By on May 27, 2016

2016 Mercedes-Benz E-Class

The world’s oldest automaker isn’t about to let regulators pry its diesel engines from its warm, German hands.

Mercedes-Benz is rolling out a new line of oil-burning engines that will surpass even the most stringent emissions requirements, AutoExpress reports.

So stingy are the new diesels, the automaker says they’ll pass looming European Union requirements that aren’t scheduled to go into effect until 2017.

European regulators have turned up the heat on automakers ever since Volkswagen’s emissions scandal hit the news cycle last fall. The decade-long diesel renaissance is in danger of becoming a memory on the continent, but Mercedes-Benz is fighting back with technology.

The secret to turning the scandal-plagued fuel into a viable propulsion source lies in a newly compact (and thus more efficient) exhaust gas recirculation system, which lowers nitrous oxide (NOx) emissions beyond the level of previous engines.

Mercedes now integrates the feature into the engine block, making for a compact unit that can fit in a wider range of vehicles. It’s also less affected by outside temperature.

The first offering from the new diesel family is a 2.0-liter four-cylinder unit bound for the E-Class. That mill makes 195 horsepower and 295 pounds-fee of torque (European specs), and will replace the 2.1-liter found in the U.S.-market E250 BlueTEC sedan and GLE300d SUV.

Mercedes-Benz said the aluminum-block engine is capable of achieving 72.4 miles per gallon in the E-Class. Current emissions regulations in Europe call for no more than 80 milligrams of NOx per kilometer, but the automaker says the new engine is capable of emitting just 13 mg.

The full diesel lineup should be in place by 2019.

[Image: Mercedes-Benz USA]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

102 Comments on “Nein! Mercedes-Benz Won’t Let the Diesel Dream Die...”


  • avatar
    qfrog

    NOTHING will go wrong with exhaust gas being recirculated through the engine block. And should something that can not go wrong, possibly be believed to have gone “wrong” the procedure to cleanse the block will no doubt involve a power washer and special fittings like those seen used by Audi for the last couple of years to clean out cylinder head passages by removing freeze out plugs to make way for the water pick attachment for the power washer.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      qfrog,
      I do recall back when I was in my 20s and an avid motorsport person the discussion regarding Australia’s move to unleaded petrol and the so called associated pollution equipment. Back in them days we called emissions measures pollution.

      As it has turned out look at the power per litre of even the worst engine built now compared to a 70s unleaded engine. Even look at reliability now. I don’t miss the much larger maintenance load on an older engine compared to this day and age. Back then people complained about how chintzy cars were built compared to the “olden days” of the 30s, 40s and even 50s.

      People and even respected motoring writers declared the end of high horsepower vehicles. Many people bypassed the pollution equipment, even the crankcase vent to the air filter.

      We sometimes forget the past and complain or in our minds create myths and lies to justify our beliefs.

      Right now diesel engines are overall cleaner than their gasoline cousins. This needs to change. But will it? Imagine if a gasoline car started costing an additional $1000-$1500 to catch up to diesel. I do believe you will have those whining about the reliability of these newer changed gasoline engines.

      • 0 avatar
        Felix Hoenikker

        Big Al,
        I think you got that backwards. Exhaust from gasoline engines is always easier to clean up than diesel exhaust. In most cases, a modern four cylinder engine meets US emission specs with a single, three way catalyst brick.
        Diesel needs at least three separate catalysts including the DPF to do meet the same specs. This all goes back to the fundamental differences between heterogeneous and homogeneous combustion.
        Now, if the emission laws in Oz treat the two engines differently, the diesel exhaust could be “cleaner” than the gasser exhaust. But, this would be a political difference and not an actual one.

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          Sounds like that is what they want to do. Still the problem of DI engines and their particulates is going to be a big issue in the US

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          Felix Hoenikker,
          I never stated it was easier. I stated that current US diesels are cleaner than their gasoline counterparts.

          To make direct injected gasoline engines as clean as current US diesel engines a GPF is needed. This will add to the cost of a vehicle.

          To make it cheaper for US diesels the US could start using EU quality diesel fuel. It will be easier to “clean” and cheaper to own.

          • 0 avatar
            Wheatridger

            I ‘m not sure I can agree with this point, Al, without a lot more evidence. If you consider CO2 a pollutant, and I certainly do, any diesel advantage is small. And the MPG advantage must be discounted by the fact that a gallon of diesel fuel consumes about one-quarter more crude oil to produce (IIRC).

            The rest of his post is the wisest and soundest statement of universal truth I’ve read he in a long time. We all cling tightly to our own opinions. We all seek information that backs up our beliefs. And many of use continue to claim that further technological progress isn’t possible. We just hate to change our minds, or change at all.

            Hypothesis: Modern engines are better, in every measure. Proof: plenty of folks will swap in a newer engine to make their classic mid-centuray auto faster an more reliable, but NOBODY wants to put a 1960s engine into a 21st-century car.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      they didn’t say exhaust gas would be “recirculated through the engine block.” It sounds like the EGR *cooler* will be integrated into the engine block. Making it easier for it to use engine coolant to cool the exhaust gases being pulled in.

      • 0 avatar
        VoGo

        Engine blocks tend to be solid and not porous to exhaust gasses.

        • 0 avatar
          krhodes1

          Engine blocks are chock full of oil and water passages. No reason they can’t have exhaust passages as well.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            krhodes1,
            If done correctly you could possibly produce a lighter and stronger block.

            It will be more expensive, at the moment. We are just starting mass production using 3D printing.

            The use of 3D printing in mass production will change the world……massively.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            interestingly, one of the (if not the) biggest flaws in the Ford Flathead V8 was running the exhaust ports through the block. at higher sustained loads, the heat being dumped into the cooling system would overheat the engine.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            JimZ,
            I would of thought the biggest flaw with the Ford flat head was the use of cast iron in manufacturing.

            Metallurgy in a flat head is from a bygone era. There we ICE engine even before the flathead that used wood for pistons.

            The flathead proved itself to be inefficient, but the technology of that bygone era wasn’t sufficient to produce economical overhead valve engines.

            So, your example is quite inaccurate and extreme and has little relevance to our ability to use metals and cast much more and much more reliable galleries into engine blocks.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            considering there are engines /today/ with cast iron components, I can only treat your comment as I usually do. which is to dismiss it out of hand.

          • 0 avatar
            krhodes1

            What does the material have to do with anything? There are aluminum and cast iron cylinder heads with integral exhaust manifolds, how is routing some portion of the exhaust through a portion of the block in any way going to be an issue?

            Edit – foxed by the new e-mailed reply format – I thought JimZ was replying directly to me.

            I would expect that modern design would alleviate any issues with exhaust heat causing overheating, since nearly 100 years have passed since the flathead Ford was designed.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            JimZ,
            I bought a G Clamp the other day, and guess what it’s made of cast iron.

            Cast iron and weight savings just don’t go hand in hand.

            I do know and understand far more than you give me credit for.

            Look at aviation, where and what materials are used for certain applications.

            Comparing a 80 year old cylinder head in this day and age is quite original.

            Yes, there are the basic fundamentals that apply, but we have made huge inroads into material technologies.

            Cast iron was quite common as a legacy of an era prior to the 1930s when the 90hp flathead came about. The skill or art was called blacksmithing.

            The same will occur today with the materials we use. Even glass and ceramics are not what they used to be.

            Cast iron has poor heat dissipation, so why would you use it in a cooling system?

            Like I stated you can give me credit for my knowledge and learn or be an arrogant fnck.

            I do know modern materials and applications, and I even had to learn the history behind these materials.

          • 0 avatar
            Sigivald

            “Cast iron was quite common as a legacy of an era prior to the 1930s when the 90hp flathead came about. The skill or art was called blacksmithing.”

            Nitpick – blacksmithing is *wrought* iron, totally different from cast iron in every practical respect apart from “being basically made of iron”.

    • 0 avatar
      Phillin_Phresh

      Yep you’re right, NOTHING will go wrong!

      My 1991 300D daily driver has EGR from the factory. 237,000 miles and zero issues. For a car that’s 25 years old, I would say it’s done very well. There are also countless other Mercedes diesels on the road with more age and miles than mine, that do just fine with EGR. Nothing to see here, folks…

      • 0 avatar
        qfrog

        EGR systems can be anything from A-OK to oh crap it is caked with crud AGAIN. Sometimes it is nothing to see and sometimes there is nothing that can be seen through a soot blocked passageway.

        You need to take my posts as a bit more of a comical prodding towards manufacturers than prediction of imminent failure for every VIN. I’m pleased to see that Mercedes may have pioneered a new technique that may provide a way to get diesel NOx emissions WAY down. I lament the fact that it may be a complete bitch to right the system when it goes awry. I doubt many current production cars will survive as your 300D did.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        EGR used to be fairly simple tech; any problems were more or less limited to clogged valves (though GM had a run of electronically-controlled ones which were pieces of s#!t.)

        things started getting shaky when cooled EGR came in to play. Leaks, clogging, you name it. it’s a necessary evil at this point, but at the cost of complexity and cost. IIRC the EGR cooler on the 6.7 Powerstroke is almost as large as one of the cylinder heads.

  • avatar
    here4aSammich

    “Mercedes-Benz said the aluminum-block engine is capable of achieving 72.4 miles per gallon in the E-Class.”

    That’s quite a jump, unless M-B is using imperial gallons, which I will assume they are.

  • avatar

    It’s time to turn the page on fossil fuels.

    • 0 avatar
      VoGo

      Amen to that!

    • 0 avatar
      Asdf

      There is currently no good alternative to cars powered by fossil fuels (and no, those pathetic battery cars with short ranges, long charging times and ridiculous prices are *not* good alternatives).

      • 0 avatar
        VoGo

        There are plenty of electric cars or plug-in hybrids that would be great choices for many consumers, and which are offered at very competitive prices.

        For many families, a second or third car never needs to go more than 50 miles/ day, for whom a Leaf would be great. Same with city dwellers. For those with range anxiety, the Volt and C-Max are great choices. Any of these are available for ~$300/month, or ~12-15K for a 2013 used.

        To say that there are no good alternatives to ICE is simplistic and just plain wrong for millions of buyers.

        • 0 avatar
          mcs

          Hi Vogo!

          Just went 110 miles today in a Leaf. Fifty miles to first destination Charged to 100% via 120v 20 amp outlet. Left probably 2pm, then it was a 60 mile drive. Arrived home with 42% battery capacity left. Car has over 30k miles on it.

          In the Boston area, if you have charging at your destination (even 120v), 100+ mile round trips are easily doable. I do it all the time. Most days, I can run most errands with the estimated range left still in the 90’s. It’s bizarre reading comments that it’s some sort of disaster.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            I shudder to think, what sort of situation you would be in a ” daily run” in many parts of Australia in an EV. Your commute sounds very short indeed

          • 0 avatar
            mcs

            But I’m not in Australia. I do have a longer commute occasionally, but I use an airplane for that.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            Airbus would be a little to expensive. In cities and for short runs EV’s would probably make some sense, but you still have to find a supercharger and they take at least 40 mins to recharge . So you could have a pretty leisurely commute

          • 0 avatar
            mcs

            Actually, superchargers don’t always take 40 minutes to recharge. I remember a couple of 100-mile trips where I picked up a 12 minute supercharge to add a safety margin. The charge is at a higher rate at first, then slows down. So, you can get quite a boost in just a few minutes.

            Next Friday might be my first supercharge since I think maybe February. It’s a 100 mile trip with no charging available at the destination. I have my choice of two or three superchargers near the destination.

            BTW, I’m not out to save the planet or money. I just like the way it drives. No stupid CVT, no 4 cylinder turbo, and loads of torque.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            Fellow went Port Macquarie with a Tesla, took him 40 mins to recharge. Problem was finding the Supercharger

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        Try disasterous alternative. New Diesels are coming out on a regular basis., not only from Mercedes. Only category that is dying is US Pickup Trucks outside NA and they are primarily Petrol engined.

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          OK, RobRyan,
          Driving an electric car is “disastrous.” I guess that’s why every carmaker is rushing them to market and why they are expected to quintuple in sales in the next 5 years.

          Disastrous! I tell you, run for the hills!

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            From 50,000 to Millions? tell me when you have a bridge to sell in Brooklyn. How many EV producers have disappeared? Batteries for housing and Office buildings makes a lot more sense.

          • 0 avatar
            tedward

            C’mon vogo. Electric cars are still compliance cars, I don’t think this an evil thing, but that is the only reason that every brand is rushing them to market and the only reason that they are affordable. Please realize that the vast geography of this country means the majority of places you could live in are not places where short drive cycles, long recharge times and probable no charger access is acceptable.

            Even I’m tempted by starbucks money leases no money down on compact electrics, but for us it would have to be our third car, carrying full boat insurance bc it’s a lease no less. I don’t even really live in a rural area.

            They can be fun, I’ve driven compact ev’s with real tires on them which fixes some of their obvious flaws. Still, the technology works best on large expensive vehicles and probably would work great for short range commercial fleets. Needs more battery otherwise.

          • 0 avatar
            mcs

            @tedward You don’t really need access to a charger. Today, I was carrying a 50 amp capable level 2, so all I needed was an RV NEMA 14-50 socket available at most campgrounds. If I can’t find that, 120v outlet works fine.

            Still, most days, even my 100 mile range car is overkill.

          • 0 avatar
            Sigivald

            Quintupling a small number is easy, yes.

            So?

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      bigtrucks,
      Have you sought some form of counselling?

      You comments of late (past 2 days) have been quite logical and balanced.

      Do you now think Hillary is okay?

      • 0 avatar
        VoGo

        Two words: HELLCAT THERAPY!

      • 0 avatar

        Donald Trump is going to tear Hillary Clinton apart like warm bread.

        It will be a crime just to have known her by the time he is through with her.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          bigtrucks,
          Hopefully the GOP put Romney out as an independent and that useless borderline personality disorder Trump is given the ass.

          He’s will be the downfall of the US and the US doesn’t need an asshole like him at the moment.

          The US needs a steady hand.

          I thought I would never see the day I would prefer a Dem over a Repulican, but Hilary is far better for the world.

          Trump is a rich and clueless chump.

  • avatar
    brettc

    As much as I love diesel technology, I think its time has come and gone for passenger cars with the ongoing maintenance costs and the high initial price premium compared to gas engines even with the fuel economy advantage over a gas engine.

    IMO, hybrid and pure electric is the future. There needs to be a Manhattan project to design high capacity, low weight batteries.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      brettc,
      Diesel is only in it’s infancy.

      Gasoline in the short to medium term will not match diesel lower CO2 emissions.

      People do discuss the cost of diesels, but seem to forget that EVs are not viable unless there is hefty taxpayer money handed out to move them.

      Even with the lack of handouts and subsidies diesels still outsell EVs and hybrids by a long shot.

      • 0 avatar
        ihbase

        Sure, they may “outsell” EV’s today, but there are cost externalities that have not (yet) been incorporated into consumer costs. And anyone who has worked on Tier IV equipment (not required in Australia) knows that diesel technology is more developed than you recognize.

        The only Tier IV engines I came across in Australia were US market machines that were reluctantly imported. Once you are familiar with the operating costs of that emissions technology, you will probably be more inclined to agree with brettc.

        I think the tipping point between gas and diesel is very sensitive to the cost of fuel. When US fuel is at $2.00, it is hard to justify the additional costs of diesel technology in light vehicles. When it passes $3.50, the diesel 328 looks a lot more attractive.

        -Michael

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          What US Tier compliant machines?, US Diesels do not pass Euro V compliance, now default compliance in Australia. European’s need diesel cars to tow, not just for fuel economy, they do not have ” Gas” Pickups.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            “US Diesels do not pass Euro V”

            in what way?

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            We are EuroV complaint, US Diesels have to meet Euro V. One reason Ford could not be bothered to import the F250-F350 Diesels in the early part of this century. It was a pain to get compliance, even with Euro IV now it is more of a pain

          • 0 avatar
            ihbase

            RR: My understanding is that as of todays date, Australia is not yet regulating emissions of off-road diesels. I cited these engines in response to Al because he was referring to diesel technology and there is no US market equivalent (that I am aware of) to the small diesels in use on Australian highways (Perhaps the X5 or a Merc?). But in the agricultural sector, for example, US machines now meet Tier IV and the machines exported directly by the manufactures to Australia generally do not. Secondary market US machines commonly have US emissions- which makes field repairs in other markets challenging.

            I believe that the Australian non-road CMP is voluntary- and therefore, not common market practice.

            My point is the same: Diesel technology is not “in it’s [sic] infancy” as stated by Al.

            -Michael

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            JimZ,
            CO2 emissions, this is a failing in the US in comparison to the EU. CO2 is the biggest contributor to global warming, just ask Donald Chump.

            I do believe the EU will also implement more stringent particulate emissions for petrol/gasoline engine before the US.

            As we all know GDI engines now emit far more particulates than diesels. GDI particulates are more dangerous than diesel particulates because they are smaller and can lodge further into your lungs.

            Another problem with US diesel is the poorer quality diesel fuel. This makes it harder to reduce emissions as well.

            The US will eventually come on board with the UNECE vehicle harmonisation model that is being implemented by most other nations globally.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @ihbase
            That could be changing soon. One reason Caterpillar abandoned on road trucks in the US is the problem trying to get compliance.
            Pressure to get Off Road Machinery to meet Euro V, now the US has belatedly done the same

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            You’re just being silly. The rest of the world cleans up their dirty diesels to sell in the US.

            The imported Brazilian diesel F-Super Dutys were *pre emissions* diesels. Early 2000s, Australia had no ’emissions rules’ and has always been a few tiers behind the US.

            Craziness is all you can speak now. You’ve got nothing else.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          ihbase,
          I do think your misinformed.

          http://www.4x4australia.com.au/drive/1508/new-ford-everest-4×4-suv/

          “The inline, five-cylinder 3.2-litre diesel engine will be the only power plant offered in Everest in Australia and although carried over from Ranger, it has been refined with new fuel injectors operating at higher pressure to reduce diesel-clatter. It also features a revised EGR system and uses Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) to help clean up emissions and meet Euro 6 standards needed for passenger vehicles.”

          • 0 avatar
            ihbase

            Al: The only thing I’m confused about is why the Australian market offers so many great small diesel pickups and the US market does not.

            Hope the Ranger appears in the US market soon, but it will probably take +$4.00 fuel for that to happen.

            -Michael

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            Michael, you just opened a can of worms LOL. Big Al from OZ and myself are running before ” The Big Truck Mafia” and others wade in. On many occasions this has been debated regarding the US market

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @ihbase – They conveniently forgot to mention OZ is a virtual dumping ground for pickups with poor crash safety and dirty, pre emissons diesels. SCR diesel emissions are still NOT required in Australia.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            You meant the 2003 F150 as safe as a Chinese Car. No they did not dump the F150 here, but they sold them in the US

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            1996+ generation F-150 crash safety was bad compared to cars if its day, and maybe even when compared to current Chinese cars and pickups, but do you have any idea what year we’re in??

            Now let’s talk *current* diesel emissions…

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            “1996+ generation F-150 crash safety was bad compared to cars if its day, and maybe even when compared to current Chinese cars and pickups, but do you have any idea what ”

            Yes and they sold a staggering number of those death traps from 1966 to 1973, in NA.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            RR, you wanna tell me how the 1997+ F-150 was sold from “1966 to 1973”?

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            “RR, you wanna tell me how the 1997+ F-150 was sold from “1966 to 1973”?
            No, it was basically the same architecture from 1966-1973, major redesign in 1974 made it a lot safer. DIM said 1996 for some strange reason

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Yes there’s a “staggering” number of vintage jellybean F-150s on the road, pre jellybean and millions upon millions of other, even more dangerous cars, trucks, etc on the road, from days gone by.

            So what? Can we get back on topic now?? Like, modern times???

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            …Wait, what? How do you know someone else made a typo if they’ve not said so? Are we talking about the ’97s, or the ’66s? Remember that there was no F-150 in 1966.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            “there’s a “staggering” number of vintage jellybean F-150s on the road, pre jellybean and millions upon millions of other, even more dangerous cars, trucks, etc on the roads”
            Yes agreed about the US, many were sold and bought. No the ” dumping ground” for unsafe vehicles was the US, hopefully things have improved.
            Although the current F150 was the only US Pickup to achieve a full 5 out of 5 rating. None of the others have.
            http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/ford/2015/04/16/2015-ford-f150-five-star-safety-crash-rating-nhtsa/25821341/

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            You’re off on a different subject. Most US sold pickups don’t earn “5 Stars”, including Toyotas, Nissans, but they far exceed minimum US crash standards, plus emissions, known to be the toughest in the world. Most of the junk dumped on your shores from China and India don’t and could not be sold in the US.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            ” You’re off on a different subject. Most US sold pickups don’t earn “5 Stars”, including Toyotas, Nissans, but they far exceed minimum US crash standards,”
            Well seeing US Crash standards were abysmal and it appears outside of Ford , none of the others can reach the minimum. 5/5 is a pass, anything below that is a failure

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            ihbase,
            The reason behind the lack of small diesel midsizers in the US is a double edged sword.

            The largest impost to the importation of these vehicles is the protection offered to NAFTA (mainly the Big Three and UAW) pickup producers in the form of the Chicken Tax. This is a 25% tax levied on all non passenger vehicles. It was primarily aimed at the small pickups.

            The second is the diesel requirements in the US. As you can see gasoline is given an easier life than diesel. If the US had better quality diesel fuel and current GDI engines ran a GPF you wouldn’t see the large cost difference between gas vs diesel.

            The benefit of having a freer market economy than the US like we have in Australia is more choice. We have more vehicle brands and models on offer than the US, this is with only a population of 24 million.

            We even have your full size trucks, then add the 8 major players, plus the bit players from China, Korea, India, UK, etc we have a rather large choice of pickups.

            Here a taste on what the “main” players on offer for midsize pickups. Also, where the US has CUVs, most every midsize pickup also has a midsize SUV;

            http://www.4x4australia.com.au/drive/road-tests/1512/ford-ranger-v-holden-colorado-v-isuzu-d-max-v-mazda-bt-50-v-mitsubishi-triton-v-nissan-navara-v-toyota-hilux-v-volkswagen-amarok/

            If the link doesn’t work just cut and paste below into Google and find the 4×4 Australia review;

            Ford Ranger v Holden Colorado v Isuzu D-Max v Mazda BT-50 v Mitsubishi Triton v Nissan Navara v Toyota Hilux v VW Amarok

            VW even admitted to build the Amarok in NAFTA a market of 100k Amaroks was needed to make it viable to build a plant.

            The US could remove the chicken tax for starters and then export full size trucks around the world. I know what will occur. More midsizers will be imported into the US vs US full size exported around the world.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            “5 Stars” is an IIHS standard, not a US regulation. They’re privately funded by the insurance lobby. Some Chinese/Indian junk get zero stars!

            Now back to the topic: OZ is a virtual dumping ground for pickups with poor crash safety and dirty, pre emissions diesels… TODAY!!!

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            ” 5 Stars” is an IIHS standard, not a US regulation. They’re privately funded by the insurance lobby. Some Chinese/Indian junk get zero stars!”

            No they are not an IHIS standard, they are passing scores ,part of a Global standard. 4/5 will see on the road, but you need to change to get 5/5 to keep selling the vehicles.
            “Chinese/Indian Junk” you just said the 1973 F150 was worse.
            Besides the F150 got a 5 star NHTSA rating
            http://www.torquenews.com/106/aluminum-2015-f150-gets-5-star-nhtsa-safety-rating
            Too bad others did not make the minimum rating

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            If it’s a “Global” standard, who just gave the F-150 “5 out of 5 Stars”? The Global Commission?? There is no “Global” standard, Global Commission, Global Committee or Global ANYTHING.

            Junk from China/India are currently as safe as US trucks from decades ago?? That’s nice!!!

            Back on topic: OZ is a virtual dumping ground for poor safety pickups and dirty, pre emissions diesels… TODAY!!!

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            RobertRyan,
            Here’s some crash test results for pickup being dumped in Australia.

            First ever 5 Star pickup; Australia 2011

            https://www.ancap.com.au/media-and-gallery/releases/first-dual-cab-work-ute-awarded-5-star-safety-e65254

            A pickup dumped in Australia, circa 2011 that had the highest ever recorded pedestrian safety and a 5 Star Rating, better than the Amarok;

            https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/ford/ranger/5629b5

            Geez another pickup dumped in Australia with a 5 Star crash test result, a Mazda???? BT50

            https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/mazda/bt-50/b1e300

            A Hilux? This is dumped in Australia with a 5 Star safety rating? WTF???

            https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/toyota/hilux/9da2e6

            Boy, Robert, talk about the misinformed. It seems outside of the US we have safer pickups overall. WTF is wrong with the US?

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            By the way the topic is about Mercedes and Diesels.
            Poor performance of US Pickups in crash tests is another topic
            As Big Al from Oz has posted why are US Pickups so dangerous?.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            RobertRyan,
            The pickups listed above are built in highly developed nations like Thailand and Argentina.

            Why can’t the US even build safe pickups, or why is it taking so long for the US manufacturers to get on board?

            The US manufacturers Thai factories can build 5 Star safety rated pickups, why can’t the US look after the US customer?

            Made in ‘Murica, the best.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Big Al from Oz,
            One day the penny may drop for US producers and they will be start producing some reasonable cutting edge products. Just having a not so pleasant experience with a US RV, would be nice to see some improvement.

            As far as cutting badge diesels go, it would appear there are a lot in the pipeline, the new Jaguar straight six diesel sounds fascinating.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            Another one! A Mitsubishi, where’s the world coming to!

            http://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/mitsubishi/triton/1ffb55

            Oh my God, now a Nissan Navara

            http://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/nissan/navara

            Hey Robert, I finally found a pickup with the same/similar safty rating as a Ram 1500. It’s made in China;

            https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/foton/tunland/691e18

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Nope, the topic of this thread is “…why the OZ market offers so many small diesel pickups…”

            Answer: The OZ market is a virtual dumping ground for pickups with poor safety and dirty, pre emissions diesels.

            Except I didn’t say some pickups aren’t of acceptable/high safety standards, and some pickups are redundant to US sold, midsize pickups, but all OZ diesel pickups are pre emissions, dirty diesels… TODAY!!!

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            “Nope, the topic of this thread is “why the OZ market offers so many small diesel pickups…”
            I guess reading is not a strong point for you
            ” Nein! Mercedes-Benz Won’t Let the Diesel Dream Die” is the topic

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            RobertRyan,
            Combining Mercedes Benz diesels and pickups that will never see light in the US due to import barriers, here’s an interesting one.

            The Mercedes Benz pickup. I would be interested in one, especially the AMG 3 litre diesel variant.

            I figure the non AMG pickup will perform as quick or quicker than the GLE 3 litre V6 diesel, around 7 seconds to 100kph.

            This “standard” MB diesel, the 3.0-litre V6 turbo diesel produces 190kW/620Nm and has a claimed average consumption of 6.6L/100km in the GLE. Which is around the weight of the pickup.

            I would like to know what AMG can do with a 3 litre V6 turbo diesel. BMW can pull 287Kw from their 3 litre diesel.

            Imagine a 380hp, 600ftlb midsize pickup.

            Awesome!

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            “..I’m confused about is why the Australian market offers so many great small diesel pickups…”

            OK, try to keep up. I’ll type this slowly…

            That’s what called a “Question”. This is what’s called a “Thread” within the “Comments Section” of the “Article”.

            I’ll repeat the “Answer” in case you forgot:

            **They conveniently forgot to mention OZ is a virtual dumping ground for pickups with poor crash safety and dirty, pre emissons diesels. SCR diesel emissions are still NOT required in Australia.**

    • 0 avatar
      yamahog

      I don’t know if its true but a friend of mine who works in a battery research lab said that more money was spend on battery R&D in 2014 than in the entirety of history prior to 2014. And that same statement is true for 2015.

      Luckily, most people realize that portable, cheap energy storage is critical. And it won’t be solved in the next 5 years, but I’ll be surprised if it’s not much better in 10 years.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        yamahog,
        I have nothing against research, so long as it’s viable and not subsidised by the taxpayer.

        I believe we will see a much larger societal change towards battery storage of electricity and it will not be the automotive industry driving this change.

        It will be the use of batteries and solar cells on the home. This is what the governments should of concentrated on and not motor vehicles. Battery size for a home is of less significance than the weight and size for an auto.

        We have wasted billions on EVs and hybrids and the money should of been directed towards supplying natural gas to all home for cooking and heating and solar power and batteries or storage.

        We would now be emitting far less pollutants than with the measly number of EVs on our roads.

        EVs currently are just vote grabbing and highly visible.

        Also I have read an interesting article where electrical energy producers and retailers are lobbying governments to figure a way reduce people independence on generating their own power.

        Go figure. EVs and hybrids are a waste of our money and only a few of the wealthy enough can afford to buy one, even with handouts.

        • 0 avatar
          yamahog

          Perhaps you’re right but the conversation about natural gas changed recently. Prior to fracking it wasn’t the panacea it could be today. No one in 2006 could have predicted the next 10 years of energy accurately.

          And we’re probably going to disagree on whether research should be publicly funded. My own personal politics (authoritarian but not totalitarian) says that scientific (life sciences and hard sciences only please, no social sciences or worse) and mathematical research should be one of the biggest elements of the State’s budget but it should be generally aligned with the (global) goal of spreading humanity through the stars.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            honestly IMO the notion of humans actually colonizing other celestial bodies will never happen. The best we can hope for is sending a few people to Mars, and bringing them back is at best a stretch goal.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            yamahog,
            I do support public funding of research. This research money should only be directed at universities and other publicly owned organisations, ie, NASA.

            The universities can then sell off the research to private industry to help pay for the cost of the universities, NASA, etc.

            Private research should be paid for by funding from the public willing to invest or buy into these ventures.

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          @Big Al from Oz
          Agree, a real game changer. Cars and Trucks are one aspect, but the average house chews up a lot of non renewable energy

        • 0 avatar
          HotPotato

          I was going to blast Big Al’s original post, but then I saw his follow-up. Carry on.

    • 0 avatar
      Sigivald

      “There needs to be a Manhattan project to design high capacity, low weight batteries.”

      Look, no.

      Stop with the “Manhattan project” (or “Apollo project”) metaphors.

      The Manhattan project worked because there was a known problem (“we know uranium and plutonium atoms can split and chain react, we need to work out the practical physics of weaponizing that, as well as making that plutonium”) that was amenable to throwing a giant whack of money at.

      (Likewise, Apollo was “make these V2s bigger and figure out how to keep people alive for the trip and do the math for it”; basically pure engineering work for well-defined targets, with some research-as-we-go stuff for what had to be learned.)

      “Improve batteries” already *has* giant whacks of money being thrown at it by lots of very motivated companies that stand to directly gain by it, as well as a fair number of research universities (judging by regular announcements that never seem to lead to a new product…).

      Problem is there’s no “just figure out the engineering practicals” target; the problem is we don’t know *what* to start looking at.

  • avatar
    55_wrench

    Already been done?

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/arQ8_PW-RiA?rel=0&iv_load_policy-3

    I’ll see myself out now.

  • avatar
    ihbase

    RR:

    “That could be changing soon. One reason Caterpillar abandoned on road trucks in the US is the problem trying to get compliance.”

    I remember, but it is 2016. There are now a lot of Tier IV Cat diesels running in ag and construction.

    -Michael

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      Michael,
      Takes time. Moving from Euro V to Euro V1 is the next major hurdle for Truck/ Van people here, really pretty hard
      Going from Tier Regulations to EuroV1, same order of difficulty.
      As a result CAT ( Basically Navistar) is leaving the Truck market. Not be missed really

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        RobertRyan,
        Australia does accept some US Tier rated diesels for importation. I do think their is some additional testing prior to entry into Australia.

        We have now moved to EuroVI in Australia. That is only for light commercials and passenger vehicles. I might be wrong, but light commercial follows our licencing system. That is a Class A licence.

        MDT and HDT I think will follow next year.

        Australia has had an accelerated transition through the Euro system.

        I wonder if we will adopt GPF for direct injected petrol engines?

        The problem with diesel is many still look back eons and still figure diesel emissions are the same.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      Caterpillar stopped being an engine supplier for on-road trucks when they could no longer comply w/o SCR. They’ve since started selling their own line of on-road trucks.

      http://www.cat.com/en_US/products/new/equipment/on-highway-trucks.html

      • 0 avatar
        Scoutdude

        They’ve since started selling line of badge engineered International on-road trucks.

        That was part of the deal in which the big Cat on-highway engine was transferred to Navistar for them to clean up with their “credits” instead of SCR and in return Cat got a badge engineered International truck that was “compliant”.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          I don’t think heavy trucks are emissions certified as a vehicle; the engines themselves are the certified part. The pollutant limits for heavy engines are given in grams per hp*hr instead of grams per mile like light duty.

  • avatar
    tedward

    Well we’re dancing around an economic poli-sci argument if you ask me. This year and next for sure, there’s going to be skepticism and shareholder concern for companies introducing their already paid for diesel engine lines. The years after that can bring any number of unpredictable events; invasions of oil producers, emission tech advances, tightening gas emission standards, a really effective ad campaign etc… for all we know now this is Nostradamus grade foresight. Let’s focus less on stridently proclaiming what is the forever ideal.

  • avatar
    Felix Hoenikker

    Wow 74 mpg from an E class. I assume that is highway mileage. However, it may not be entirely out of range if the Cd of the car is low enough.
    I drove a 1.4L supercharged Fiat Qubo (small CUV) for two weeks up and down the Italian peninsula in 2014 and recorded and average 50 mpg on diesel. I’d estimate that that was 50/50 highway/city driving. Aerodynamically, the Qubo was a brick.

    • 0 avatar
      HotPotato

      Euro test cycle MPG for conventional gas and diesel cars is 100% pure BS. Euro test cycle driving range for electric cars is also 100% pure BS. Neither even remotely reflect real world results. If it’s not US EPA MPG or range, it means NOTHING.

  • avatar
    RobertRyan

    @Big Al from Oz,
    Very interesting times.

  • avatar
    kurkosdr

    Automakers that spend a truckload of R&D to make Diesel comply with the new Euro regulations will be remembered in the same way as those companies that invested in the very finest dial-up internet technology (ISDN 128K in case you are wondering).

    Once the Tesla Model 3 and the Chevrolet Bolt start retailing for the price of a loaded Camry or a well-spec’ed BMW 3-series, nobody is going to pay the same amount money to drive a Diesel with 10+ second 0-60 times and pay extra for fuel for the privilege. Just like nobody wanted a slow dial-up connection and pay extra per minute for the privilege.

    “Electrics will never catch on” the pundits say, despite the fact the technological problems (range and quick charging) have already been solved and the infrastructure is being built as we speak.

    Diesel is a technological dead-end, just like ISDN, an option that will be pushed further and further in the low-end and to people doing only occasional use of the product. Why spend boatloads of R&D for such a market? On the other hand, BMW and GM have gotten the message, and are just making minor improvements to their existing Diesels, while preparing for the new technology (electrics) as best as they can.

    BUT, just like telephone companies went with ISDN to protect their “charge per-minute” revenue source, Mercedes goes with Diesel to protect their parts division. Good luck with that, Merc!

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    I really don’t look forward to too many diesels on the road. Most diesels are not kept up and with the rolling coal nimnods on the road it makes me less inclined to want to see more diesels on the road. After you have been rolled a few times it makes you dislike diesels. I realize these coal rollers are not the majority but they do not help the diesel cause. A hybrid version of vehicles would meet most drivers needs. Eventually we will get off of petroleum powered vehicles but that is several generations away and any alternatives will have to be more affordable and more practical.

  • avatar
    HotPotato

    Dear Editor,

    For all the coverage of VW diesels, why are you not covering the story that Fiat diesels cheat in much the same way? The test lasts 20 minutes. The Fiat emissions controls shut off after 22 minutes. Here’s the story:

    http://gas2.org/2016/04/25/fiat-joins-the-diesel-emissions-cheating-club/

    Fiat Chrysler has several fuel economy strategies worldwide: cheating diesels, clutch-frying DSGs, brain-dead 9-speed automatics, torqueless 1.4 liter turbos, seats so uncomfortable that people avoid driving at all. The only one that actually works worth a damn is the electric car: Fiat’s 500e by Bosch, built only because California said THOU SHALT…and Sergio nearly torpedoed that too, by half-assing the software, nixing DC fast charge, and telling people not to buy the car.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Arthur Dailey: The reason that I have an Amazon Prime account is to watch The Grand Tour. So that is great news that...
  • JMII: My brother charged his Cayenne Hybrid at work and home. Charging at work was free and your already there for 8...
  • 28-Cars-Later: “Either set up reserved parking for the residents with the charger running on that apartment’s...
  • slavuta: Without a cane?
  • 28-Cars-Later: “There is even an oil filter.” For the gearbox?

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber