"What did I miss? The data I reviewed shows that the MB926 has 20% less torque than the Cummins ISC.
It may be more fuel efficent, but it definitely has less torque. The performance is not comparable on these engines, other than horsepower.
Having said that, the MB may be perfectly suitable for your coach and your use of it. "
Well ok Mr Jedfoley. What you DID MISS was reading what I actually said.........
"I picked it over the Cummins at the time. It had more torque and was more fuel efficient (even more important now) than the available Cummins"
The statement says "at the time". AT THE TIME the MBE definitely had 1000 ft/lbs of torque. It may not now , but it did then.
What I forgot was that while now the Phaeton has the Cummins , then it used a CAT engine with 350 hp and somewhere in the 860 ft/lbs range of torque. However JagBev had previously stated correctly that the CAT was the other offering.
So , I provided some unintentional mis-information about the available engines , but the MBE definitely had more torque than the alternative "at the time".
You are also misinformed about the torque on that particular engine "AT THE TIME ", and seem unwilling to admit it.It was a topic of much consideration "AT THE TIME " that I ordered the coach. The 1000 ft/lbs of torque that the MBE provided won out over a lower torque engine with 20 more HP. I think I know my coach better than you do , and I don't appreciate your condescending post.It's always a pleasure dealing with someone who has such a vast knowledge of EVERYTHING so the rest of us ignoramuses can be corrected as needed.
* This post was
last
edited 07/19/08 04:19pm by snickster *
View edit history
The Snickster
Mark and Priscilla
07 Phaeton 40 QSH
Jeep Wrangler Toad
3 Yorkies (Winston , Abby , and Maggie)
I'm glad that I was gone on a bus trip for the last couple of days & did not see the same condescending posts that The Snickster replied to. I own a chain of oil change & repair shops, I do know what I am talking about ref engines more than most & I do know that my MBE has 1,000 lbs of torque, Period! And, that's why I bought it over the lesser rated engines offered at that time.
Bill & Sandy
Forest River Charleston 360QS 2006 w Mercedes 926
Subaru Outback 2008 - Toad w M&G brake system
Yumi & Jesse, German Shepards
Jedfoley....There is only one person here that is misinformed, or just plain boneheaded, and it's you. Do you think all the owners of these engines were duped.....nope, only you. Wake up and read the facts, and maybe you can still learn something !!!The difference is 2007 vs. 2006 engines.
jedfoley wrote: What did I miss? The data I reviewed shows that the MB926 has 20% less torque than the Cummins ISC.
It may be more fuel efficent, but it definitely has less torque. The performance is not comparable on these engines, other than horsepower.
Having said that, the MB may be perfectly suitable for your coach and your use of it.
What I think you are missing is the fact that the MH's application have 2006 engines in the 2007 MH's. I heard that the ULSD 2007 engines did not pass EPA, and are not being used. Wish I had a 2006 MB in my MH. Would trade in my CAT anytime for the upgrade in performance of torque and mpg. I would also feel the same if I had one of the 2006 smaller DP Cummins. MB is way ahead in diesel technology world wide. They just did not dance to EPA in the USA for 2007. I read somewhere that MB is skipping EPA 2007 and working to meet EPA 2010 and will be distributing those before to long.
Maybe this will help with any confusion. Our Dynaquest is an '08 Dynamax model. It is built on an '07 Freightliner chassis, which happens to have an '06 926 Mercedes engine.It is an unusual combination which we like very much because of the engine specs, and it is pre-ULSD.
First time on the internet since Friday. I see that I stirred the hornet's nest and got stung a few times while I was gone. I made my apology for last week's weak joke then. I am surprised that anything I wrote was viewed as condescending, it was not intended as such.
I live by the motto "trust everyone, but verify truth"
I can also say that I never learned anything from a debate which I won. This one seems to be a draw.
*The pre ULSD MBE926 does have the impressive torque represented here, although they don't go out of their way to make that info available any more.
*If you got one of them, I'd guess the MBE will hold its value pretty well as it is clearly superior to their current product
*The performance of the current Cummins ISC seems to be superior to the current MBE926--and if it is a no cost option (as represented earlier in this topic), I'd take it.
Take care all! do good work, and enjoy your week!!!
Aside from all of the "my body part is bigger than your body part" stuff. I believe the OP has learned that Mercedes makes a good engine. Good job everyone!
jedfoley wrote: Hello all,
I can also say that I never learned anything... *The performance of the current Cummins ISC seems to be superior to the current MBE926--and if it is a no cost option (as represented earlier in this topic), I'd take it.
That's an interesting admission and choice. Choose something available over something that is not available in an RV. Maybe one should also take a look at how much performance is lost in the EPA 2007 and out Cummins ISC models for the added on emissions equipment. The advertised does not mean what is actual useable power. What is not stated is the loss of power for the added on smog stuff. My guess is the 2006 MB 926 will run circles around the 2007 Cummins ISC in economy and power performance, just too bad the law changed to not have them still available. I have my CAT and will be satisfied with it. It has been a good reliable engine anyway. I will just be satisfied with being slower on the hills and paying more at the pump for a fill up.
Offline
Maybe one should also take a look at how much performance is lost in the EPA 2007 and out Cummins ISC models for the added on emissions equipment. The advertised does not mean what is actual useable power. What is not stated is the loss of power for the added on smog stuff. My guess is the 2006 MB 926 will run circles around the 2007 Cummins ISC in economy and power performance, just too bad the law changed to not have them still available. 
I have my CAT and will be satisfied with it. It has been a good reliable engine anyway. 
