« New Mitsubishi 4WD Electric Vehicle; Running in Shikoku Rally | Main | Pennsylvania Launches Hybrid and Alt-Fuel Program for Fleet »
Diesel Bests Hybrid in Cross-Country Fuel Consumption Test
24 August 2005
 |
| ML 320 CDI vs. Rx 400h |
The German car magazine Auto Bild has conducted a comparative test drive from New York to San Francisco with a new Mercedes-Benz ML 320 CDI diesel and a Lexus RX 400h hybrid.
Combined results for the test drive, which although it combined city and highway driving obviously emphasized the highway, had the Mercedes diesel besting the Lexus hybrid by 10% in terms of fuel consumption.
Average total consumption for the Mercedes over the 5,200-kilometer trip (3,232 miles) was 9.2 l/100km (25.6 mpg), while the Lexus came in at 10.2 l/100km (23 mpg).
The hybrid drive performed better in city driving. The diesel is ten times worse with respect to NOx emissions.
The ML 320 CDI uses the new Mercedes 3-liter V-6 powerplant. The engine, with an output of 165 kW (224 hp) and a maximum torque of 510 Nm (376 lb-ft), increases output and torque up to more than 30% while maintaining fuel consumption at the level of its predecessors and meets Euro-4 emissions limits. (Earlier post)
The Mercedes-Benz coast-to-coast test cars were also equipped with diesel particulate traps.
August 24, 2005 in Diesel, Hybrids | Permalink | Comments (37) | TrackBack (5)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/3056479
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Diesel Bests Hybrid in Cross-Country Fuel Consumption Test:
» Mercedes ML 320 CDI beats Lexus RX 400hybrid from B100 Fuel, living on BioDiesel
I have been saying all along that the hybrid numbers are funny. They are based on flat track driving. Not real world driving. When you add hills, the mileage goes WAY down because you are dragging around an extra motor... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 24, 2005 10:04:44 AM
» Diesel Outdoes Hybrid on the Highway from Jalopnik
Auto Bild recently conducted a comparison between two fuel-efficient SUVs the Lexus RX400h hybrid and the Mercedes ML 320 CDI diesel. On a coast-to-coast run, the Merc bested the Lexus in overally fuel economy, but it's important to... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 24, 2005 3:03:42 PM
» Diesel Outdoes Hybrid on the Highway from Jalopnik
Auto Bild recently conducted a comparison between two fuel-efficient SUVs the Lexus RX400h hybrid and the Mercedes ML 320 CDI diesel. On a coast-to-coast run, the Merc bested the Lexus in overally fuel economy, but it's important to... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 24, 2005 3:06:27 PM
» Diesel Mercedes Beats Hybrid Lexus In Fuel Consumption from eMercedesBenz
In a cross-country test conducted by Auto Bild, a German car magazine, the Mercedes-Benz ML 320 CDI diesel consumed 10% less fuel than the Lexus RX 400h hybrid. The test, which was comprised of both city and highway (with an emphasis on highway), test... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 25, 2005 4:23:27 PM
» Diesel Mercedes Beats Hybrid Lexus In Fuel Consumption from eMercedesBenz
In a cross-country test conducted by Auto Bild, a German car magazine, the Mercedes-Benz ML 320 CDI diesel consumed 10% less fuel than the Lexus RX 400h hybrid. The test, which was comprised of both city and highway (with an emphasis on highway), test [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 27, 2005 9:10:29 AM
Comments
No surprise there. Hybrid is not magic juice. It can save fuel, particularly in stop and go urban driving where regeneration, idling and low speed are factors. Over long distances at highway speeds, hybrid has no great advantage, and indeed may be penalized for additional weight.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz | Aug 24, 2005 9:16:47 AM
Make that a biodiesel hybrid and you'd have net zero CO2...
Posted by: JN | Aug 24, 2005 9:24:45 AM
Did they compare emissions as well?
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | Aug 24, 2005 9:53:52 AM
25 mpg to 23 mpg...
Guess this just shows that SUVs are pretty inefficient no matter what you do to them.
Posted by: Mikhail Capone | Aug 24, 2005 10:31:19 AM
Last July I drove my HCH 4488 miles over mountains and plains. 80 mph and A/C mostly. Got 38.2 mpg.
Posted by: Lucas | Aug 24, 2005 12:22:03 PM
Cross-country driving is a small percentage of average driving. The large percentage is metropolitan area in-city driving, rush hour commuting and neighborhood trips; in which, no tests are needed to demonstrate the Hybrid advantage. Mercedes should make a new diesel model and call it the "Butthead 500" for cross country automatons.
Posted by: Wells | Aug 24, 2005 12:43:44 PM
"Last July I drove my HCH 4488 miles over mountains and plains. 80 mph and A/C mostly. Got 38.2 mpg."
I get 38-40 mpg on road trips in my '81 Civic sedan.
Posted by: Joseph Willemssen | Aug 24, 2005 12:47:22 PM
If this is an attempt by Daimler-Chrysler to sell CDI Diesel as an alternative to Hybrid, then they should try again! The new test should be a side by side city comparison! Here is an idea for Daimler-Chrysler: how about a side by side comparison with a new diesel-electric hybrid (let us call it M 350 CDI Hybrid) with the hybrid Lexus? I bet those nymbers would sell more cars and prove much cleaner to boot!
Posted by: sae gozashti | Aug 24, 2005 2:12:05 PM
That proves the point that we haven't gotten anywhere when it comes to Fuel economy. All we get is just rhetoric and forcefed marketing. The two cars tested here are LOOSERs when it comes to fuel economy. When would people realise that you can't eat your cake and have.
Posted by: Tman | Aug 24, 2005 2:14:38 PM
Hey, I can't read German.Is there a way to open up the aritcles in English??
Posted by: Richard Burton | Aug 24, 2005 2:47:21 PM
Unless the publisher offers a translation—which this one does not—the easiest thing to do is go to Google’s home page, pick "Language Tools", and then just plug in the URL of the piece into appropriate field on the form. The translation is a bit...rocky...but you can get the gist.
Posted by: Mike | Aug 24, 2005 3:23:18 PM
Yes it shows once again, yhat SUV's are inefficient.
But once again, the difference is that in Europe Governments, Industry and Customers are pulling at the
same string...there you simply have to buy a gas-saving
Vehicle with prices of six to seven$ per Gallon.
Does anyone know the prices in Asia? Would be interesting..
Posted by: Mike Weindl | Aug 24, 2005 3:48:12 PM
Its doesnt matter as diesel around here happens to cost a fair bit more then gasoline;/
Posted by: wintermane | Aug 24, 2005 4:21:41 PM
Here is the rest of the comparison.
RX400h
Power - 268 hp
0-60 mph - 7 sec
Emission - SULEV
ML 320 CDI
Power - 230 hp
0-60 mph - 9.5 sec(?)
Emission - Too dirty to sell in US
Posted by: snoopy | Aug 24, 2005 9:06:50 PM
Correction.
ML 320 CDI only has 224hp.
V8 diesel would be a better comparison with RX 400h? ML 320 CDI is not even in the same class as RX 400h.....
Posted by: snoopy | Aug 24, 2005 9:11:26 PM
Ironically, many Asian countries (Indonesian, Thailand, Malaysia, probably others as well) actually subsidize the price of oil. Indonesia, for example, spends about 3 % of GDP on oil subsidies; gas prices are well below world market prices (about 20c/l IIRC).
One would imagine that poor countries would have better things to do with their tax money than actually paying their citizens to destroy the environment. Oh well.
Posted by: joib | Aug 25, 2005 1:10:01 AM
It's all about economic growth. It takes cheap energy to grow the industrial economy, so that's the goal of the subsidies, just like was the goal in the US to have access to cheap oil from Saudi Arabia in the 70's. Unfortunately we fail to see that the economic growth we seek is a cancerous growth that eventually kills economic sustainability and the ecology.
Posted by: Schwa | Aug 25, 2005 6:02:15 AM
"Emission - Too dirty to sell in US"
Correction - Unable to meet an arbitrary set of emission standards clearly designed to accommodate gasoline engine vehicles.
Posted by: Carl | Aug 25, 2005 8:38:54 AM
I would like to add to snoopy's comments that Diesel fuel contains 10-15% more energy per gallon than gasoline, so the efficiency is more of a wash.
Posted by: anon | Aug 25, 2005 9:51:04 AM
good point anon. This would make the RX400h with its better acceleration the winner, but still They are both wasteful pieces of engineering. These cars are not even as clean as a regular civic, so why are we not clamouring over that? Instead we are just lead by some silly hype. The clean solution is to quit all this power and size quest.
Posted by: Tman | Aug 25, 2005 1:09:48 PM
So, NOx emissions are thrown around a lot here. How could we reduce them while still using diesel fuel?
Posted by: Ben Schiendelman | Aug 25, 2005 2:56:53 PM
"Unable to meet an arbitrary set of emission standards clearly designed to accommodate gasoline engine vehicles."
US has one standard for both gas and diesel engine unlike Europe where they lower their standard in the favor of diesel.
Do some research and look up the numbers.
Posted by: Snoopy | Aug 25, 2005 8:24:25 PM
"These cars are not even as clean as a regular civic, so why are we not clamouring over that? Instead we are just lead by some silly hype."
Hype or fact? RX400h is SULEV. Civic is ULEV. Which get better MPG in the city where emission is more of a problem? Look up more facts.
Posted by: Snoopy | Aug 25, 2005 8:27:56 PM
“So, NOx emissions are thrown around a lot here. How could we reduce them while still using diesel fuel?”
See the following links for the latest on in-cylinder NOx control:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/technology/deerpresentation.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/technology/420f04023.pdf
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/01/eparsquos_clean.html
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/reports/adv-tech/420r04002.pdf
Posted by: Carl | Aug 25, 2005 11:21:02 PM
“US has one standard for both gas and diesel engine unlike Europe where they lower their standard in the favor of diesel.
Do some research and look up the numbers.”
I didn’t think I implied that there were different standards for gasoline and diesel, or at least didn’t intend to. I’m very familiar with the Tier 2 and LEV II regs. From an air quality perspective, there’s nothing “magical” about these sets of emission regulations. I stand by my assertion that these emission standards are arbitrary and are clearly written to accommodate gasoline engine emission profiles. So diesels, with significantly different emission profiles, are forced to comply with these emission standards designed for gas engines. A set of emission standards could just as easily have been written which would be relatively easy for diesels to meet, difficult for gas engines to meet, and be just as effective from an air quality perspective, if not more so.
I don’t find these latest emission standards impressive mainly because they allow such a high emission threshold for carbon monoxide (CO) which is primarily a gas engine pollutant. NOx is regulated to near zero levels while CO is regulated at levels nearly two orders of magnitude higher. The CO standard is UNCHANGED from the Tier 1 CARB and EPA standards (4.2 g/mile to…4.2 g/mile, the FUL was extended from 100,000 miles to 120,000 miles, big deal!).
CO is not only an ozone precursor, but there are still areas of the U.S. that are in SERIOUS non-attainment with the CO NAAQS, most notably, Southern California (see http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/mapco.html). What’s being done to address this air quality issue? Why isn’t there the “technology forcing” for gas engine CO like there is for diesel engine NOx?
Posted by: Carl | Aug 25, 2005 11:23:29 PM
"So diesels, with significantly different emission profiles, are forced to comply with these emission standards designed for gas engines."
Look up which type of emission kill more people. NOx or CO? That will answer your question why things are the way they are.
"Why isn’t there the “technology forcing” for gas engine CO like there is for diesel engine NOx?"
Yes there is! It is called Hybrid Synergy Drive. It cuts down CO emission by half without comprimises. However, there is a side-benefit though -- better MPG.
Diesel can cut NOx by going hybrid as well. We shall see them soon after Gas-Electric make technology less expensive.
Posted by: snoopy | Aug 26, 2005 5:47:51 PM
It's pretty annoying this discussion between Diesel and Gas Hybrid followers. Diesel is simply the only effective fuel saving technology during the past decades. Drivers habits doesn't change from one moment to another. It is still not guaranteed that Hybrid technology will not be misused to build more powerful SUV's and trucks with a green sticker.. this discussion reminds me of the early eighties in Europe when fundamental greenies have rioted. Whereas they are now simly a part of the political system. There you can talk with everyone calmly about energy technology whereas here you are confronted with many weirdos or ignorant individuals..let the Iraq war come to an end and let Fuel Prices stablize. This is all like a deja vu for a European living in the US.
Posted by: mike Weindl | Aug 26, 2005 9:10:46 PM
“Look up which type of emission kill more people. NOx or CO? That will answer your question why things are the way they are.”
Not sure what point you’re trying to make here, but I suspect there are more fatalities from acute CO poisoning than from acute NOx poisoning. As a matter of fact, I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a case of acute NOx poisoning, but I’ve heard of plenty of acute CO poisonings.
If you’re referring to ambient levels of CO and NOx, I still have to say CO since, as I mentioned in my previous post, there are still areas of the country that are in “serious” non-attainment with the CO NAAQS, but there are NO areas of the country that are in non-attainment with the NO2 NAAQS (http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/nindex.html). It is my understanding that there are no areas of the country that are even within a factor of two of the NO2 NAAQS.
The regulatory emphasis on NOx is apparently its role as an ozone precursor. However, as I mentioned, CO is also an ozone precursor.
I have no problem with hybrid technology and think it holds a lot of promise. I agree that mating diesel with hybrid technology would be the best of both worlds. I take issue, however, with the “diesels are dirty” mantra. Diesel with particulate filters (it was mentioned that the Mercedes SUV had a DPF) are NOT “dirty” even if they can’t meet the contrived emission regs for NOx.
Posted by: Carl | Aug 26, 2005 11:37:38 PM
Why did they not make the 400 into a hybrid diesel? This is odd, they could of had a better more efficient vehicle.
Posted by: Mr. Bruce Arkwright, Jr. | Aug 28, 2005 8:51:00 PM
Misplaced priorities? Sort of "cart before horse". We need some retail ULSD/BioD and not just in CA for clean
diesel tech(nominal NOx and 40% drop-in fuel econ)to be reality sooner. It's all about usable torque, not HP. V6,8 means double heads, cats, O2 sensors, weight, complication, etc. Turbo 4,5 cylinder diesels can get 30-50+ mpg easily. The beauty of hybrids is auto-stop, regen brakes, electric/battery accessory op. We need both in one package ASAP.
Posted by: Fred | Aug 28, 2005 9:04:48 PM
I know the debate here is about fuel economy and emissions, but how about the sticker prices of diesel vs hybrid?
For this test, because its a Benz, I am guessing the Mercedes was more expensive in this test. But, in most cases, a diesel-powered vehicle is 10 to 15 percent cheaper than a similary-sized hybrid vehicle (for cars priced between $20,000-$40,000).
Also, who knows anything about how long (how many miles) a hybrid's battery pack will last before it needs to be replaced? I have been told that most packs would need to be replaced after the first 80k-90k miles, and at a cost of $3,000-$4,000.
If true, this is a significant chunk of change, especially when an owner of a car with 80k-90k miles is often looking to trade it in or sell it in the second hand market. Tough to trade in when the buyer knows the first thing he has to do is pony up $4k for new battery pack.
On top of that, a diesel is just getting broken in at 80k-90k miles, and diesels are renowned for holding their value in the second-hand market, due to their durability and economy.
Hybrids today are being marketed to the affluent, because they have the discretionary income to pay a premium, and don't mind taking as big a loss on the send hand sale. For hybrids to become palatable to 'everyman', the cost of buying/owning a hybrid will have to come down.
Posted by: BeiingBarney | Aug 30, 2005 12:11:46 AM
"Why did they not make the 400 into a hybrid diesel?"
The price. A "clean" diesel cost almost as much as a full gas-electric hybrid. If they cost the same and get the same fuel economy which would you choose? The Pollution or The Solution?
Diesel non-hybrid would not be as smooth as a full hybrid either. When will you need to replace Diesel automatic transmission? I heard every 80k-90k miles and cost $2k-$3k plus labor. BTW, the particle filter in the exhaust system also need maintenance. How often do you need to replace that? Hey Barney, I can play FUD also.
Posted by: Snoopy | Aug 30, 2005 9:30:40 PM
"Also, who knows anything about how long (how many miles) a hybrid's battery pack will last before it needs to be replaced? I have been told that most packs would need to be replaced after the first 80k-90k miles, and at a cost of $3,000-$4,000."
Toyota battery pack is covered under 100k miles warrenty so, the cost is FREE. Toyota can cover 100k miles because they were tested up to 180k miles and found no degration from memory effect. Battery Management Unit computer protects the pack agreessively. The battery pack is also triple in capacity than needed to achieve that goal. Hence, it uses only a third of it's total capacity to prolong life.
For some real world info: http://www.hybridexperience.ca/Toyota_Prius.htm
Feel free to do you own research.
Posted by: snoopy | Aug 30, 2005 9:43:50 PM
URSnoopy: What is "play FUD"? And why are you so angry?
I logged on to this website to learn. I had a legimate question about the lifespan of a batterypack, and the cost to replace it, before I buy a hybrid myself.
I don't know anything about the lifespan or cost to repair a diesel automatic transmission. I bought a diesel pickup in Thailand in 1994 -- with manual tranmsission -- and I have never had a problem with the engine or the tranny.
Your response to me rings of self-righteous indignation, so I am guessing you are a Prius owner. Take it easy Snoop Dog, I am not attacking your precious car. I just want to learn.
Posted by: beijingbarney | Sep 5, 2005 2:26:57 AM
That's funny. The car magazine that performed this "test" was caught red-handed in a scandal where they helped Mercedes-Benz in doctoring a crash-avoidance test:
http://www.drive.com.au/editorial/article.aspx?id=10759
They also managed to "test" a Toyota Prius and get 32 mpg. No other magazine in Europe ever got anything worse than 40 mpg. Most of the magazines got something like 46-48 mpg, in-line with what most consumers report.
Are Auto Bild journalists simply bad drivers, or is it something more fishy?
Posted by: Joe Beat | Jan 19, 2006 4:02:51 AM
I just saw that Auto-Motor-und-Sport (AMS) now both tested the RX400h and the Mercedes ML320CDI. The results:
0-100km/h (62 mi/h):
RX400h 8.2 sec - ML320CDI 9.6 sec
top speed:
RX400h 200 km/h (125 mi/h) - ML320CDI 215 km/h (133 mi/h)
fuel efficiency:
RX400h 10.1 l/100km (23.2 mpg) - ML320CDI 12.4 l/100km (18.9 mpg)
The AMS tests are yet another indication that the Auto Bild "test" is all a fraud. AMS is quite a serious GERMAN car magazine, so they will not be biased in favor of the Lexus. Their measurements show that the RX400h accelerates faster than the Mercedes and that it is almost 25% more fuel efficient.
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/test_technik/fahrberichte/lexus_rx_300_gegen_- - - lexus_rx_400_h_zweites_programm.108823.d_ams_fberichte_techdat_td.htm
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/test_technik/vergleichstests/mercedes_320_cdi- - - _mal_als_ml_e_und_r_klasse.101224.d_ams_vtest_techdat.htm
Posted by: Joe Beat | May 7, 2006 11:58:05 AM
The new diesel for Mercedes Benz will be offered in the 2007 E Class, 2007 R Class and ML Class.
They will be sold in 45 states- excluding New York, Maine, Massachusetts, California and Vermont.
It will be offered next year in the 2008 GL Class, too.
When the additive "AdBlue" becomes commercially available in the US in 2007 or 2008, Mercedes will then be able to offer vehicles that qualify to be sold in all 50 states. The vehicle has a canister of this urea-based liquid. The additive is released into the exhaust system, and helps reduce the NOX emissions by 80%.
Posted by: Steve Stamatopoulos | Jun 30, 2006 12:33:57 PM
