative is actually the diesel engine, as the German car magazine Auto Bild reported in its latest issue. The magazine conducted a comparative test drive from the east coast to the west coast of the USA with two new Mercedes-Benz ML 320 CDI vehicles and a Lexus RX 400h with a petrol hybrid system. The test result showed that the advanced diesel engine is far more fuel efficient than the hybrid. In Auto Bild's coast-to-coast marathon, the cars were driven about 3210 miles (around 5200 km), from New York to San Francisco. The results showed that while the ML 320 CDI (165 kW/224 hp) returned an average fuel consumption of 31.04 miles per gallon, the hybrid SUV (155 kW/211 hp) averaged 27.69 mpg. The difference of 3.35 mpg (10.8 per cent) underscores the superiority of state-of-the-art diesel engines compared to hybrid drives. The endurance test also showed that hybrid technology is only marginally more fuel efficient in urban traffic, where it is most effective in reducing consumption. At 24.14 mpg, the diesel car returned only 0.42 mpg greater fuel consumption in city driving than the hybrid vehicle. "The M-Class performed admirably under diverse conditions during the entire 5,200-kilometre trek," says editor Jörg Malzahn of Auto Bild. "I hadn't expected such a big advantage in fuel efficiency." Underneath the bonnet of the ML 320 CDI is an all-new six-cylinder engine with third-generation common-rail technology, which enables further improvements in fuel consumption, emissions and performance. At 510 Nm, the V6 has one of the highest torque outputs of any engine in its displacement class, and this performance begins at only 1600 rpm. The Mercedes-Benz coast-to-coast test cars were also equipped with diesel particulate traps, helping to further reduce the M-Class's emissions. The 320 CDI engine meets Euro IV regulations even without the trap. . > http://www.easier.com/view/News/Motoring/Mercedes_Benz/article-27584.htm > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > fuel costs, a real alternative is actually the diesel engine, as the > German car magazine Auto Bild reported in its latest issue. I think this article was posted here before? If not the other had the same misconception in it beginning. There is nothing mutually exclusive about Diesel and Hybrid. There will be cars that are both soon, and that will be an improvement in efficiency over just plain Diesel. Marty Does anybody know how long the batteries last and how much they cost to replace? . > Does anybody know how long the batteries last > and how much they cost to replace? Both good questions. I think the Prius has 5 year battery warranty, but beyond that all bets are off. Battery technology is still improving at a pretty nice clip though, so this is an area that is likely to improve in both areas (longevity and cost). There is also a toxic waste disposal issue with batteries of course... Marty The only benefit to hybrid cars, especially the "performance hybrid" vehicles (Honda Accord hybrid and Lexus 400h), is the aura of smug superiority they impart to their owners. _That's_ what the $x,000 premium is being paid for. John M. > The only benefit to hybrid cars, especially the "performance hybrid" > vehicles (Honda Accord hybrid and Lexus 400h), is the aura of smug > superiority they impart to their owners. _That's_ what the $x,000 > premium is being paid for. Actually that is a perfect description of some mercedes owners! In some thread -- can't remember which NG -- somebody said that in fact batteries can be recycled rather well and there is little energy involved in their production. Before that my view would have been the same as yours. Now I am not so sure. DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > There is also a toxic waste disposal issue with batteries of course... > > Marty > In some thread -- can't remember which NG -- somebody said that in fact > batteries can be recycled rather well and there is little energy > involved in their production. Before that my view would have been the > same as yours. Now I am not so sure. Certainly they can be recycled, that doesn't change the fact that they are toxic waste. It just gives you a good option for dealing with them. Seriously, batteries although easily recyclable, contribute a major amout of toxics to our landfills, because people are too lazy or too stupid to deal with them properly. Marty PS Can you tell this is a sore subject? > Does anybody know how long the batteries last > and how much they cost to replace? $8000 in Canada. Guy at work bought a Prius for almost $40,000 Canadian and he's bragging about fuel efficiency. Funny that a salesman would have no concept of ROI. cp > I think this article was posted here before? If not the other had the same misconception in it beginning. > > There is nothing mutually exclusive about Diesel and Hybrid. There will be cars that are both soon, and that will be an > improvement in efficiency over just plain Diesel. The point is: Hybrids are pointless. cp >> I think this article was posted here before? If not the other had >> the same misconception in it beginning. There is nothing mutually [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The point is: Hybrids are pointless. The point is: Petrol engine meets diesel efficiency only as a hybrid. Without hybrid petrol engine is far behind and will be. Reg: Harri >>> I think this article was posted here before? If not the other had >>> the same misconception in it beginning. There is nothing mutually [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The point is: Petrol engine meets diesel efficiency only as a hybrid. In the city. > Without hybrid petrol engine is far behind and will be. What the other guy is saying is that a diesel hybrid would be even better....nah, complicate even further a proven technology. cp I'm not a big fan of hybrids, but this article sounds very biased against hybrids. The test comparison was a drive across the USA? If that is what they did, it's all highway driving. Hybrids are supposed to do much better in stop and go type driving that one would see in a metropolitan area, not driving across open highways. > I'm not a big fan of hybrids, but this article sounds very biased > against hybrids. The test comparison was a drive across the USA? If > that is what they did, it's all highway driving. Hybrids are supposed > to do much better in stop and go type driving that one would see in a > metropolitan area, not driving across open highways. Exactly so. Actually, truth be told, I am not great fan of them either. In fact when my brother told me he was going to buy one, I advised against it... I do believe though, that hybrid technology will be perfected and eventually will be standard in most if not all vehicles. Vehicles that only do highway cruising (like semi trucks) could be the exception. Time will tell, Marty > Hybrids are supposed to do much better in stop and go type driving > that one would see in a metropolitan area, not driving across open > highways. Really? My Insight gets spectacular (60-90mpg) on the freeway, assuming it's straight and level. Obviously hills reduce mileage a bit. It's not so good in the city, only getting about 35-40mpg, which is significantly less than the 55mpg sticker for "city" driving, and quite a bit below what I was looking for when I bought the car. All vehicles that I know of benefit from a constant speed and load on their engine. Stop-and-go is hard on transmissions, engines, and brakes. Cruising at a set speed, say with cruise control, on a freeway is much, much easier on the car and more efficient. I'd rather have a diesel engine running on waste vegetable oil. Much less expensive, and the oil (assuming it's been properly filtered) is better for the engine than the low-sulfur diesel that California requires us to have here.  SignaturePete Stephenson HeyPete.com Don't get your criticism. In Europe all diesel is low sulfur, and it is this which has alloed the development of the great diesel engines with low emmisions of today. DAS SignatureFor direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > I'd rather have a diesel engine running on waste vegetable oil. Much > less expensive, and the oil (assuming it's been properly filtered) is > better for the engine than the low-sulfur diesel that California > requires us to have here. > Don't get your criticism. In Europe all diesel is low sulfur, and it is > this which has alloed the development of the great diesel engines with low > emmisions of today. My criticism is not that the diesel here in California is lower-sulfur (though I hear it has some problems with keeping certain parts lubricated -- I guess the sulfur also functions as a lubricant), but rather that we have to have "special" diesel fuel that's more expensive, and that's produced only by a few refineries -- thus limiting competition and availability. A recent refinery fire sent diesel prices to nearly $3.30/gallon here. I don't mind having cleaner fuel...sure, that's no problem. But paying substantially more for fuel in a major metropolitan area with a few large refineries around here? There's plenty of supply here, and a steady demand. There's no real reason prices couldn't be substantially less. SignaturePete Stephenson HeyPete.com My understanding is that low-sulfur diesel is going to be available all over the US in 2006 or 2007. DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > My criticism is not that the diesel here in California is lower-sulfur > (though I hear it has some problems with keeping certain parts > lubricated -- I guess the sulfur also functions as a lubricant), but > rather that we have to have "special" diesel fuel that's more expensive, > and that's produced only by a few refineries -- thus limiting > competition and availability. [...] > My understanding is that low-sulfur diesel is going to be available all over > the US in 2006 or 2007. Indeed. However, as long as it's pretty much limited (and mandated by law) to one particular state, the price of that fuel will be quite high. SignaturePete Stephenson HeyPete.com >> I think this article was posted here before? If not the other had the >> same misconception in it beginning. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The point is: Hybrids are pointless. This is similar to a guy on a horse saying cars are stupid. The problem with hybrids still is the economics and uncertainty of this new technology. As an example to replace my current 1995 minivan which gets combined 20mpg and is paid for with a new $20K hybrid that gets combined 40mpg I would save $1500/year in gas cost at 10K miles and $3/us gallon gas. That savings would be offset in California by sales tax on the hybrid of $1800 and registration would jump from $70/year to $650/year. Insurance would take a similar jump. I might still be faced with a very large cost when the electrical part of the hybrid needed replacement or repair. I still have not seen published expected lifespan for the batteries, their recycling expenses (computer monitors are now $12 a pop where I live) or replacement costs. For someone who replaces their car every 3-5 years or who wants to make a statement then hybrid is the way to go. However at the current time they do not make good economic sense for someone who keeps a car 15-20 years. Right now if I were to purchase an environmentally friendly affordable car it would probably be a 4 cylinder Camry or Accord (yes I realize this is a Mercedes group - I have a 72 280 SEL 4.5 14mpg thank you). The best comparisons would be the Prius vs. Echo or the basic Civic vs. Hybrid Civic. Run the numbers and factor in the maintenance uncertainty.The issue of environmental impact of used batteries if most people drove hybrids also has not been addressed. Rant Off Howard "Howard Nelson" <htnelsonvip@pacbell.net> haute in die Tasten: > The problem with hybrids still is the economics and uncertainty > of this new technology. I test-drove a Toyota Prius in Germany and liked the experience. In Germany this car costs more than 30.000 US$ (with executive options like car stereo and navi system), which is far more than I can afford for a car right now. In my humble opinion there are only two reasons to oerate a hybrid car: 1. to meet enviromental standards which cannot be met by another comparable technology 2. to save money. If you take the situation in Germany, there is no real advantage of a Prius compared to any other modern, economic car. There are no laws which would allow an electric car to drive where other cars may not drive. Besides this a car like the VW Golf SDI offers comparable specs and beats the Prius slightly in fuel consumption. Given the current situation, a Prius does not make sense in Germany, unless you value its specific features. That means you like the fact that it comes with a CVT gearbox and is perfectly quiet at standstill. However: Times can change. Diesel cars have become regarded enviromentically critical due to their dust emissions. Besides that Diesel fuel has become more and more expensive and has almost reached the level of unleaded gas (although fuel tax on diesel is lower than on petrol). Things could get worse for the diesel in future. Then the gas hybrid may be the best solution. Frank Signatureplease replace spam-muelleimer with fk-newsgroups for e-mail contact Citroen - Made in Trance >> The point is: Hybrids are pointless. > > This is similar to a guy on a horse saying cars are stupid. Not quite an apt analogy. cp
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.