curioused

If they say that the new 1.8 engine is better (I believe it is in some ways)

Why didn't they put the 1.8 engine on the SLK 230 roadster?
I looked at mbusa.com and they still have the old c230 2.3 engine inside the SLK.

Just curious ...

gab

people (esp. americans) cant justify spending 45K on a car with a 1.8

even if the Lotus Elise is coming to stateside it will likely to equip with a bigger displacement engine from GM

Buellwinkle

The SLK230 is in it's final year and it probably wasn't cost effective to swap the engine at this point. I've heard the new '04 SLK230 will sport the 1.8L motor in it's entry level model.

Lynn

Buellwinkle is correct. The SLK is not only in its last year in its current form, but it is a low volume car. It doesn't make sense to spend the money to convert it to the 1.8.

MBSPY has the 2004 SLK being equipped with five engines, at least in Europe. In North America, it might be three. There are two M271 four cynliders, SLK180 Kompressor (163 hp) and SLK 230 Kompressor (200 hp) There should be three V-6's based on the M272. They are supercharged 2.2 (211 hp)and 2.7 liter (258 hp) engines, and a 3.0 liter 375 hp AMG engine. Other rumors have the V-6's as the current 320 and SLK32. With the advent of the 350 in other classes, this seems to be untrue.

tifosiv122

I was told that too as I am looking for a newer SLK.

Erik

viper

They did not want to raise the base price of the coupe so they put the cheaper to produce 1.8L engine in it. Don't forget they also de-contented the coupe for 2003 since it is very important that they keep the price down to remain competitive.

curioused

What do you mean when you said they decontented the 2003 coupe? Aside from the Auto dimming windows, which is now an option, what else did they scrap out?

tifosiv122

Onstar, not sure what else.
I know they made several improvements over the '02...

Erik

curioused

Teleaid was an add on feature in 2002, I got mine for free because they were giving it as an introductory offer . But yes there are some refinements on the 2003 ... I kinda like the one where the C230 has 4 doors now

tifosiv122

I thought all '02s physically had teleaid, you just had the option of subscribing or not.

Erik

curioused

I'm not so sure about that...anybody know the answer? Besides I don't subscribe to Teleaid anymore... costs too much so I just carry a cellphone.

I was thinking maybe I'd subscribe to it when my car gets older(after warranty is over, just about the time something might break) :p

steffen

My 2002 C230k does not have Teleaid (build date: 11/01)

--S

Lynn

Nope. My car does not have teleaid. The first coupes produced had it, but MB decided that to keep the price where they wanted, teleaid had to be an option. Therefore, on the first cars produced with teleaid, it became an introductory special.

The M271 is not a cheaper engine than the M111. The M111 has been in production for a long time. All of its R&D, tooling etc has long been paid for. That is not true for an engine just starting into production. Also, it is my understanding that alloy is harder to work with than cast iron, so that is another additional expense. The M271 is a more complicated engine than the M111, because it has varible valve timing on both sides on the valve train, instead of just on the intake like the M111. Also, the M271 has balance shafts which means more machining for the bearings for the balance shafts and the parts to drive them. The M271 has a more sophisticated emissions system than the M111. It is not possible that the M271 is cheaper.

tifosiv122

Ohh, ok...my dealer said '02's came with it standard, but I guess he meant the first '02s...

Erik

FrankW

what bulle and lynn said pretty much sums it up for what you were asking.

if you search around on this forum you'll see my opinion on the new C230k sedan when I took a test drive this past sunday.

viper

I respectfully disagree. The very fact that the 2.3L is older technology means IT IS costly to produce. Complexity and sophistication does not automatically mean increased cost. Manufacturers look for ways to drive down cost. They always have and always will. Its called profit.

Remember when pocket calculators first came out ? They were very expensive and did very little. Todays calculators can do complex mathematics and are inexpensive. They are more sophisticated and cost a lot less then their predecessors.

Note I never inferred that the 2.3L is superior in any way. But part for part pound for pound it does cost more to produce an older design than a new one. Advances in technology are what help produce better and cheaper products.

TNblkc230wz

Let's not forget about the CAFE of 27.5 mpg for all cars. In addition to gas guzzler taxes posted on the window sticker, the US government (and some other governments) impose a tax on the manufacture if the entire corporate fleet doesn't average 27.5 mpg. This is why ford sells Foci at near break even.

Most of MB's cars (trucks such as the ML have a different standard) don't get 27.5 mpg, so every 1.8 car MB sells raises the fleet average and ultimately increases the profits on CLKs, SLs, and S class vehicles.

Also many countries, such as Japan, impose a tax on all cars with engines over 2.0 liters. This may explain the 1.8 liter displacement and more boost

Buellwinkle

The 1.8l certainly looks like a cheaper engine and nothing in the way to try and make it look better. But I tend to agree with Lynn, they had to meet regulatory emissions and CAFE standards and the cost of the motor was secondary. I believe that it costs them more or at least pretty close to make the more sophisticated 1.8L. You can't compare electronics where 10 U.S. made chips over time are replaced with 1 cheaper chip made in 3rd world countries and the calculators are produced by the millions by cheap off-shore labor. MB still makes these motors using the same labor, probably the same technology and with increased engineering and materials costs.

DCXdynodog

I believe you are wrong on this one Lynn (not often that happens).

The cost is in the tooling and construction techniques / technology. (time is $$) I have heard they tried to give Chrysler the M111 and all the tooling, but it made no sense to take it because the cost to build that engine is very high, so it was turned down.

The variable valve timing may consist of just rotatings the cams, That is not too complicated these days as long as you don't try to vary the lift/duration. (Remember...Honda varied the lift and duration of the valve timing in a $10,000 car and made money...10 years ago)

Aluminum is more costly material, but the machining and tooling costs are much lower, so production cost should be cheaper.

Mike T.

Agreed. M-B would have to be stark raving NUTS to produce a more expensive engine to replace an already too expensive one.

Don't worry, they haven't.

The M111 was expensive due to its ancient origins and (I like to think) its old-school Mercedes in-built engineering contingencies. This engine came in a large number of variations among which were light trucks/vans, no blower, 2L, then 2.2L, then 2.3L and various cars, no blower, then blown, 2L and 2.3L.

It's a good engine (mbtech208 says it was the best engine Mercedes built in 2002), and certainly presents visually far better under the hood than does the M271. The new engine looks dinky and, to be frank, ugly.

Nonetheless, I'm sure the M271 is a pretty good engine too, and it's more fuel efficient and cleaner than its predecessor. I doubt it's anywhere near as sophisticated as a VTEC engine though. Honda does this best and can do it in ultra cheap cars because they build millions of these VTEC engines in a year. The production levels are not there for lower volume makers like M-B to compete at that cost level. Too bad.

About the variable valve timing/lift issue, I have to hand it to Honda. Remember the first Boxsters? They had a Rube Goldberg "VarioCam" system that used big tensioner assemblies on the cambelts to vary timing. Cost cutting, heh heh. I could do that with my Peugeot 405 if I was cheap Maybe Porsche still uses this system. If so, they could learn a thing or two from Honda.

zimmer26

I'll add my pocket change to this debate and say that I think Lynn is more correct. I'd say that they probably cost roughly the same to produce pound per pound, if R&D costs aren't considered. I think MBs motivation was not one of increasing the margin on the car, but more to simply update the product and quell complains of a coarse running, not very fuel efficient engine. I simply don't buy the fact that this engine costs so much less to produce than the 2.3 especially when factoring in R&D and the use significantly more costly materials.

NS2000X

We are all speculating one way or another, you would have to ask people in the know for the "real" cost of the M272 vs. the M111.
It is true that modern production techniques can reduce the per unit cost over a long production run, but with automotive engines recouping R&D and tooling cost requires significant volume.

I'll add Honda produced the relatively low volume single use F20C found in the S2000. I doubt they make much money on it, however I imagine it teaches them ("R"&D) more about road use of high revving VTEC road engines.

Porsche now use a very complicated (to execute, not to understand) variable valve control system. Instead of each single cam follower there are three. That runs in one of two positions, either the two outer followers or the singe inner follower. The followers act like solenoids switching between the two configurations.

Sorry for the long post.

NS2000X

Outland

Have you looked at an iVtech engine? They aren't anymore sophisticated. Better fuel mapping and tuning perhaps. The extra RPM's that the Honda motor turns are the key to its high HP...HP is the rate at which torque is applied...Hondas are low in torque- they make up the difference thru high RPM's.

For day to day driving, I'll take the M111 over the M271...and both over the torque poor Honda motors.

Quote:

About the variable valve timing/lift issue, I have to hand it to Honda. Remember the first Boxsters? They had a Rube Goldberg "VarioCam" system that used big tensioner assemblies on the cambelts to vary timing. Cost cutting, heh heh. I could do that with my Peugeot 405 if I was cheap Maybe Porsche still uses this system. If so, they could learn a thing or two from Honda.

Honda dumped its original Vtech design as well. I think the 'iVtech' setup used now ressembles the one used by Toyota, BMW and Porsche.

tifosiv122

Having experience with both motors, I would take the 1.8 anyday. Revs quicker, the honda 4cyl sound is almost gone, and so much better on gas.

Erik

Outland

Aluminum is much easier to machine than Iron. You burn up less tooling and the machining takes less time. Aluminum has its own handling problems to worry about...the metal is so soft it can be dented by plastic, and then there's porosity concerns with Aluminum.