New 305hp/265lb 350 engine unveiled?

[ZicZachZo]

Back on topic here. What's amazing to me is that we are talking about V6 engines producing 300bhp! How crazy would that have been just 20 years ago? Engine tech certainly has progressed as manufacturers are able to produce rockin engines that sip less fuel. 300bhp used to be reserved for the V8s. Crazy times these are!

 

[Bighead]

I am still not clear on what MB did to the engine to increase the power. Aside for the high-rev, what else was done? Or is this a totally different engine block?

While the hp figure looks good (and probably necessary for marketing purpose), it would be nice if the torque figure can be on par as well. Man! I miss the good old MB multi-valve inline-6.

 

[justanthony]

Back on topic here. What's amazing to me is that we are talking about V6 engines producing 300bhp! How crazy would that have been just 20 years ago? Engine tech certainly has progressed as manufacturers are able to produce rockin engines that sip less fuel. 300bhp used to be reserved for the V8s. Crazy times these are!

Anybody here remember a certain mercedes benz v8 producing 302hp not too long ago? maybe 3 0r 4 years?

 

[Merc1]

Yep of course.

M

 

[tennmb]

I'd sure like to see what is behind this as well. How can you increase power and fuel mileage. The fuel mileage has been dissapointing in the newer MB engines. The old 3valve 3.2 litre V6 used to get 29-30 mpg in the E. The new 350 is lucky to get 25 mpg. The 300 which has less power doesn't get any better mileage. What gives. These engines/ trannies grab when you take your foot off the gas. I think this really hurts mileage. Why does MB do this?

 

[Merc1]

I'm sure we'll get a huge press release on the SLK and the new V6 anytime now. One source says it has direct injection, others don't mention it...including the official press release given so far. Car and Driver usually knows what they're talking about though.

M

 

[cawimmer430]

I am still not clear on what MB did to the engine to increase the power. Aside for the high-rev, what else was done? Or is this a totally different engine block?

From the press release.

This result was achieved by raising the engine speed limit to 6800 rpm; it can even be increased to 7200 rpm for a brief period – oil temperature and other engine parameters permitting. Other changes introduced include a higher compression ratio, a new intake manifold and an extensively modified valve train.

 

[Sunny]

Why 7200 rpm only for brief periods under permitting conditions? 7200 is not that high for a modern NA gas engine.

And does the engine make the 305HP under normal conditions or during those brief forays into 7200 rpm?

A very weak response to the to BMWs 3.0TT engine if this indeed is the response to it.

 

[bum-man]

the engine now develops 224 kW/305 hp at 6500 rpm
Perhaps we should read the begining of the thread before we post.

Revving to 7200rpm can help out a lot when changing to the next gear, and how exactly do you know this is a "very weak response" when the engine has yet to be tested?

 

[Sunny]

the engine now develops 224 kW/305 hp at 6500 rpm
Perhaps we should read the begining of the thread before we post.

Revving to 7200rpm can help out a lot when changing to the next gear, and how exactly do you know this is a "very weak response" when the engine has yet to be tested?

I did read that the engine develops its 305HP at 6500 rpm, my question was does it develop that power when the ECU follows the mapping that allows the engine to rev to 7200 rpm or 6800 rpm.

As for being a weak response, yes, in technology terms it is weak - an NA engine that hardly revs to 7000 rpm and doesn't make even 100 HP/liter is weak in my book.

 

[merve_extreme]

As for being a weak response, yes, in technology terms it is weak - an NA engine that hardly revs to 7000 rpm and doesn't make even 100 HP/liter is weak in my book.

The BMW motor uses twin turbos to get this much power out,it that a weak engine then?

 

[bum-man]

As for being a weak response, yes, in technology terms it is weak - an NA engine that hardly revs to 7000 rpm and doesn't make even 100 HP/liter is weak in my book.

So I guess you think the new BMW 4.4L biturbo is weak since it can't even make 100hp/L and is forced inducted. Oh no, wait, you didn't troll that thread.
Actually make that the entire BMW lineup with the exception of a few M engines and a turbo engine or two.

 

[Zafiro]

This isnt another BMW vs Mercedes thread. Take it somewhere else before it goes out of hand.

 

[wltsm]

doesn't make even 100 HP/liter is weak in my book.

Don't mean to join your discussion, but 100bhp per liter is only reserved for the top performance engine, it's not something you see everyday. If in your mind, any engine which doesn't have 100bhp per liter isn't any good then basically all engines are crap in your mind!

Remember, you can learn only so much from specs, wait for the reviews!!!

 

[Sunny]

I guess I touched a sore nerve. My apologies. My mind was comparing it to another 3.5L 6 cylinder engine about 20 years old that was already making better numbers (315 HP).

 

[Merc1]

I guess I touched a sore nerve. My apologies. My mind was comparing it to another 3.5L 6 cylinder engine about 20 years old that was already making better numbers (315 HP).

Wow, what a lopsided comparision. You're talking about a I6 in an extreme application vs a 3.5L V6 in a everyday sedan. Why in the would Mercedes want to make a 350hp C350? Surely it could be done if they wanted, but it doesn't make sense in the C350's market, just like your "comparision".

What I find hilarious is that BMW is now depending on turbocharging to get the same power out of their I6 that Lexus, Infiniti, now MB, and even Cadillac get from the naturally aspirated V6s. Not that this makes the BMW motor "weak", but pointing this out makes about as much sense as your "comparision".

Using your logic, shouldn't BMW have put the E46 M3's I6 in the new 335i?

M

 

[wltsm]

I guess I touched a sore nerve. My apologies. My mind was comparing it to another 3.5L 6 cylinder engine about 20 years old that was already making better numbers (315 HP).

Oh right, I didn't get that!

 

[martinbo]

Without turning this even further into a Mercedes vs. BMW argument, despite the BMW's exceptional result with the twin-turbo'd 3.0 litre engine, it's common knowledge that the in-line six had reached a displacement limit for BMW. Their only means to compete with Mercedes in the torque stakes (i.e. 100 Nm for every litre of displacement in an NA engine) was to go the forced induction route. To the best of my recollection, increasing the bore of the M54 engine was not viable.

So yes, in a sense it was Mercedes' very good, often overlooked and highly underrated 3.5 litre V6 that set the standard at the top end of the compact executive class. BMW had to react using turbocharging...

In my opinion the two are direct competitors and in my mind the typical BMW buyer will opt for the 335i and a typical MB buyer will go for the C350. Heck it's not like the current V6 is short of puff - so the new one will be even better.

 

[Bighead]

Surprise that no one has brought out the issue of reliability. MB has traditionally been conservative with their engine output for the sake of reliability. That's a fair compromise in my book.

 

[ZicZachZo]

It's a shame MB gave up on it's straight 6 in the 90s because of the higher cost. They just like BMW had quite legendary (and surely more reliable, 236,000K on my 190e) inline 6s. There is nothing quite like an inline 6. Bravo to BMW for keeping that alive while the rest of its peers have ditched the idea. Have to wonder how long they will stick to it though...