Parts Catalog Accessories Catalog How To Articles Tech Forums
Call Pelican Parts at 888-280-7799
Shopping Cart Cart | Project List | Order Status | Help



Go Back   PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum > Mercedes-Benz Tech Information and Support > Diesel Discussion

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-23-2006, 07:58 PM
oilyrag's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Desert SW
Posts: 104
New engine

Does anyone know why MB 2007 Diesels are equipped with a V-6 instead of the inline 6? I just checked with my dealer who confirmed this. It seems to me that with all the fanfare of the 100K run that they would stay with the inline. Could this have something to do with the reformulated diesel fuel coming this year? Now I am forced to buy an untried engine.

__________________
Dan
1981 240D
1987 300D Turbo
1973 220
Das Beste Oder Nichts
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-23-2006, 08:03 PM
t walgamuth's Avatar
dieselarchitect
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Lafayette Indiana
Posts: 38,609
the fanfare

of the 100k run was to introduce the new v6 and dispell thoughts of weakness. it is an all aluminum engine (head and block).

i am pretty sure that it is a packaging move. a more compact motor makes it easier to make the car stiff and save weight. less air to move etc. all toward more effeciency each generation of car.

i dont know either if i would want to buy one.

tom w
__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-24-2006, 05:50 AM
Ara T.'s Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 2,075
I'd rather have the smoothness of an inline six, compactness be damned.
__________________
1985 CA 300D Turbo , 213K mi
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-24-2006, 06:45 AM
ForcedInduction
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I'll stick with the good 'ol Iron block engines and give the V6's a decade or two to proove themselves (And depreciate into my price range!).
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-24-2006, 06:50 AM
RUN-EM's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 313
Thermally, v engine blocks are more efficient....that is they waste less energy in not moving the car. Also, v engines are usually smoother running than inline engines...provided they are balanced and timed (engineered) correctly as to crank throw vs. firing sequence (harmonics on the shorter crank lessen the vibration). They also use less space which allows better aero on most cars. And they have been reported to crash test better. If the block/heads are properly reinforced (engineered and cast) they are usually a more rigid structure which can lead to longer life. They can use most of these advantages to build a high performance type of engine with fewer drawbacks....the new diesel engines do seem to produce more torque/horse power. That having been said...don't know if I'd wanna be their "test" agent either

Regards

Run-em--1983 300SD--aka--SPARKY THE DIESEL
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-24-2006, 07:27 AM
t walgamuth's Avatar
dieselarchitect
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Lafayette Indiana
Posts: 38,609
i agree with the above

poster except on one point.

v engines arent always smoother than inline.

an inline six is generally agreed to be the smoothest naturally of all the configurations.

a 60 degree v6 is very smooth too. a 90 degree v6 is not. it takes balance shafts or offset rod throws on the crank to achieve smoothness. 90 degree v6s are only built to take advantage of 90 degree equipment on hand for building v8s.

a v8 is pretty good.

a flat six is good, and a flat four.

a 60 degree v12 is very very good. (two inline sixes combined).

a straight 8 is good but the long crank is a disadvantage in stiffness and weight.

now adays with balance shafts i suppose you can build any configuration and make it smooth. v7 anybody?

tom w
__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-24-2006, 07:30 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 703
It's just a guess but my product engineering experience would lead me to believe it's for the additional packaging space.
__________________
1987 300SDL 167k
1992 Volvo 740 140k
1990 Volvo 740 250k
1989 Volvo 240 269k

Anyone want to trade an old Volvo for an '87 300sdl?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-24-2006, 07:54 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: RI shore
Posts: 2,937
The little I remember of kinematics WRT IC engine configurations is that an inline 6 is naturally smoother than other configurations due to not inducing secondary moments on the crank. Yet, a shorter crank (and engine) allows for a lot of options to improve the whole system - the car.
__________________
'82 300SD - 361K mi - "Blue"

"Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement."

listen, look, .........and duck.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-24-2006, 08:15 AM
krs krs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NW
Posts: 90
It's pretty difficult to maintain sealing at the head on an L6 engine, and especially difficult when dissimilar metals (iron block/aluminum head) are used.

Heating or cooling is harder to make stable when cylinders are in line also, particularly with the lightweight all aluminum engines designed for high RPM and power output.

MB is just trying to take care of you as best they know how, and they know how.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-24-2006, 01:53 PM
oilyrag's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Desert SW
Posts: 104
Just a correction on my original post. According to Edmunds, It seems that the 100k run in Texas with 3 "production" off the line cars were fitted with the V-6. Much more power like approx 250hp vs 200hp with the inline. However, the 2007 cars with the V-6 will use some kind of urea mixture in the exhaust to reduce emissions. Maybe eventually we can fill the tank directly with cow manure and bypass diesel all together .
__________________
Dan
1981 240D
1987 300D Turbo
1973 220
Das Beste Oder Nichts
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-24-2006, 05:26 PM
BigBen's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilyrag
Does anyone know why MB 2007 Diesels are equipped with a V-6 instead of the inline 6? I just checked with my dealer who confirmed this. It seems to me that with all the fanfare of the 100K run that they would stay with the inline. Could this have something to do with the reformulated diesel fuel coming this year? Now I am forced to buy an untried engine.
A friend of mine who's a salesperson with a MB dealership told me the main reason for a V6 diesel is to be able to offer the 4-Matic version with the diesel in a E-class version.

What kind of power plants do power the actual E320 4-Matic, I don't know about gasers but must be a V6...

Anyhow, that was my hint!

Bye,
__________________
BigBen

'98 E300 Turbodiesel 244 000km
RIP '92 300D 2,5 Turbo 632 859,4km due to engine failure
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-24-2006, 05:40 PM
Hatterasguy's Avatar
Zero
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Milford, CT
Posts: 19,318
I'll keep my eyes on the prices of the 2003/04/05 I6 CDI's thank you. Man those things are sweet... Hopefully the new one is really good so lots of people trade in.

You can almost snatch a CDI for $30k...


The E320 is gone, the M112 3.2 V6 has been replaced by a much cooler 3.5L. 4 overhead cams 4 valves per cylinder, just like the sweet M119 V8. So you either get the E350 now or the E500 if you want the V8.

Off the top of my head I think an E350 has about 280hp, but I am not sure. An E350 4 matic wagon is a nice car, figure about $60k if you want new.
__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-24-2006, 08:43 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Central Kentucky
Posts: 1,069
I wonder how well the old SAAB V4 balanced out?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-24-2006, 09:45 PM
Panzermann's Avatar
How did I get here?
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 232
Smaller package

The smaller package would certainly allow MBz to offer the engine in a wider range of their (and Chrysler's) products.

Speaking of that, anyone have comment on the Chrysler 4 cyliner T-diesel in their Liberty? I don't know if it was of Deutsch design or US (?Asian). I wasn't very impressed with its reported mileage of 18 pg. Would rather have an NA 616.
__________________
Der Panzermann und Fraulein Fahrvergnuegen

1991 420SEL 201K "The Big Blue One"
1985 300DT 205K chassis/285K engine nee California emissions "Goldbug"
1983 300TDT 255K "The Womble"
1983 300 DT 214K "Sea Sprite"-Rear-ended a truck
1983 300SD 285K "The Donor" Gave his life so that others can live
1980 500SL Euro 105K "Der Panzer"
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-24-2006, 09:58 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Carson City, NV
Posts: 3,850
I read on another forum where they were debating I6 vs V8 diesel truck engines that the V's advantage is mainly packaging and the ability to have more crash-absorbing structure in front of the shorter engine without resorting to an excessively long front end.

As for Liberty engines, the CRD is made by VM Motori in Italy. VM Motori is owned by DCX. In use, I generally hear about folks getting low to mid 20's for mpg. This sounds bad, but the gassers are getting mid to high teens. Keep in mind that the Liberty weighs over 4,000 lbs and has the aerodynamics of a brick. BTW, I'm waiting for a CRD/manual trans Wrangler.

__________________
Whoever said there's nothing more expensive than a cheap Mercedes never had a cheap Jaguar.

83 300D Turbo with manual conversion, early W126 vented front rotors and H4 headlights 400,xxx miles
08 Suzuki GSX-R600 M4 Slip-on 22,xxx miles
88 Jaguar XJS V12 94,xxx miles. Work in progress.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2024 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page