Nope we are talking about Displacement not how many valves per say.
Yes ,but not as complicated as BMW's or Audi's multivalve small displacement extra piston,rod, variable timing motors. MB still uses displacement instead.

You are looking at the # 400(bhp). Have you ever looked at a dyno chart of a vehicle?The area under the curve is what's important and the thing is where is the engine gonna make the 400hp with the big displacement,and how much Tq is it putting out at X rpm.I beg to differ with you.You seem to be just looking at the number 400 and the displacement size and not really taking a whole host of other things into what I'm saying.

the 6.1L Hemi Motor pushes the 4k+ car down the road in the 1/4 mile in 13.0-13.2 seconds flat

Nope it's based on MB's old original 6.3L motor and I believe the motor may be closley related to the old M119 multivalve V8 engine used in the European HAMMER! Your term waste of space just does not make sense to me when it comes to an engine,simply does'nt.To me it means that there is plenty of potential and that the motor does not have to wrk as hard to put out said HP.

I don't know if MB is going to build a 400 hp 6.3L motor and We both know I never said that.I just don't see why you feel that 400hp for a 6.3L motor is (using your terminology a waste of space).There are a whole lot of different factors involved.Alot of Tq is one.Where the car would be making usable TQ and hp is the next point,economics is the third ,and the extra displacement means that there is more room for more hp if needed.

I hope I'm not missing your point somewhere if so I'll just agree to disagree with your waste of space point.

Here's one for you.LOL! Why does AMG need to build a 500bhp 6.3L motor when I built one that puts out more than 500 hp out of 2.0L motor. I bet if you look at a dyno sheet you'll see that the bigger displ motor even though it has the same HP is putting out alot more TQ than mine!

 

man its a waste of displacement because they can get 510hp out of the same displacement. the engines potential isnt being fully utilized at the "detuned" 400hp. thats why its wasteful. why is that so hard to accept?

the 6.3liter is based on the same block as the AMG hammer? so what do they do when they put a 5.4 liter in the next "C63"? wouldnt it make more sense that they start with the standard 5.4liter and tune that rather than make an entirely new engine by themselves (which I dont believe they have ever done for a road car correct me if im wrong. i think even the hammer shared parts with a normal mercedes engine) like the 6.3 and detune it? starting with the 5.4 liter would be more within the mercedes and amg tradition.

if you dont agree with what i say then thats ok. im not gonna do this anymore

 

Well by your definition of waste of displ (space)the 5.4L motor was a waste of displacenent because sure they could have gotten more than 362hp NA hp out of that motor without boring the motor.

Actually the 380SEL! Yes it would make sense! Yes it did! Have you ever heard of the E50?AMG's tradition is TQ and displacement.The E50 which started off the E55 in the W210 body was a AMG tuned 5.0L M119 V8 motor (also used in the 400E but smaller displ) that amg tuned and used in Europe in the E50.It had 349-355 hp and a 32 valve motor ,variable valve timing,and about the same amt of TQ(349-355ftlb TQ).AMG decided to up the displacement,use less moving parts(hence the 24valve M113 5.4L motor),spend less $ and so what you have now is 349-362 hp and 391 ft lbs of TQ. Using more displ ,same to a lil more hp and more TQ which is more in the MB /AMG tradition.

No problem!Game Over!Just don't agree or care to understand your philosohy on waste of space.If you want to get into the history of other big displacement AMG motors we can do the but I don't think you wanna go there.However the hp displacement thing is definitely purely subjective is my pt.

 

couple of random comments.

the z06 motor is very compact due to the pushrod arrangement.

amg's motto has been "COMFORT POWER". I will agree with coolcarl re his point about folks looking at the absolute hp number and not taking into consderation the area under the curve for the motor.

let me state my understanding of torque.... torque is power as it relates to gearing. the higher the rpm the more difficult it is to maintain a given amount of torque in relation to the amount at a lower rpm. tansmission gearing plays a factor but simplistically an engine with a flat torque curve will maintain a given degree of acceleration over that rpm range.

ie....my nissan nx2000 (140hp) will accelerate as fast or faster in rpm range off idle to 3000 if compared to my s2000 (240 hp)....the diff is the honda of course make peak pwr at 8300 rpm and is "weak" below. the nissan has more power (hence torque) at the lower rpms.

if you took that aforementioned mercedes 5.5 L that made 400hp and threw in hotter cams it will make more peak power but you will lose HP at lower rpm - ie the cams are less efficient at lower rpm vs higer rpm. Take a look at what happened to the G35 "rev up" engine. it gained power to 298hp but lost 10 ft lbs of peak torque.

i believe that engines should be matched to intended purpose of vehicle...you want to tow then get a deisel, makes a crap load of power down low with some increase as rpms rise. (as example take a look at figures for e320 cdi -Net Power201 hp @ 4,200 rpm Net Torque 369 lb-ft (!) @ 1,800 - 2,600 rpm!

what kind of engine do i want in a sports car? it's a manual of course and must have a high redline.... i want to feel the force of acceleration increasing as rpms rise to redline. i don't like to feel that car "runnning of of wind" when i'm in full crazy man sporting mode and rowing the gears to redline. i researched extensively and the closest i came was the honda s2000. peak torque at 7800rpm. even the honda is running out of breath a bit above this. (but with a supercharger its a linear exponential power increase and torque is actually increasing to redline ..holy gawd i so wanted to experience this but sold car and got a ferrari f355. the ferraris' torque curve is essentially flat from 4000 to 8500 and it's wonderful to be driving hard in this range as it pulls linearly and makes amazing sounds)

which leads me to what engine would i like in a family sedan.....i want "comfort power" i want an automatic. i want an engine that has top end power but very generous torque in my typical driving range 2000 rpm to 5000 rpm. the e55 is the ulitmate ticket in my mind. 516 ft lbs torque 2400-4500 rpm. just cruise and tip into throttle and the power is there. i don't wholly see the new amg 6.2l as superior for my intended purpose. yes it will have 7 gears and will accelerate faster IF you bury your foot but in the real world i see the e55 as being much more usable. same reason i don't see the e6.2 as optimal is same reason i don't see the new m5 as working for me.

the bottom line as i see it-

you want to eat soup get a spoon. you want to turn a bolt get a socket. you want to do surgery get a scalpel...........it's amazing i'm on 5 different forums and all to often i see folks getting the wrong tool for the job......

....there more to a great driving car than just raw power...imho it's more important how the power is distributed along the rpm curve that would yield a rewarding drive...i like long blasts in gear.....feel the engine come on cam and pull.....and not give up until limiter.....and i'd tell you what's very interesting..the new benz 3.5L ..the torque currve is flat and wide....258 lb-ft @ 2,400 - 5,000 rpms.

you guys will laff at me but i have this lil car called a suzuki swift GT that weighs 1900 lbs but has a 100 hp aluminium twin cam 16v with a forged crank and loves to rev. i find it to be more fun than the c32....but my idea of fun is not doing 1/4 drags...........

 

You have to ANTI-DIFFERENTIATE!!!

The 6.2 has more TQ and has a flatter TQ curve than the current E55... Or so I was told!

 

Nemo no the 6.2 doesnt have more torque. it is flatter yes but for me- as i tried to explain i would trade 30 hp on top end for 50 between 3000-5000 where i would be driving the car.

here's the edmunds info link http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=106510

what would be nteresting is a comparison- overlay the HP/torque curves of the 6.2 vs the e55 s/c motor.

 

hmm... ok! was told wrong!!! Sorry!

 

no need to say sorry.

the funny thing is i would give up 30 hp on low end to gain 10 for a reasonabley close ratioed 6 speed sports car.

cobra....nice ...2 weeks ago i checked out a replica by backdraft racing. there's a dealer in my town. i was impressed with finish, hell the paint was better than the benz.

 

Yeah, its ashame MB doesnt offer more 6 speeds, but there really isnt much of a market. An E500 with a 6 speed could be a fun car!

The cobra is an awesome car! I was talking do the dealer, if we were to get the same quality paint finish at a body shop, it would have cost about $25 grand. They lay the body color than stripe, than body, than stripe etc for as many coats as they put on so the stripe is the same level as the body paint, than like 3 coats of clear to really smooth it out! And no "orange peel" that you get on every production car.

 

I have to agree with you 100% and I am glad someone understands what I'm saying.

People look at hp and assume all kinds of things without taking in several factors.Where the motor makes power and the gearing that will be applied to the given situation as well. For ex.E46m3 has (3.2L)330hp @7900 rpm's 262 ftlbs TQ @ 4900 rpm's weighs 3200 lbs and it has a 3.64 rear diff.The 99-2k (5.5l)E55 has 349-355hp @ 5550 rpm's and TQ 391 lb-ft @ 3,150 - 4,500 rpm 2.82 rear diff . Look at the pwr bands!(Where they're making pwr)

Smaller displacement vs bigger displacement and by looking at the obvious characteristics and based on the two cars(M3 vs W210 E55,C55,CLK55) having similar performance #'s,hp is sometimes just a #.

To look at hp and big displacement and say xxLiters is a waste of space ,shows lack of understanding or knowledge on how motors are built and the other factors affecting said performance.

 

No Replacement for Displacement...and here I thought that only applied to american muscle...and anyone who is unhappy with thier C-AMGs....Id love to trade my C230 for a C55...I can promise you wont regret the trade at a gas pump

 

Simple physics!

 

Wow ! then, these news are all true now !!

 

yeah this guy was right on the money too...hahahahah

 

WOW old thread

edit: i remember trying to reason with various members who were predicting the C63 would be 70 to 80k. I was trying to reason that it would HAVE to be high 50's to low 60's. who's going to buy a 70 - 80k c-class? benz needs to stay within his segment

i also tried to reason that if the engine remained 6.3 liters as rumored and not the other 5.4liter rumor, it was have to be 450hp. just because of all the new features (DOHC) (4valves/cylinder) 420hp would not be an improvement over the existing c55 in terms of hp/liter

 

great assumption, now please give us a prediction what the W205 AMG spec will be ?