All Mercedes vehicles to be Turbocharged by 2010

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
IMHO there is a future for small capacity, high output turbo'd petrol models. The 1.8 kompressor models (200, 230k etc) are a good example of this. Lower capacity engines are great for tootling around town and feel lighter and more free-revving but when you want/need a little more power it's just there waiting for you at the end of the pedal/rev counter. The fuel economy and lower emissions speak for themselves (see w202 C230k vs C240 or C280 as an example of where we were 10 years ago).
 
My 2004 C200K is a good, acceptable balance between economy and traditional Mercedes power. Just occasionally I would like a bit more under the right foot, but not often. Besides, I am sure if I did have something fruitier, I wouldnt have a clean licence.
 
Are we going to see MB engines revving to 15k rpm like current sportsbikes which get silly HP from small capacities :D

Its surprising that the larger manufacturers havn't got the technology licked, is it because historically demand has not been sufficient to justify the R&D investment?

Will it also make maintenance more tricky, or will the turbo become a disposable part like an air filter as it becomes too complex to justify repairing?

Ade
 
Last edited:
Are we going to see MB engines revving to 15k rpm like current sportsbikes which get silly HP from small capacities :D

No, because cars weigh a lot more so require torque as opposed to power. In addition fuel economy is dire on motorbikes as a result of low gearing due to low torque outputs.
 
I agree with al that, but petrol turbos do fail before this kind of mileage due to thermal loadings and I wonder if Mercedes consider 100k miles to be too short a life between rebuilds.

As an aside to the thermal aspect have you ever taken any EGT readings off your cars.?

Slightly OT with regard to your post. SAAB have always had problems with turbo'd petrol engines with blown turbos and cracked heads way before the oil sludging issues.


All I am saying is that there is plenty of scope for major manufacturers to build the longevity into their engines - 100k miles is what I can achieve in my shed in Essex starting with a "seasoned" 100k mile block and crank :D

I used to use EGT's all the time - but they are only really useful to me these days on very long, high power, sustained runs to see any indications of leaning off. Had I had one at Bruntingthorpe for the top speed run I might not have popped a piston.............

Saab may have a few problems - but on the other Scandinavian hand Volvo T5's seem to go on forever on original components - that is one reason they were popular as police cars I suppose.
Obviously we will now get a copper telling us how bad they were in reality :)


Sludging I find is a result of infrequent oil changes and a lack of a proper PCV system (though mine wouldnt pass euro emissions regs for a new car!) Turbos these days can be very reliable and I rarely see any actual blower issues.
 
With the degree of complexity involved in these new engines/hybrid powertrains we are perhaps entering the era of a "sealed power pack" providing motive power. When you take your car in for "service" maybe what you will get is an exchange powerpack rather than having an existing engine serviced. I guess what I am saying is that motoring in the future may require a seed change in the way cars are purchased/serviced/fuelled in addition to all the technical developments??
 
No, because cars weigh a lot more so require torque as opposed to power. In addition fuel economy is dire on motorbikes as a result of low gearing due to low torque outputs.

Never really looked at comparing before..

MB A150
95bhp at 5200rpm
140nm at 3500-4000rpm

BMW R1200GS - flat twin
105bhp at 7500rpm
115nm at 5750rpm

Suzuki GSXR1000 - in line 4
185bhp at 12500rpm
114nm at 10000rpm

I'd expect the GS will get between 35-50mpg depending on riding. GSXR no idea.

Ade
 
You picked a low power car and high power motorbikes....:devil:

A 180CDi
Power 109 HP
Torque 184.4lbft/247nm

This will shift noticably better than a 150 petrol.
 
Last edited:
I used to use EGT's all the time - but they are only really useful to me these days on very long, high power, sustained runs to see any indications of leaning off. Had I had one at Bruntingthorpe for the top speed run I might not have popped a piston.............
I remember. Oops... What temps do you generally see.? I'm just curious.
Obviously we will now get a copper telling us how bad they were in reality :)
:D
 
When do we get those slick ceramic engines they were promising us in the seventies? Look at the gain in not having to throw away a third of a fuel's energy in keeping the motor from melting?
Do away with camshafts. Operate the valves with hydraulics, controlled as fuel injection is. Variable amounts of oil jetted into a huddling chamber for infinitely variable timing and lift.

And where's the rocket belt I was supposed to be using ten years ago? Where's my C-111?

As for "reports" of what we'll be getting..... well, the media is only the nozzle on the sh*t hose.
 
Do away with camshafts. Operate the valves with hydraulics, controlled as fuel injection is. Variable amounts of oil jetted into a huddling chamber for infinitely variable timing and lift.

I've often thought about this as it would make engines perform at peak torque for most of their rev range instead of a narrow band.
I believe Reneault had electric valve operation running over ten years ago.

The answer is £££££££££££££
 
You picked a low power car and high power motorbikes....:devil:

A 180CDi
Power 109 HP
Torque 184.4lbft/247nm

This will shift noticably better than a 150 petrol.

Fair enough :)

I suppose I was thinking along the lines of current motorcycle engines are getting a lot of bang for not a lot of weight and size and they also last 100k miles (allegedly). I'd be interested to see a bi turbo 1800 waft in a 2 ton S class (at 8000 rpm)

Ade
 
I agree with al that, but petrol turbos do fail before this kind of mileage due to thermal loadings and I wonder if Mercedes consider 100k miles to be too short a life between rebuilds.


Volvo seem to have no problems with turbos, mine was chipped and ran 130k miles with no problems. There are many T5s with huge mileages on, the main thing with them seems to be a drop in boost as the miles pile on.
 
To be fair Volvo do seem to have turbo's under control. What boost do they run.?
 
Low-pressure turbo-charging makes a whole heap of sense in the current climate. It increases torque of a smaller displacement engine to that of a relatively larger engine, whilst preserving the fuel economy of the smaller engine whilst off-boost.

Official tests are very gentle and pretty much low (simulated) speed, and so the turbo remains off-boost or low-boost. As the turbo isn't doing much work the fuel economy is pretty good, and as such makes for good marketing, ie high mpg, low CO2.

Even relatively big engines are being turbocharged these days for the same reason. For example the BMW three litre twin turbo engine is very low boost, and relatively small low pressure turbo V8s are replacing the the larger capacity NA V8s in 5 and 7 series.
 
so heres a question, does adding a turbo generally make the engine more fuel efficient, regardless of the driver and other variables?
 
Generally yes, if you drive below spool (so u dont hear the turbo spooling) u will be consuming alot less petrol when compared to an NA engine with equal power/torque to ur turbocharged engine. If you floor it, then u'll get worser figures of course, but aparently still not as bad as an engine with equal power/torque. I think this has something to do with the fact that turbo's force air into the engine which gives the engine more power, as an alternative to just dumping in more petrol.
 
I don't smell or smoke...

I recently had an 08 E320 CDI Sport for the day.....I honestly thought it was
a petrol model....so quiet & smooth.

It made my W203 sound like a tractor in comparison.

Splitpin
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom