124 vs 210 - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

jlomon · #31 12-13-2005, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by braverichard

May not have been necessarily an improvement, but it wasn't going backwards. This was done to enable MB to use the V6 engines in smaller cars, unlike inline 6s which were too long to fit easily into smaller hoods.

I think it was largely the introduction of the ML class that drove the change from I6 to V6. The I6 wouldn't fit under the comparatively short hood of an ML without intruding too far into the cabin, taking up valuable passenger space.

braverichard · #32 12-13-2005, 05:40 PM

You know you're probably right because MB's first ever V6 made its debut with the M-Class and then spread to the E-Class and C-Class.

Hatterasguy · #33 12-13-2005, 10:09 PM

MB's new V6 is a pretty sweet engine. 3.5L, 4 valve's per cylinder, 4 overhead cams with all the usual high end goodies.

The M112 isn't bad either, a very reliable, hardy, and efficient engine.

braverichard · #34 12-13-2005, 10:57 PM

Yes that engine is nice. You know in many reviews the authors were saying that it was a first for MB to have DOHC and 4 valves per cylinder. Shows how bad today's journalists are. They couldn't even do their research to learn that the 3.2L I-6 in the W140 had the exact same configuration!!

Hatterasguy · #35 12-13-2005, 11:01 PM

Yeah so did the M119 V8.

braverichard · #36 12-13-2005, 11:56 PM

Yep. With the exception of the 3.4L I-6 diesel engine, all engines launched with the W140 were of DOHC 4 valves per cylinder configuration.

DslBnz · #37 12-14-2005, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

MB's new V6 is a pretty sweet engine. 3.5L, 4 valve's per cylinder, 4 overhead cams with all the usual high end goodies.

The M112 isn't bad either, a very reliable, hardy, and efficient engine.

M272

They also have problems with high oil consumption. In some cases, requiring engine replacements. Go over to mbworld (as much as it pains one to do so) and type in search "oil burning".

braverichard · #38 12-14-2005, 01:22 AM

I just went over there and it seems like the percentage of those engines with that problem cannot be statistically quantified so in my view that issue is void. Some engines may have had that problem, but the number is too few / cannot be proved to be otherwise for one to declare that they all have high oil consumption issues.

DslBnz · #39 12-14-2005, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by braverichard

I just went over there and it seems like the percentage of those engines with that problem cannot be statistically quantified so in my view that issue is void. Some engines may have had that problem, but the number is too few / cannot be proved to be otherwise for one to declare that they all have high oil consumption issues.

Hey, I'm just saying maybe every engine that comes from MB with 3.5 liters of displacement is an oil burner.

braverichard · #40 12-14-2005, 07:03 PM

Which other 3.5L engine from MB is an oil burner? Hopefully you aren't thinking of the 350 diesel engine... it is actually a 3.4L.

zafarhayatkhan · #41 12-15-2005, 10:04 AM

As far as I can recall, BMW does not make a V6 engine. Nor do they make an engine with superchargers/turbo chargers.

Auto Manufactureres like the V6, specially the 90 deg varity, as this allows them to make the V6's and V8's on the same line. A V6 60 deg is better from the design stand point.

Sure enough, MB designed the V6 with the 90 deg cylinder angle. To reduce vibration and noise, they had to add a counter-rotating balance shaft with weights to compensate for first order and second order moments inherent in 90-degree V6 engines.

An inline 6 engine is inherently balanced and does not require balance shafts. An other excellent configuration is the V12.

It makes sense for suppliers like Ford/GM, but MB is "Engineered like no other", they are supposed to provide a vehicle at a premium price without enigneering compromising based on cost.

http://www.whnet.com/4x4/new_V6.html

PS one of the best engines in the world is the Nissan VQ series 3.5 V6

"Nissans 3.5-L V6 engine, dubbed VQ by the Japanese automaker, is once again a "Wards Ten Best Engines" winner. This has become a regular occurrence, being the tenth consecutive year it has been chosen, which makes it the only engine featured on the list every year since the awards inception. "

braverichard · #42 12-15-2005, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zafarhayatkhan

As far as I can recall, BMW does not make a V6 engine. Nor do they make an engine with superchargers/turbo chargers.

It makes sense for suppliers like Ford/GM, but MB is "Engineered like no other", they are supposed to provide a vehicle at a premium price without enigneering compromising based on cost.

"Nissans 3.5-L V6 engine, dubbed VQ by the Japanese automaker, is once again a "Wards Ten Best Engines" winner. This has become a regular occurrence, being the tenth consecutive year it has been chosen, which makes it the only engine featured on the list every year since the awards inception. "

Firstly, you're correct BMW has never actually made a V6 engine. However BMW has used turbocharged engines for races but not on production cars.

Secondly, MB is no longer "engineered like no other." That expression has disasppeared and MBs are now made on budgets like other cars. They may be better engineered overall, a testament to the skills of the engineers and product planners, but today all cars on earth are engineered in the same manner. The competition is just too much for that old type of "engineer it till you're satisfied" mentality.

Thirdly, I don't buy the best engines crap... what makes one engine better than the other? Did these engines get tested under the same circumstances to determine which is better than the other? What makes Nissan's 3.5L V6 better than Hyundai's? Or Toyota's? I say that as long as an engine works well for its intended purpose, it is a winner.

BENZ-LGB · #43 12-15-2005, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john_nch

I want to purchase an E420 and want to know which body style is more solid. I'm used to mercedes driving like a tank, I have the 300 SD 126. I've searched the forums and there is no clear consensus. I've test driven both but it's hard to get a good feel with just a test drive, especially with the salesman in the car. It seems the 124 should be more solid since it's smaller than the 210 but weighs the same. I wonder what would account for this differernce maybe the thickness of the sheetmetal? I know on my 126 it's quite thick but on the newer mercedes the sheetmetal seems to be thinner.

I previously owned a 1984 300SD and 1991 420SEL. Both are W126 models. I also own a 1989 300TE/W124, a 1998 E320/W210 and a 2002 C320 wagon/W203.

Of all of my Benzes, none felt as heavy and as solid as the 300SED and the 420SEL. Fromt he feel of the steering wheel to the solid feel of the body and ride, none compares to the W126 bodies.

The W210 feels lighter, both in in-town traffic and at speed. The steering in the W124 wagon feels tight, but not as tight as the W126.

Surprisingly enough, the C320 wagon feels and handles very tight, like a sport car. The steering in the C320 is also very tight and solid.

I love wagons, so if the C320 wagon is in your price range, I'd highly recommend that you try one on for size.

All of these cars have their good points and bad points. Try them on and see which one fits you best.

Best of luck my friend and let us know what you end up getting.

zafarhayatkhan · #44 12-15-2005, 10:36 AM

Ward's Autoworld (wardsauto.com) is the leading publication, that we in the Atuomotive Industry use for information on what's going.

This is not a consumer magazine like Car & Driver or Consumer Reports. You will not find it on newsstands. The magazine is technical in nature. For each winning engine, it lists Torque/Hp curves, innovations, unique features etc.

Ward's AutoWorld magazine selects ten "best" engines annually. The selection takes into account power and torque output, noise vibration and harshness (NVH) levels, technical relevance and basic comparative numbers.

http://waw.wardsauto.com/ar/auto_decade_best_2/index.htm

2006
Audi 2 L I4 FSI turbocharged DOHC
Audi 4.2 L V8 DOHC
BMW 3 L I6 DOHC
DaimlerChrysler 5.7 L V8 Hemi Magnum
Ford 4.6 L V8 Modular SOHC
General Motors 2 L I4 Ecotec LSJ supercharged DOHC
General Motors 2.8 L V6 High-Feature turbocharged DOHC
Mazda 2.3 L I4 MZR DISI turbocharged DOHC
Nissan 3.5 L V6 DOHC
Toyota 3.5 L V6 DOHC
Ward’s Names 10 Best Engines for 2006. Ward's AutoWorld.

2005
Audi 4.2 L V8 DOHC
Audi 3.2 L V6 DOHC FSI
Mercedes-Benz 3.2 L I6 DOHC CDI Turbodiesel
Chrysler 5.7 L V8 Hemi
Ford 4.6 L V8 Modular SOHC
General Motors 4.2 L I6 Atlas LL8
Honda/Acura 3.5 L V6 J35
Honda 3.0 L V6 J30 IMA Hybrid
Mazda 1.3 L Wankel engine RENESIS
Nissan 3.5 L V6 VQ35DE

2004
Audi 4.2 L V8 DOHC
BMW 3.2 L I6 S54
Chrysler 5.7 L V8 Hemi
DaimlerChrysler 5.9 L I6 Cummins turbodiesel
General Motors 4.2 L I6 Atlas LL8
Honda 3.0 L V6 J30
Mazda 1.3 L Wankel engine RENESIS
Nissan 3.5 L V6 VQ35DE
Subaru 2.5 L H4 STi
Toyota 1.5 L I4 1NZ-FXE Hybrid Synergy Drive

2003
BMW 3.0 L I6 M54
BMW 3.2 L I6 S54
Chrysler 5.7 L V8 Hemi
Ford 6.0 L V8 Power Stroke turbodiesel
General Motors 4.2 L I6 Atlas LL8
Honda 2.0 L I4 K20
Honda 3.0 L V6 J30
Mini 1.6 L I4 supercharged
Nissan 3.5 L V6 VQ35DE
Volkswagen 1.8 L I4 DOHC turbo

2002
BMW 3.0 L I6 M54
BMW 3.2 L I6 S54
DaimlerChrysler 5.0 L V8 SOHC
Ford 5.4 L V8 Modular SOHC
General Motors 4.2 L I6 Atlas LL8
General Motors 6.6 L V8 Duramax
Honda 2.0 L I4 K20
Nissan 3.5 L V6 VQ35DE
Porsche Boxster 2.7 L Flat-6 DOHC
Volkswagen 1.8 L I4 DOHC turbo
See [1]

2001
Audi 1.8 L I4 5-valve turbo
Audi 2.7 L V6 twin-turbo
BMW 3.0 L I6 M54
DaimlerChrysler 3.2 L V6 SOHC
Ford 5.4 L V8 Triton
General Motors 6.6 L V8 Duramax
Honda 2.0 L I4 F20C
Nissan 3.0 L V6 VQ30DE
Porsche Boxster 2.7 L Flat-6 DOHC
Toyota 1.5 L I4 1NZ-FXE Hybrid Synergy Drive
See [2]

2000
Audi 2.7 L V6 twin turbo
BMW 3.2 L I6 DOHC
DaimlerChrysler 3.2 L V6 SOHC
Ford 3.9 L V8 AJ-V8
Ford 5.4 L V8 Triton
General Motors 3.5 L V6 3500 LX5
Honda 2.0 L I4 F20C
Nissan 3.0 L V6 VQ30DE
Porsche Boxster 3.2 L Flat-6 DOHC
Toyota 4.0 L V8 1UZ-FE DOHC
See [3]

1999
Chrysler 4.7 L V8 PowerTech
General Motors 3.5 L V6 3500 LX5
Mercedes-Benz 3.2 L V6 SOHC
Nissan 3.0 L V6 VQ30DE
[edit]
1998
BMW 2.5 L I6 M52
BMW 3.2 L I6 DOHC
Ford 2.5 L V6 Duratec SVT
Ford 5.4 L V8 Triton
General Motors 5.7 L V8 LS1
Mazda 2.3 L V6 KJ-ZEM
Mercedes-Benz 3.2 L V6 SOHC
Nissan 3.0 L V6 VQ30DE
Toyota 4.0 L V8 1UZ-FE DOHC
Volkswagen 1.8 L I4 DOHC turbo

1997
Ford 5.4 L V8 Triton
General Motors 3.8 L V6 3800 Series II
Nissan 3.0 L V6 VQ30DE
Volkswagen 1.8 L I4 DOHC turbo
Volkswagen 1.9 L I4 Tdi

1996
BMW 3.0 L I6 M52
BMW 4.0 L V8 M60
Ford 2.5 L V6 Duratec 25
Ford 4.6 L V8 Modular DOHC
General Motors 3.8 L V6 3800 Series II
General Motors 4.6 L V8 Northstar
Honda 2.2 L I4 F22
Mazda 2.3 L V6 KJ-ZEM
Nissan 3.0 L V6 VQ30DE
Saab 2.3 L I4 LPT B234
Toyota 3.0 L V6 1MZ-FE DOHC

1995
BMW 3.0 L I6 M52
BMW 4.0 L V8 M60
Ford 2.5 L V6 Duratec 25
General Motors 3.8 L V6 3800 Series II
General Motors 4.6 L V8 Northstar
Honda 2.2 L I4 F22
Mazda 2.3 L V6 KJ-ZEM
Nissan 3.0 L V6 VQ30DE
Saab 2.3 L I4 LPT B234
Volkswagen 2.8 L V6 VR6

braverichard · #45 12-15-2005, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zafarhayatkhan

Ward's Autoworld (wardsauto.com) is the leading publication, that we in the Atuomotive Industry use for information on what's going.

This is not a consumer magazine like Car & Driver or Consumer Reports. You will not find it on newsstands. The magazine is technical in nature. For each winning engine, it lists Torque/Hp curves, innovations, unique features etc.

Ward's AutoWorld magazine selects ten "best" engines annually. The selection takes into account power and torque output, noise vibration and harshness (NVH) levels, technical relevance and basic comparative numbers.

Don't worry I know what Ward's Auto is. I've actually read many of their issues so I know what I'm talking about very well. I still think those things they consider is all rubbish for several reasons.