Mercedes-Benz news - engineers dramatically improve an old 190D

  • Thread starter Thread starter homeforsummer
  • 80 comments
  • 5,383 views
homeforsummer

homeforsummer

Bonbonbonbons!
Premium
Messages
27,281
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
Link at Autobloggreen

Every year, automakers that fail to meet the federally-mandated CAFE fuel efficiency standards receive fines in proportion to their gas-guzzling crimes. Last year, DaimlerChrysler set a record with a fine of $30,357,635.50, and that figure is proving tough to beat. Still, Mercedes-Benz, which made up half of the failed marriage that was DaimlerChrysler, tried its best to top itself by recording a whopping $28.9 million fine for cars produced in 2007, again taking the gold medal. Come on, guys, we know you can do better ... or worse, or whatever.

Other manufacturers that fared poorly in CAFE reporting include Volkswagen, which was hit with a $4.5 million fine (much of which was due to the Touareg light truck), Porsche and Maserati, which tied with $1.2 million fines each, and Ferrari, which had $1.1 million in CAFE fines pulled from the clutches of its purse strings.

These huge fines are exactly why automakers are worried about the impending increase in fuel economy requirements. Those companies that managed to stay under the requirements are also going to need to know as soon as possible what mileage requirements are going to be in the coming years if they have any hope of staying in the clear. It looks like that will not happen quickly.
Click to expand...

Why does this not surprise me? Mercedes seem to be ploughing on into a very shakey market that is making definite steps towards cleaner and more efficient cars by realeasing more and more powerful and fuel-inefficient AMG, Black Series, large sedans and off-road models.

WAKE UP GUYS!

I know these sorts of vehicles are what Mercedes do, but common business sense would dictate that the best way to stay alive in a market that's crumbling is not to subject yourself to massive fines for building irrelevant cars completely out of step with the models that you need to be concentrating on. Like it or lump it, the company has to produce more fuel efficient models. Let's face it - if Mercedes-Benz folds, then they'll never be able to produce things like the Black Series again, so at least trying to balance their range by trying to improve general efficiency might seem like a good move.

What I'd do...

Personally I'd stop the Black Series all together (making them collectors cars instantly, so owners would love it) and seriously cut down the AMG range. Does the world really need an AMG of every model bigger than the C-class? I remember when there used to only be AMG models of the C and E class. How about doing the same today, but with the C-class and CLS-class? Then, get rid of the GL-class (I don't think I've ever seen one in the UK, I don't know how many you get over in the States) and R-class, which while looking kind of cool seems largely irrelevant when the range includes the M-class which is already pretty good at the "car" thing, plus it's presumably better off road. And I can't believe you still get the G-class over there! Impressive vehicle, but surely it's had it's day - the G-class must go.

Finally, in Europe, the Viano needs scrapping altogether. The Vito van already exists and is available with extra seats, if you really must have a Mercedes large MPV then you're probably a taxi driver and therefore not bothered about it being a van in the first place.

And back to the USA - bring in the A- and B-class. The market is warming to smaller cars, and hey presto Mercedes already produce two very good ones. Even just the B-class would be a start.

And look, I've got rid of a pretty large number of the most inefficient vehicles in the range already... perhaps not the most market-viable solution, but the solution in my ideal world...

The other makes mentioned above

Well, Porsche, Ferrari and Maserati can't really do much about it, but all have said they're working on more efficient vehicles so they're taking a step in the right direction. The Touareg is mentioned for VW - I'd suspect that'd do much better over there in the States if you were given the diesel engines we get in Europe instead of the rather limited V6/V8 range you get there. Hell, if they gave the States diesels in the Tiguan and Routan it wouldn't be excessive - VW drivers over there seem to be more welcoming to diesels than maybe drivers of other makes, given how popular the Jetta TDi seems to be.

Anyway, enough from me - any thoughts?
 
The B-Class sucks. Oh, I know it's got a lot of space... googles of space... but it sucks.

I dunno. I completely disagree with CAFE, from a practical standpoint.

Why bother taxing people for making vehicles that aren't fuel efficient? In today's market... jittery from the volatile cost of fuel, fuel-efficiency is its own reward.

I'd say... tax the fuel. Every last drop of it. Whether it's gasoline, diesel, ethanol or biodiesel... tax it.

Taxes stick it to those people who waste fuel, no matter what they drive... the guy who uses his Prius alone instead of carpooling... the SUV owner who uses it to go to the coffeshop around the block every night... hoons who drive for miles and miles just for fun (I'm one of those guys, and yes, I'll pay).

But I'll agree... the R-Class has got to go. If only because it looks like a squashed frog from the front. :D
 
Pfft. Always trying to out-do McLaren. They managed a $100million fine for cars produced in 2007.

niky
I'd say... tax the fuel. Every last drop of it. Whether it's gasoline, diesel, ethanol or biodiesel... tax it.
Click to expand...

Something like two-thirds to three-quarters of what we pay for fuel in Britain is tax; we don't need any more.
 
Roo
Something like two-thirds to three-quarters of what we pay for fuel in Britain is tax; we don't need any more.
Click to expand...

53p/litre is fuel duty and 15% of the final price is VAT (until January 2010, when it'll revert to 17.5%). With average petrol prices around 83p/litre right now, that's 63.8p of the 83p price is tax - just about 77%.

And for those watching who aren't Brits, yes, VAT (tax) is charged on the fuel duty (tax).

To make things worse, cars are now subject to a graded Vehicle Excise Duty/Road Licence Fund (tax) based on "Carbon dioxide emissions in grams per kilometre". This is, of course, impossible to measure with any level of confidence as there are too many factors which can affect it. So they calculate it by... applying a factor to the stated combined fuel economy. So along with being taxed on our fuel use (with fuel duty), we're also taxed on our fuel use (with VAT on fuel) and taxed on our fuel use (with VED/RLF).

No, I'm not making this up.
 
But since the thread has started because of CAFE regulations, it's worth noting that the US doesn't have the same ridiculous level of fuel taxes. In fact, America has very cheap gas.

That's still my stance. Tax the fuel. Don't tax us on the size of engines we buy or tax us on CO2 (I agree... UK taxes are just plain ridiculous... especially since they already make a ton on VAT from the fuel alone) just tax the damn gasoline if they want to do something "green". Reward conservation directly. Don't give free passes to people for owning politically correct motors.
 
VED is completely pointless and stupid. Two drivers buy the same car. One is a very aggressive driver, the other is smooth (daan, basically). Mr Aggression will get 25mpg out of it, Mr Smooth will get 45mpg out of it. They both pay the same VED. It's pathetic and doesn't work.

Oh and hybrids don't have to pay, for example the Prius. Despite only doing 40mpg. Whereas my dad will get 50% more than that out of his Altea and still pays VED (£125 per year iirc).

The only fair taxable method of taxing road users is by one tax on fuel. Then people pay for how much the use/pollute, etc.
 
I think some of you are forgetting the fixed cost that applies to all cars.

Automotive Bureacracy. There's one hell of alot of people working in the DVLA, and quite frankly I do wonder what they do alot of the time.
 
Sureshot
The only fair taxable method of taxing road users is by one tax on fuel. Then people pay for how much the use/pollute, etc.
Click to expand...

But then Mr Bentley Conti owner who does few miles pays less tax then Mrs Micra owner who needs her car to commute to work every day. That doesn't sound very fair either does it?
 
TheCracker
But then Mr Bentley Conti owner who does few miles pays less tax then Mrs Micra owner who needs her car to commute to work every day. That doesn't sound very fair either does it?
Click to expand...

Use what you pay for, and pay for what you use - Mr Conti pays more per mile because he uses more to go the same distance. Mrs. Micra ultimately pays more because she uses more - and, in theory, should pay more VED because VED is what allegedly pays for upkeep of the roads (in reality less than a sixth of tax taken from VED finds its way back to the roads) she's using.

Mr. Conti also pays more than twice the entire value of the Micra in sales taxes (presuming both were bought new)...
 
Famine
Use what you pay for, and pay for what you use - Mr Conti pays more per mile because he uses more to go the same distance. Mrs. Micra ultimately pays more because she uses more - and, in theory, should pay more VED because VED is what allegedly pays for upkeep of the roads (in reality less than a sixth of tax taken from VED finds its way back to the roads) she's using.

Mr. Conti also pays more than twice the entire value of the Micra in sales taxes (presuming both were bought new)...
Click to expand...

Well, i suppose that's true ;)

Mr Conti also steps onto the hell-slide of depreciation as soon as he drives out of the showroom too.
 
niky
I'd say... tax the fuel. Every last drop of it. Whether it's gasoline, diesel, ethanol or biodiesel... tax it.
Click to expand...

That is an awful idea, we don't need any more taxes that mean nothing. Michigan has one of the highest fuel taxes in the nation at 59.4 cents per gallon and that is supposed to be used to fix the roads. The funny thing is we also have some of the worse roads in the nation as well.

niky
Taxes stick it to those people who waste fuel, no matter what they drive... the guy who uses his Prius alone instead of carpooling... the SUV owner who uses it to go to the coffeshop around the block every night... hoons who drive for miles and miles just for fun (I'm one of those guys, and yes, I'll pay).
Click to expand...

You don't quite understand America do you? You have to own a car and you have to drive it everywhere. Even if I wanted to take public transportation I would have to drive 5 miles to the nearest bus stop on Oakland University's campus. If I wanted to walk or bike I could do that either since there are no sidewalks to be seen. So if I want to go to the bank which is two miles away I have to drive my car.

niky
But since the thread has started because of CAFE regulations, it's worth noting that the US doesn't have the same ridiculous level of fuel taxes. In fact, America has very cheap gas.
Click to expand...

We have cheap fuel? When did I miss the memo? Yes fuel is cheaper now at around $2.00/gallon but that is still 100% higher then 8 or 9 years ago. That is a significant jump and in a country with an ailing economy. And you better believe fuel prices will climb this summer for some unknown reason.
 
Fuel like any commodity will stay in-line with inflation, you can't change that. Things will get more expensive.

Fuel prices are unstable, then again OPEC have done their best to stabilise prices. Though I have noticed crude go up to $50 per barrel compared to about $35 a week back.

Cheap? Depends, not everyone will be happy, but when you have paid (well was over £5 a gallon here last summer, which was about $10 at the time..) then suddenly paying £3.50 a gallon doesn't seem a lot. As Famine has pointed out, most of what we pay is Tax. Fuel in itself, is still cheap. To go through the whole process of getting oil to the forecourt and paying about 20p for a litre. That's cheap.
 
CAFE standards are so stupid. Those fines sure as hell don't go to the consumers. Just another way for the bureaucrats to rob the populace.
 
What it all comes down to is that I really don't think the automakers care. At all.

Do you really think Ferrari or Lamborghini are going to go out of their way to increase their fuel economy standards to meet the 27 MPG "requirement" while they're busy having their own performance pissing contest between them? Not likely. EVAR.

Let them do as they please, its really not that big of a deal. They're still selling all the cars they need to make a profit, so its all decidedly 'meh'. When you're running a specialized operation like they are, CAFE legislation and penalties are the last of your concerns.
 
YSSMAN
Do you really think Ferrari or Lamborghini are going to go out of their way to increase their fuel economy standards to meet the 27 MPG "requirement" while they're busy having their own performance pissing contest between them? Not likely. EVAR.
Click to expand...
Something that the Big 3 of Germany are also having.
 
I don't understand why there are CAFE fines in the first place. CAFE might as well be fining the buyers of the cars that don't meet the standards. It's not MB's fault their cars still sell regardless of fuel economy. It's really absurd.
 
Its more or less a slap on the wrist. As far as I can tell, the US (maybe Canada?) is the only country that charges on a CAFE system. The main reason why we have it is to demand some level of fuel efficiency, but no price controls on fuel. Its essentially the opposite in Europe, no CAFE style standards, but a lot of taxes on fuel to drive efficiency.

I guess, in my opinion, we can have one in the US, or we can have neither. High fuel taxes are unnecessary with high CAFE standards, but high CAFE standards should not include high fuel taxes.

IMO: High fuel prices generally determine efficiency... I can't think of a better way to drive fuel economy up.
 
@Joey: I was saying they should tax the fuel if they want to do something green.

Yes, you drive more each day than most, but that's a result of your fuel prices. Like it or not, no matter how bad you feel your gasoline prices are, US gasoline prices are on the low side compared to a lot of other places. When you were paying $4 a gallon, we were paying $4.50. (I shudder to think what Famine and Co. were paying) Pretty crappy for a country where minimum wage is $1,500-$1,800 a year... about 1/10th your minimum wage. People carp about fuel prices just the same, but somehow, still find the money to pay for daily 50 mile commutes.

My friend just emigrated there. Used to be the public transport and walking type, couldn't afford to rent an apartment. Now, as a public school teacher in Cali, she's got a Civic Hybrid and her own place. Your economy may be tanking, but your wages are still schweeeet. :lol:

Taxing people arbitrarily on stuff that they may or may not consume simply because you assume that they're going to consume more than others because they're buying a bigger motor is stupid.

Taxing the fuel is the only fair way to assess the impact people have on the environment and the roads. If you're using more gas, you're either in a big vehicle which will degrade the roads quickly, or you're using a small vehicle very often, which will also degrade the roads more quickly, thus, you're obliged to pay more in tax to preserve the roads than someone who drives very little or not at all. If you want to pay less tax, buy a smaller car (which you did) or even better, buy a motorcycle... which millions of people in developing countries have done... and they're now enjoying the benefits of having 70-80 mpg commuters.

A car is never a necessity. It's a luxury. True, it'd be crazy difficult to live as far from work/school as you do without one, but who said you have to live that far away in the first place? You can only contemplate putting up with a long commute because you have the luxury of owning a vehicle. If you didn't, you'd find someplace closer to work at, or live closer to wherever you have to go on a daily basis... or move someplace with decent public transport (yeah, I know, "public transport" and "decent" hardly ever go in the same sentence), which would cost much, much less on a yearly basis than car ownership.

I should know. I used to "enjoy" public transport when I was in college. On average, it cost me 1/4th of the cost of fuel I would use with my compact (never mind the cost of maintenance per kilometer...). And you can sleep on the bus or train, too. You can't do that in bumper to bumper traffic.

Having a car is much more convenient, yes, and you can go places that you can't or that would cost an arm and a leg on public transport (when you have to take a hire van or a taxi), but I recognize it as a luxury and well worth the extra money I'm paying for it.
 
Omnis
I don't understand why there are CAFE fines in the first place. CAFE might as well be fining the buyers of the cars that don't meet the standards. It's not MB's fault their cars still sell regardless of fuel economy. It's really absurd.
Click to expand...

No, but they should know better than to produce so many inefficient cars. I don't want to sound too much like a green freak but it's unacceptable and unnecessary. I'm all for choice but M-B already offer more than enough choice (they would have enough choice even if you take into account my "culling" of the range in the original post).
 
homeforsummer
No, but they should know better than to produce so many inefficient cars. I don't want to sound too much like a green freak but it's unacceptable and unnecessary. I'm all for choice but M-B already offer more than enough choice (they would have enough choice even if you take into account my "culling" of the range in the original post).
Click to expand...

What do you mean they should know better? Their cars are selling, aren't they? If you find it unacceptable and unnecessary, then don't buy MB. MB's "lack" of fuel efficiency will change when people stop buying their cars because of it. Fining the company is just stupid. It's like putting fines on McDonalds because fat people eat there.
 
niky
@Joey: I was saying they should tax the fuel if they want to do something green.
Click to expand...

Taxing fuel isn't making anything more green, it's just taking money out of the pockets of people who are more than likely already going through a bit of a rough time. Most taxes are unfair to begin and a fuel tax would be no different. You want to make vehicles greener? Give people are tax break for owning fuel efficient, low CO2, or alternative energy vehicles. You should punish people for owning a vehicle though when most people probably bought their SUV when fuel prices were much lower.

Yes, you drive more each day than most, but that's a result of your fuel prices. Like it or not, no matter how bad you feel your gasoline prices are, US gasoline prices are on the low side compared to a lot of other places. When you were paying $4 a gallon, we were paying $4.50. (I shudder to think what Famine and Co. were paying) Pretty crappy for a country where minimum wage is $1,500-$1,800 a year... about 1/10th your minimum wage. People carp about fuel prices just the same, but somehow, still find the money to pay for daily 50 mile commutes.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

The same old story every time this comes up and I'm starting to wonder if people just can't grasp this simple concept. Prices are high for America based on what we were paying only a couple of years ago, the same goes for the rest of the world. Europe has always paid more than America, so comparing the difference between the two places is rather daft.

If you're using more gas, you're either in a big vehicle which will degrade the roads quickly, or you're using a small vehicle very often, which will also degrade the roads more quickly, thus, you're obliged to pay more in tax to preserve the roads than someone who drives very little or not at all.
Click to expand...

What? This really makes no sense. An average vehicle isn't going to wear out the roads, they don't have enough mass to them. Overloaded semi trucks and weather destroy roads much quicker. I mean if my MINI is doing major damage to the road because I drive 8,000 miles more a year then the average American then our road system is in dire shape.

If you want to pay less tax, buy a smaller car (which you did) or even better, buy a motorcycle... which millions of people in developing countries have done... and they're now enjoying the benefits of having 70-80 mpg commuters.
Click to expand...

Because owning a motorcycle in an area that maybe had 90 days out of the year where it can be used is a great investment :rolleyes:. I bought one of the most fuel efficient vehicles I could because I drive quite a bit. I've probably done more then most people.

A car is never a necessity. It's a luxury. True, it'd be crazy difficult to live as far from work/school as you do without one, but who said you have to live that far away in the first place? You can only contemplate putting up with a long commute because you have the luxury of owning a vehicle. If you didn't, you'd find someplace closer to work at, or live closer to wherever you have to go on a daily basis... or move someplace with decent public transport (yeah, I know, "public transport" and "decent" hardly ever go in the same sentence), which would cost much, much less on a yearly basis than car ownership.
Click to expand...

Are you being serious?

Lets see here, the cost of a house nearer where I work $350,000 in this economy, $500,000 during good times, what I make per year couldn't even remotely cover the cost of that. So how could I afford to move closer? Not to mention I still live with my parents.

OK then you suggest I get a job closer? How do you suppose I do that, do you know what suburbs are? People are going to live a decent distance from where they work. Not to mention trying to find a new job anywhere right now is more or less impossible since just about every company in Michigan is either laying off or putting a freeze on hirings.

I live fairly close to things I need to go to, the bank, the mall, the grocery store, etc. and I would have no problem biking, walking, or taking a bus but I can't do any of that. I have to use a car just to go down the street. Why should I be punished with unfair and unjust taxes because of a lack of availably of other transportation?

A car is a necessity, at least in most of America. It has nothing to do with me thinking public transport is bad either, although in the Detroit area nothing runs on time and the routing is awful. If it was available though I would use it. Just as if there were sidewalks and bike paths I would walk or bike many places.

Honestly I don't understand how you are coming to any of your conclusions.
 
Fair enough, but they are still up 100% from say back in 2001-2002 when fuel was under a buck. I don't know what the national average is right now but the Michigan average it $1.99 ish or something.
 
Joey D
Fair enough, but they are still up 100% from say back in 2001-2002 when fuel was under a buck. I don't know what the national average is right now but the Michigan average it $1.99 ish or something.
Click to expand...

Joey...


Even with our economy going downhill, we still pay virtually nothing for our fuel vs average wage compared to other countries. We have cheap fuel.
 
Rotary Junkie
Joey...


Even with our economy going downhill, we still pay virtually nothing for our fuel vs average wage compared to other countries. We have cheap fuel.
Click to expand...

That is irrelevant.
 
Joey D
I have to use a car just to go down the street. Why should I be punished with unfair and unjust taxes because of a lack of availably of other transportation?
Click to expand...

That is also a question for poor community/city planning. Where I grew up (and where my Dad still lives) they just spent a kajillion dollars installing a brand-new bike path that interconnects all of Ada, Cascade, some parts of NE Grand Rapids and in the "outskirts" of Lowell. Yes, we're still at least a five to ten minute drive from anything "important" from my Dad's house, but having the bike path makes it a lot easier than riding (or walking) on the side of the road.

Same goes for the neighborhood I live in now. They've done a good job overseeing the expansion of Grand Rapids and Kentwood where they have the bus routes, bike trails and sidewalks lined up to where you can get to most places in town fairly easily, without too much cost overall.

The problem with public transportation, I believe, is two fold in our country:

1) People feel as though its a negative thing to use it, despite the clear benefits for their own wallets and the environment

2) Poor city planning does not allow for proper route coverage, or does not extend the system far enough to have more people who would likely use it, use it.

Like it or not, fuel taxes to some extent are a necessary evil to get some kind of change to actually happen. Yeah, we've got CAFE standards, but it obviously doesn't mean jack squat to consumers. We know how the sales were... It wasn't until fuel was expensive that people actually decided to change their minds about what they drive, and even as fuel has become more "affordable," it seems somewhat questionable as to how long-lasting that need for small, efficent cars will be.
 

Latest Posts

Back