jonUF02

I just don't understand the point of the new 53 powerplant. It seems so unnecessarily complex to end up with almost identical performance and MPG numbers as my 2012 E550. Why not just go back and drop the glorious m278 biturbo 550 engine back in the new bodies? Why spend all that R&D to add so much complexity of components that are destined to cause a mechanic's nightmare when you already produce a great powerplant that achieves the same HP with more torque? I dynoed my stock car with a result of 396/478 to all 4 wheels and proven test numbers of a 12.8 quarter mile.

mercedes.fan

Because official mpg ratings are lower and customers except something new in the car to actually buy a new car. Also as cars get heavier with more tech they try to lessen the weight of engines etc. With every advancement of everything people will complain and say that the past was better, but you have to look forwards not backwards. Also there is a v8 option with the 63, so if you want one you could have one. Best of both worlds.

nycebo

The slow march towards a fully electric engine. That's why.

petee1997

If you drive one, the answer will come to you.

jonUF02

I just don't see it.

53 engine specs:
3.0L/429-hp/384-lb-ft turbo DOHC 24-valve I-6 plus 21-hp/184-lb-ft electric motor; 429 hp/384 lb-ft combined
550 engine specs:
4.6-liter, direct-injected, twin-turbo V-8 rated at 402 hp and 443 lb-ft of torque (Real dyno result 396hp 478tq to the wheels!)

0-60 of the E53 is reported as 4.1 to 4.5 which varies by model. Assuming the sedan being the slowest
0-60 of the E550 4matic sedan 4.3 sec

1/4 mile times reported same as E550, 12.8 seconds. Coupe tested at 12.6 sec.

E53 sedan Curb weight (C/D est): 4450 lb
E550 sedan Curb weight: 4411 lb

E53 MPG: 21/28
E550 MPG: 16/26 mpg

Why the heck not just put the 550 back in it? Is it really worth all the complexity for a few mpg? If you mated the 550 to the new 9spd tranny, then it may get better MPG and slightly increase 1/4 mile time??? 2017 CLS550 4matic with 9spd trans shows 4.2sec 0-60 and 12.7 1/4mi time. Sadly the 550 was also dropped from the sexy new CLS. I guess I'll have to stick with a 2017-18 CLS550 if I want to update to a V8 sedan without the harsh AMG ride, price, and maintenance costs. It's a healthy 30% premium if you want to step up from the 53 to the real AMG 63. The gap widens with faster depreciation of the non-AMG models. Allowing me to affordably buy my E550 3 years old for less than a new Camry while AMG was more than double the price, with sky-high ownership costs.

The S560 seems to have a slightly less powerful mass production version of the 4.0L AMG 63 engine, but S-class is not my style yet.

ua549

The Feds standards have a big influence on the decision making process. In city driving the E53 gets more than 31% greater fuel economy than the E550. CAFE requirements are getting even more stringent. We lost the spare tire to help meet those standards. If the v8 went into the E, it couldn't be sold in the US without severely limiting the numbers sold. Engines are being downsized throughout the entire product line. The S650 is on the way out. Color the v12 gone in a couple of model years.

threeMBs

I disagree with OP's premise. I had both 2014 E550 TTV8 4matic and 2014 CLS550 TTV8 RWD (CLS with SB). Even my current '19 E450 in S+, will leave both my former TTV8s behind from stand still. Significant advantages of those TTV8 cars was 60-80, 80-100, etc. passing - effortless. While I did not try it in E450 in S+ yet, but did in E43 in S+ during test drive - it was fantastic. E53 should be even "better" than E43. End of story.

superswiss

Yeah, you are definitely missing the driving force behind this. Plain and simple it's about more and more stringent fuel economy regulations. It may seem like only a few mpg, but that adds up over the entire fleet. and 16 mpg city vs 21 mpg is as somebody else already said a 30% improvement. That's significant, and they are doing it by achieving similar or sometimes even higher power and torque. This is where it's going until everything is a 100% electric. Agree with it or not, like it or not, but that's where it's going. The other factor is that with the hybrid drivetrains, cars can be driven fully electric in inner cities, which goes towards improving the air in those cities. There's a lot of activism in Germany at the moment, and efforts to ban certain cars from inner cities to combat air pollution and particle dust pollution.

c4004matic

The reason is simple, mercedes is reducing the variety of engines it produces. Their new 6 cylinder is the 53's inline 6 with or without the the hybrid system. It will power a myriad of vehicles and trucks. It a thoroughly modern and flexible powerplant with significant fuel saving potential. The 43's Delos 273 harks back to the Chrysler pentastar! Its a great engine but it has run its lifetime.It wasn't meant to increase performance its just that the v6 biturbo is going away.

Mbracer26

My hybrid C class puts out about 420lb torque with the electric engine combined. Its ridiculous when it punches in, surprises everyone that gets in thinking its a regular c class. Electric is the future, majority of the time when my car reaches speed I want, even without charge the engine cuts out and electric engine keeps the car at speed. I get about 50lbs mpg.

chassis

The "whys" from an M-B point of view are:

1. profit
2. regulation

The 6 cylinder single turbo is lighter and less expensive than the V8 twin turbo. Without comparing data, it likely consumes less fuel in ultra-eco mode and also fewer emissions.

The 9G-Tronic allows the engine to be more efficient by approximating a CVT more closely than the 7G-Tronic. I will also assume that the 9G is more efficient from a running loss (friction) point of view, again supporting emissions and fuel economy.

Carmakers are not held accountable, nor should they be, for actual real world fuel economy. There is too much variation in user applications, so standard tests are used to describe performance. Standard tests legislated by governments are what drive carmakers. It is similar to "teaching to the test" with students and pupils. Carmakers do the same, in that vehicles are optimized to pass fuel economy, emissions and safety/collision tests. This is not new news.

cetialpha5

Let's not even mention the complaints that people have for start/stop systems. That only showed a 1mpg improvement. Plus I'm not sure about the price, but maybe they were able to jack it up more by throwing the AMG name on the car? Plus look what they did to the 4 cylinder, MPG also went up a little bit, but they ended up going from a 302hp V6 to a 241hp turbo 4.

Germancar1

To compare the E550 to the E53 is missing the point. The E550 was only good in a straight line. The E53 handles, stops, steers better than the E550 ever could. The E550 was dropped because hardly anyone bought it. Just comparing 0-60 and 1/4 mile times is just totally missing the point. The E53 will drive rings around an E550 in any type of sporting situation.

M

Munich77

I am not sure if the E550 would still be compliant with emissions. Plus the E550 drinks gas around town. I have one and I love but I admit that better fuel economy would be nice around town. I am surprised by how expensive MB have gotten. My 2014 fully loaded was around 70K - and the E53 starts higher than that.

threeMBs

Yes they have. However, my former "fully loaded" '14 E550 4M was almost $77K and it was still missing airmatic and driver assist package, adding those two would make car just above $81K. Already nicely optioned E53 (but without ABC and driver assist package) is about the same $81K. Comparisons, however, end right there - E53 is so much better (based on my drive in E43 mind you, not E53 which is a step up from E43) in every respect as a driver's car - far superior handling - than E550 ever was. Its mini "AMG" after all. I remember early/mid 1990s W124 E320 coupe was into $70sK and that's in 25 years ago Dollars. So even though W213 appears pricier than W212, just keep W124 in mind.

jonUF02

Well it's more expensive because they threw AMG in the name, devaluing the brand of AMG and what is supposed to be hand built engines and extreme performance. Now AMG is nothing more than a marketing tool.

I like the ride of my 550, I hesitate to even put 19" wheels (stock 18" amg wheels) because I don't want the ride to get harsh. I know many people complain that the 63 is pretty harsh ride and stiff seats, some additional reasons I don't want one.

Let's be honest, normal city driving is straight line acceleration, light to light, you really don't need to have the stiff handling package. I would very rarely get any opportunity to take any turn at speed. I turn the corner then put my foot down and I'm rewarded by the silly torque of the 550 then the relentless continued acceleration as the turbos keep spooling. Torque is what you feel, and the 550 has a lot more. I drove a Porsche Cayenne V8 recently with the same 400hp, but a lot less torque, it felt slow, got back in my car and felt the rush.

I get better MPG than an average V6 SUV that everyone is buying these days, especially on the highway. No complaints on that.

Frank Rizzo

CAFE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpor...e_fuel_economy

Check it out.

.

MarcusDubya77

AMG was always a marketing tool.....The "One man, one engine" began when MB bought them outright...Times are a changin' at AMG, Project 1 isn't one man, one engine..Is it less of an AMG? Pretty sure AMG is going the way of M in the 90's.

2012 merc amg

I nearly got a E53 Cabriolet and instead ended up with a E450 Amg line Cabriolet. I just started thinking about the complexity of the drive system in the E53 and decided to stick with a tried and true design. No regrets.