As jstaneff suggests. Merc should do exactly as it has done. Supply engines that suit the market conditions. Supply US with older tech engines designed to run on their prevalent fuel & supply Europe & other markets with their new Multi million dollar baby that is designed to meet the emissions requirements for those markets with the fuels prevalent there.

Retro engineering the latest engine does not make a lot of sense & is not as simple as bolting on old generation cats. It effects a host of components such as ECU, head design, Valves, Valve seats & their metalurgy - a whole raft of sensors, closed circuit crankcase ventilation design etc. etc. & then the whole show needs to go through durability testing all over again. Merc learned with their M271 USA version engine that was designed to run on narrow distillation Euro grade gas. The US version was comparatively fragile & cost them a bomb in warrantee claims. Some of it's problems were general market related but the expensive cylinder head failures & valve sticking were directly fuel related & forced an expensive redesign - they won't do that again IMHO.

 

As another member pointed out earlier, US version of SLK350 uses 300HP non-cgi M272 3.5L engine..
Granted, the engine for SLK350 has higher compression ratio and higher RPM limit, but if they can do it for SLK350 which is only 300lbs lighter than C350, why can't they use the same engine for the C350 or even GLK350?

 

No good reason - other than cost I imagine.

From a performance perspective, a weight advantage of 300lbs is considerable.

 

I work in the Nuclear Finance industry. Let me tell you - NOT POSSIBLE. never will happen. 1) Security Reasons 2) Huge amount of water required to cool the reactors. 3) If you get into an accident, Boom - everyone around you is gone.

However, you can use your existing nuclear plants to make hydrogen and have these hydrogen fueled cars. Thats the best case scenario.

 

So, whether or not it's technically feasible, you suggest that paranoia and fear are the reasons it's not been done. I agree with that.

At a technical level, the only real concern I have is how to "pause" a reaction when the energy isn't needed. In a typical reactor you can draw out the rods. In a 'thimble' reactor a different approach has to be taken. Effectively we are looking for heat to produce steam rather than electricity. Ah, but that's for the nuclear physicists among us to work out .... I'll stick with that really safe fuel we've all grown to love: Gasoline!

 

I agree with you about pausing the reaction obstacle when energy is not needed. We havent even thought about the cost of making the reactors every car. From a financial standpoint, our C class will cost a lot more. Handling perspective - will weigh a lot more cuz of the steel and reinforced concrete around the reactor (there goes your handling).

But then again, I've learnt to love Oil for my ride. I guess, this discussion is way off topic for this thread. Million apologies to the other readers.

 

some issues being mixed up on this thread. The problem with the fouling of the inlet rail on DI engines has nothing to do with "bad US fuel". There is always mist from the hot oil in suspension in the crankcase. PCV systems reroute that mist into the intake rail to be reburned. On a traditional EFI engine, that intake rail air mixture mixes with fuel, and the detergent in the fuel keeps the valves clean. On a DI engine, there is no fuel in that rail, just air and the ventilated cracnkcase vapors, hence the valves can foul.

Are you saying that on a MB DI engine, it will carry a resevoir with detergent to inject into the intake rail to combat this? And the owner has to refill it? If that's true, I don't want one of their cars with that engine. The solution to this problem is a catch can on the PCV system to filter the vapor coming into the intake. The catch can filter can be replaced like an air filter. Forget about this detergent resevoir idea, who wants that?

 

is P1 required to get MM pkg on 2010 (as per build your own) where it wasn't a requirement on 2009 C300?

I guess I can also just option for the Sirius for $450 just to get the MM.

 

Just ckecked the mbusa.com.. tried to build a 2010 C300 almost fully loaded..with P2+MM pkg+dynamic driving handling pkg+also paddle shifter(interestingly C350 does not have it)..MSRP 44K

Did the same thing for 09 C350 with P2+MM with command system.. MSRP 45k..

no big difference here..i rather to choose C350 without paddle shifter cuz it has more power..

 

There are no issues being confused on this thread regarding deposits - The DI inlet deposits have been closely analysed in our labs & are a combination of fuel deposit, burnt VI Improver from the oil coming down the valve guide & as you say - captive crankcase ventilation vapour. They are interdependant & the CV oil contribution is not that high using synthetic oils. Sad but true. We have become accustomed to the detergeants in decent additised fuel keeping this at bay as you correctly state. The fuel contribution comes from valve blowback due to overlap & fuel contribution to CV vapour. You might wish to consider part of the fuel contribution to be combustion by product - that would be correct but the proportions are not clear. I guess as we all know - ring seal is not perfect & valves are not perfect on/off switches in the Otto cycle engine.

Yes the DI Merc engines in their present iteration have a detergeant reservoir from which detergeant is injected into the inlet system. That system is designed to be topped off at the scheduled service intervals by the dealer. Our Additive company has worked with Benz on the development. This is why Posche & VW/Audi have had problems & Benz have not. Benz oil control down the guide appears better than their competition.

 

I am not seeing the US fuels higher sulfur connection to this. Are those valves covered in a sulfur compound? Are you saying that Audi DI engines do not have this fouling problem in Europe then, because of their fuels?

So the detergent resevoir will last for 10K miles? I guess that would be OK, I had envisioned filling the thing up every few weeks.

 

The sulphur is only one issue with US fuels & many other country's fuels around the world. - but it's the major reason for Benz not launching the new engines. The new "clean" fuels are more heavily hydrotreated etc which in simple terms means they have less unstable molocules. Unstable molocules are more inclined to oxidise, polymerise etc. and form deposits.

Regarding Audi etc - exactly.

Regarding valves - sulphur in fuel acts as a lubricant on valve seats etc - much in the way lead did in the leaded gas days but no where near as well. Nevertheless removal of sulphur from fuel to below 5ppm means harder/less wear prone valve seats are required to prevent recession.

Yes - the Benz detergeant tank is designed to go 20,000Km or 13,000 miles plus before refill.

 

In the absence of lead and/or sulfur, what then acts as a lubricant in the "cleaner" fuels in Europe? Or do the harder valve seats render lubricants unnecessary...

 

someone asked this, but can the dealer install the backup cam now that it's an option?

 

People don't take care of their cars as it is. Can't imagine them driving down the road leaking contamination.

 

The removal of lead from fuels was a greater challenge in this regard than sulphur. Thanks to modern materials - the reconfigured metalurgy of the valves & seats renders "lubricants" unnecessary.

 

Anyone know if the (C-Class) 2010's with iPod integration come with the "black" iPod charging cable (usb charge) instead of the "white" cable (firewire) now? I had heard that the 09's still had the "older "white (firewire) charging cable...

 

anyone know when the dealers will be getting these in? Eager to talk options and put one on order... they had a few "TBD" left for pricing certain options.

 

Ever since the Audi RS4 came out i've always wanted one of my own, but I definitely can't afford it being a college student. That, and i'm a big Mercedes-Benz fan (also a family thing).

The C300 4matic right now is the closest I can get to a Mercedes equivalent to the RS4 since they don't compete with the RS4 or S4 and I prefer AWD cars. Planning to switch my C300 RWD to an AWD once I earn enough money later this year.

I'm perfectly happy with my 230hp considering that where I used to live in Europe many people (the average folk, including my friends) are driving 1-2L hatchbacks and sedans with anything from 40hp-225hp so i'm definitely happy with what I have in comparison. If they can cope with those amounts of displacement and horsepower then I think most of us have nothing to complain about. Besides, having smaller peppy engines makes it fun to rev them to higher RPMs .

That said, considering the 211hp 2.0T A4 has 258Lbs of Torque I think its a shame that Mercedes didn't at least update the ECU or something to match the torque numbers. Even that would have been a great improvement.

Generally i'm just nitpicking but overall i'm happy with my car and the C-Class in general. don't regret buying one for a second.

 

Eyeballed the new E-Coupe at the dealership today and I would definitely consider it over a 2010 W204. I think it a very attractive car at a reasonable price. Check it out.