IL Track Tested: 2011 Mercedes-Benz E350 Bluetec

That would be a cool LT test vehicle - you are due for another diesel. IMO, best balance of fuel economy normal driving dynamics, all without the destructive hard-rock mining that is required for the rare-earth metals in Hybrids.

I'd rather have a 335d, even if it has less room.

I don't think that's enough horsepower for a $50k vehicle. While I'm sure it drives nice in daily driving, it's too slow when you put your foot into it. And for the lack of power I actually am a little disappointed with the mileage figures.

I'm with cz_75, the 335d is where it's at. If only we could get a wagon version...

Wow, those are some impressive numbers, especially considering terrible US-spec tires. Put some real rubber on it will be even better.

Well, ultimately I agree with tehnighthawk.
But I am going to go against the grain and say for 90% of e-class drivers, especially those in the e350, this vehicle exceeds there needs. Its not like the e-class sedan is sporty anyway, so you might as well get some economy.

I don't see why you wouldn't choose the diesel over the V6 engine. The V6 is underpowered and gets lackluster MPG's, so the diesel seems like a no brainer to me.

And of course, who wouldn't want the 335d over this thing. The cars aren't comparable. The E is a mid size barge with not a sporting bone in its body.

Yes, the 335d is nice but still wildly overpriced. Give us the 330d and you'll get better mileage, nearly the same performance and a much lower entry price.

210 horses... 400 lb-tq!!! double the torque... aaaaahhhh I can't wait for the diesel Evo XI ... I'm so ready to trade in! All I can think of is around 480+ pound-feet of torque... from factory!

X-D

"While I'm sure it drives nice in daily driving, it's too slow when you put your foot into it."

Well I can see from your comment that you have never driven anything with 440lbsft of torque. Driving around town with that kind of torque will pin you to the seat. Under 8 sec to 60 is plenty quick as well. What do you drive?

"Well, ultimately I agree with tehnighthawk.
But I am going to go against the grain and say for 90% of e-class drivers, especially those in the e350, this vehicle exceeds there needs. Its not like the e-class sedan is sporty anyway, so you might as well get some economy."

Ditto X 2 and it is nicer looking than the BMW 5 series, I think.

"Now that's the sound I want my $50K Luxury sedan making!"

LOL did you hear that whooshing sound out of the exhaust? When I was a kid me and my buddies would hear those 70's cars with restricted exhaust and call it the "jet system" because it sounded like a jet. I agree that sounds like CRAP.

"Yes, the 335d is nice but still wildly overpriced."

Yes, that. I lust for one but could never justify the purchase price.

I don't think MB is going to have any trouble selling every one of these it produces (and at a premium over MSRP to boot). The W211 E320 Bluetec was a tremendous sales success and the W212 is quicker, quieter, handles better, better built, and more fuel efficient.

There are plenty of luxury buyers out there for whom this car fits the bill perfectly. It's not my personal cup of tea (I'll take an E63, thank you), but the E350 Bluetec does fill a unique niche in the market.

I am a big fan of the 2005-2006 straight 6 diesel Mercedes. If you recall the track scores, it went 0-60 in 6.5 seconds and I averaged 34 mpg over 20,000 miles and once got more than 700 miles on one tank. The straight six was more expensive for Mercedes to build but a more reliable ownership proposition. I ordered one of these new Bluetecs and was very disappointed by the performance, economy and ride quality (mandatory run flats!). I now drive a diesel Golf and love it.

@shoes,

Actually, the straight-6 was cheaper for Mercedes to build. It had been around in one form or another for more than a decade. It had already more than recovered its initial developments costs when it went into the E320 CDI and used traditional diesel injection and engine control processes. Unfortunately, it could no longer meet US or European emissions regulations and thus had to be replaced.

The new cars are considerably more sophisticated with more precise electronic engine control, more rapid heating to operating temperature intrinsic with a V, Bluetec Adblue injection technology, and a completely revised exhaust system. It's also worth noting that the W212 uses a heavily revised version of the diesel that was in your W211 Bluetec that promises better gas mileage despite being placed in a heavier car.

I agree, the new engines will likely require far more maintenance over their life than the old-school straight-6, but such is the case with every modern computer-controlled engine. We live in a digital age.

It's not quite right to say, without qualification, that 400 lbs-ft will put you in your seat. It isn't about torque at the engine, its how much torque you get at the drive wheels.

The Bluetec engine only revs to 4500 rpm, and it's pretty much done producing power by 4000. In fact, at it's 3800 rpm power peak it is only making 290 lbs-ft of torque and falling fast.

If Mercedes wants the Bluetec to be able to achieve similar speed in gear as the gasoline model, it's gearing will need to be about 35%-40% taller than the equivalent gasoline model - caveat, I can't find any transmission data that says the Bluetec doesn't run exactly the same gears as the gas model, but that would seem silly as in 7th gear it would top out at 140 mph at 4000 rpm - not how MB normally gears things. That means that it's 55% advantage in peak torque over the E350 gas model is largely erased. Add in the 7-8% of additional weight the Bluetec is carrying and it is nearly a wash. IOW, at it's torque peak you would expect the 400 lbs-ft Bluetec car to give you about 10% more push in the back than the gasoline E350. Given that the E350 has a flatter torque curve and carries it longer, that 10% advantage will be very fleeting, especially when you consider turbo lag.

Either way, whether you analyze the specs or just look at the acceleration data, the Bluetec isn't going to win any accolades for its accelerative capabilities. I too think it'll be just fine for its target market though.

"Well I can see from your comment that you have never driven anything with 440lbsft of torque. Driving around town with that kind of torque will pin you to the seat. Under 8 sec to 60 is plenty quick as well. What do you drive?"

My "nice" car is an 05 CTS-V which makes 395lb-ft of torque at its peak at 4800, which is 2 seconds and 16mph faster in the 1/4 mile than this "torque monster" (lag monster) Mercedes. Diesel's have effortless part throttle torque at low rpms which makes it drive well, and get decent fuel economy. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that it's very slow for a $50k car, despite pinning you in your seat between 2000 and 3000rpm in 1st gear....

Church123 explained it best. If you want to gauge a car's WOT performance such as passing, merging or even 0-something, look no further than horsepower-to-weight. I'm also not a huge fan of big turbo lag, even if it is immediately followed by a surge of torque (which falls off just as quickly as it started). I recall the 320CDi returning better fuel economy (looser emissions). With only 9 fewer HP and a whopping 400lbs less weight, THAT is the one to buy.

I will say one diesel I have been excited about for years now is GM's developed-but-shelved mini-Duramax 4.5L V8. ~310hp and 520lb-ft of torque from an engine no larger than a small block Chevy. They said it has very similar NVH characteristics as their gas V8s. Imagine if they put out a G8 with this engine last year. Makes me so frustrated....

Oh and while we're on performance. This thing performs about par with a 1994 Impala SS. Slalom is probably a little better but everything else is about the same, including skidpad. Actually I think the Impala SS was a bit faster, and stopped better...and would get 25mpg highway, from the same weight, on cheaper 87. Hmm. I know the Mercedes is the nicer car, obviously, but I'm just not convinced of this total package for the price. I don't see it.

kevm - MB diesel compared to a Chevy. Hmmm... there's a flaw in that logic somewhere. 100 years of auto excellence and some of the world's most renowned diesel engines or the company that essentially was on the brink last year. Sigh...

What does that have to do with my point that I think the performance is a little mediocre for a $50k luxury car? Is it faster or better handling because MB has made cars for 110 years? Seriously? There's probably 200 reasons to choose the Mercedes over the car I compared it to, but YOUR reason is not one of them.

I believe the GMC x-71 diesels prove that GM has about as much long-term diesel experience as anyone. I know that the 6.6L Duramax is a joint venture between Isuzu, an industry leader in diesels, but am not aware of Isuzu's involvement in the 4.5L. Considering truck owners will work the crap out of their engines and M-B sedan owners won't, I can't see how GM is coming up short with diesel technology, especially compared to a brand that sells a lot of their production for use as taxi cabs.

GM is supposed to be moving on re-starting the 4.5L Duramax project because they need the engine to meet economy standards in their light trucks.

The Duramax 4.5 shares a lot of neat design with Ford's in-house 6.7L V8, for whatever reason. No exhaust manifolds because the heads dump the exhaust inward for minimal thermal loss and turbo lag and a compacted graphite iron block for strength and light weight. It is also a 72 degree block for compactness (the Ford is 90 I think). The problem is, Ford got theirs out already. When GM releases the 4.5 (for which the design has been done for over a year now), it will look like they copied Ford. Although the 4.5 was made as a 1/2 ton or even large car engine, where the Ford 6.7 is clearly a 3/4 ton and heavier type of powerplant.

And yes, GM did the 4.5 design in-house with no help from Isuzu. That doesn't mean they didn't learn anything from the Duramax 6.6, though.

@cz_75,

First off, I don't disagree with you. I think GM has proven time and again that they can make a great diesel truck engine that will last a heck of a long time, but MB did invent the diesel engine a hundred years ago. Also, the brand has a long history of placing their diesels in everything from passenger cars to commercial trucks (pretty much every Freightliner uses a Mercedes diesel along with the hundreds of thousands of MB-branded trucks all over Europe and Asia). The reason MB diesels have the reputation they do in the commercial market (trucks, taxis, etc) is because they run forever even when exposed to the harshest conditions. In that respect, GM does comes up short in diesel experience just because MB has been doing it so much longer.

Nevertheless, one can't really compare Daimler diesels with GM diesels. GM only uses their engines in workhorse passenger vehicles, but MB passenger car diesels are only found in luxury sedans where they are primarily tuned for low NVH and gas mileage rather than for outright capability.

There are no two diesel engine lines between the two that can be directly compared. It really is an apples to oranges comparison. They both do what they do extremely well and I'm not convinced either could enter the other's market and succeed.

Why test a Charlie Sheen Edition (stripper) of the Mercedes? No metallic paint; no NAV; low-rent audio system; no leather; no panoramic sunroof; no satellite radio; no rear side airbags...

Also, how do you only manage a "best" 400 miles on a 21.1 gallon tank? If you are averaging 26.3, then your range is 550+ miles.

ps don't trust the car's computer for mileage - my husband's 2009 E320 Bluetec computer reads 2 MPG higher at all times. Mercedes does not consider that a problem and won't fix/replace it.

I don't believe Daimler-Benz actually had that much to do with early vehicle diesels, since it was M.A.N. that powered the first M-B diesel trucks in 1923. Cummins produced the first diesel car in the 1930 and Citroen made the first production automotive diesels shortly afterward. GM founded Detroit Diesel in the late '30s, so M-B actually only has around a decade head start.

Based on engine performance, I don't see much of a compelling argument to choose this over a BMW 528i. 22/26/33 is a bit disappointing - the 528i is EPA-rated at 22/25/32, plus is quicker (7.1 to 60, 15.1 @ 91.5 mph in Edmunds' testing), and the NA inline-6 is way more fun and satisfying than the completely muted, low-revving Bluetec. Plus you pay at least $5K more for similar equipment on this Benz.

Oh, and Bridgestone's A/S Turanza line is utter crap. Lousy traction, poor treadwear, and noisy. With a better set of meats I bet the braking and skidpad figures would be notably better.

So the same fuel economy as the gas-powered 528i in the city, and only 1 MPG better on the highway?

Honestly, if I were in the market for an E-Class, I'd rather get an E250 CDI and only stop to refill once a month. The non-AMG E-Class has no sporting pretensions, so why even bother? What you have is a refined, solidly-built luxury car for highway cruising or around town driving. It's probably the best taxi ever.

@cz_75,

The first diesel truck engine was a joint venture between Daimler, Benz (the companies had not yet merged), and M.A.N. Production rights went to M.A.N because they had facilities that Daimler and Benz simply didn't. It's also worth noting that the Mercedes 260D was the first production road car to use a diesel engine. Both the Cummins-powered Packard and the Citroen Rosalie were concepts that never made it to production.

Also, Detroit Diesel hasn't been a subsidiary of GM in years and GM in general has never done much with diesel engines. They started big in the 1940's and 1950's because back then the General was experimenting with everything (it is amazing how many technologies we are wowed at today that were actually first conceived by GM during this time period), but they were lured away from diesel by small and big-block V8s (and for good reason!). None of that diminishes how much they have achieved with diesel passenger trucks in the last 20 years, but their diesel history is much spottier and less consistent than Mercedes (or Cummins, for that matter).

I think the one to get is the old I6 in the E320CDi. Too bad the rest of the car is sketch town. Soooo many horror stories.