350 v6 petrol engine updates

[tonysmb]

Does anybody know what changes were made, and when, to the e350 petrol engines (M272?) after about 2009/10?

I note that my brochure(1211) now quotes 306bhp, 40 mpg (combined) and CO2 of 164, whereas the older cars seem to be about 272bhp, 32mpg and 200 odd CO2 (figures quoted are coupe ones).

Was it changed with the 2012 model year? I suspect that the 7G+ box brought in stop/start, but were there any mechanical changes to the engine.

Is the gearing the same? Anyone know the mph/1000 revs in top?

I've tried search but no joy.

Thanks

 

[st4]

The new ones are M276 engines.

Different angle between the cylinders so by by balancer shafts

 

[grober]

The original non CGI [ indirect injection] e350 engines had 272bhp This was raised to 292 with the e350 blueEFFICIENCY engines which used Direct petrol Injection. These were M272 engines 3,489cc. The present NEW E350 with 306 bhp is the M276 [ 3,499cc] a new 60 degree V6 based on the Chrysler Pentastar engine.

 

[nigel cross]

The original non CGI [ indirect injection] e350 engines had 272bhp This was raised to 292 with the e350 blueEFFICIENCY engines which used Direct petrol Injection. These were M272 engines 3,489cc. The present NEW E350 with 306 bhp is the M276 [ 3,499cc] a new 60 degree V6 based on the Chrysler Pentastar engine.

Any idea how you can tell which is which

 

[tonysmb]

Thanks folks.

I was obviously getting a bit confused as I meant 292bhp for the early one, which is the cgi version. MB are as bad as BMW recently in changing their specs to meet all these emission regs 'madness' and it can be a struggle sometimes working out what engines/variant are in what models.

The reason I thought that the even later (say my2012) 350BE, as it is shown in my brochure, was the same engine was that both are listed as 3498cc. Maybe the brochure my dealer gave me recently isn't the latest one.

It just seemed a massive 'on paper' change in efficiency from 32-40 mpg, even if it is obtained in lab. conditions.

 

[Riverside Red]

I know the engine was available in July 2011 for order in the new 218 CLS as I wanted to go for that engine rather than the diesel, however I was warned off by the salesman and the poorer GFV for my Agility deal.

RRN

 

[grober]

Thanks folks.

I was obviously getting a bit confused as I meant 292bhp for the early one, which is the cgi version. MB are as bad as BMW recently in changing their specs to meet all these emission regs 'madness' and it can be a struggle sometimes working out what engines/variant are in what models.

The reason I thought that the even later (say my2012) 350BE, as it is shown in my brochure, was the same engine was that both are listed as 3498cc. Maybe the brochure my dealer gave me recently isn't the latest one.

It just seemed a massive 'on paper' change in efficiency from 32-40 mpg, even if it is obtained in lab. conditions.

Just to confuse things apparently there was a 301 bhp sport version of the CGI M272 found in the last SLK 350 and 350SL post 2008 with that engine - possibly due to a different aircleaner/inlet / exhaust? 2011 Mercedes-Benz CLS - European Car Magazine

 

[grober]

m276 v m272

Here's a pic of the new e350 m276 note the design of the engine cover. greater description here E-350 Oil/engine cover new issue - Benzworld.org - Mercedes-Benz Discussion Forum
m276

whereas the later edition of the M272 described here looks quite different?? New engines for the E-Class Coupe
m272

 

[MOCAŠ]

These were M272 engines 3,489cc.

I'm sure that was just a typo, grober, but for the sake of clarity the M272 engine's displacement was 3498cc.

Just to confuse things apparently there was a 301 bhp sport version of the CGI M272 found in the last SLK 350...

To further confuse things, in the post-2008 SLK350 the M272 engine had a stated output of 305PS (as opposed to 272PS at launch in 2004) and significantly reduced CO2 emissions.

 

[nigel cross]

My ML has a 272 engine and at 1000rpm in top it is 35mph

 

[Jules335]

I have an E350 coupe with the 306bhp engine. I got mine in September 2011. It's a lovely engine, far smoother and more refined than the diesel. Fuel economy is very good for a 3.5 V6. I can easily get about 36-38mpg on a long run.

 

[BigSilverEstate]

I got mine in September 2011. It's a lovely engine, far smoother and more refined than the diesel.

Can't understand why Knight Errant hasn't taken up this opportunity to point out the advantages of the current petrol v6 engine over the 350cdi OM642

 

[Deleted member 65149]

Can't understand why Knight Errant hasn't taken up this opportunity to point out the advantages of the current petrol v6 engine over the 350cdi OM642

No need, you're all doing it for me

 

[nigel cross]

Sorry just read this post properly, mines a Diesel .

 

[clk208]

My ML has a 272 engine and at 1000rpm in top it is 35mph

My CLS is either 1600 or 1800 at 70mph - will check next time I am out..

I have the CGI 292bhp version. Around town the mpg is much better than I would expect for a car of this size, but straight line steady motorway cruising I would have expected better, getting much over 35mpg is an achievement.

Wonderfully smooth, bags of power and gorgeous sound track though (which can even be triggered at low rpm/throttle speeds).

 

[DITTRICH]

w202 c230k 2.3litre 1999 auto kompressor saloon 193bhp 4cyl 243gco2/km can achieve 35mpg on the motorway but the revs are 2,750 approx from memory. So 35mpg for a 3.5 litre v6 with around 300bhp doesn't seem unreasonable. I sometimes wonder what an extra cruising top gear ratio which lowered the revs nearer 2,000 would achieve in terms of mpg. Possibly 35 x 2,750 / 2,250 say = 42mpg.

 

[Deleted member 65149]

w202 c230k 2.3litre 1999 auto kompressor saloon 193bhp 4cyl 243gco2/km can achieve 35mpg on the motorway but the revs are 2,750 approx from memory. So 35mpg for a 3.5 litre v6 with around 300bhp doesn't seem unreasonable. I sometimes wonder what an extra cruising top gear ratio which lowered the revs nearer 2,000 would achieve in terms of mpg. Possibly 35 x 2,750 / 2,250 say = 42mpg.

I would have thought that my 1999 W208 CLK 230K would have had the same engine as Dittrich's car, but its figures are 197bhp and 233 g/km. But I achieved far better fuel consumption: generally high 30s on motorway runs, and on one trip from St Mawes in Cornwall to Peterborough recorded just over 40mpg.

My 306bhp V6 C350 CGI isn't that good, only managing 34mpg on the identical run this January. But this time was with 5 adults on board and a boot stuffed tight with all our luggage. Normal long runs with just the two of us result in 36-38 mpg depending on how often I want to hear the soundtrack! But it has over 100,000 miles to get properly run in so these figures may improve.

 

[DITTRICH]

I would have thought that my 1999 W208 CLK 230K would have had the same engine as Dittrich's car, but its figures are 197bhp and 233 g/km. But I achieved far better fuel consumption: generally high 30s on motorway runs, and on one trip from St Mawes in Cornwall to Peterborough recorded just over 40mpg.

My 306bhp V6 C350 CGI isn't that good, only managing 34mpg on the identical run this January. But this time was with 5 adults on board and a boot stuffed tight with all our luggage. Normal long runs with just the two of us result in 36-38 mpg depending on how often I want to hear the soundtrack! But it has over 100,000 miles to get properly run in so these figures may improve.

My bhp / co2 is guestimated - I can never remember the exact figures.
If you are getting 40mpg motorway then that is good.
Yours is a CLK coupe but mine is the saloon.

 

[mbenz1]

I have an E350 coupe with the 306bhp engine. I got mine in September 2011. It's a lovely engine, far smoother and more refined than the diesel. Fuel economy is very good for a 3.5 V6. I can easily get about 36-38mpg on a long run.

We get 40mpg on a long run... and that's in a E280 CDI .