A pearl white MB E320 Bluetech passed me today in my pearl white RL. It caught my eye because I first thought it might be an RL. The MB pearl white is identical to the Acura color. Obviously there are differences in the designs but I was taken back how similar they looked. I guess seeing it in an "Acura color" made it look even more like an RL.

I hear people say the RL looks like an Accord? I never saw that. The length/width proportions are completely different. It could never be mistaken for an RL even from 300 feet. But this MB looked like a kissing cousin to my RL as it passed me.

 

The new E Class looks more like an RL. The refresh they did gives it a more subtle RL look and feel from the exterior.

The interior of an E-Class is sooooooooo 1990's. The NAV screen is practically inside the ashtray..and I still don't understand with the HUGE clock in the instrument cluster which is next to the mph indicator. Very weird.

The pearl white is a very nice color for the RL.

 

I agree, there are certain cues on the E series that make you think it is an RL if you do not look closely.

 

Does that mean it looks like an Accord?

 

yea, I think I will tell my friend her e500 looks like an accord, and I will come back with my eyes scratched out...of course that is an older model.

 

Go for it Chas...we are here for ya bud.

 

Nice to read that a Benz was seen on the road and not in the shop. MB reliability has dropped quite a bit the last few years.

 

My wife saw a white Camry today in a parking garage and thought it looked like our RL I said, yea, I can see that. It has 4 wheels JUST like ours.

That's even worse then the Accord reference I sometimes hear. However, the E really does have more then a few similarities.

 

Are you sure that Camry wasn't really an ES350?

I too see the Mercedes/RL resemblance. The shape and overall proportions of the E-class look enough like the RL to fool you at first glance, I agree. (A look at the interior shows the difference at once, as the RL's is much nicer.) And the hipped lines on the outer edge of the trunk in the S-class are a direct "borrow" from the RL.

 

Would like to see a clean turbo diesel option offered on the RL. That would solve what some think is a lack of low end torque and increase fuel mileage considerably.

Bob

 

Not sure we'd see that. Even MB is abandoning the E diesel option next year (so I read). Just doesn't seem to be economically a winner in sedans. Many try it but it never seems to catch on. I'm afraid diesel is going to remain a "heavy duty" engine for some time to come unless some more of the drawbacks can be resolved.

 

I disagree about diesel only being for heavy duty use. With ULSD now on the market, I believe we will see more diesel sedan options. Even the next generation Accord will have the option. The new diesels are powerful, clean, efficient, quiet and a viable option to hybrid power. If ones driving is mainly on the highway, diesel is the way to go. However hybrids are great for city driving. Diesel power sedans are on the way with predictions of them holding 15% of the market in the next 10 years.

Have not heard MB is cancelling the E diesel. If anything, their line has more diesel options than any other manufacturer at the moment (E, R, ML, GL).

Will we see that option on the RL anytime soon? I know the answer is no.

Bob

 

I read it on CNN.com a week ago or so. if I remember correct, the article said MB was discontinuing the E320 Bluetec for next year. The article speculated it had to do with the fact that emission requirements are still too hard for passenger vehicles to make it economical to put the diesel in a sedan.

I'm not against the idea, just sharing what I heard and offering thoughts on the immediate future for diesel.

 

I believe it was CL6 who mentioned one of the interesting requirements of clean diesels, and particularly Mercedes BlueTech is the need for urea to counter the sulfur impact. Apparently this is derived from cow urine. I am unsure how often it needs to be replenished and how it is done, but I would love to know how Mercedes depicts this to the consumer. I would hope Honda would derive a more gentile eco-diesel.

Cup of pee, pleeze.

 

Cow urine.....very funny. I believe the problem is the EPA thinks consumers won't refill the urea tank once empty and tail pipe emission will not be met. No solution as of yet on how to handle that. Seems I have heard the new VW and Honda diesels will not need urea.

Bob

 

While cow urine does have urea in it, urea is commercially manufactured. Urea's use is far too widespread to be collected from cow urine. Here is a quickie Wiki on the subject.

Production
Urea is a nitrogen-containing chemical product which is produced on a scale of some 100,000,000 tonnes per year worldwide.

Urea is produced commercially from synthetic ammonia and carbon dioxide. Urea can be produced as prills, granules, flakes, pellets, crystals and solutions.

More than 90% of world production is destined for use as a fertilizer. Urea has the highest nitrogen content of all solid nitrogenous fertilizers in common use (46.4%) It therefore has the lowest transportation costs per unit of nitrogen nutrient.

Urea is highly soluble in water and is therefore also very suitable for use in fertilizer solutions (in combination with ammonium nitrate: UAN), e.g. in 'foliar feed' fertilizers.

Solid urea is marketed as prills or granules. The advantage of prills is that in general they can be produced more cheaply than granules which, because of their narrower particle size distribution have an advantage over prills if applied mechanically to the soil. Properties such as impact strength, crushing strength and free-flowing behaviour are particularly important in product handling, storage and bulk transportation.


Commercial production
Urea is produced commercially from two raw materials, ammonia and carbon dioxide. Large quantities of carbon dioxide are produced during the manufacture of ammonia from coal or from hydrocarbons such as natural gas and petroleum derived raw materials. This allows direct synthesis of urea from these raw materials.

The production of urea from ammonia and carbon dioxide takes place in an equilibrium reaction, with incomplete conversion of the reactants. The various urea processes are characterized by the conditions under which urea formation takes place and the way in which unconverted reactants are further processed.

Unconverted reactants can be used for the manufacture of other products, for example ammonium nitrate or sulphate, or they can be recycled for complete conversion to urea in a total-recycle process.

Two principal reactions take place in the formation of urea from ammonia and carbon dioxide. The first reaction is exothermic:

2NH3 + CO2 → H2N-COONH4 (ammonium carbamate)

While the second reaction is endothermic:

H2N-COONH4 → (NH2)2CO + H2O
Both reactions combined are exothermic.

The process is also called the Bosch-Meiser urea process after its discoverers (1922).

 

Regardless, I find it amusing that Honda could build a diesel that's as clean but you can keep the pee in the cows.

 

We have a 2006 Jetta TDI "clean diesel" that is not all that clean. Still a little smoke when you floor it, even with ULSD. You can also smell the exhaust fumes a little. But not like the diesels from the '80s that made smoke, noise, and no power (but at least they got good mileage!).

Although the HP rating is low on the Jetta, it feels plenty preppy in city driving with all its torque and it is averaging 34 MPG in 100% city driving. It has never been on the open road, but I have heard other report about 42-48 MPG. Not bad.

Bob

 

I checked CNN & they posted a correction that the E320 Bluetec would be sold in the 45 states that it met emissions in next year. I thought abought 1, but they were not availabe when I got my RL. BMW is coming state side with some urea injected diesels in the x5.

 

Ha, ha, that is a good one.

Actually, I think it is more than amusing that Honda innovation triumphs over the vaunted MB.

As I recall, the Bluetec diesels need the nitrogen rich urea packs added as a catalyst or something similar to take the offending diesel NOx and change it to plain nitrogen. The urea packs need to be replenished on occassion, although I have never seen how often, and how much it costs. I thought I had read somewhere, it all blurs as to whether it was real new or opinion, that the feds were worried that the consumer would not replenish the urea packs. Not doing so does not affect engine operation, so it is not like running out of fuel or anything, you just get dirtier emissions. So it comes down to a social responsiblity thing rather the engine won't work.

The Honda solution, on the other hand, uses some kind of secondary catalytic converter to create ammonia or something from the exhaust gases. The ammonia, like urea, is a nitrogen rich compound, and reacts to convert the diesel exhaust NOx to N2, making it "clean".

I obviously do not have the chemical reactions or even compounds down, but the point is the Honda diesel uses the exhaust gas itself to create the compounds needed to clean the exhaust. It is an elegant solution that requires no (that I know of) external urea packs or anything else to do the cleaning. It sounds like it is a simpler solution than the MB Bluetec in the end, and final exhaust gas polutant output is similar to current gasoline automotive engines, though they never quantified what that means, e.g., LEV, ULEV, etc.