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 > General Discussions > Off-Topic Discussion

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old 01-17-2002, 11:52 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Kingston, Ont.
Posts: 202
inline 6 = better torque

a salesman claimed that an inline engine has better torque as the crankshaft is longer than a V-6 equivalent...it seemed to make sense and sounds interesting, but i wondered if torque has anything to do with the length of a crankshaft..

regards!

the new e-class looks dynamite and features a fancy new diesel engine (inline)

Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-18-2002, 04:00 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Alexandria, Virginia
Posts: 5,480
With most of the straight sixes, you could actually SEE the engine. Now the V engines are covered in plastic cladding that is some stylists simulation of what an engine shoud look like! Just my 2 cents worth.

(And at traffic lights, passengers in my 1960
220S straight six ask me if I've stalled because they can't hear or feel the engine idling!)

Happy Motoring,
Mark
__________________
DrDKW
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-18-2002, 06:59 AM
Kuan's Avatar
unband
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: At the Birkebeiner
Posts: 3,841
The V6 makes it's torque from 2500-4000 rpm. That's quite a range.

Kuan
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-22-2002, 02:10 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Northumberland, UK
Posts: 1,294
Kuan, do you have the link to the past years awards page, I've been searching for about an hour but cannot find it. Thanks.
__________________
JJ Rodger
2013 G350 Bluetec
1999 SL 500
1993 E300 diesel T
1990 190
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-22-2002, 03:33 PM
public enemy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
There is one more thing to consider. The Istitute for highway safety gave the 1997-2000 model only an "acceptable" crash rating for this model. As you can see in this link http://www.carsafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/97005.htm the car suffered extensive damage, and in my opinion crumpled unnaceptably for a car of this class.
I do not know about the earlier models though, as I have not seen any tests about them.
But I would stay away from any car that suffered such damage in the crash tests.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-22-2002, 05:59 PM
David C Klasse's Avatar
CheFrac is Back!
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Mission Hills in the City of San Diego
Posts: 2,355
Public Enemy...
I followed that link, and the overall rating was rated ACCEPTABLE, one down from GOOD (the highest).

However, everything, including "Structure/safety cage," and "Injury measures" were rated GOOD, the highest rating.

Only was "Restraints/dummy kinematics" was rated below the highest rating of GOOD, at POOR, the lowest rating. (what is Restraints/dummy kinematics anyways?)
__________________
2006 E350 w/ 155k miles (Daily Driver)

Previous:
1993 300E 3.2L Sedan w/ close to about 300k miles
2003 E500 Brilliant Silver (Had 217k miles when totalled!)
1989 300E with 289,000 miles (had for <1 yr while in HI)
03 CLK 500 cabrio (Mom's)
2006 C230k (Dad's)
1999 S420 (Mom's/Dad's)
2000 C230k Sport sedans
2001 CLK320 Cabrio (Mom's)
1995 C280 My First Mercedes-Benz... (155k miles. EXCEPTIONAL AUTOMOBILE. Was Very hard to let go of!)
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-22-2002, 07:23 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: ajax, ontario, canada
Posts: 773
Quote:
Originally posted by Mercedes Fred
a salesman claimed that an inline engine has better torque as the crankshaft is longer than a V-6 equivalent...it seemed to make sense and sounds interesting, but i wondered if torque has anything to do with the length of a crankshaft..
the crankshaft length has nothing to do with torque. The length of the crank arm does (i.e., the length of the stroke), with a longer arm providing more leverage. However, there are many other factors that influence torque.

Quote:
Originally posted by Mark DiSilvestro
With most of the straight sixes, you could actually SEE the engine. Now the V engines are covered in plastic cladding that is some stylists simulation of what an engine shoud look like!
Engine cladding is actually a fairly recent trend. The most obvious effect of this is that the engine bay looks much neater. However, these could also have been used to provide additional sound insulation. And considering the complexity of today's engines, it also provides protection to sensitive components, and gives the DIY user a hint that "you don't want to touch this".

Some are designed well, giving the engine a muscular look by highlighting the intake manifolds. On other cars, it makes the engine look like a washing machine (!)

The ultimate in engine cladding? The Porsche Boxster. Except for the access to the dipstick from the trunk, access to the engine is from below. The entire car IS the cladding.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-23-2002, 01:15 PM
public enemy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
David, yes I know that only the kinematics were rated acceptable but still the car crumpled way too much. Even the roof buckled. Some other cars suffered less damage. Take a look at the 1999-2002 Lexus GS for example. It looks much better.
All I am saying is that I would not spend so much money for a car that crumples like that in a car accident. Just my personal bias though.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-24-2002, 03:47 PM
munzilmax
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Crumple zones

Just a few thoughts:
As far as safety goes. Crumpling of a body, I thought was a part of the design feature. A way to dissipate the force of an impact (it takes energy to crumple metal....this energy dissipation should limit the inertia experienced by thte driver).

However, from the "acceptable" kinematics ratings on the dumy I assume these folks are talking about how the body gets thrown around in such an impact. Just guessing here

-Kash
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-24-2002, 06:01 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: ajax, ontario, canada
Posts: 773
the car should give way at the crumple zones. But the passenger cell should be as rigid as possible and should not budge.

I guess that's what PublicEnemy was referring to - the A-pillar buckling into the roof. If the passenger cell was rigid enough, this would be less pronounced.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-24-2002, 09:06 PM
public enemy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Yeap, that is what I was talking about.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-27-2002, 05:58 AM
munzilmax
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Gotcha PublicEnemy.
That makes sense.

-Kash

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Help with new car search...'95 300E or '96 E320? glenmore Tech Help 9 10-08-2004 09:24 PM
Selling 1993 300E 3.2 engrx2 Mercedes-Benz Cars For Sale 0 09-25-2004 10:22 AM
1993 300E rear pass window cable satkins1044 Tech Help 1 07-14-2003 12:06 PM
ATS Mercedes SLK 300e e320 wheels on eBay cheep! 10ismaster Mercedes-Benz Wheels & Tires 2 12-22-2002 03:53 AM
will 1996 c280 sport wheels fit 1993 300e ? thevilla Mercedes-Benz Wheels & Tires 2 10-02-2002 12:07 AM



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:33 PM.


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