A Performance Case for the 25d

[MattBianco]

The 25d blows the new MB diesel out of the water. With four cylinders it is no match for the V6 Audi and VW however (not shown), but it is more than a match for the Jeep diesel. Not to mention other gassers. In fact, the Lexus RX with its V6 gasser just inches past the 25d on most, not all acceleration measures. And, the 25d produces amazing MPGs. Judging from other diesel MPGs in the "Leaderboard" thread, I bet actuals will be even better.

Also, MB has sold a lot of the 350 diesel.. Yes it is a heavier and larger car, but the ML diesel option is weak in comparisons. The LR4 has speed, but look at the mpg.

It is a shame that it is being pulled out of the UK market, and a shame that they don't try the US market with this product. After all, we know BMW is changing and in the future performance will be for M, but the rest of lines will be a mix of both performance and efficiency. We can see that in the hybrids announced, the i line, and a 7 passenger people mover out soon.

At any rate, for your consumption....a comparative:



EDIT: corrected table....25d looks even better. Turbo, cc, Lexus times corrected....all due to my transcribing errors. Also added ML350 and LR4

[Heden]

Interesting comparison. Unfortunately it contains a few errors. I don't have time to go through them all, but look at the displacement figure for the ML 250 and the Jeep, I have never seen a 4 cylinder 3L engine in any of these cars. I can't remember if I have ever seen a 4 cylinder with 3L capacity.
Here is a link to the Merc: http://www.auto-data.net/en/?f=showCar&car_id=17403
Here is a link to the Jeep: http://www.edmunds.com/jeep/cherokee...cs-tab&sub=suv

Regarding the case for the 25d in the X5. My experience with smaller engines in larger cars is that they are great at "cycle-beating" i.e. getting great MPG in the test cycle. But when you actually use/drive the car a a normal person would/should, the smaller engine can actually start consuming more than its bigger brother.

Regards,
Niclas

[wjbender]

I remember when 8 sec 0 - 60 mph was considered good performance for a sedan or wagon

[wjbender]

Originally Posted by Heden

Interesting comparison. Unfortunately it contains a few errors. I don't have time to go through them all, but look at the displacement figure for the ML 250 and the Jeep, I have never seen a 4 cylinder 3L engine in any of these cars. I can't remember if I have ever seen a 4 cylinder with 3L capacity.
Here is a link to the Merc: http://www.auto-data.net/en/?f=showCar&car_id=17403
Here is a link to the Jeep: http://www.edmunds.com/jeep/cherokee...cs-tab&sub=suv

Regarding the case for the 25d in the X5. My experience with smaller engines in larger cars is that they are great at "cycle-beating" i.e. getting great MPG in the test cycle. But when you actually use/drive the car a a normal person would/should, the smaller engine can actually start consuming more than its bigger brother.

Regards,
Niclas

I seem to remember that 2.5 L is about the limit of displacement for a 4 cyl and that requires using a counter balance shaft. Porsche 944 comes to mind

[schaeffs]

Originally Posted by wjbender

I seem to remember that 2.5 L is about the limit of displacement for a 4 cyl and that requires using a counter balance shaft. Porsche 944 comes to mind

Porsche did a wonderful 3 litre I4 in their 968 - the Clubsport 968s are an appreciating asset these days and rightly so.

[Red_Rover]

It has less HP and less torque than the MB 4 cylinder but claims better figures?

[MattBianco]

Originally Posted by Heden

Interesting comparison. Unfortunately it contains a few errors. I don't have time to go through them all, but look at the displacement figure for the ML 250 and the Jeep, I have never seen a 4 cylinder 3L engine in any of these cars. I can't remember if I have ever seen a 4 cylinder with 3L capacity.
Here is a link to the Merc: http://www.auto-data.net/en/?f=showCar&car_id=17403
Here is a link to the Jeep: http://www.edmunds.com/jeep/cherokee...cs-tab&sub=suv

Regarding the case for the 25d in the X5. My experience with smaller engines in larger cars is that they are great at "cycle-beating" i.e. getting great MPG in the test cycle. But when you actually use/drive the car a a normal person would/should, the smaller engine can actually start consuming more than its bigger brother.

Regards,
Niclas

Thank you for catching my errors.

Note to self: if you have a sleepless night, don't play with spreadsheets.

I have corrected the info....there were other mistakes too as I had used the same spreadsheet from my F15 engine comparative, and had not erased cc and turbo information. Also, some Lexus times were incorrect. At any rate, the 25d looks even better now.

WRT MPG, search for an MPG Leaderboatd thread and there are a few real life 25d mpg examples. I don't doubt the claimed figures based on member submitted pictures of their trip odometers. That said, I can see your point that a heavy car with a weaker engine can cause the driver to push the car harder, missing the disclosed MPG figures.

[MattBianco]

Originally Posted by Red_Rover

It has less HP and less torque than the MB 4 cylinder but claims better figures?

I corrected my mistakes. Sorry.

[BXdriver]

Those numbers are interesting and encouraging read indeed.

I personally cant help the feeling that this little 2L engine - IS a small engine in a quite large car like the X5.
Yes, it works, and it works very well.
As the X5 is a quiet vehicle from the inside, engine noise is almost not there - I think I hear more the sound of tires than the engine itself.
Of course from the outside you can easily hear its not a 6cyl engine.
So, I should be happy (and generally I am). It's just that the mind keeps playing around if I should do an upgrade/trade to a 30D.

Maybe it's the psychological part - "a 2L engine in a 2100kg car". These numbers kind of does not belong in the same sentence in my mind.

I then try to cool myself down by thinking about the fact that even the futuristic brand new Volvo XC90 ALSO comes with 4cyl engines,
as do the the ML 250 compared in the table.

Thanks,
Bent

[brissim]

Originally Posted by BXdriver

.............
Maybe it's the psychological part - "a 2L engine in a 2100kg car". These numbers kind of does not belong in the same sentence in my mind.

I then try to cool myself down by thinking about the fact that even the futuristic brand new Volvo XC90 ALSO comes with 4cyl engines,
as do the the ML 250 compared in the table.

Thanks,
Bent

The numbers for the new XC90 D5 are impressive. From a 4-cylinder 2.0l diesel they get 165kW/470Nm (221hp/346ft-lbs) with a quoted 0-100km/h (0-62mph) of 7.8 sec. And this is before the optional Volvo-backed Polestar tune is added which can only improve on these numbers.

Tony

[monkray]

Hi Bent,

At the end of the day I think we are always left looking for a little more power. I was wondering if I should have ordered a 40D....but I am sure that I would be thinking about the 50D.....

Anyway, these guys seem to be able to turn a 25D into a 30D and offer a dyno before and after. Seems like a very cost effective option compared to a trade-up:

http://www.br-performance.fr/fr-fr/r...-x-sdrive-25d/

Originally Posted by BXdriver

Those numbers are interesting and encouraging read indeed.

I personally cant help the feeling that this little 2L engine - IS a small engine in a quite large car like the X5.
Yes, it works, and it works very well.
As the X5 is a quiet vehicle from the inside, engine noise is almost not there - I think I hear more the sound of tires than the engine itself.
Of course from the outside you can easily hear its not a 6cyl engine.
So, I should be happy (and generally I am). It's just that the mind keeps playing around if I should do an upgrade/trade to a 30D.

Maybe it's the psychological part - "a 2L engine in a 2100kg car". These numbers kind of does not belong in the same sentence in my mind.

I then try to cool myself down by thinking about the fact that even the futuristic brand new Volvo XC90 ALSO comes with 4cyl engines,
as do the the ML 250 compared in the table.

Thanks,
Bent