2002 M-111 engine vs. 2005 engine?
Thread Starter
Almost a Member!
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
2002 M-111 engine vs. 2005 engine?
In a thread below, Rick states that "2002's have the M-111 engine, thats a desirable and functional feature compared the the new motor". Can someone please explain why the M-111 is more desireable?
Thanks
Thanks
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,753
Likes: 0
From: York, PA
2003 C230K Sport Coupe, 1986 190E 2.3
Originally Posted by hanke
In a thread below, Rick states that "2002's have the M-111 engine, thats a desirable and functional feature compared the the new motor". Can someone please explain why the M-111 is more desireable?
Thanks
Thanks
Edit: M111 stock boost is 7 psi and M271's stock boost is 11 psi BTW.
Last edited by mctwin2kman; Oct 21, 2004 at 10:32 AM.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,036
Likes: 1
Blimp
well, i'll be going in to Evosport tomorow and getting a baseline dyno on the car! Then they will start taking some measurements so that soon we can all get some aftermarket performance parts for our M271 engines.
I'll keep you all posted.
-Danny
I'll keep you all posted.
-Danny
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,498
Likes: 4
From: San Diego, CA & San Jose, Costa Rica & Stuttgart, Germany
1959 220S / 1979 230 G / 2002 A210 AMG / 2003 C320 SC / 2004.5 C320 SS / 2005 ML350 SE / 2008 smart
Originally Posted by Oil Change
are pully safe? or they might hurt the engine?
Mechanical engineers will tell you NOT to do it ! They have Mercedes running for over 10+ years.
Salesmen and racers will tell you to go for it ! They sell their Mercedes after 2-3 years.
It's your choice. If I were to do it, I would go for the proven KLEEMANN, CARLSSON or BRABUS set ups that involve more than just pulleys. Because the pulleys alone don't make the car ! But now we're talking $1000's not $100's.
Carlos
Saprissa@aol.com
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,480
Likes: 1
From: Central NJ
C230K Coupe/Orion/C4/C5/CD/AMG Spoiler/V60/TeleAid, 2 MGB's
I agree with what Mctwin posted....but I refer to the torque curves as well as the displacement of the two engines. I have a 2002 coupe with the 2.3 liter M-111 and a six speed. The M-271 is a 1.8 liter with more boost and less displacement.
I have driven coupes and sedans with both engines and auto trans. The torque picks up sooner with the M-111, regardless of the transmission. It's not exactly a "kick you in the seat of the pants" difference, but it's something I just....feel. I've had heavily mod'ed cars, and I know the difference. The 1.8 M271 is a good, solid aluminum block, but it needs the extra boost to match performance. I'd be wary of tweaking this engine too much because from an engineering standpoint, it's close to it's max limitations when it rolls out of the showroom (my humble opinion).
I do not have a pulley, and have not done any major mods for performance (maybe after the warranty runs out if I don't trade it in). My main point is that the older, iron block engine offers more torque at less boost, and therefor is probably more reliable. After all, Mercedes has used the same 2.3 liter iron block design as the M-111 (albeit with different heads, obviously) since 1953.
I have driven coupes and sedans with both engines and auto trans. The torque picks up sooner with the M-111, regardless of the transmission. It's not exactly a "kick you in the seat of the pants" difference, but it's something I just....feel. I've had heavily mod'ed cars, and I know the difference. The 1.8 M271 is a good, solid aluminum block, but it needs the extra boost to match performance. I'd be wary of tweaking this engine too much because from an engineering standpoint, it's close to it's max limitations when it rolls out of the showroom (my humble opinion).
I do not have a pulley, and have not done any major mods for performance (maybe after the warranty runs out if I don't trade it in). My main point is that the older, iron block engine offers more torque at less boost, and therefor is probably more reliable. After all, Mercedes has used the same 2.3 liter iron block design as the M-111 (albeit with different heads, obviously) since 1953.
Last edited by Rick; Oct 21, 2004 at 10:36 PM.
Trending Topics
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
10 Most Reliable Mercedes-Benz Models You Can Buy Used
Verdad Gallardo
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,753
Likes: 0
From: York, PA
2003 C230K Sport Coupe, 1986 190E 2.3
Originally Posted by Rick
I agree with what Mctwin posted....but I refer to the torque curves as well as the displacement of the two engines. I have a 2002 coupe with the 2.3 liter M-111 and a six speed. The M-271 is a 1.8 liter with more boost and less displacement.
I have driven coupes and sedans with both engines and auto trans. The torque picks up sooner with the M-111, regardless of the transmission. It's not exactly a "kick you in the seat of the pants" difference, but it's something I just....feel. I've had heavily mod'ed cars, and I know the difference. The 1.8 M271 is a good, solid aluminum block, but it needs the extra boost to match performance. I'd be wary of tweaking this engine too much because from an engineering standpoint, it's close to it's max limitations when it rolls out of the showroom (my humble opinion).
I do not have a pulley, and have not done any major mods for performance (maybe after the warranty runs out if I don't trade it in). My main point is that the older, iron block engine offers more torque at less boost, and therefor is probably more reliable. After all, Mercedes has used the same 2.3 liter iron block design as the M-111 (albeit with different heads, obviously) since 1953.
I have driven coupes and sedans with both engines and auto trans. The torque picks up sooner with the M-111, regardless of the transmission. It's not exactly a "kick you in the seat of the pants" difference, but it's something I just....feel. I've had heavily mod'ed cars, and I know the difference. The 1.8 M271 is a good, solid aluminum block, but it needs the extra boost to match performance. I'd be wary of tweaking this engine too much because from an engineering standpoint, it's close to it's max limitations when it rolls out of the showroom (my humble opinion).
I do not have a pulley, and have not done any major mods for performance (maybe after the warranty runs out if I don't trade it in). My main point is that the older, iron block engine offers more torque at less boost, and therefor is probably more reliable. After all, Mercedes has used the same 2.3 liter iron block design as the M-111 (albeit with different heads, obviously) since 1953.
Well I guess we have to hope that the M271 block and heads are built to the same stringent engine specs as the M111 was. Also hey if VW's 1.8 can handle the boost enough to push past 275Hp then I would hope the M271 could handle a few more psi, to push it to 220-225Hp...
Yeah I think the M102 engine in my 190E is the same block as the M111!
SergC yeah the Renntech is good as well. Hopefully someone will do before and after dyno's and purchase one of the available kits so we can see what these tuners are getting!
Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
From: Orlando, Fl
My gas sipping C-Class
Originally Posted by mctwin2kman
Well I guess we have to hope that the M271 block and heads are built to the same stringent engine specs as the M111 was. Also hey if VW's 1.8 can handle the boost enough to push past 275Hp then I would hope the M271 could handle a few more psi, to push it to 220-225Hp...
I've put 59k miles on my GTI since new and the past 28k miles have been with 285 hp and 299.5 ft/lbs at the wheels. At 57k miles I had Aristocrat VW do a leak down and compresion test. Both tests showed the motor to have no wear. Seriously, the leakdown showed all four cylinders to be "at or less than" 3% and the compression was near exactly the same as a new motor.
If I do go with some type of pulley kit for my M271, then I will only go with a tuner offering revised fuel, air and timing to compliment the pulley. I think it's best to spend the money on a complete package that has been well tested.
I would think that MB would build a strong bottom end, even if it's made out of alumium, but only time and beta testers will tell.......
Scott
Almost a Member!
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
From: Scottsdale, Arizona
2002 996TT,2004 996 C2,2005 C230K
Originally Posted by mctwin2kman
SergC yeah the Renntech is good as well. Hopefully someone will do before and after dyno's and purchase one of the available kits so we can see what these tuners are getting!
Also I'm thinking about Renntech wheels 8.5/9.2x18 on235/255 Pilots...
I'l post the results
