Discussion in 'C-Class' started by Centurion, Jan 18, 2007.
^well thats extreme
but true haha loved it
Hmmm, well I agree with The Artist -- this is extreme. I can only conclude that you are either from a parallel universe or you have escaped from a mental institution. You clearly have not been aware of the mess at Mercedes-Benz over the past decade. At least they are returning to using 4-valve engines instead of the inferior 3-valve lineup they produced over the past few years simply to cut costs.
What do you mean??? I can take from that that you don't think very highly of the W204.
I like the exterior looks .....even though it strongly reminds me of BMW more than Mercedes. The interior has some very nice details ....but the overall impression (from the photographs) is not altogether impressive IMO.
As for my comments on the engines ...I was reading an article about the S class last week, here is an extract:
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Mercedes introduced high performance variable-valve-timing quad-cam 4-valve V8 in the 1990 SL500 and continued through 1998. Chrysler era cost reductions replaced these engines with lower performance 3-valve V8s in the 1999 - 2006 SL500s, including the V8 offerings in every other 2006 model. The 3-valve engines offer the same EPA fuel economy with less power and less torque compared to the 1990 - 1998 4-valve engines. Of course marketers promoted this downgrade as some sort of benefit. Even the six-cylinder models stepped back to simpler technology and lower performance.[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]That's right: the 1990 5.0L V8 had 322 HP while today's cheaper 5.0L V8 has only 302 HP, all with the same fuel economy. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Thank God Mercedes returns to the better engines for the 2007 S-Klasse. [/FONT]
Headline in '07: Daimler severs it's ties with Chrysler.
I read about that downgrade, what a shame it was. :eusa_doh:
I'm glad Mercedes is going back to its roots... not a complete U-turn, but at least some things that make a Mercedes a Mercedes are returning.
not so sure I see similarities with volvo. A guy posted this pic on another carboard. This interior belong to Honda Accord. What do you think?
I can see mant similarities. Surely Mercedes could had made a better interior. It seems that their designers are running out of ideas.
First the S class with an interior heavily influenced from 7 series , then the A and B class with an interior very similar to VW Polo and now C class with an interior that looks to be influenced from Lexoyota and Honda.:t-hands:
^yep they are just copying on and on..
they are the new lexus
Rob, Mercedes didn't use 3-valve technology to cut costs, they used 3-valve technology for environmental reasons. The absence of a second exhaust valve ensured that the catalytic converter warmed up to optimum operating temperatures 12 seconds earlier than on a 4-valve design. Back in those days, there were proven efficiency advantages of the 3-valve design.
Here, hope you can read German!
Mercedes got a lot of flame with their 4-valve engines in the W140 S-Class and R129 SL because they were so fuel inefficient. For the next generation S-Class and SL (and other models), less powerful (but better performing) and more fuel efficient motors were planned. And this is where 3-valve technology and twin sparkplugs came in.
Here's a sketch of how Mercedes designers envisioned the C-Class interior to be. Not bad looking actually.
That said, I actually like the design of the current C-Class interior. And remember, this "design was out" many years ago when Huckfeldt from Autobild showcased it in his photoshops. The accuracy of Huckfeldt's 'chop is amazing. This guy must have insider information.
I give the new C-Class a 3. It's exterior is nice but not amazing. The interior is desent but not spectacular. This thread should of been titled (Grade the new C-class on appearance), know one here has driven or seen the car in the flesh.:eusa_doh:
I don't like the interior, but I know the place where some wood trim can be added and for sure the interior will be great. But because of technologies and exterior - 5/5
Thank you for posting this explanation Chris ....but I should point out that I was not criticizing MB just for the hell of it.
I am assuming that MB have now manged to equal or better the "environmental friendliness" of the 3-valve engines with their new 4-valve ones.
BTW, my German is not great, I do understand a few words but I find it easier to just be lazy and use a translator
PS. Chris, are you sure you don't work for Daimler Chrysler's Public Relations department
When Mercedes swapped their 4-valve engines for 3-valve ones, were they on a environmental conservation drive, so to speak? I remember the W220 having natural items like coconut husks or whatever in the interior... Made me feel as if Mercedes has been invaded by the tree-huggers.
You're correct. MB has found a way to create a 4-valve engine which is cleaner, more powerful and fuel efficient all at the same time. Vorsprung durch Technik, as Audi claims.
LOL, I wish I worked for DCX. The way things are looking, I need to go into a marketing company first because all car companies I checked out are looking for experienced marketeers etc. I am however considering becoming a tourguide at the new Mercedes-Benz Museum (as well as BMW and Porsche but those two told me they're not looking for tourguides at the moment) but they're looking for someone who speaks fluent Chinese at the moment.
They still are environmentally conscious. Most of the "hidden materials" (like stuff behind the interior or in the engine compartment) are made out of recycled materials which are cheaper to produce, just as durable and at the end of the day, they're recycled. The S-Class recently won an award for making use of a lot of recycled materials throughout the car.
This is certainly what the MB brochures said about faster warm-up time, etc, etc about the advantages of 3 valves and twin spark plugs. However, I can't help but think there may have been some truth to the cost-cutting assertion. Either that, or they were mistaken about the benefits of that design.
If this was such a great thing, why have other manufacturer's stayed completely away from such a design? Rather, more and more manufacturer's went to DOHC 4 valve designs with variable valve timing over the years. The benefits of variable valve timing seem to be consistent across manufacturers: more optimized air flow mixture throughout the entire rev range, therefore leading to more power and more fuel efficiency. The fact that MB's new engines are all single spark DOHC 4 valve designs with variable valve timing suggests their SOHC 3 valve/twin spark design was not so great to begin with.
As an owner of one of the "inferior" SOHC 3 valve motors, I must admit that such things like engineering/motor design are really transparent to the driver. Look at drivers of the Covette (2 valve pushrod design). The end result and what the driver perceives is the bottom line. In terms of "results", I think there are just 2 factors that matter to most consumers: HP/torque and fuel consumption. Whether the "results" are achieved with the latest high tech features or older tech features is mostly for the bragging rights rather than actual performance on the road.
As an example, let's look at the E46 M3/W203 C55 AMG, and the E60 M5/W211 E55 AMG. (high tech engine vs low tech engine) All the data is Canadian spec, and the fuel consumption figures are from the Canadian government's independent tests. The most interesting thing is the fuel consumption numbers.
E46 M3/C55 AMG
engine size: 3.2L/5.4L
type: DOHC 24 valve inline 6/SOHC 24 valve V8
variable valve timing: yes/no
torque: 262 lb-ft/376 lb-ft
gearbox: 6 speed manual/5 speed automatic
city fuel consumption (L/100km): 14.2/14.1
highway fuel consumption (L/100km): 9.0/10.0
E60 M5/W211 E55 AMG
engine size: 5.0L/5.4L
type: DOHC 40 valve V10/SOHC 24 valve V8 supercharged
variable valve timing: yes/no
torque: 383 lb-ft/516 lb-ft
gearbox: 7 speed sequential manual/5 speed automatic
city fuel consumption (L/100km): 18.1/15.8
highway fuel consumption (L/100km): 11.0/10.3
The M5 is a major gas guzzler compared to the older tech E55. Sure it makes a bit more HP, but that difference in fuel consumption is striking. The E46 M3 is a lighter car than the C55, yet its fuel consumption is not that much better than the C55, especially when we're comparing a 3.2L engine to a massive 5.4L engine.
Bottom line is this: if you want a lot of HP, you're going to need use a lot of fuel, regardless of how "high tech" the engine is.
Having said all this, I'm glad MB has moved back to DOHC 4 valve designs with variable valve timing. At least it's good for auto enthusiasts' perception that MB is no longer "old tech" in their engine design.
I think Ford just adopted the SOHC 3-valve technology on some of their V8's recently, and they have always used a variety of configurations including DOHC. I'm not so inclinded to agree or dissagree that the valve configuration was solely due to cost-cutting yet. Mercedes had some smaller supercharged 4-cylinders and diesels that still used DOHC 4-valve I believe. Certainly using a precision part such as a supercharger has to cost more than simply boring out a 4-cylinder for extra displacement and power.
stop hating on benz! !!its only a media war on mercedes benz to put it down !!
are u gonna tell me that jeremmy from top gear when he tested the cl65 .. the seat was broken like that .... u should look for that vid! thats only one of em.....just cause benz dont pay for the magazine or reporters ...dosint make them bad!!
talkin about 3 valve ...... its still reliable more then a 30 valve engine on any other manufaturer!
every body have problems....no one is perfect .....but overall in any way they are the best!!
and no im not tryin to be extreme or came from a mental institution but these are facts !! mercedes benz is a better car then bmw ...audi...lexus....chevy....pontiac...bentley...range rover...anything etc....:bowdown: to mercedes benz!!