For those of you with previous experience with the MB 3.5L engine, is it smooth throughout the rev range, does it get coarse or run out of breath at 6000 rpm? I have been disappointed in the past with other V6 engines - they just don't seem to like revs but do like to vibrate, despite the balance shaft...
I have that engine in the ML and I think it is very smooth. The power delivery is very good throughout the rpm range... You'll enjoy it very much...
I've experienced this engine and its very smooth, the best V6 from Mercedes to date. Nothing coarse about it at all and it doesn't run out of power at higher RPM's despite making most of its torque at lower to mid RPM. I think all it needs right now is a major power boost to be on par with the competition.
We have it in our E-class and the engine is very silent at idle speed and it is very smooth through out the entire rev range. It is never loud even at medium to high rev. The V6 engine is even smoother than the boxer 6 in my Subaru, although it doesn't rev as hard. There is a lot of low end torque, so we never really need to rev the engine hard to get the car moving. If you are looking for high revving engine, the BMW inline 6 is the better choice. The MB 3.5 V6 (i think it is called M272) is much better than your average V6 engine, Lexus included, it isn't a sporty revving type because it has more than enough torque to get the car going, but once you are on it, the rev does build up quickly.
The CGI version is on sale now, right? I believe the CLS350 CGI is the only MB getting this upgraded version of the V6
It's on sale, correct. Here are the specs. I do believe that Mercedes is working on a newer V6 as well. I heard some rumors from the salesman at the local Benz dealership.
Mercedes seems to be a step behind with this generation of V6 and four cylinder powerplants. They really need to do a thorough revamp.
Why do you think the 3.5L V6 CGI is not offerred on any other models currently? Why limit it to the CLS?
I have absolutely no clue and no thoughts on why only the CLS get's it. :t-hands: Perhaps Mercedes is "testing the market" with this specific CLS? I really have no idea. I'll ask the Benz guys at the local dealership next time I am up there. :eusa_thin
They seem to be a step behind, but on the road, you can't really feel disappointed with the V6 engines. I haven't tried the 3.5 V6 from Lexus yet, but the 2.5 V6 version isn't as smooth as MBs 3.5 V6. I know this is not a very accurate comparison but that is what i think anyway
Good point, Monster. The current 3.5-l V6 with 272-horsepower feels pretty powerful. I remember when I drove the CLS500 (306-hp) and the CLS350 (272-hp) the next day and the CLS350 felt right up there with the CLS500, albeit a bit slower. Bottom line is that the 272-horses do a good job and don't feel tired or overworked at all (thanks in part to the good torque curve). Still, a power boost is necessary to satisfy consumers and compete against the competition.
Traditionally MB has never really have the most technically advanced engines in the market, they are rather conservative in this area. MB perfers to go the larger engine capacity path to gain extra power, unlike BMW which does make one of the most technically advanced engines in the mass manufactured market. Their magnesium alloy engine block is one example. I guess MB doesn't really need to dramatically increase the performance of its V6 engine range because the engines characteristics suit their cars..... if you can get what i am trying to say... spending 13h straight inside the computer lab doing assignments have caused some seroius brain damages in my head
<<Traditionally MB has never really have the most technically advanced engines in the market, they are rather conservative in this area. MB prefers to go the larger engine capacity path to gain extra power, unlike BMW which does make one of the most technically advanced engines in the mass manufactured market. Their magnesium alloy engine block is one example. I guess MB doesn't really need to dramatically increase the performance of its V6 engine range because the engines characteristics suit their cars...>> I'm not sure what this means because I think a brand new model (US market) that has a mere 228hp with an equipped price in excess of US $45K is seriously underpowered when you look at the higher power of other makes with V-6s for far less cost. I would bet that given the choice, many buyers of the new C would like to see the DI V-6 right now. Just the other day I was poking along downtown behind a new Asian-label SUV (Isuzu?) looking at a label on the back reading "Direct Injection." Gritted my teeth. I would also point out that the V-6 Bluetec is certainly the most advanced passenger car diesel currently available, considering all factors.
It is a little frustrating to know that a 3.0 litre could be capable of generating much more than 228. However MB engines have always delevered their power consistently over a broad range. Some cars I've noticed (lexus, jag) give you an initial burst and then start to wimp out as you move through the gear box. MB has done some amazing tech work with their engines. Silicon/Alloy cylinder liners. injecting oil drectly into the cylinder. Twin spark plug technology. I'll give BMW credit. They have stcuk to a philosophy and continually improved it. They stuck with the straight six and build the best I-6 in the business.
Mercedes has also traditionally relied on large displacement for torque and engine longlivity. Low horsepower output per liter means less wear and tear. That's one reason why a 55-hp 200D (2.0-l) can rack up so many kilometers - because the hp / liter output is extremely low (and because the engine was built to last as well).
Well, I am impressed with the BMW I-6 smoothness, but I am really excited about the new W204. Could we see the 3.5L go to direct injection, say by the 2010 model? I would expect that engine to be capable of 300 HP/275 lb-ft. and with that kind of power it could more readily stand toe-to-toe with the 335i. MB may not consider the current 3.5L as being at a marketing disadvantage, but with everyone offering 300+ HP, 272 HP seems a bit light. I'm sure the C63 will offer well in excess of 400 HP but it will take $65K US to get there...
I am surprised MB didnt' drop the 3.5 L CGI engine into the new C-class, i don't know what they are waiting for. As Wimmer pointed out before the CGI engine generates 292 hp and 365 Nm of torque. I am sure MB can extrat higher figures from this engine, but they dont' seem to, or see the need to. The previous generation of C-class sold well with a range of underpowered engine, so maybe they think they can get away with it this time.
