Why no deisel model?

[rf065]

Come on malcolm they dont all smell like routemasters anymore

And i prefer the slight whiff of a deisel engine to the rotten eggs of the petrol ones.

Apart from the noise at tickover, modern diesels are quieter than petrols at motorway speeds too. And you are correct, sit behind a smelly car nowadays & it is usually a petrol smelling of sulphur. Add in all that torque a diesel has and what's not to like?

Russ

 

[st4]

They put the V12 petrol in and that weighs enough so I would think the V6 CDI would work fine.

They do in the SL, but not the SLK. A V6 CDi in an SL may be a bit "gutless" so they'd opt for the larger heavier V8 CDi.

In the SLK a V6 CDi would be a laugh out loud hoot. Actually the new 2 turbo 250Cdi would be the best bet for that car.

 

[Blobcat]

They do in the SL, but not the SLK. A V6 CDi in an SL may be a bit "gutless" so they'd opt for the larger heavier V8 CDi.

In the SLK a V6 CDi would be a laugh out loud hoot. Actually the new 2 turbo 250Cdi would be the best bet for that car.

I wouldn't have thought it would be gutless, there is the SL350 and the E350 is slower than the E320CDI so a SL320CDI should have better performance than the SL350.

 

[Alex M Grieve]

I wouldn't have thought it would be gutless, there is the SL350 and the E350 is slower than the E320CDI so a SL320CDI should have better performance than the SL350.

I agree Russ - having done lots of miles in 320 CDIs (E & S Class), I would love that engine in an SL. It may lack bhp, but it is torque that makes for excellent in gear acceleration and the CDI betters the SL500 (until they upped the cubic capacity) for torque. The economy would be excellent.

 

[st4]

I wouldn't have thought it would be gutless, there is the SL350 and the E350 is slower than the E320CDI so a SL320CDI should have better performance than the SL350.

Is an E350 slower than an E320cdi. In gear the diesel would have the edge, but the 350 engine makes 270bhp +. the 320cdi c. 230bhp. Given the petrol engine is lighter and both cars were in kickdown the E350 would accelerate more quickly.

Remember BHP is a function of RPM and torque. A petrol plays the torque disadvantage with a higher rev limit. Plus shorter gearing allowing for a greater multiplication of the engines torque over the diesel engined car. An E350 will not be slower than an E320cdi unless your in the mid range, where the CDi's lower rev range would come into play, this is why you say a 320cdi is faster than a 350, because most of the time you accelerate in the mid range.

Still I'll take your point, 230bhp in an SL would be enough, and with a lower down torque will suit the way the car is driven most of the time and real world may be upto to the job, but a 350 in "press on conditions" will be faster and a 500 in the mid range just as fast as the diesel in the mid range, and a lot more powerful @ peak power.

Still, being a frugal man myself an SL320cdi would be fine for me, its going to be more rapid (if not as frugal) as the car I drive. I sense from this forum there is a market for such a car, and 10yrs ago there wouldn't be, so its a credit to MB that they've engineered an engine to work as well as this.

 

[PanzerMcGrory]

Is an E350 slower than an E320cdi. In gear the diesel would have the edge, but the 350 engine makes 270bhp +. the 320cdi c. 230bhp. Given the petrol engine is lighter and both cars were in kickdown the E350 would accelerate more quickly.

Remember BHP is a function of RPM and torque. A petrol plays the torque disadvantage with a higher rev limit. Plus shorter gearing allowing for a greater multiplication of the engines torque over the diesel engined car. An E350 will not be slower than an E320cdi unless your in the mid range, where the CDi's lower rev range would come into play, this is why you say a 320cdi is faster than a 350, because most of the time you accelerate in the mid range.

Still I'll take your point, 230bhp in an SL would be enough, and with a lower down torque will suit the way the car is driven most of the time and real world may be upto to the job, but a 350 in "press on conditions" will be faster and a 500 in the mid range just as fast as the diesel in the mid range, and a lot more powerful @ peak power.

Still, being a frugal man myself an SL320cdi would be fine for me, its going to be more rapid (if not as frugal) as the car I drive. I sense from this forum there is a market for such a car, and 10yrs ago there wouldn't be, so its a credit to MB that they've engineered an engine to work as well as this.

Going back to the point i made earlier i dont think most SL SLK drivers much care for the above figures as most dont buy them for extreme performance but for the looks and the badge.
Yes they dont want a donkey but a V6 cdi and any SLK or SL would shift them along nicely.

 

[PeterCLK]

I wonder how many do low mileage - quite a lot I guess?
This weakens the argument for a diesel.

 

[Parrot of Doom]

Apart from the noise at tickover, modern diesels are quieter than petrols at motorway speeds too. And you are correct, sit behind a smelly car nowadays & it is usually a petrol smelling of sulphur. Add in all that torque a diesel has and what's not to like?

Russ

They sound like a tractor, have a very narrow power band, and aren't quite so reliable as they once were with all the high pressure gubbins and dual mass flywheels.

Sorry but the idea of an open-top diesel to me is about the most stupid thing ever. Of course my last car was a soft-top 4.0 V8.

Its like having a 4-seater convertible. Utterly daft.

 

[Blobcat]

Is an E350 slower than an E320cdi. In gear the diesel would have the edge, but the 350 engine makes 270bhp +. the 320cdi c. 230bhp. Given the petrol engine is lighter and both cars were in kickdown the E350 would accelerate more quickly.

Remember BHP is a function of RPM and torque. A petrol plays the torque disadvantage with a higher rev limit. Plus shorter gearing allowing for a greater multiplication of the engines torque over the diesel engined car. An E350 will not be slower than an E320cdi unless your in the mid range, where the CDi's lower rev range would come into play, this is why you say a 320cdi is faster than a 350, because most of the time you accelerate in the mid range.

Still I'll take your point, 230bhp in an SL would be enough, and with a lower down torque will suit the way the car is driven most of the time and real world may be upto to the job, but a 350 in "press on conditions" will be faster and a 500 in the mid range just as fast as the diesel in the mid range, and a lot more powerful @ peak power.

Still, being a frugal man myself an SL320cdi would be fine for me, its going to be more rapid (if not as frugal) as the car I drive. I sense from this forum there is a market for such a car, and 10yrs ago there wouldn't be, so its a credit to MB that they've engineered an engine to work as well as this.

The E320CDI is faster according to MB's figures, I don't have my brochure to hand as I'm in a hotel in Derby however the 0-60 is faster and both are limited to 155mph. Having said that with the price differential of ~10ppl and the E350CGI getting nearly 30mpg then the benefit of the CDI is a little lost. In fact I wonder if one reason MB don't sell the CLK CDI over here is that they tend to be driven less than the saloons so as the benefit to having a diesel is only if you cover significant miles then perhaps they don't see the market as very big. If diesel was cheaper over here than petrol then I think they may think again.

 

[PanzerMcGrory]

They sound like a tractor, have a very narrow power band, and aren't quite so reliable as they once were with all the high pressure gubbins and dual mass flywheels.

Sorry but the idea of an open-top diesel to me is about the most stupid thing ever. Of course my last car was a soft-top 4.0 V8.

Its like having a 4-seater convertible. Utterly daft.

Sorry,
I will run that 40k tractor of mine into the Clyde ASAP,
thats assuming it doesnt pack in on the way down

 

[brianbrian]

Thank you malcom for mentioning my name, nobody had to convince me to put a diesol engine into a SL,just could not find roads where i could realy use the car as it was,I am 3/4 of the way now, and no it will be more reliable than the petrol, as to smell if the filters are changed every 5000- 15mins job they run nice and clear, yes noisy when first started from cold, but after a few minutes purrs along.Why did I not just buy a diesol my wife and I have a diesol merc have done since 1985 our first was 190d 250 was and still good concidering no turbo had our money back easy, why sl diesol just like the look and comfort.