backtop


Print 39 comment(s) - last by 91TTZ.. on May 22 at 9:29 AM

Mercedes prepares to crush all rivals

The fuel economy wars are heating up, and we can partially thank (or blame depending on your view point) the U.S. government for increasing fuel efficiency. According to Edmunds, Mercedes Benz is looking to significantly boost fuel efficiency for the turbodiesel variant of its restyled 2014 E-Class luxury sedan.
 
The outgoing 2013 E350 Bluetec features a 3.0-liter V6 turbodiesel that produces 206 hp and 400 lb-ft of torque. It's enough to give the 4,000-lb sedan EPA ratings of 22 mpg city and 32 mpg highway.
 
However, the new 2014 E250 Bluetec 4Matic gives up two cylinders and a bit of power and torque to significantly boost highway fuel economy. The 2.1-liter, 4-cylinder turbodiesel engine uses twin sequential turbochargers to generate 195 hp and a still impressive 369 lb-ft of torque, however, highway fuel economy skyrockets to 45 mpg.


2014 Mercedes E-Class
 
Projected city and combined fuel rating are not available, but we expect those figure to rise sharply as well.
 
The 45 mpg highway rating makes the E250 Bluetec 4Matic even more fuel efficient than the lighter, less powerful Volkswagen Passat TDI which has an EPA highway rating of 43 mpg. And as its name implies, the E250 Bluetec 4Matic manages that lofty figure with the added heft of an all-wheel-drive system.
 
Mercedes has yet to announce pricing for the 2014 E250 Bluetec 4Matic, but the 2013 model starts at a $52,200 and lacks AWD.

Source: Edmunds



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Puts VW's 2.0-liter to shame
By 91TTZ on 5/20/2013 3:16:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the USA is ready to embrace diesel cars.


Diesel cars can be nice, but there isn't really any cost savings here in the US. The higher efficiency of diesel engines are offset by the higher cost of diesel fuel. You end up not saving any money.


RE: Puts VW's 2.0-liter to shame
By Spuke on 5/20/2013 3:42:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Diesel cars can be nice, but there isn't really any cost savings here in the US.
Has anyone compared VW Jetta gas AND diesel maintenance costs? I know on pickups there is a fairly significant different between maintenance on a gas versus a diesel.


RE: Puts VW's 2.0-liter to shame
By L1011 on 5/20/2013 6:12:33 PM , Rating: 2
In the case of my 2012 Golf TDI, it costs $82 every 10,000 miles for oil and fuel filter (water separator) maintenance. It's $129 for service every 20,000 miles (rotate tires + the 10k oil service). The every 40k service is $329. My car does NOT have Urea, so I can't comment on those prices. The cost is negligible compared to a gasoline Golf.


RE: Puts VW's 2.0-liter to shame
By Spuke on 5/21/2013 9:36:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The cost is negligible compared to a gasoline Golf.
Indeed, that's not significantly more. Thanks much.


RE: Puts VW's 2.0-liter to shame
By L1011 on 5/20/2013 6:04:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

"Diesel cars can be nice, but there isn't really any cost savings here in the US. The higher efficiency of diesel engines are offset by the higher cost of diesel fuel. You end up not saving any money."

I disagree, partially. I drive 23,000 miles/year so owning a TDI most definitely saves me money in fuel. Over the life of the car, it's almost $8,000 in fuel savings versus my previous car. Diesel engines run slower (lower RPM) and cooler than gasoline engines, therefore they last a lot longer (350,000 miles is quite routine I'm told). I calculated my savings based on 225,000 miles. If you drive a lot, diesels definitely make sense.

Also, a lot of cars require premium unleaded. Where I live, diesel is only $0.10/gallon more than premium, yet my TDI is getting nearly 74% better MPG (yes, 74%...I went from 23MPG car requiring premium unleaded to my 40MPG VW Golf TDI) than my previous car. For me, the $0.10 increase in gas per gallon was easily offset by the huge increase in MPG. It was a no-brainer.


RE: Puts VW's 2.0-liter to shame
By 91TTZ on 5/20/2013 7:52:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, a lot of cars require premium unleaded. Where I live, diesel is only $0.10/gallon more than premium, yet my TDI is getting nearly 74% better MPG (yes, 74%...I went from 23MPG car requiring premium unleaded to my 40MPG VW Golf TDI) than my previous car.


It sounds like you're comparing two completely different cars.

Let's compare the same car:

2012 Golf 2.5L regular gasoline: 23/26/33
2012 Golf 2.0L diesel fuel: 30/34/42

So the diesel version of your car gets about 27% better fuel economy than the version that takes regular gas. Diesel costs about 10% more. The diesel version of the car costs about $7,000 more. I know you get better wheels and stuff, but you're still paying a lot more.

That being said, I rented a VW Golf TDI and I loved it. It handled great and was torquey.


RE: Puts VW's 2.0-liter to shame
By L1011 on 5/21/2013 9:52:17 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, I was comparing my TDI to my previous car.

I respectfully disagree about the diesel costing $7,000 more than the gasoline VW Golf. I got my TDI with everything except the Tech Package (LED running lights, DynAudio, but my car does have Navigation) brand new last October for $26,400. An equivalent non-TDI Golf was $23,995. The TDI was about a $2,400 premium.


RE: Puts VW's 2.0-liter to shame
By 91TTZ on 5/22/2013 9:29:20 AM , Rating: 2
That's not too bad then.


RE: Puts VW's 2.0-liter to shame
By Dr. Kenneth Noisewater on 5/20/2013 7:19:50 PM , Rating: 2
Diesels have higher resale value and tend to last longer due to their stout construction. If your aim is to drive a lot of highway miles for many many years, you can't go wrong with a diesel. 100k mi is barely broken in.

I'm not sure that these newer diesels have the reliability and longevity that their forebears earned, especially from what I've heard about the R-class diesels and their crank position sensors (among other things), but you could get 4-500k mi or more out of one of those older models.

Me, I'm happy enough with the 230mpg in my Volt, but then it fits my use case pretty closely. I wouldn't have gotten it if I were driving >40mi between charges per day on a regular basis.


RE: Puts VW's 2.0-liter to shame
By 91TTZ on 5/21/2013 9:15:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Me, I'm happy enough with the 230mpg in my Volt, but then it fits my use case pretty closely.


Your Volt does not get 230 mpg or anything close to it. Here are the specs from Chevy's own website:

EPA MPG Equivalent - City 101
EPA MPG Equivalent - Combined 98
EPA MPG Equivalent - Hwy 93
EPA est. Fuel Economy - Combined 37 MPG
EPA est. Fuel Economy City 35 MPG
EPA est. Fuel Economy Highway 40 MPG

The best case scenario is that you'll do all city driving, using all electric power, and you'll get about 101 mpg. That's still less than half of your claim of 230 mpg.

From Wikipedia:

On August 2009, General Motors released its estimated city fuel economy rating for the Volt of 230 mpg-US (1.0 L/100 km; 280 mpg-imp) of gasoline plus 25 kW·h/100 mi (560 kJ/km) of electricity using the EPA's proposed method for evaluating plug-in hybrids. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a statement clarifying that the "EPA has not tested a Chevy Volt and therefore cannot confirm the fuel economy values claimed by GM." On July 2010, General Motors recognized that their estimate was based on a formula that never got official approval, and they were awaiting EPA's decision on how the equivalent fuel economy of plug-in hybrids will be estimated.

The official EPA rating was issued in November 2010 EPA and became the agency's first fuel economy label for a plug-in hybrids. The EPA rated the 2011 Volt combined fuel economy at 93 miles per gallon gasoline equivalent (MPG-e) in all-electric mode, and 37 mpg-US (6.4 L/100 km; 44 mpg-imp) in gasoline-only mode, for an overall combined fuel economy rating of 60 mpg-US (3.9 L/100 km; 72 mpg-imp) equivalent (MPG-e). The label also shows the combined city-highway fuel economy in all-electric mode expressed in traditional energy consumption units, rating the Volt at 36 KWh per 100 miles (160 km).


RE: Puts VW's 2.0-liter to shame
By Heidfirst on 5/20/2013 7:30:01 PM , Rating: 2
just be aware that there are extra costs associated with modern turbo-diesels that you may not be aware of in the USA.
Most modern, manual gear TDs have a dual mass flywheel - these will go & are not cheap to replace ($1500 probably wouldn't be out of line here in the UK). In the USA with mostly autos this may not be an issue.
Diesel Particulate Filters - again these have a limited life & again aren't cheap ...
Because of the very high pressures that common rail diesels run at injectors will wear out. Again not cheap.
Turbos - much more reliable than they once were but still more fallible than normally aspirated ;) & again replacements aren't cheap ...
If you are doing the mileage to make the fuel savings work for you whilst the vehicle is under warranty then by all means go for a diesel. But if any of the above fail out of warranty it'll cost you all your fuel savings ...
Modern diesels (at least Euro V & VI compliant one) aren't as reliable as the older ones because they are a lot more complicated. & I hate to say it but I suspect that the trend for smaller, direct-injected & turboed (e.g. Ford EcoBoost) petrol engines means that they'll go the same way. :(


"Well, we didn't have anyone in line that got shot waiting for our system." -- Nintendo of America Vice President Perrin Kaplan














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki