3 valves/cylinder vs. 4
#1
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 1,627
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
2001 E320 RWD - Brilliant Silver/Ash: 100,000+
3 valves/cylinder vs. 4
Hi friends,
I have been wondering this for some time:
1) Are there 2 intake valves and 1 exhaust valve on the M-Bs or vice versa?
2) Why then do several of the high-output american engines have 2/2?
Parenthetically, I'm NOT second-guessing the german Daimler engineers, but this has always seemed a bit odd to me.
Thanks in advance,
Musikmann
I have been wondering this for some time:
1) Are there 2 intake valves and 1 exhaust valve on the M-Bs or vice versa?
2) Why then do several of the high-output american engines have 2/2?
Parenthetically, I'm NOT second-guessing the german Daimler engineers, but this has always seemed a bit odd to me.
Thanks in advance,
Musikmann
Last edited by Musikmann; 05-09-2006 at 10:08 PM. Reason: mis-spelled word
#3
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 1,627
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
2001 E320 RWD - Brilliant Silver/Ash: 100,000+
To: ikchris
Originally Posted by lkchris
The new V6 and V8 are 4-valvers.
So are the diesels.
So are the diesels.
Maybe I should have posted this in the Tech section, but it seems to me that a lot of you guys are quite technologically astute.
Sorry that I am so ignorant about the mechanical workings of internal combustion engines, but I am a mere medical type who LOVES his Daimler-Benz, as old and decrepid as it might be
Musikmann
#5
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 1,627
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
2001 E320 RWD - Brilliant Silver/Ash: 100,000+
To: RedMongooseE
Originally Posted by RedMongoosE
if i remember, its two intake and one exghaust, but teh exghaust is the size of two put together. i think thats right. and its for fuel econ. and emmitions.
mark
mark
Nice Benz collection you have too!
#6
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cee Fiddy Five
OK, sounds good, but why did the Daimler engineers decide that the (gasp!) american idea was better, and why?
Kinda off topic...my friend says his Audi A4 has 5 valves per cylinder...? Anyone care to explain how this works? One camshaft? Two?
#7
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 1,627
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
2001 E320 RWD - Brilliant Silver/Ash: 100,000+
Audi A4
Originally Posted by MercedesFTW
Kinda off topic...my friend says his Audi A4 has 5 valves per cylinder...? Anyone care to explain how this works? One camshaft? Two?
I have no idea about the 5 valves/cylinder, but I hope someone with an answer sees this because I am curious too.
I think I DO know that the A4 base model only has a 1.8 liter turbocharged 4-cylinder. At least one optional engine is a pretty expensive smallish 6.
M
Trending Topics
#8
Originally Posted by Musikmann
OK, sounds good, but why did the Daimler engineers decide that the (gasp!) american idea was better, and why?
Maybe I should have posted this in the Tech section, but it seems to me that a lot of you guys are quite technologically astute.
Sorry that I am so ignorant about the mechanical workings of internal combustion engines, but I am a mere medical type who LOVES his Daimler-Benz, as old and decrepid as it might be
Musikmann
Maybe I should have posted this in the Tech section, but it seems to me that a lot of you guys are quite technologically astute.
Sorry that I am so ignorant about the mechanical workings of internal combustion engines, but I am a mere medical type who LOVES his Daimler-Benz, as old and decrepid as it might be
Musikmann
To run a 4-valve engine, you generally need double overhead cams, and that's complex. You can run a 2 valve and 3 valve engine on single cams. So, the Benz 3 valve setup was as far as you could go with a single overhead cam.
Valves are all about breathing -- getting fuel/air into the cylinder fast, then getting the exhaust out. The more valve area, the better, and you can use bigger valves, but you are limited because there's only so big the valves' circular holes can be. But by using more smaller holes, you get more area. Imagine a big circle, 5" in diameter as your cylinder. If you put two big circles inside it, they are each 2.5" in diameter, and give an area of 9.8 inches. If you use three smaller circles (sorry can't do the math) you'll cover more area. Audi has used 5-valve engines (3 intake, 2 exhaust) for several years.
All that being said, the Corvette V8 is a very strong engine, using two valves (and I won't even get into the issue of pushrods versus overhead cams).
So, to summarize. 4 valve technology has become very standard and common, with a few going up to 5 valve, and a few lagging with 3 or even 2 valves.
Last edited by Fifth Ring; 05-15-2006 at 09:46 AM.
#9
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by Musikmann
OK, sounds good, but why did the Daimler engineers decide that the (gasp!) american idea was better, and why?
4-valve technology dates to the 1920s and I believe Peugeot.
The Mercedes M104 I6 that preceded the 1996 V6 was 4-valve.
The 500E engine was 4-valve.
American manufaturers were probably the LAST to adopt 4-valve technology.
American manufacturers mostly build 3rd-world cars and 4-valve technology is too expensive for this market. Designs from the 1950s remain prevalent.
#10
Out Of Control!!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: OC
Posts: 18,677
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes
on
9 Posts
a quarter mile at a time
um. ok. I don't pretend to know a ton about engine internals but I believe the D-Series engine in my 1996 Honda Civic EX was an SOHC 4-valve engine and I KNOW that the J-Series engines Honda currently produces are all SOHC 4-valve.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_J_engine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_J_engine
#11
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NY/NJ
Posts: 2,116
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
2012 W212 E350 Bluetec
Mercedes' parent DaimlerChrysler (a.k.a. "DCX") is a public company, i.e. DCX is a listed stock on the stock exchange.
Consequently, the management are always under pressure to deliver the profitability and profit growth that is expected by institutional investors, wall street analysts, etc. This is true for most, if not all, public companies.
Many decisions, possibly (or not) including the 3 valves vs. 4 decision, are dictated as much by the bottom line as they are by engineering or automotive benefit. In an ideal world, automakers would input 100% of their technology and know-how into their production cars. But, in a commercial world, they know that sometimes 90% or even 80% will yield the best results on the bottom line.
Remember, any given compromise in a car is not just about saving X dollars per car (tens of dollars here or maybe hundreds there). There may be equivalent or greater savings by saving Y hundred million or billion dollars on the Research & Development costs.
Developing cars is a huge expense (which is why you see car companies merging or getting bought out), and manufacturers think about these things every day on every model. If they can save $200 million dollars on NOT fully developing something that perhaps only 5% of owners will notice, you can bet that they will probably keep the money in the bank.
It's not just about coming up with the idea -- taking that idea from the proverbial drawing board to the production line and showroom takes a lot of investment dollars.
PS: I may be wrong, but weren't there some MB models which actually regressed from 4-valve to 3-valve in the late 1990's?
Consequently, the management are always under pressure to deliver the profitability and profit growth that is expected by institutional investors, wall street analysts, etc. This is true for most, if not all, public companies.
Many decisions, possibly (or not) including the 3 valves vs. 4 decision, are dictated as much by the bottom line as they are by engineering or automotive benefit. In an ideal world, automakers would input 100% of their technology and know-how into their production cars. But, in a commercial world, they know that sometimes 90% or even 80% will yield the best results on the bottom line.
Remember, any given compromise in a car is not just about saving X dollars per car (tens of dollars here or maybe hundreds there). There may be equivalent or greater savings by saving Y hundred million or billion dollars on the Research & Development costs.
Developing cars is a huge expense (which is why you see car companies merging or getting bought out), and manufacturers think about these things every day on every model. If they can save $200 million dollars on NOT fully developing something that perhaps only 5% of owners will notice, you can bet that they will probably keep the money in the bank.
It's not just about coming up with the idea -- taking that idea from the proverbial drawing board to the production line and showroom takes a lot of investment dollars.
PS: I may be wrong, but weren't there some MB models which actually regressed from 4-valve to 3-valve in the late 1990's?
#12
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by 1985MB380SE
I may be wrong, but weren't there some MB models which actually regressed from 4-valve to 3-valve in the late 1990's?
Guess you missed where I posted
The Mercedes M104 I6 that preceded the 1996 V6 was 4-valve.
"Regressed" is a word used only by those that believe "more is better." It's a simplistic belief.
#13
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 1,627
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
2001 E320 RWD - Brilliant Silver/Ash: 100,000+
Thanks to All
I appreciate everyone's thoughtful, and informed, feedback.
This is what I like about these boards - nearly EVERYONE knows a helluva lot more than I do, so it's ALWAYS a learning experience to read the various posts and answers to my questions.
Musikmann
This is what I like about these boards - nearly EVERYONE knows a helluva lot more than I do, so it's ALWAYS a learning experience to read the various posts and answers to my questions.
Musikmann
#14
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by Musikmann
Hi friends,
I have been wondering this for some time:
1) Are there 2 intake valves and 1 exhaust valve on the M-Bs or vice versa?
2) Why then do several of the high-output american engines have 2/2?
Parenthetically, I'm NOT second-guessing the german Daimler engineers, but this has always seemed a bit odd to me.
Thanks in advance,
Musikmann
I have been wondering this for some time:
1) Are there 2 intake valves and 1 exhaust valve on the M-Bs or vice versa?
2) Why then do several of the high-output american engines have 2/2?
Parenthetically, I'm NOT second-guessing the german Daimler engineers, but this has always seemed a bit odd to me.
Thanks in advance,
Musikmann
#15
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NY/NJ
Posts: 2,116
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
2012 W212 E350 Bluetec
Originally Posted by lkchris
Guess you missed where I posted
The Mercedes M104 I6 that preceded the 1996 V6 was 4-valve.
"Regressed" is a word used only by those that believe "more is better." It's a simplistic belief.
The Mercedes M104 I6 that preceded the 1996 V6 was 4-valve.
"Regressed" is a word used only by those that believe "more is better." It's a simplistic belief.
Yes, you're right I missed your earlier post and you're probably right that the "M104 I6 that preceded the 1996 V6 was 4-valve." However, you're missing the bigger picture.
As an MB enthusiast, it hurts me to see that MB management made a lot of mistakes and cut some corners leading up to, during and after the Chrysler acquisition (leaving aside the wholly separate debate around the Chrysler "mistake"). Too many decisions were made for financial purposes, and for short-term financial gain at that. If you think I'm wildly off the mark, ask Jurgen Schremp, DaimlerChrysler's disgraced former CEO. I wouldn't criticize a car manufacturer for making financial decisions, as long as they have the long-term health of the company and brand in mind.
Took a while for MB to further develop the 1996 3.2L SOHC 18-valve V6 (221hp/232lb-ft) to the new-for-2006 model year 3.5L DOHC 24-valve V6 (268hp/258 lb-ft), don't you think? The decision to delay or spread out the development of that engine was, in most part, a financially-driven decision (IMHO).
10 years in a highly competitive market with essentially the same unchanged engine? In a simplistic view, that's not a lot of progress.
#16
MBWorld Fanatic!
For whatever it's worth, I think that the 4 Valve/Cyl 4.2L M119 V8 (275hp/295lb ft TQ) in my E420 sounds much sweeter than the 3 Valve/Cyl 5.4L M113 V8 (342hp/376lb ft TQ in my CLK55. However, there's no denying that the M113 seems to have much more TQ down low.
Staying with the discussion, the 3.5L V-8 in the Ferrari F355 has 5 valves/cyl. (3 Intake, 2 exhaust)
Staying with the discussion, the 3.5L V-8 in the Ferrari F355 has 5 valves/cyl. (3 Intake, 2 exhaust)
#17
Super Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Nuevo México
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2005 C230K Sport Sedan, 6 speed manual
Originally Posted by Musikmann
Thanks for the feedback MercedesFTW.
I have no idea about the 5 valves/cylinder, but I hope someone with an answer sees this because I am curious too.
I think I DO know that the A4 base model only has a 1.8 liter turbocharged 4-cylinder. At least one optional engine is a pretty expensive smallish 6.
M
I have no idea about the 5 valves/cylinder, but I hope someone with an answer sees this because I am curious too.
I think I DO know that the A4 base model only has a 1.8 liter turbocharged 4-cylinder. At least one optional engine is a pretty expensive smallish 6.
M
The 1.8T engine had double overhead cams; one cam operating 3 valves per cylinder (intake), and the other cam operating 2 valves per cylinder (exhaust). A timing belt connected the crankshaft to the exhaust camshaft. The two camshafts were connected by a chain within the cylinder head. The 1.8T had turbocharging and indirect injection (intake port). Power ratings 150 hp to over 240 hp.
The 2.0 FSI engine is available in Audi A3, A4, and A6 in the USA. Volkswagen uses the same engine in the new Passat, new GTI, and a few high performance Jettas (GLI, etc.). It has double overhead cams (2 valves per cam), turbocharging, and direct injection. Power ratings 200 hp and up.
#19
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 2,767
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BMW FTW
Here is an article about the V6 engine used in the ML 320 C320 E320 and so on.
Three-Valve Technology Reduces Emissions by 40 Percent
The new Mercedes-Benz V6 engine features innovative three-valve-per-cylinder technology which can reduce exhaust emissions dramatically over 40 percent particularly during the critical warmup stage, before the catalytic converter usually begins to operate. Catalysts must heat up to work effectively, and this takes nearly two minutes with most modern engines. Increasingly strict emissions limits mean this converter light-off time must be reduced to about one minute, and the new Mercedes-Benz V6 meets this tough criteria. There's about 30 percent less surface area at the exhaust port, relative to a comparable four-valve engine, which dramatically reduces exhaust heat losses between the engine and the catalytic converter. This translates to higher exhaust temperature (about 70 degrees Centigrade or 125 degrees Fahrenheit) and converter "light-off" about 12 seconds earlier.
In the new V6, combustion heat in each of the large, single exhaust valves is dissipated through a sodium-filled valve stem, while exhaust heat is retained and insulated by double-wall piping in the exhaust manifold. The seamless double-wall manifold is made by using high-pressure liquid-forming technology, for greater durability and lighter weight.
There is no tradeoff in horsepower and torque with the new three-valve technology compared to a four-valve design. In any efficient, well-designed engine, exhaust valve size needs to be somewhat smaller than the intake valve area, simply because the "leftovers" of combustion (especially in a modern, clean-burning engine) take up less space than the incoming fuel-air mixture.
Forgot to give Three-Valve Technology Reduces Emissions by 40 Percent
The new Mercedes-Benz V6 engine features innovative three-valve-per-cylinder technology which can reduce exhaust emissions dramatically over 40 percent particularly during the critical warmup stage, before the catalytic converter usually begins to operate. Catalysts must heat up to work effectively, and this takes nearly two minutes with most modern engines. Increasingly strict emissions limits mean this converter light-off time must be reduced to about one minute, and the new Mercedes-Benz V6 meets this tough criteria. There's about 30 percent less surface area at the exhaust port, relative to a comparable four-valve engine, which dramatically reduces exhaust heat losses between the engine and the catalytic converter. This translates to higher exhaust temperature (about 70 degrees Centigrade or 125 degrees Fahrenheit) and converter "light-off" about 12 seconds earlier.
In the new V6, combustion heat in each of the large, single exhaust valves is dissipated through a sodium-filled valve stem, while exhaust heat is retained and insulated by double-wall piping in the exhaust manifold. The seamless double-wall manifold is made by using high-pressure liquid-forming technology, for greater durability and lighter weight.
There is no tradeoff in horsepower and torque with the new three-valve technology compared to a four-valve design. In any efficient, well-designed engine, exhaust valve size needs to be somewhat smaller than the intake valve area, simply because the "leftovers" of combustion (especially in a modern, clean-burning engine) take up less space than the incoming fuel-air mixture.
Forgot to give wolfgang credit for this http://www.whnet.com/4x4/new_V6.html
Three-Valve Technology Reduces Emissions by 40 Percent
The new Mercedes-Benz V6 engine features innovative three-valve-per-cylinder technology which can reduce exhaust emissions dramatically over 40 percent particularly during the critical warmup stage, before the catalytic converter usually begins to operate. Catalysts must heat up to work effectively, and this takes nearly two minutes with most modern engines. Increasingly strict emissions limits mean this converter light-off time must be reduced to about one minute, and the new Mercedes-Benz V6 meets this tough criteria. There's about 30 percent less surface area at the exhaust port, relative to a comparable four-valve engine, which dramatically reduces exhaust heat losses between the engine and the catalytic converter. This translates to higher exhaust temperature (about 70 degrees Centigrade or 125 degrees Fahrenheit) and converter "light-off" about 12 seconds earlier.
In the new V6, combustion heat in each of the large, single exhaust valves is dissipated through a sodium-filled valve stem, while exhaust heat is retained and insulated by double-wall piping in the exhaust manifold. The seamless double-wall manifold is made by using high-pressure liquid-forming technology, for greater durability and lighter weight.
There is no tradeoff in horsepower and torque with the new three-valve technology compared to a four-valve design. In any efficient, well-designed engine, exhaust valve size needs to be somewhat smaller than the intake valve area, simply because the "leftovers" of combustion (especially in a modern, clean-burning engine) take up less space than the incoming fuel-air mixture.
Forgot to give Three-Valve Technology Reduces Emissions by 40 Percent
The new Mercedes-Benz V6 engine features innovative three-valve-per-cylinder technology which can reduce exhaust emissions dramatically over 40 percent particularly during the critical warmup stage, before the catalytic converter usually begins to operate. Catalysts must heat up to work effectively, and this takes nearly two minutes with most modern engines. Increasingly strict emissions limits mean this converter light-off time must be reduced to about one minute, and the new Mercedes-Benz V6 meets this tough criteria. There's about 30 percent less surface area at the exhaust port, relative to a comparable four-valve engine, which dramatically reduces exhaust heat losses between the engine and the catalytic converter. This translates to higher exhaust temperature (about 70 degrees Centigrade or 125 degrees Fahrenheit) and converter "light-off" about 12 seconds earlier.
In the new V6, combustion heat in each of the large, single exhaust valves is dissipated through a sodium-filled valve stem, while exhaust heat is retained and insulated by double-wall piping in the exhaust manifold. The seamless double-wall manifold is made by using high-pressure liquid-forming technology, for greater durability and lighter weight.
There is no tradeoff in horsepower and torque with the new three-valve technology compared to a four-valve design. In any efficient, well-designed engine, exhaust valve size needs to be somewhat smaller than the intake valve area, simply because the "leftovers" of combustion (especially in a modern, clean-burning engine) take up less space than the incoming fuel-air mixture.
Forgot to give wolfgang credit for this http://www.whnet.com/4x4/new_V6.html
#21
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 1,627
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
2001 E320 RWD - Brilliant Silver/Ash: 100,000+
To:1985MB380SE
Originally Posted by 1985MB380SE
Mercedes' parent DaimlerChrysler (a.k.a. "DCX") is a public company, i.e. DCX is a listed stock on the stock exchange.
Consequently, the management are always under pressure to deliver the profitability and profit growth that is expected by institutional investors, wall street analysts, etc. This is true for most, if not all, public companies.
parts deleted by Musikmann for brevity
Consequently, the management are always under pressure to deliver the profitability and profit growth that is expected by institutional investors, wall street analysts, etc. This is true for most, if not all, public companies.
parts deleted by Musikmann for brevity
Do you happen to know what was the situation (private vs public) of Daimler before their acquisition/merger with Chrysler?
Musikmann
#22
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 1,627
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
2001 E320 RWD - Brilliant Silver/Ash: 100,000+
To: AndrewAZ
Originally Posted by AndrewAZ
Here is an article about the V6 engine used in the ML 320 C320 E320 and so on.
Forgot to give wolfgang credit for this http://www.whnet.com/4x4/new_V6.html - Musikmann edit for brevity
Forgot to give wolfgang credit for this http://www.whnet.com/4x4/new_V6.html - Musikmann edit for brevity
I'd like to thank you as well for this article - very informative.
Musikmann
#23
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NY/NJ
Posts: 2,116
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
2012 W212 E350 Bluetec
Originally Posted by Musikmann
Do you happen to know what was the situation (private vs public) of Daimler before their acquisition/merger with Chrysler?
In such an environment, management's thoughts focus even more than usual on the bottom line. If you can boost profits, the stock price might recover. You can boost profits by increasing sales and/or cutting costs.
DCX had to do both, but in some instances they took a short-sighted view of things. Does anyone want to argue the few extra sales of the C230 Coupe really helped the long-term brand or financial future of MB?
Cutting costs in an automotive company is very tricky and quite a fine line to walk. MB and DCX did not exactly do the best job of that in the late 1990's and early 2000's.
BMW made its own strategic and financial blunders in that era (namely, Rover). However, with the Quandt family owning a significant chunk of the voting shares in BMW, the management had slightly more breathing room to take a long-term view of things. DCX felt the pressure to "make the numbers" and show earnings-per-share growth quarter in, quarter out, year in, year out.
On a side note, a somewhat parallel set of circumstances is in play at GM and Ford. GM, like DCX, has more of a normal ownership structure ("common stock"holders are the owners of the company), while Ford has the Ford family which owns a disproportionate amount of special "voting" stock. Hence, the Ford family exerts a lot more control/influence over the company than at most public companies.
This wouldn't have been such a problem if the Ford family hadn't insisted on putting their scion (Bill Ford) at the helm. While Rick Wagoner at GM has no birthright to the company and is accountable to all shareholders equally, Bill Ford is nicely secure in his job and is accountable to two different sets of shareholders (his family, and everyone else). All else being equal (which they aren't), bet on the company with a professionally hired CEO to come out ahead of one which has family connections at the top (Bill Ford came up through the FoMoCo management ranks "without ever really being tested," say some sources).
#24
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 2,767
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BMW FTW
Originally Posted by 1985MB380SE
I believe Daimler had been public before their acquisition/merger with Chrysler. However, I don't think that acquisition was well-received by the stock market. As stocks started to decline post-2000, DCX's stock price and its market value took a significant hit. Not only was the whole market going south, but DCX was undertaking a large and risky merger, and investors were understandably very very skeptical.
In such an environment, management's thoughts focus even more than usual on the bottom line. If you can boost profits, the stock price might recover. You can boost profits by increasing sales and/or cutting costs.
DCX had to do both, but in some instances they took a short-sighted view of things. Does anyone want to argue the few extra sales of the C230 Coupe really helped the long-term brand or financial future of MB?
Cutting costs in an automotive company is very tricky and quite a fine line to walk. MB and DCX did not exactly do the best job of that in the late 1990's and early 2000's.
BMW made its own strategic and financial blunders in that era (namely, Rover). However, with the Quandt family owning a significant chunk of the voting shares in BMW, the management had slightly more breathing room to take a long-term view of things. DCX felt the pressure to "make the numbers" and show earnings-per-share growth quarter in, quarter out, year in, year out.
On a side note, a somewhat parallel set of circumstances is in play at GM and Ford. GM, like DCX, has more of a normal ownership structure ("common stock"holders are the owners of the company), while Ford has the Ford family which owns a disproportionate amount of special "voting" stock. Hence, the Ford family exerts a lot more control/influence over the company than at most public companies.
This wouldn't have been such a problem if the Ford family hadn't insisted on putting their scion (Bill Ford) at the helm. While Rick Wagoner at GM has no birthright to the company and is accountable to all shareholders equally, Bill Ford is nicely secure in his job and is accountable to two different sets of shareholders (his family, and everyone else). All else being equal (which they aren't), bet on the company with a professionally hired CEO to come out ahead of one which has family connections at the top (Bill Ford came up through the FoMoCo management ranks "without ever really being tested," say some sources).
In such an environment, management's thoughts focus even more than usual on the bottom line. If you can boost profits, the stock price might recover. You can boost profits by increasing sales and/or cutting costs.
DCX had to do both, but in some instances they took a short-sighted view of things. Does anyone want to argue the few extra sales of the C230 Coupe really helped the long-term brand or financial future of MB?
Cutting costs in an automotive company is very tricky and quite a fine line to walk. MB and DCX did not exactly do the best job of that in the late 1990's and early 2000's.
BMW made its own strategic and financial blunders in that era (namely, Rover). However, with the Quandt family owning a significant chunk of the voting shares in BMW, the management had slightly more breathing room to take a long-term view of things. DCX felt the pressure to "make the numbers" and show earnings-per-share growth quarter in, quarter out, year in, year out.
On a side note, a somewhat parallel set of circumstances is in play at GM and Ford. GM, like DCX, has more of a normal ownership structure ("common stock"holders are the owners of the company), while Ford has the Ford family which owns a disproportionate amount of special "voting" stock. Hence, the Ford family exerts a lot more control/influence over the company than at most public companies.
This wouldn't have been such a problem if the Ford family hadn't insisted on putting their scion (Bill Ford) at the helm. While Rick Wagoner at GM has no birthright to the company and is accountable to all shareholders equally, Bill Ford is nicely secure in his job and is accountable to two different sets of shareholders (his family, and everyone else). All else being equal (which they aren't), bet on the company with a professionally hired CEO to come out ahead of one which has family connections at the top (Bill Ford came up through the FoMoCo management ranks "without ever really being tested," say some sources).
All car makers are cost cutting Mercedes a few years back decided it ended up costing them more in the long run by cost cutting so they have since reversed it. Just look at the quality of the ML's after 2002 and they ever improved, now look at the quality on the new W164 ML its a big improvement.
I dont get why everyone bashes the C class I think its a great car and most dont realize that it accounts for over 50% of cars sold by Mercedes.
But it is going to take Mercedes some time to recover from the cost cutting from 1998-2002.
#25
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 1,627
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
2001 E320 RWD - Brilliant Silver/Ash: 100,000+
Kudos to 1985MB380SE!
Originally Posted by 1985MB380SE
I believe Daimler had been public before their acquisition/merger with Chrysler. However, I don't think that acquisition was well-received by the stock market. As stocks started to decline post-2000, DCX's stock price and its market value took a significant hit. Not only was the whole market going south, but DCX was undertaking a large and risky merger, and investors were understandably very very skeptical.<snip>
WOW, you seem to know the NYSE pretty well (specifically the automotive industry). I see that you are in NY, NY - if I were a betting man, I'd say you have an office somewhere near Wall Street, and are an investment analyst for one of the major brokerage houses. If you're not an analyst or a broker, I advise you to look in that direction
On a serious note, I really appreciate your learned input as to what began as my stupid question about cylinder valves.
Lastly, I sold some stock for a long-term gain in order to buy DCX because (hehe, I guess I really AM a betting man) I thought that they will outshine Ford and GM over the long term. Truthfully, maybe I should have bought Toyota, but those shares cost about $100 each at that time.
Regards,
Musikmann