Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
fyonn
Active Member
well, BMW do make exceedingly good engines...
I have only admitted once before in this forum that we happen to have an BMW in the stable now (because Merc dont make a 7 seat up-high vehicle that isnt a tank or a van)
But, we have an X5 3.0 sd (twin turbo), its emissions are below the top VED band. It goes well (not as well as the big petrol one) but why or why can't Mercedes do the same with the 3 litre turbo diesel currently badged as 320CDI and avoid an extra £200 odd to the chancellor and a load of C02 output ???
Richard
But, we have an X5 3.0 sd (twin turbo), its emissions are below the top VED band. It goes well (not as well as the big petrol one) but why or why can't Mercedes do the same with the 3 litre turbo diesel currently badged as 320CDI and avoid an extra £200 odd to the chancellor and a load of C02 output ???
Richard
st4
Banned
Yes, the 63 engine is probably better than the M3's V8 and all the CDi engines are better.
Because BMW diesels have this terrible problem of blown turbo's. I am convinced its becasue they run a very high boost pressure, the 120d boosts at 1.5bar, higher than a 997 Turbo. Consequently the engines fail and relatively low milliage. The Cdi's may not have such impressive figures or refinement but will go on a long way.
BMW are doing wonderful things with petrol engines, and I'd probably seriously give one another go.
I tend to think BMW make more advanced engines while jepordising its reliability and robustness, whereas Mercedes take a slightly more simple and effective approach and still end up with an engine that will cover 100's of thousands of miles.
BMW's last a long time too, but in my experience and from friend's experiences they tend be to be troublesome at best, and massively expensive to fix.
BMW's last a long time too, but in my experience and from friend's experiences they tend be to be troublesome at best, and massively expensive to fix.
nick mercedes
MB Enthusiast
From the comments bit:
Seems to be more to do with engine parts?
"I'm sorry, but some of you are running away with this story beyond what it actually is. If you wish to read the original report directly, rather than rely upon Autocar's report of it, see it here at Auto Motor Und Sport:
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/news/wirtschaft_-_handel/hxcms_article_516418_13987.hbs
The main thrust of the information elicited by interviewing the BMW Development Director by AMS magazine is the continuing discussions by BMW and Daimler on the joint purchasing of parts, systems, whatever, which are not obviously brand identifiable. The subtext of this is BMW and Daimler need to counteract VW's 6 million+ a year purchasing contract muscle in order to competitively produce A/B classes and 1/3 series cars especially, not to mention Toyota's c.10m unit purchasing stength and even PSA and Renault's roughly 3m units each. Jointly, BMW and Daimler have no more than 2.5m units to offer to suppliers to lower economies of scale.
As to Mercedes throwing the towel in on engines, forget it. There's mention in the AMS report of joint use of BMW's 12 cyl. engine. That's it. Even this I doubt will happen. Daimler, realising the gravity of the economic collapse taking place, would not see a V12 engine option as particularly vital right now, even with Maybachs or top-end S class's. With oil and gold headed for 50+% and 30+% falls respectively even the billionaires of the Gulf States, Russia and China - by dint of no longer being able to flog piles of junk to bankrupt West - are all feeling the pinch and demand for plutocratic V12 limousines will drop like a stone. It's back to the pre-80s I'm afraid."
Dee-124CAB
MB Enthusiast
As much as I love Mercs, it has to be said BMW have made some benchmark engines...
I have always been impressed with the amount of power that they have been able to extract from naturally aspirated engines over the years, the current M5 5 litre engine producing 507BHP being a perfect example.
I have always been impressed with the amount of power that they have been able to extract from naturally aspirated engines over the years, the current M5 5 litre engine producing 507BHP being a perfect example.
I'm not expert on engines, but i've chatted to people who know what they're talking about, and in particular i once spoke to a guy who was involved with product development at Audi, and he really changed my view on BMW and manufacturers that squeeze massive horsepowers out of engines.
He told me that he loves it when people say "i love how much BMW squeeze 'xxx' bhp out of such a small engines", so of course, i asked him why.
He then went on to explain that while audi produce engines, like for example the RS4 and the likes, they will temporarily increase its horsepower to 400, or even 500 bhp (from the 4.2 N/A V8) and then take it round tracks and hilly roads and all sorts of terrain to study which components suffer the most and if there is a way of making them robust for everyday thrashing or even everyday normal use.
They will test it in a number of BHP brackets in all kinds of conditions to try and replicate what it would go through when it is purchased. At the end of the day, the manufacturer (especially one like audi) would want their reputation relating to reliability to remain intact. So of course they will set it at a power rating where they think its suitable to last long enough, program the ECU not to let it past a certain amount of revs, and away you go.
Also dont you notice that most of these M cars have a rev limit of up to 8200-8500ish RPM? whereas mercedes never ever go past 6800-7000(max)? And since the formula for BHP is: (Torque x RPM) / 52, doesn't that explain why Mercs always have more torques then BMW's but BMW's seem to make up the rest of the horsepower figures by revving higher? And at higher revs doesn't your engine have an increase chance of failure or excessive component wear at such temperatures? (Ok i think the Honda Type R was an engine that got it right, in terms of the revving thing and reliability, but Honda make some bullet proof engines imo, more reliable then most bmw/mercedes)
Now i'm not generalising here, but wasn't the e46 M3 a very troublesome engine same goes for the E39 M5 (the V8 400bhp one)? I've been on m3board and m5board.com and other forums related to M cars to see what was involved in owning one regarding costs and common problems etc, and they seem to have to put up with alot of malfunctions that i have never even heard of, which mostly relate to the internal parts of an engine whereas here on this forum and the 2 other Mercedes forums i post on, i dont hear too much about people complaining about their AMG's and their reliability as much (although i'm sure they go wrong, of course, trying not to generalise too much here
).
I didnt expect to write so much but i thought i'd share that since i really think that too many people give them far too much credit for something that isn't actually all that amazing (in my honest opinion).
My two pence worth
He told me that he loves it when people say "i love how much BMW squeeze 'xxx' bhp out of such a small engines", so of course, i asked him why.
He then went on to explain that while audi produce engines, like for example the RS4 and the likes, they will temporarily increase its horsepower to 400, or even 500 bhp (from the 4.2 N/A V8) and then take it round tracks and hilly roads and all sorts of terrain to study which components suffer the most and if there is a way of making them robust for everyday thrashing or even everyday normal use.
They will test it in a number of BHP brackets in all kinds of conditions to try and replicate what it would go through when it is purchased. At the end of the day, the manufacturer (especially one like audi) would want their reputation relating to reliability to remain intact. So of course they will set it at a power rating where they think its suitable to last long enough, program the ECU not to let it past a certain amount of revs, and away you go.
Also dont you notice that most of these M cars have a rev limit of up to 8200-8500ish RPM? whereas mercedes never ever go past 6800-7000(max)? And since the formula for BHP is: (Torque x RPM) / 52, doesn't that explain why Mercs always have more torques then BMW's but BMW's seem to make up the rest of the horsepower figures by revving higher? And at higher revs doesn't your engine have an increase chance of failure or excessive component wear at such temperatures? (Ok i think the Honda Type R was an engine that got it right, in terms of the revving thing and reliability, but Honda make some bullet proof engines imo, more reliable then most bmw/mercedes)
Now i'm not generalising here, but wasn't the e46 M3 a very troublesome engine same goes for the E39 M5 (the V8 400bhp one)? I've been on m3board and m5board.com and other forums related to M cars to see what was involved in owning one regarding costs and common problems etc, and they seem to have to put up with alot of malfunctions that i have never even heard of, which mostly relate to the internal parts of an engine whereas here on this forum and the 2 other Mercedes forums i post on, i dont hear too much about people complaining about their AMG's and their reliability as much (although i'm sure they go wrong, of course, trying not to generalise too much here
).I didnt expect to write so much
but i thought i'd share that since i really think that too many people give them far too much credit for something that isn't actually all that amazing (in my honest opinion). My two pence worth
Last edited:
Fandango
Active Member
According to Auto Motor und Sport BMW are already saving 750 Million Euro yearly through their co-operation with PSA and Daimler AG are looking to make similar savings.
With combined buying power of around 26 Billion Euro saving will be substantial.
With combined buying power of around 26 Billion Euro saving will be substantial.
Donza
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2007
- Messages
- 406
BMW make the best engines.
Lastyear a friend of mine took me for a ride in his 54 Reg 320 M-Sport Coupe.
He maxed the car out at 155mph. Yep, the car was stock. Stupid/Reckless driving on his part, he only slowed once i told him we were going to crash!
a 2.2i with only 150BHP..the engine looked like it had more in the tank to go faster..
Lastyear a friend of mine took me for a ride in his 54 Reg 320 M-Sport Coupe.
He maxed the car out at 155mph. Yep, the car was stock. Stupid/Reckless driving on his part, he only slowed once i told him we were going to crash!
a 2.2i with only 150BHP..the engine looked like it had more in the tank to go faster..
Autocar this week has a testdrive of the new Merc c250 cdi which has Mercedes new 4 cylinder 2143cc diesel engine.
201bhp @ 4200rpm
369lb ft @ 1600rpm
They got 70.6mpg on a run out of Stuttgart! only 138g/km as well.
BMW make best engines? maybe not anymore! Not available in this country till June though.
201bhp @ 4200rpm
369lb ft @ 1600rpm
They got 70.6mpg on a run out of Stuttgart! only 138g/km as well.
BMW make best engines? maybe not anymore! Not available in this country till June though.
Just because a 2.2 litre 150 bhp car does 155mph u think they make the best engines? Its completely your choice dude, but i think thats such a poor and weak reason to think that.
I actually agree that some BMW engines are more advanced but not neccesarily better. When you use a car for everday road use what are you actually going to care about? How cheap/easy to maintain/reliable/durable/robust it is? or if it can 155mph? (Especially if u buy a c200 and 320ci which really isn't the car to attempt something like that in, lol).
Last edited:
whizzkid11
Active Member
Lets go back a couple of years....
AMGs 55 engines were all Kompressor based and the BMW M sport were all normally aspirated engines.... and then along came the 63's AMGS - guess what? they are normally aspirated.
From what I can recalled, there were high level members of design staff who transferred from BMW to Mercedes a couple (maybe 3-4) of years back - and what we are seeing today is the result of that move, the shift in approach.
At the same time BMW started looking to the world of turbos as well.
I would say for the end consumer its a benefit all round.
My brother always says - you have some many hundred of horsepower, some much torque and everything you need to go very fast - but the speed limit is still 30, and the queue to ASDA is moving at 15 miles an hour!!
AMGs 55 engines were all Kompressor based and the BMW M sport were all normally aspirated engines.... and then along came the 63's AMGS - guess what? they are normally aspirated.
From what I can recalled, there were high level members of design staff who transferred from BMW to Mercedes a couple (maybe 3-4) of years back - and what we are seeing today is the result of that move, the shift in approach.
At the same time BMW started looking to the world of turbos as well.
I would say for the end consumer its a benefit all round.
My brother always says - you have some many hundred of horsepower, some much torque and everything you need to go very fast - but the speed limit is still 30, and the queue to ASDA is moving at 15 miles an hour!!
Is it me, or does anyone think this is ********. The 2.2 knocked out 170bhp by the way, but the speedo's on bm's are not that for out.
para alpha
Active Member
I have owned a Vauxhall Omega with a BMW diesel engine... Although finding it quite sedate driving about the towns and cities. But get it on the motorway was a pleasure to drive... Towing things was a different matter. It just seemed that if you gave it something to do that required the engine to work it would happily pull all day. The KIA Sedona Diesel(or the sodomite as my mate calls them as a long drive in one feels like you have just spent 2 years in a Turkish prison) has a common Rail Mercedes Diesel engine.
para alpha
Active Member
It's the seats, they are like rock! Besides that, they are not to bad...
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
