4-Pot SL43 AMG - Press Release

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
What problem or problems are there with the Ecoboost engines?

I think there are a few with both the 1.0 and 1.6 versions. My friend's daughter is having a new engine fitted today to her low mileage 2014 Fiesta 1.0 ... apparently the new one is a different unit, not a direct replacement. She was quoted £3700 originally but my mate found a Facebook group called Ford EcoBoost Nightmare with nearly 8,000 members, and Ford then agreed to do it FOC. Another friend is having a 1.6 replaced in (I think) a Kuga.
 
Beautiful looking car, I really like this new generation SL (maybe not so much the price 😂).

It takes some adjustment to accept a 4-pot SL though, although I accept there's an argument to say it harks back to the W121. I get why it exists, and appreciate nothing is the same anymore, I think it's just a bit of a mental block due to 4 cylinder engines never really being associated with a premium flagship model range before now. As good as modern engines are too, I'm sure the creamy smoothness associated with 6 and 8 cylinder engines won't quite be replicated entirely.

The modern world eh? Not sure I'm fully ready 😂. As I said though, despite a bit of criticism elsewhere, I think they look really good.
Whether we like it or not, it’s the future, short term one anyway. We already know the next C63 will use the 4 cylinder engine (this one presumably) plus hybrid kit to get the necessary 500bhp. They’ve been running 415bhp in the A45 family for three years now, suspect they will have a lot harder life in a hot hatch than in an SL
 
The M139 engine used in this SL didn't appear in the A45 until 2020 (W177). Before that (W176) it had the less powerful M133.
Said the man with a 5.4 litre engine 😉😂
 
Let's be honest, these engines are better in every way apart from the sound (maybe smoothness also) I'm afraid we need to embrace smaller engines as the future before EVs

Said the man with a 5.4 litre engine 😉😂

I'll now quote the correct post 🙄
 
Whether we like it or not, it’s the future, short term one anyway.
Absolutely.

Lower cylinder count = less friction = greater efficiency. Heavy forced induction pressures allow high torque at low engine speeds = greater efficiency. The big challenges are managing the less frequent, larger, power pulses that this causes through the drivetrain but much has been done to reliably minimise those effects.

What puzzles me is why people think that high specific power outputs automatically mean poor reliability. If the engine is properly designed to accomplish that, then there is no reason why it should be the case. Motorcycle engines have been producing in excess of 150bhp per litre from normally aspirated engines for years and don't suffer poor reliability or short life expectancy. Why should 180bhp per litre from a forced induction powerplant in a car be automatically unreliable?
 
They’ve been running 415bhp in the A45 family for three years now, suspect they will have a lot harder life in a hot hatch than in an SL

Not sure about that ... I suspect people buying an AMG version of the SL are quite likely to drive it 'enthusiastically', and this is a significantly heavier car than an A45 so the engine will be working harder.
 
What puzzles me is why people think that high specific power outputs automatically mean poor reliability. If the engine is properly designed to accomplish that, then there is no reason why it should be the case. Motorcycle engines have been producing in excess of 150bhp per litre from normally aspirated engines for years and don't suffer poor reliability or short life expectancy. Why should 180bhp per litre from a forced induction powerplant in a car be automatically unreliable?

This is a way more complex powerplant than a motorcycle engine though, and much of the technology is pretty new. For starters it's a hybrid, and MB make much of the fact that this is the first car in the world with an electric exhaust gas turbocharger:

The turbocharger, which is operated via the 48-volt on-board electrical system, works at speeds of up to 170,000 rpm, which enables a very high airflow rate. The turbocharger, electric motor and power electronics are connected to the combustion engine's cooling circuit to create an optimal temperature environment at all times.

Depending on the situation, the system also guarantees an additional boost of 10 kW (14 hp) for a short time from the belt-driven starter generator (RSG).
The second-generation RSG also functions as a mild hybrid in the 48-volt on-board electrical system, which in addition to the temporary power boost enables functions such as gliding mode and energy recovery for maximum efficiency.

It doesn't matter how properly this is designed - we all know that things like drive batteries have a limited lifespan, even if everything else in the system continues to work perfectly for decades (which IMHO is pretty unlikely).
 
Absolutely.

Lower cylinder count = less friction = greater efficiency. Heavy forced induction pressures allow high torque at low engine speeds = greater efficiency. The big challenges are managing the less frequent, larger, power pulses that this causes through the drivetrain but much has been done to reliably minimise those effects.

What puzzles me is why people think that high specific power outputs automatically mean poor reliability. If the engine is properly designed to accomplish that, then there is no reason why it should be the case.
And with that robustness comes more friction and, to achieve the fuel efficiency direct injection of fuel and complex air management is required - which is to follow the path of the diesel. All the way to high NOx and ever more complex emissions control equipment.
Motorcycle engines have been producing in excess of 150bhp per litre from normally aspirated engines for years and don't suffer poor reliability or short life expectancy. Why should 180bhp per litre from a forced induction powerplant in a car be automatically unreliable?
Motorcycle engines achieve high specific outputs by employing high rpm where inertia forces are the only concern, certainly not detonation which with small cylinders and high enough rpm can be held at bay with petrol having the octane rating of paraffin.
Car engines however are deploying very high BMEP (381hp from 2.0 litres implies a BMEP some three times higher than in a NA unit) and detonation control is critical. Any deviation from ideal running conditions that causes the ECU to implement corrective measures can impair reliability. Eg, a slight loss of octane value (say, oil getting into the combustion chambers) compensated for with retarded ignition timing will put more heat into the exhaust valves, coolant. and turbo than under ideal conditions.
Are the fuel efficiency benefits real? In the undemanding homologation tests yes, but in real (especially performance) world - debatable. Of the many complaints owners of the four cylinder Caymans had one of them was that when the performance was accessed they were no less thirsty that their previous six cylinder NA models.
 
"...We already know the next C63 will use the 4 cylinder engine..."

That right there is why that model should not be called a C63. But that's marketing for you.

But that discussion is for a different thread. As you were.
 
"...We already know the next C63 will use the 4 cylinder engine..."

That right there is why that model should not be called a C63. But that's marketing for you.

But that discussion is for a different thread. As you were.
I agree. Absolutely everything should have a thumping great 6.3 NA V8 in it.:thumb:

Said the man with a wimpy 1.6 turbo.
 
Some body construction details of the new MSA SL platform.
New 2022 Mercedes-AMG SL drops disguise as reveal nears | Autocar

21c0278_005.jpg
 
"...We already know the next C63 will use the 4 cylinder engine..."

That right there is why that model should not be called a C63. But that's marketing for you.

But that discussion is for a different thread. As you were.
Although the C 63 has never had a 6.3 litre engine, and the displacement has been nowhere near for a full generation.

I would say that since it’s inception, “63” has been a sub brand rather than a specific reference to the powertrain.
 
Although the C 63 has never had a 6.3 litre engine, and the displacement has been nowhere near for a full generation.

I would say that since it’s inception, “63” has been a sub brand rather than a specific reference to the powertrain.
6208cc is close enough for me;)
 
Absolutely.

Lower cylinder count = less friction = greater efficiency. Heavy forced induction pressures allow high torque at low engine speeds = greater efficiency. The big challenges are managing the less frequent, larger, power pulses that this causes through the drivetrain but much has been done to reliably minimise those effects.

What puzzles me is why people think that high specific power outputs automatically mean poor reliability. If the engine is properly designed to accomplish that, then there is no reason why it should be the case. Motorcycle engines have been producing in excess of 150bhp per litre from normally aspirated engines for years and don't suffer poor reliability or short life expectancy. Why should 180bhp per litre from a forced induction powerplant in a car be automatically unreliable?
As said above bike produce their power through revs...not forced induction. Sure you can have 150 or even 200 bhp per litre bikes....but you need to put up with what goes worth it. More careful warm-up due to much right piston clearance, sub 5000 miles oil change intervals (sometimes as low as 3k)....and most importantly a pretty short life. Ive had superbikes for years (most recently a GSXR1000)....most of them are shot and rattle by sub 50,000 miles. Only the bigger or slower revving engine in commuter bikes and tourers really last.
The smaller capacity high output turbos that are in everything now car wise just dont seem to last regardless of manufacturer and they are very sensitive to oil quality, gentle warm up and you must stick to the device interval. The little blown engines in Ford's, Alfas, Vauxhalls and FIATS etc are almost becoming disposables replacement items. High thermal loads compared to NA motors can't help.
 
Although the C 63 has never had a 6.3 litre engine, and the displacement has been nowhere near for a full generation.

I would say that since it’s inception, “63” has been a sub brand rather than a specific reference to the powertrain.
I know , same with the 55 , but keeping '63' is pure marketing bulldust . The last of the 63's ended when they stopped building the N/A M159 in 2014.
 
As said above bike produce their power through revs...not forced induction. Sure you can have 150 or even 200 bhp per litre bikes....but you need to put up with what goes worth it. More careful warm-up due to much right piston clearance, sub 5000 miles oil change intervals (sometimes as low as 3k)....and most importantly a pretty short life. Ive had superbikes for years (most recently a GSXR1000)....most of them are shot and rattle by sub 50,000 miles. Only the bigger or slower revving engine in commuter bikes and tourers really last.
The smaller capacity high output turbos that are in everything now car wise just dont seem to last regardless of manufacturer and they are very sensitive to oil quality, gentle warm up and you must stick to the device interval. The little blown engines in Ford's, Alfas, Vauxhalls and FIATS etc are almost becoming disposables replacement items. High thermal loads compared to NA motors can't help.
I tend to agree. I was looking at a 'busa powered Westfield quite a few years ago and when i researched it i found in many cases a full engine rebuild was needed after about 20k miles. Im not sure if the heavier weight of the car compared to original bike had any bearing on that, though im assuming the gearing would be modifed.

Not really related, but i have a friend with an Alfa 4C which has the 1750 turbo. It's very quick, 0-60 in 4.3 but i can't get over how pants it sounds. And for a sports car (at least for me) that would be a deal breaker as i think it's part of the whole experience. 4 pots can be made to sound nice though, maybe im just getting old and not liking the current trend for the bee farts in a bucket kind of sound!
 
As said above bike produce their power through revs...not forced induction. Sure you can have 150 or even 200 bhp per litre bikes....but you need to put up with what goes worth it. More careful warm-up due to much right piston clearance, sub 5000 miles oil change intervals (sometimes as low as 3k)....and most importantly a pretty short life. Ive had superbikes for years (most recently a GSXR1000)....most of them are shot and rattle by sub 50,000 miles. Only the bigger or slower revving engine in commuter bikes and tourers really last.
The smaller capacity high output turbos that are in everything now car wise just dont seem to last regardless of manufacturer and they are very sensitive to oil quality, gentle warm up and you must stick to the device interval. The little blown engines in Ford's, Alfas, Vauxhalls and FIATS etc are almost becoming disposables replacement items. High thermal loads compared to NA motors can't help.
👍 About 25 years ago I had a Yamaha FZR250 with a 16 valve 4 cylinder engine that revved to 20,000 rpm. I was dubious about it's longevity because of the stratospheric revs involved, but very quickly found that it made very little power below 10,000 rpm & it made what power it had at 18,500, so it had to be revved to access it. And it didn't blow up. All that with normal servicing intervals. Amazing engineering, and this was from 30 years ago in a production bike 👍
 
Yep.....my girlfriend of the time had a similar GSXR250....I collected it from the dealer as she had not passed he test............really went against my mechanical sympathy to rev a motor like that......but it was flat below about 14,000 rpm!!!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom