Riot Nrrrd

On the road the other day I saw my first BMW 645 ci cabriolet, a white one. Nice looking car ... anyway, I looked up the specs on it today, and found:

Displacement - 4.398 liters
Valvetrain - 4 valves / cylinder, DOHC, w/ Valvetronic
Power - 333 hp @ 5500 rpm
Torque - 332 ft-lbs @ 3600 rpm
0-60 mph - 6.1 seconds
Curb weight - 4001 - 4178 lbs. (depending on who you believe)

Now, compared to my Beast:

Displacement - 5.439 liters
Valvetrain - 3 valves / cylinder, SOHC
Power - 342 hp
Torque - 376 ft-lbs
0-60 - 5.9(?) seconds
Curb weight - 3650 lbs.

OK, so this new BMW is an overweight pig, but still - how the heck did they get within 10 hp of the W208 CLK55 with an engine that's slightly more than a full liter smaller?!?

mtimmy

ONE thing VERY simple!

The engine technology in our cars IS OLD!! DOHC verus SOHC.,.,

BMW Double Vanos., VERUS US,,,......No vanos.,no vtech,no vvti NO what
nothing!!!

Don't mention it,. ITS a SHAME..,., even ford ,Honda and Toyota has better engine technology than us,.
example ., Honda S2000., 2000CC engine. output at 250Hp... (yeah well no torque and high rpm.,)....... double the displacment.!!! make it 4000cc... easily achieve 400 HP...

oracledba

I read somewhere ( might have been these forums ) that the 645 bmw was a nice car, didn't have the quickness until you got out of 3rd gear. The coupe in black looks stunning with those 20" rims.
I looked at them before I got my clk55, and I couldn't get past that iDrive :puke, and the back seat has ZERO legroom. We have 4 people in our family and Merc is the only one with rear seat side airbags - or I would have considered the 911 too.

ndabunka

Riot - The CLK55 "coupe" is 4.9 from zero to sixity. I think the Cab is something like 5.3. That's a 1/2 second difference. There's your answer

Riot Nrrrd

My question was less about the speed difference (thanks for the correction, btw) than the fact that their engine is almost as powerful as ours despite being a liter smaller in displacement.

Co 55 AMG

It is a shame!

MB AMG

You do know that MB had DOHC engines before the M112 and M113 right? They switched the valve train because of emissions and economy. Mercedes could wring out more power from their engines but don't because of how some owners treat their cars. Ach, where's that thread?

Hmmm, our MB engines have a variable intake manifold but no engine timing. Always wondered about that...

mtimmy

Yes that is CORRECT....

They do have that ., .... Variable intake with no timing!!!... thats like you own the car but no key ., can't use it at all.

Economy!!!!!!!!!................... For them or for US?....I don't think the AMG is any where economy to me!!! ... 1 tank of gas running less than 190miles!...

Its a GAS EATER

S_kLaSse

The EVO is 1997cc, and pumps out 276HP, plus its easily reach 400HP with mods.
Thats why some ricers out there aren't afraid of German's beasts like us. Benz should beware of this....!!! BUT Lets scares those ricers away.

mtimmy

With my intercooled SC install on the way., I should smoke most of the ricers WRX or EVO out there.

RJC

The modular engines MB has been producing since MY '98 cost MB over 50% less to produce than the previous DOHC 4 valve engines, although the new engines are cleaner burning,more fuel efficient and torquier, they have noisy valvetrains, a rougher idle and have a tendency to have more internal problems ie scored cylinder walls, valvetrain issues etc.

Thankfully MB is now starting to produce better power plants ie; the new 3.5 and shortly 4.5 and 6.3 etc.

3199cc

The current crop of MB engines simply do not belong in a high end luxury car. They are fairly primitive in design, yet from my experience seem to be more reliable than that of the older DOHC design, especially when it comes to issues involving the cylinder heads.