Confirmed: 2012 Mercedes-Benz E-Class getting upgraded V6, twin-turbo V8
05-08-11, 12:03 PM
#46
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stuttgart
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Other aspects are the weight of the vehicle, transmission response and gearing, the driving style of the vehicle operator, the tires and tire pressure, fuel quality, hell, even the temperature and thinness of the air affect the outcome.
It's silly to expect similar engines from competing cars to produce the same performance values and fuel economy numbers. There are way to many factors that affect the outcome. If one car gets 30 mpg and the other 29 mpg that's pretty much "the same" if one factors in the affecting variables.
05-08-11, 12:11 PM
#47
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stuttgart
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wait until the consumers report their fuel economy figures. THAT is far more interesting than what the magazines tell us.
Furthermore, I cannot find any comparison on Edmunds between a Lexus IS350 and 2012 Mercedes C350.
i do understand where Dustin's confusion comes from - 2012 E350 in Europe has start/stop system which is very favorable for European official mpg test and hence car reaches imaginary consumption numbers... US EPA tests are much more real-world and start/stop systems dont work as well.:-).
Uh, huh.
05-08-11, 12:12 PM
#48
Technology is only one aspect that affects performance and fuel economy.
Other aspects are the weight of the vehicle, transmission response and gearing, the driving style of the vehicle operator, the tires and tire pressure, fuel quality, hell, even the temperature and thinness of the air affect the outcome.
It's silly to expect similar engines from competing cars to produce the same performance values and fuel economy numbers. There are way to many factors that affect the outcome. If one car gets 30 mpg and the other 29 mpg that's pretty much "the same" if one factors in the affecting variables.
Other aspects are the weight of the vehicle, transmission response and gearing, the driving style of the vehicle operator, the tires and tire pressure, fuel quality, hell, even the temperature and thinness of the air affect the outcome.
It's silly to expect similar engines from competing cars to produce the same performance values and fuel economy numbers. There are way to many factors that affect the outcome. If one car gets 30 mpg and the other 29 mpg that's pretty much "the same" if one factors in the affecting variables.
EPA does lab tests, there is no difference in tire pressures, vehicle operators, fuel quality or temperature or "thinness of air".
Pure superior technology.
Some people had it in 2006, some people got it in 2012. Give credit when credit is due.
05-08-11, 01:59 PM
#49
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stuttgart
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lol... what the heck are you smoking dustin? Why is it so hard for you?
EPA does lab tests, there is no difference in tire pressures, vehicle operators, fuel quality or temperature or "thinness of air".
Pure superior technology.
Some people had it in 2006, some people got it in 2012. Give credit when credit is due.
EPA does lab tests, there is no difference in tire pressures, vehicle operators, fuel quality or temperature or "thinness of air".
Pure superior technology.
Some people had it in 2006, some people got it in 2012. Give credit when credit is due.
If the precise testing techniques of the EPA are the golden standard, how do you explain the better fuel economy achieved by different consumers with their cars? At the end of the day the fuel economy attained with a particular car comes down mainly to driving manners of the vehicle operator.
The EPA is simply a guideline in that sense as to around what type of gas mileage cars are capable of under "ideal conditions". However, the "ideal conditions" in the lab are not even close to the realistic driving conditions people deal with everyday outside of the lab - which means the fuel economy results that people achieve are far more worth considering than what the EPA publishes - in my opinion.
And your bias apparently tells you that the fuel economy testing in the US is realistic whereas the same tests in Europe are unrealistic. Yeah, nice try at spinning things in favor of your favorite brand.
I can give credit where credit is due and the Lexus 3.5 V6 is clearly an impressive engine. It was impressive then, and it is still impressive today. However, it's not like the competition is resting on their laurels. The new Mercedes V6 has gotten great reviews here from the European press in regards to improved performance, fuel economy and emissions as well as refinement. To the consumer out there, this means that instead of considering an IS350 or GS350, he may now consider a C or E350 because of this new engine.
05-08-11, 05:21 PM
#50
The EPA testing and whatever methods they use in Europe are different. One is not necessary better or worse than another, they are just different, and should not be directly compared. Also, European gallon and US gallon are different.
Despite of the testing procedure, peoples actual mileage will vary - depending on driving style, environment, distance, and many other factors.
I think this is like the third thread we have on the same E class new engine thing, with the same participants
Seriously, who cares? Its a base E class engine, its a car for people that can't afford a proper Mercedes, and nothing says a man failed in life quite like the E350 badge on the back of his Mercedes
Despite of the testing procedure, peoples actual mileage will vary - depending on driving style, environment, distance, and many other factors.
I think this is like the third thread we have on the same E class new engine thing, with the same participants
Seriously, who cares? Its a base E class engine, its a car for people that can't afford a proper Mercedes, and nothing says a man failed in life quite like the E350 badge on the back of his Mercedes
05-09-11, 12:25 PM
#51
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stuttgart
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting article about the EPA and start-stop technology. 
EPA still doesn't really get stop-start technology, and that means Americans don't, either
Stop-start technology has been available on numerous European automobiles for some time, and, according to Hybrid Cars, the fuel-saving tech is projected to be offered on up to 42 percent of vehicles in the U.S. by 2016. However, there are virtually no incentives pushing automakers to equip U.S.-bound models with auto stop-start, and there is one regulatory reason for them not to focus on offering this option.
The problem is that the EPA's current testing methods don't accurately assess the real-world fuel-saving benefits of stop-start technology, which shuts the engine off when the vehicle is stopped. The EPA only has limited idle time built into their fuel use tests, which means that most models equipped with start-stop get absolutely no bump in their official fuel economy ratings. Without any sort of official support, automakers see no boost in CAFE numbers for their start-stop vehicles. Currently, only three non-hybrid vehicles sold in the U.S. – the BMW M3, the Porsche Cayenne and Porsche Panamera – feature stop-start technology.
The lack of incentives, according to John Gartner, an analyst at Pike Research, will likely keep most automakers from equipping U.S. models with stop-start tech. However, Gartner claims that most American buyers would "embrace vehicles that don't burn fuel when stopped" if they were available.
Source: http://green.autoblog.com/2011/05/09...e-mpg-problem/
EPA still doesn't really get stop-start technology, and that means Americans don't, either
Stop-start technology has been available on numerous European automobiles for some time, and, according to Hybrid Cars, the fuel-saving tech is projected to be offered on up to 42 percent of vehicles in the U.S. by 2016. However, there are virtually no incentives pushing automakers to equip U.S.-bound models with auto stop-start, and there is one regulatory reason for them not to focus on offering this option.
The problem is that the EPA's current testing methods don't accurately assess the real-world fuel-saving benefits of stop-start technology, which shuts the engine off when the vehicle is stopped. The EPA only has limited idle time built into their fuel use tests, which means that most models equipped with start-stop get absolutely no bump in their official fuel economy ratings. Without any sort of official support, automakers see no boost in CAFE numbers for their start-stop vehicles. Currently, only three non-hybrid vehicles sold in the U.S. – the BMW M3, the Porsche Cayenne and Porsche Panamera – feature stop-start technology.
The lack of incentives, according to John Gartner, an analyst at Pike Research, will likely keep most automakers from equipping U.S. models with stop-start tech. However, Gartner claims that most American buyers would "embrace vehicles that don't burn fuel when stopped" if they were available.
Source: http://green.autoblog.com/2011/05/09...e-mpg-problem/
05-09-11, 04:22 PM
#53
The EPA testing and whatever methods they use in Europe are different. One is not necessary better or worse than another, they are just different, and should not be directly compared. Also, European gallon and US gallon are different.
Despite of the testing procedure, peoples actual mileage will vary - depending on driving style, environment, distance, and many other factors.
I think this is like the third thread we have on the same E class new engine thing, with the same participants
Seriously, who cares? Its a base E class engine, its a car for people that can't afford a proper Mercedes, and nothing says a man failed in life quite like the E350 badge on the back of his Mercedes
Despite of the testing procedure, peoples actual mileage will vary - depending on driving style, environment, distance, and many other factors.
I think this is like the third thread we have on the same E class new engine thing, with the same participants
Seriously, who cares? Its a base E class engine, its a car for people that can't afford a proper Mercedes, and nothing says a man failed in life quite like the E350 badge on the back of his Mercedes
It really does crazily inflate euro tests since for instance, you will never in your life get those kind of real life readings from E350, just like you "magically" do not get them in US as well. Maybe it is "thinness" of air in the US that is not suited to german vehicles?
One important thing here to note is that EPA now uses A/C on, while Euro tests do not... which means start/stop systems can work in Europe and not in US.
You have to be special kind of crazy to think E350 will do some 30mpg in the city, lol. And remove start/stop (so cruising at low speeds only) and BAM it gets 19mpg suddenly.
There is no car that matches European tests in real life, they are completely off. EPA does much better measure of real life consumption, especially after the changes in 2009, of course with 10% +-.
Even Justin posted Aurocar article that showed 69 MPG rated BMW doing 44 MPG (which is awesome score btw). On the other hand, US EPA 42 MPG CT200h got ... 49 MPG Imperial... which is (drum roll please)... 42 MPG!!!
:-).
05-09-11, 04:36 PM
#54
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stuttgart
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most Europeans I know rarely use their A/C except during the hottest summer days. I find myself using my A/C only when it is an extremely hot and uncomfortable day. Most of the time I have my sunroof open or allow the external air to enter my car - uncooled. And I average between 44-46 mpg with the BMW 118d in the mix.
05-09-11, 05:10 PM
#55
Guest
Posts: n/a
Why do YOU proclaim everything German the greatest thing since sliced bread?
Again the hypocrisy is hilarious.
Hypocrisy. Period.
More hypocrisy.
Again the hypocrisy is hilarious.
Oh please. The engineers at Mercedes could have easily extracted more power out of this V6 engine. Extracting more power out of engines isn't that hard. But as many sources have hinted, the motor was tuned for optimal fuel economy and emissions first and foremost. 302-horsepower is a lot. Nobody cares if a competitor model has 306-horsepower. To the vast majority of people that difference in power isn't an issue.
And maybe you should educate yourself a bit more about the new Mercedes V6 engine. It's based on a modular design which means that adding on forced induction, either turbo- or supercharging, in the future will be a piece of cake. The engine was specifically designed for this feature. Should the company get feedback that consumers are demanding a V6 with more power and performance, the easy "add on" of forced induction (in this case) can quickly address that issue.
It's "embarrassing" how you think a six year-old Lexus motor is more advanced based on horsepower and torque output. Reminds me of the people who claim that "Car A is better because it does 0-60 in 5.4 seconds while Car B is incredibly slow at 5.5 seconds...".
And maybe you should educate yourself a bit more about the new Mercedes V6 engine. It's based on a modular design which means that adding on forced induction, either turbo- or supercharging, in the future will be a piece of cake. The engine was specifically designed for this feature. Should the company get feedback that consumers are demanding a V6 with more power and performance, the easy "add on" of forced induction (in this case) can quickly address that issue.
It's "embarrassing" how you think a six year-old Lexus motor is more advanced based on horsepower and torque output. Reminds me of the people who claim that "Car A is better because it does 0-60 in 5.4 seconds while Car B is incredibly slow at 5.5 seconds...".
Technology is only one aspect that affects performance and fuel economy.
Other aspects are the weight of the vehicle, transmission response and gearing, the driving style of the vehicle operator, the tires and tire pressure, fuel quality, hell, even the temperature and thinness of the air affect the outcome.
It's silly to expect similar engines from competing cars to produce the same performance values and fuel economy numbers. There are way to many factors that affect the outcome. If one car gets 30 mpg and the other 29 mpg that's pretty much "the same" if one factors in the affecting variables.
Other aspects are the weight of the vehicle, transmission response and gearing, the driving style of the vehicle operator, the tires and tire pressure, fuel quality, hell, even the temperature and thinness of the air affect the outcome.
It's silly to expect similar engines from competing cars to produce the same performance values and fuel economy numbers. There are way to many factors that affect the outcome. If one car gets 30 mpg and the other 29 mpg that's pretty much "the same" if one factors in the affecting variables.
05-09-11, 05:28 PM
#56
Most Europeans I know rarely use their A/C except during the hottest summer days. I find myself using my A/C only when it is an extremely hot and uncomfortable day. Most of the time I have my sunroof open or allow the external air to enter my car - uncooled. And I average between 44-46 mpg with the BMW 118d in the mix.
05-10-11, 06:17 AM
#57
JakeY
The UDDS (EPA city cycle) has a total of 259 seconds of idle time (0mph) out of 1370 seconds of testing. That's 18.9% of the test. I counted about 10 different parts of the cycle with ~10 seconds or more of idle, and out of that 5 parts have more than 25 seconds of idle. I think that's more than reasonable to simulate a typical stop sign and traffic light situation.
The Euro urban cycle (the euro equivalent to our city cycle) has 64 seconds of idle time out of 196 seconds of
testing. That's 32.7% of the test. So more that the UDDS by 13.8%. The cycle has 4 sections of idle time (if you count start and finish), each middle section 22 seconds.
The epa site has all the details of all the relevant cycles (including the Euro cycle).
http://www.epa.gov/nvfel/testing/dynamometer.htm
If the EPA city test is adjusted to further to favor start-stop conditions, all that will do is bias the test even more toward hybrids and plug-ins (because they do the best in start-stop) and people already complain that the current test is too easy on them. The Euro cycle itself is already too lenient even for normal vehicles.
The UDDS (EPA city cycle) has a total of 259 seconds of idle time (0mph) out of 1370 seconds of testing. That's 18.9% of the test. I counted about 10 different parts of the cycle with ~10 seconds or more of idle, and out of that 5 parts have more than 25 seconds of idle. I think that's more than reasonable to simulate a typical stop sign and traffic light situation.
The Euro urban cycle (the euro equivalent to our city cycle) has 64 seconds of idle time out of 196 seconds of
testing. That's 32.7% of the test. So more that the UDDS by 13.8%. The cycle has 4 sections of idle time (if you count start and finish), each middle section 22 seconds.
The epa site has all the details of all the relevant cycles (including the Euro cycle).
http://www.epa.gov/nvfel/testing/dynamometer.htm
If the EPA city test is adjusted to further to favor start-stop conditions, all that will do is bias the test even more toward hybrids and plug-ins (because they do the best in start-stop) and people already complain that the current test is too easy on them. The Euro cycle itself is already too lenient even for normal vehicles.
p.s. Toyota estimated that average driver in Europe, based on their calculations would have start/stop working 27% of the times during stops (this is for their start/stop system in their non hybrids cars). Obviously start/stop system in normal cars is very primitive and not the same as in hybrids.
05-10-11, 06:20 AM
#58
Most Europeans I know rarely use their A/C except during the hottest summer days. I find myself using my A/C only when it is an extremely hot and uncomfortable day. Most of the time I have my sunroof open or allow the external air to enter my car - uncooled. And I average between 44-46 mpg with the BMW 118d in the mix.
p.s. My friend had 118d that he loved and he averaged 6.5l in same city where my Prius did 4l, and he pampered it completely as the cost was big consideration for him.
05-10-11, 06:42 AM
#59
since it is still inferior to GR series engines from 2006, i guess we will chalk it to the feel and heritage now, and we will show test reports from Autocar that show us that all Lexus vehicles have crappy ride and score 3/5 at best.
:-).
05-10-11, 09:09 AM
#60
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stuttgart
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When people come in here and make silly comments about the new Mercedes V6 without "thinking", then I feel I have to be the voice of reason. The only people who really make a big deal out of this are enthusiasts for whom every car needs to be performance oriented. An E350 is a fast car by default but it is not a dedicated sports sedan. It sold well with the old 3.5 V6 and it'll sell well with the V6. Case closed.
Right. So you think that the Mercedes' engineers were incapable of extracting 307-horsepower out of this new V6 and 306-horsepower was the best they could manage?