E500 engine Vs. 1995 E500 engine question.
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,596
Likes: 0
From: NY/NJ
E500 engine Vs. 1995 E500 engine question.
I have a relatively wierd question about the E Class.
In 1995, there was the E500 Sport Sedan with the following specs:
Engine 5.0-liter twin-DOHC 32-valve aluminum-alloy V-8.
Net power 322 hp @ 5,700 rpm. 1993: 315 hp @ 5,600 rpm.
Net torque 354 lb-ft @ 3,900 rpm. 1993: 347 lb-ft @ 3,900 rpm.
Compression ratio 10.0:1
Fuel requirement Premium unleaded gasoline.
Fuel and ignition system LH electronic with integrated ignition.
Transmission 4-speed automatic.
So why is it that the current E500's engine looks like a step back in terms of power. I know people will chide me about power not being everything, refinement and economy are part of the equation too. I am just curious as to why MB decided to step back on power on the newer engines.
Any ideas chaps?
In 1995, there was the E500 Sport Sedan with the following specs:
Engine 5.0-liter twin-DOHC 32-valve aluminum-alloy V-8.
Net power 322 hp @ 5,700 rpm. 1993: 315 hp @ 5,600 rpm.
Net torque 354 lb-ft @ 3,900 rpm. 1993: 347 lb-ft @ 3,900 rpm.
Compression ratio 10.0:1
Fuel requirement Premium unleaded gasoline.
Fuel and ignition system LH electronic with integrated ignition.
Transmission 4-speed automatic.
So why is it that the current E500's engine looks like a step back in terms of power. I know people will chide me about power not being everything, refinement and economy are part of the equation too. I am just curious as to why MB decided to step back on power on the newer engines.
Any ideas chaps?
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,374
Likes: 0
From: NYC
2002 ML320
I guess the most logical answer would be that the 500E/E500 of the W124 E-Class was the top of the line limited-production model, analogous to the position the E55K AMG holds in the W211 model line. The current E500 holds the position that the 400E/E420 held in the W124 line - the mid-level model.
In terms of the performance of the engine, the 500E/E500 was co-developed and manufactured with Porsche, and the emphasis was on high-end performance, as AMG was not a part of MB at that time while the W211 E500 and the rest of the MB 500 line is just a higher-luxury-level and higher-power version of the base (320/350) line.
However, I do understand your point, being that there is quite a big horsepower gap between the old and the new engine - if your figure of 322HP is correct, that is almost a 90 HP difference - the current MB 500 lineup produces about 270HP.
In terms of the performance of the engine, the 500E/E500 was co-developed and manufactured with Porsche, and the emphasis was on high-end performance, as AMG was not a part of MB at that time while the W211 E500 and the rest of the MB 500 line is just a higher-luxury-level and higher-power version of the base (320/350) line.
However, I do understand your point, being that there is quite a big horsepower gap between the old and the new engine - if your figure of 322HP is correct, that is almost a 90 HP difference - the current MB 500 lineup produces about 270HP.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,061
Likes: 326
From: 2000 ft over the FL coast in a B-17
Various
The current 5.0 produces approx. 306 hp and 339 lb ft trq, there was a significant cost saving (almost 50%) when MBZ went to the newer modular 3valve SHOC engines from the previous generation DOHC 4 valve per cylinder engines that ceased production in MY 1998. The previous version ran quiter and smoother but the newer ones feel more responsive to me.
There was a recent test of the 500E and the E500 in one of this months US car mags.
There was a recent test of the 500E and the E500 in one of this months US car mags.
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,596
Likes: 0
From: NY/NJ
Originally posted by RJC
The current 5.0 produces approx. 306 hp and 339 lb ft trq, there was a significant cost saving (almost 50%) when MBZ went to the newer modular 3valve SHOC engines from the previous generation DOHC 4 valve per cylinder engines that ceased production in MY 1998. The previous version ran quiter and smoother but the newer ones feel more responsive to me.
There was a recent test of the 500E and the E500 in one of this months US car mags.
The current 5.0 produces approx. 306 hp and 339 lb ft trq, there was a significant cost saving (almost 50%) when MBZ went to the newer modular 3valve SHOC engines from the previous generation DOHC 4 valve per cylinder engines that ceased production in MY 1998. The previous version ran quiter and smoother but the newer ones feel more responsive to me.
There was a recent test of the 500E and the E500 in one of this months US car mags.
I guess it helped to make the prices for such a fine sedan more palatable but at the cost of sacrificing performance.
Thanks for the answers guys!
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,061
Likes: 326
From: 2000 ft over the FL coast in a B-17
Various
Originally posted by Silver_Lana
I forgot to ask this... but i assume DOHC engines are significantly more expensive to make and maintain than SOHC ones right?
I forgot to ask this... but i assume DOHC engines are significantly more expensive to make and maintain than SOHC ones right?
