[ROUMOR] Specs of the engines for 2005 C-Class

[GIR]

I'm not sure whether this is true but these numbers look very realistic and very sweet aswell.

The new C-Class will start with the C180 which will ofcourse have a 1.8 liter engine, twinspark, variable valve timing, variable camshaft timing and direct gasoline injection. Besides from a intercooler like looking cooled air intake up front it's totaly NA.

Here are the numbers:
1793 ccm displacement
145 kw (197 hp) @ 5200 rpm
220 Nm @ 2500 to 4200 rpm
0 - 100 in 8.2 seconds
Top Speed 232 km/h
Fuel consumption 7.2 litres NEDC combined
EU-4 emission compliance



If these numbers are true then this is officaly the worlds fastest, envoiremental friendliest and economic 1.8 liter 4 cylinder. This is really going to give eveybodt a run for their money.

[skyline_r34v]

A 1.8L 4-cylinder making 197hp is impressive but being at 3,166lbs (roughly my estimate) that's a bit hefty. That's incredibly slow since the Eclipse GT is 3,142lbs, 200hp and does the 0-60 in 7 flat.

So i'm guessing this does a 1/4 mile in 16.2-5 seconds???

[Thunf]

What a nice car!!!

[mv]

I dont consider it possible...that would be a too big leap..but who knows :roll:

[LateNightCable]

I don't find that unduely impressive, especially considering the weight in excess of 3,000 lbs. The handsomly chisled ( in my opinion ) Toyota Celica, also with a 1.8L four of 180 hp. Although a very small coupe, could deliver mileage in the 36 mpg range. That car weighed around 2,500 - 2,600 lbs.

For real environmental friendlines, as far as gas engines go, I think small displacement, combined with low weight is the key. Mercedes could learn something from the old saying " keep it simple stupid. "

[Thunf]

Originally Posted by LateNightCable I don't find that unduely impressive, especially considering the weight in excess of 3,000 lbs. The handsomly chisled ( in my opinion ) Toyota Celica, also with a 1.8L four of 180 hp. Although a very small coupe, could deliver mileage in the 36 mpg range. That car weighed around 2,500 - 2,600 lbs. For real environmental friendlines, as far as gas engines go, I think small displacement, combined with low weight is the key. Mercedes could learn something from the old saying " keep it simple stupid. "

As always is Latenight critisising Mercedes for whatever they do.
Toyota Celica is a cool car I'd never buy. Can't understand how you compare that one just because of the engine. Try comparing a BMW Z4 3.0i to a BMW 530i.

You are thinking bit double nature here, you have critisised Mercedes engines because of the opposite before. Why not tell BMW too to keep it simple stupid"? Why use advanced valvetronic, why use double vanos, why use variable intakemanifold etc... double nature.

[LateNightCable]

Originally Posted by Thunf As always is Latenight critisising Mercedes for whatever they do.

You haven't met Kevin321 before have you?

Why use advanced valvetronic, why use double vanos, why use variable intakemanifold etc...

Why indeed?

You are thinking bit double nature here, you have crtisised Mercedes engines because of the opposite before. Why not tell BMW too to keep it simple stupid"?

Simple is not bad. The only thing I have critisised Mercedes for in the past, regarding their engines is their penchant for excessively large displacement and forced induction. A green machine should be kept simple to keep costs down, in turn encouraging the public to give them a shot .

[Thunf]

Why would displacement not keep cost down, uh?

Mercedes have been simple and have engines with 3 valves instead, no variable valvetiming and so on. That was a bad thing according to you wasn't it? A little more material doesn't cost much. It's just that when the displacement is exclusive for a model, then it's expensive becaue of the topmodel.

And they've been critisized for just that, simplicity.

Now we are seeing something new coming, already critisizied, it's simply a bad tone from you and Kevin because of the star. It should be something else there, like Subaru, then you are happy.

[bleh]

i still think mercedes is behind the 8 ball as far as four cylinders go. with all of that technology they should be pushing a lot more.

i also agree that it should be lighter, that would just improve numbers all around...except for the survival rate when colliding with an suv.

from what ive read about it, im impressed with the .26 cd. thats pretty nice. the optional hands free windsheild wiper with rain dector is cool too.

i could very easily be wrong and my opion of the car is based on this: how much is 7.2 litres NEDC converted to mpg? is it around 36?

i also dont understand why there is all that technology that should be used across an rpm band that tops out at 4200. i mean reason for the variable everything is widening the powerband right?

[LateNightCable]

We're talking about a different class of vehicle here, not spare no expense luxury cars. A car meant to be eco friendly has no use for a large displacement engine. They must be low cost, at least for now so the public will be more willing to try them, and they must use a minimum of fuel, and expell the least amount of emissions possible, for obvious reasons. A larger displacement gas engine is going to require more fuel, thus making the operating expense higher, thats' natural.

I never said things like variable valve timeing and so on were a " bad " thing, just not nesessary. It certainly doesn't make the cost of the car any cheaper. But VVT used to be a big thing, now it's in lower priced cars. Cars in the luxury realm are expected to break new ground in some way, ( at least for the sake of efficiency ) the technology of which then trickles down to less expensive cars ( like VVT ). Engine-wise, Mercedes has never been a leader in this field, this is true. Again, I personally don't think this has to be bad, I love the Bentley Arnage, and thats' fairly low-tech, but thats' another world altogether.

So basically, what I mean by " keep it simple stupid " is that, as far as an eco car goes, Mercedes makes it more complicated than it has to be, driving costs up. But then when did MB ever care about rational priceing?

Also, I would say you're being a little " double natured ". You yourself Thunf stated in another thread that Mercedes can do nothing right. ??