2010 C-Class Is Out - Any Thoughts?
#51
Super Moderator
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 19,942
Likes: 183
From: Llandudno, Cape Town, South Africa
late 2009 CLK 350 Coupe Elegance, '65 Jaguar S Type wires
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.
#52
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 451
Likes: 1
From: S.F. Bay Area
2008 C300 Sport, 2010 RX350 AWD
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?
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?
#53
Super Moderator
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 19,942
Likes: 183
From: Llandudno, Cape Town, South Africa
late 2009 CLK 350 Coupe Elegance, '65 Jaguar S Type wires
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?
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?
From a performance perspective, a weight advantage of 300lbs is considerable.
#54
Way back in the early 60s, it was shown that a thimble full of nuclear fuel would power a home for a year. We still don't have portable nuclear power plants, even though the technology to do that is 'easy'. How hard would it be to implement that same technology in a car? Probably not too hard.
Mercedes has pushed ahead of the market. They could, and have, tabled their new technology waiting for the market to catch up (cleaner fuels). Meanwhile, they still produce engines that work in the market place. They are doing what they should do, even if that new technology never reaches the marketplace. They are protecting their customers by holding off unnecessary development costs while at the same time sitting on the appropriate technology waiting for the usable fuels to become ready. Good Job.
Mercedes has pushed ahead of the market. They could, and have, tabled their new technology waiting for the market to catch up (cleaner fuels). Meanwhile, they still produce engines that work in the market place. They are doing what they should do, even if that new technology never reaches the marketplace. They are protecting their customers by holding off unnecessary development costs while at the same time sitting on the appropriate technology waiting for the usable fuels to become ready. Good Job.
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.
#55
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!
#56
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!
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.
#57
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?
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?
#58
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.
I guess I can also just option for the Sirius for $450 just to get the MM.
Last edited by rh71; 07-16-2009 at 08:14 AM.
#59
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..
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..
#60
Super Moderator
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 19,942
Likes: 183
From: Llandudno, Cape Town, South Africa
late 2009 CLK 350 Coupe Elegance, '65 Jaguar S Type wires
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?
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?
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.
Last edited by Glyn M Ruck; 07-16-2009 at 10:30 AM.
#61
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.
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.
#62
Super Moderator
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 19,942
Likes: 183
From: Llandudno, Cape Town, South Africa
late 2009 CLK 350 Coupe Elegance, '65 Jaguar S Type wires
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.
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.
#63
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.
#65
#66
Super Moderator
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 19,942
Likes: 183
From: Llandudno, Cape Town, South Africa
late 2009 CLK 350 Coupe Elegance, '65 Jaguar S Type wires
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.
#67
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...
#69
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 393
Likes: 29
From: Boston, Massachusetts
2014 Mercedes-Benz E350 4Matic Sport
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.
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.
#70
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 9,588
Likes: 0
From: Richmond, BC, Canada
2010 Prius & Miata MX5 PRHT, 2010 Toyota Venza AWD, 05 C55 AMG, Yamaha 1100 Custom, Honda 250 Reflex
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.