 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Mercedes-Benz Cars / May 2007'03 E320 vs '89 300E
Hi All I drove the '03 E320 today and found myself rather disapointed compared to my old '89 300E. What am I missing here? it seemed to me that the engine was not as smooth, almost a buzzy quality when accelerating... definitely not as quiet as my old warhorse. then driving a V6 Camery and comparing the two, I didn't think there was all that much difference, ie the front wheel drive was rather similar wrt engine noise during acceleration. I'm starting to wonder if aluminum based engines are inherently noiser compared to the old cast iron ones.... anyway, rather disapointed. Anyone have any thoughts? cheers, guenter The M-B V-6 is a 90 degree "V" with a counter rotating balance shaft that's supposed to cancel the engine's inherent imbalance. A 60 degree V6 needs no counter shaft, cylinders fire every 60 degrees of rotation so the motor IS in a balanced state. A V-8 is even smoother as a cylinder fires every 45 degrees of rotation. A 60 degree V-12 is even smoother. And a straight six has no balance problem either for each cylinder fires at 60 degrees and the cylinders are in a single row. I believe that's the reason you felt the M-B V-6 was harsher than your straight six, one of the smoothest sixes, IMHO.  Signature© 2007 T.G.Lambach. Publication in any form requires prior written permission. great explanation, thank you for that. Spend quite a bit of time learning further details re V's and I's .... didn't know there was that much involved wrt to these concepts, all affecting performance, cost, emission, etc etc great post, cheers, guenter >The M-B V-6 is a 90 degree "V" with a counter rotating balance shaft >that's supposed to cancel the engine's inherent imbalance. A 60 degree [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >I believe that's the reason you felt the M-B V-6 was harsher than your >straight six, one of the smoothest sixes, IMHO. > The M-B V-6 is a 90 degree "V" with a counter rotating balance shaft > that's supposed to cancel the engine's inherent imbalance. A 60 degree [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I believe that's the reason you felt the M-B V-6 was harsher than your > straight six, one of the smoothest sixes, IMHO. Are they 2-stroke engines? Reg: Harri On Apr 14, 10:45 pm, sch...@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Guenter Scholz) wrote: > Hi All > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > cheers, guenter Yeah, I feel the same. My 88 260E is a lot smoother than the newer 97 E320. I also tried a few 2000s Volvos, none can be compared to the 19 year old car. A sales person from a Carmax recomended me the Lexus. She said after driving hers, every other car seems to have problems. I didn't have time to try, maybe you should try and let us know :) Cheers, TV >On Apr 14, 10:45 pm, sch...@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Guenter Scholz) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >Cheers, TV well, I'm certainly happy to know that I'm not imagining things. T.G Lambach is probably right on the money with his detailed explanation.... Perfection with the balancing shaft, according to MB, my foot ;-) Now, I did try to see about the Lexus', however they also seem to be all V6's or V8's.... no inlines that I came across at a nearby dealership. Possibly Lexus also made the switch to V's. On a positive note, the V's do seem to have a lot of advantages, cheaper to build, lower emissions, more torque at low rpm's lighter in weight with the aluminium engine etc... What really puzzles me though is why MB went with the 90 degree V6 rather than the 60 degree one.... probably primarily so that tooling costs could be shared with the V8's... but I can't quite believe that since, after all, we are talking a premier car brand which is surely not going to squeeze nickels and dimes ... OK, well, lot's of dollars .... and produce a product which in some ways is less than desireable. cheers, guenter Guenter Scholz schrieb: >> On Apr 14, 10:45 pm, sch...@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Guenter Scholz) >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > and dimes ... OK, well, lot's of dollars .... and produce a product which in > some ways is less than desireable. The design problem to be solved is mainly to minimize air resistance at maximal power. One needs a low hood, a cae in wegde form and a compact central air and gas supply unit on top of the engine between the cylinders. The solution looks of courde more like a flat Porsche boxer than the classic inline 6 with a star or an angel on the hood right in front of drivers nose. The W123 280E inline 6 with 185 hp had a maximum speed of 208 km/h taking 18 litres/100 km. The W202 C240 V6 with 175 hp makes 230 km/h taking 13 litres at max speed. SignatureRoland Franzius Yes and Yes! The V-6 is machined on the 90 degree machines that also make V-8s and the 90 degree V-6 has less height than if it were a 60 degree motor. As to the power comparison between a contemporary 240 V-6 and the 1970s 280 straight six --- let's be fair these two motors are 30 years apart! Different fuel injection, different engine controls and different transmissions and a lighter weight, and more streamlined, car body. That's progress. As to harshness, the 90 degree V-6 and the "sports sedan" trend with its, IMHO, oversized tires contribute to that feeling. I was considering buying a new E350 but passed for those reasons. Signature© 2007 T.G.Lambach. Publication in any form requires prior written permission. On Apr 17, 2:11 am, "-->> T.G. Lambach <<--" <"T.G. Lambach at NoHamorSpamcomcast.net"> wrote: > Yes and Yes! > > The V-6 is machined on the 90 degree machines that also make V-8s and > the 90 degree V-6 has less height than if it were a 60 degree motor. So they can have a lower hood for better aerodynamics and fuel economy. Plus, they're shorter, so more space to absorb energy in a crash. > As to the power comparison between a contemporary 240 V-6 and the 1970s > 280 straight six --- let's be fair these two motors are 30 years apart! > Different fuel injection, different engine controls and different > transmissions and a lighter weight, and more streamlined, car body. Still, my E350 has the same rated hp (268) as a 1995 C36 AMG! > That's progress. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > © 2007 T.G.Lambach. Publication in any form requires prior written > permission. >>On Apr 14, 10:45 pm, sch...@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Guenter Scholz) >>wrote: >>> Hi All Snip.... > What really puzzles me though is why MB went with the 90 degree > V6 rather [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > which in > some ways is less than desireable. So it will fit in my SLK :) >>>On Apr 14, 10:45 pm, sch...@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Guenter Scholz) >>>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> >So it will fit in my SLK :) that seems to be the emerging consensus... style and multiple applications would seem to be the clear winners in a world of trade-offs. Let me ask you, seeing that I'd like to get a 'fun' car for myself.... SLK or Boxster... darn, can't make up my mind.... I tend to favour an SLK since I'm a 'bit' familiar with MB's and Boxsters I think will be a royal pain in the a.. to work on. Also the SLK will probably be a bit more comfortable (ie softer sprung). Then if SLK, 230 or 320... ?? How did you decide on your 320 if I may ask? cheers, guenter >>> In article >>> <1176706515.925299.155600@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > cheers, guenter Bottom line; my wife let me buy it :) Actually I looked closely at the boxster, the audi TT and the honda as well as the SLK. The SLK320 won mainly because of two things: 1) it is more comfortable, and 2) creature comfort is much better; it has a folding HT. I did not like the audi Fwd/4WD it felt funny and seemed to have oversteer. The boxster was a much more refined (fun) sports car, but would not be as practical. The Honda was nice, but under powered (like the SLK230) and had very little in the way of creature comforts. I would like to have found an SLK32 AMG, but no such luck (maybe someday). I ended up finding a 2002 SLK320 with the sports package, zenons etc. for under Edmunds trade in value, so I (quick like a bunny) bought it before my wife had time to reconsider :). It is an automatic, so my wife could drive it, but she won't want to (does not feel safe). I love the car, but three caveats; 1) it is like riding a motorcycle, people cannot/will not see you and will pull out in front of you, run into you changing lanes etc. 2) Do not pull in too far in a parking space. The AMG bumper is expensive and not very forgiving. 3) With the top down there is *very* little trunk space. The exhaust note could be a bit better, and I may have the resonator removed. I would like to add the aftermarket one touch top converter rather than having to hold the switch. >Bottom line; my wife let me buy it :) ahhh, yes. No different here. Moreover I know it will have to be an automatic, personally want a manual, so that she can drive it 'IF' the mood might strike her to drive it.... bad back - she says. >Actually I looked closely at the boxster, the audi TT and the honda as >well as the SLK. > >The SLK320 won mainly because of two things: 1) it is more >comfortable, and 2) creature comfort is much better; it has a folding >HT. I guess, the competition between these is to be expected. Your two reasons are exactly why I'm leaning toward the SLK and the 320 in particular after noting how rough the 4 cylinders run and the extra zip should wont hurt - especially since I won't be putting a ton of miles on the car so gas usage isn't a bit concern. >I did not like the audi Fwd/4WD it felt funny and seemed to have >oversteer. The boxster was a much more refined (fun) sports car, but [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >I would like to add the aftermarket one touch top converter rather >than having to hold the switch. thanks for that, hugely appreciated your 'heads up'. cheers, guenter >>The SLK320 won mainly because of two things: 1) it is more >>comfortable, and 2) creature comfort is much better; it has a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > so gas > usage isn't a bit concern. Not only that but it is comfortable. I can drive from RTP, North Carolina to Atlanta (~5 hours) and still walk when I get there. I knew I could not do that in the porsche or honda (stiffer suspension), I might have been able to do that in the audi, but the hard top, heated seats, rear wheel drive and decent HP etc. on the SLK, sold me. The 3.2 is a "torque-y" engine and the quasi manual slush box is fun once you get use to it (I passed some bicyclists today "downshifting" and braking before I got to them, once it was safe to pass, I could wind it out a bit selecting the upshift at around 6 grand. It sounded good. The top was down, life is good. All I need is my hair back :) Even with the more comfortable ride, the car corners very well, it goes where you point it with good manners. It is well balanced and really "happy" on a back road at about 80 mph :) I definitely recommend the "sport" package (wheels). It is fun but *not* a porsche, though. I don't drive that much either, but with this car on days like today, I am looking for excuses. After time, I may be able to get my wife in the car. She refuses to let me have a motorcycle :) Did I mention it is comfortable for a sports car? ...... all good points. You've sold me on the 320 SLK! cheers, guenter ps, did in fact try a Boxster last night... geez, almost had to crawl out of the seat after the drive, which was pretty 'bumpy' .... I see what you mean re comfort in the SLK. >>>The SLK320 won mainly because of two things: 1) it is more >>>comfortable, and 2) creature comfort is much better; it has a [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > >Did I mention it is comfortable for a sports car? > ...... all good points. You've sold me on the 320 SLK! > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you mean > re comfort in the SLK. Right, but driving the boxster "S" for me is aerobic exercise :) Have you considered a CLK Cab to get even more space? Again, at least the 3.2 l engine. Very popular in London. It's almost practical, even... at least it's the least impractical of the impractical cars... DAS For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling --- > ...... all good points. You've sold me on the 320 SLK! > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > mean > re comfort in the SLK. [...] >Have you considered a CLK Cab to get even more space? Again, at least the >3.2 l engine. Very popular in London. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >DAS Dory, I was ready to purchase one and took the one who must be obeyed along... mistake. Should have given it to her for a birthday present :-) Seems only a practical sedan will do ... I then decided on a 2003 E320 (the newer style, and I like to buy a bit older since I'm cheap) didn't particular like it and TOWMBO thought it was on the gaudy side inside wht with all the wood trim, swoops etc, I liked it, but who am I to argue. I've now decided to get the A/C on my 300E (89) fixed.... that was her major problem with it since she in fact likes the 2nd gear start and the fairly plain/practical inside along with lot's of room and very quiet engine. Sooooo, maybe I'm allowed to buy 'her' a little sports car like the SLK 320 .... she's going to NY with our daughter for 10 days soon and I'm planning to possible have something at home when she get's back and try to weather the storm.... - cheers, guenter 2nd gear start is easily done in newer MB... just keep it in W position as opposed to S mode. Come to think of it, didn't we discuss this before? Anyway, I think the more recent E and other class interiors (don't know in what year it started, but after 2001) is very smart. The E320 is VERY practical, isn't it? If I ever get rid of my CLK that's probably what I would go for. Thing is, I do 5K miles or less. My wife has our old 190E and she sometimes mutters about a newer car, but come September it'll be back down to a handfull of miles a week because our son is starting at a school to which we are unlikely to drive very often, using the Underground instead. Still, I asked a couple of service managers at my Merc garage and they advised to avoid A-Class before about 2003/4 and C-Class. (I only asked about smaller cars.) B-Class has no issues, they said. Scathing about older As, as you can see. DAS For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > Dory, I was ready to purchase one and took the one who must be obeyed > along... mistake. Should have given it to her for a birthday present :-) [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > - cheers, guenter > Hi All > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > compared to the old cast iron ones.... anyway, rather disapointed. > Anyone have any thoughts? I suppose it's a computer to blame. 300E has a siple mechanical accelerating pedal but new one has electrical and a computer between pedal and engine. I had before a really great 190E 2,6 but now there is a E240 with V6 engine. Reg: Harri |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.