Kain

Who, in your opinion, makes better engines? Mercedes-Benz or BMW?

Jer

I've never owned, driven, or been in a BMW, so I'll have to say Mercedes

Kain

By the way, why doesn't BMW use superchargers and turbos like Mercedes-Benz?

Kain

Anyone?

Rave E55

Maybe some at www.bmwm5.com could answer.

Steve Clark

that I'm aware of were aircraft engines,like the 801,or pre-WWII GP bikes.

RJC

BMW V8: Double overhead cams, 4 valves per cylinder, double vanos variable valve timing and valvetronic variable lift. 4.5 liters to produce 325 hp & 330 lb ft trq

Mercedes V8: Single overhead cams, 3 valves per cylinder, 2 spark plugs per cylinder, no valve timing or variable lift technology. 5.0 liters to produce 306hp & 339 lb ft trq

The BMW normally aspirated engines are technically superior to that of the MB's. However, MB is planning on a whole new line of direct injection gasoline engines that will be featuring 4 valve and double overhead design,don't know about the variable valve lift and timing.

When MB switched to the current modular engines they saved 50% in production costs over the previous engines.

dtkw

I heard BMW is coming up with a V10 for their next M5 and it's going to kick *** without using supercharger or turbo involved. MY wife's 740iL is running great but the whole car has many other different issues.

Kain

I have noticed one thing, that Audi, Mercedes-Benz, and Jaguar require turbos and/or superchargers in order to meat BMW M performance where BMW uses NA engines.

Could this mean BMW is better at engines?

MiamiAMG

Long story short: They each use 2 different methods to make engines. BMW doesn't mind stressing their engines to the max, keeping them N/A. MB will use Superchargers/Turbos to get the same performance, but with much less strain on the engine, it also saves them a heck of a lot of money in production costs

Turbo2

Kain-
It depends on what your definition of being better at building engines is.

Yes, BMW does create higher HP engines without the aid of turbos or superchargers, however there engines are also more prone to failure due to the fact that they are tuned to the ragged edge. The new M3 motor had many incidents of the motor blowing up and I am sure the new M5 motor may have similar problems. They make amazing engines but I doubt their longevity, BMW in an article claimed that MB was "cheating" by using turbos and SC's to create more horsepower. Personally, I would rather take a MB twinturbo engine or SC engine over a BMW normally aspirated engine that may make more power because in my mind the engine is more reliable.

MB may be taking the easy way out to higher horsepower, but its more dependable, it really comes down to what floats your boat. Some people dont like the fact of the having forced induction, others dont care, as long as the power is there. Take a look at my username and youll see what side I reside on.


Just my thoughts...

Steve Clark

injection is better,
but frankly,Scarlett,I'd rather be blown.

325is Dude

uhhh...high compression isn't as much stress as forced induction. If your talking track engines, BMW is superior. The McLaren v12 was what, the best engine in the world for what...9 years? M sport engines get the same performance as AMG's without resorting to forced induction. Yes forced induction is cheaper but when you track a car its nice having smooth torque/hp through the rpm range instead of kicking in above a certain RPM.

325is Dude

BTW the more parts there are the less reliable the engine is. Thats just a simple fact. More tubing, more parts in turbo engines. And BMW engines are very reliable my friends 325 is about 225k miles on the odomoter with the stock clutch and tranny still in it. Only two months of the m3 engines had problems. It was from November-December of 01. They were throwing bearings and blowing the engines. All have been recalled and fixed. Other than that they are very reliable engines.

dswildfire

you mean kinda like the blown volvos and audis? or speaking of tracking cars, f1 used to accept turboed engines, that is until they decided that with turbos the engines were far too powerful. i don't know, maybe i'm old-fashioned, but i'm not a big fan of super hi revving engines. not saying the M engine is bad, but i'd be fine with a 383 that redlines at 5500

E-Klasse

I like it that BMW stuck with the inline 6 design where MB went to the V6. I wish MB would still make an inline 6.

RJC

Used to have a 92 300 CE it had a 3 liter in-line six that red lined @ 7,000 rpm's, that engine really purred at high rpms, it was the last year for the 7000 rpm redline for the MB straight six.

davis449

I have the straight 6 in mine and something tells me I like the fact that it has more valves per cylinder than the V6. I believe its 24 vs 18.

E-Klasse

I too have the inline 6 E320. It just looks cleaner and is easier to work on. Only 6 spark plugs instead of 12. And I can actually get to them all. 4 valves per cyl. instead of 3, It feels a lot smoother than the V6 and it is quieter running. The V6 makes more of a ticking noise. The I6 is rated at only 4 HP less than the V6 but after I upgraded my intake and exhaust, I think mine is closer to 240 HP.

EiknujZneb

Of course I'm biased, but I would have to say MB.

But what do you mean by best? Most reliable? Most powerful? Best gas mileage? If you mean overall best, wasn't the 5.5 liter AMG engine just rated the best overall v8 in the world by some big European institute? I'll find the article later.

But if you mean reliability, nothing in the world is more reliable than an 80's or 90's Mercedes Benz gasoline or diesel engine. That is why they are used as taxis around the entire world, mostly in the desert, arid, and poor regions of the world. They are cheap to maintain, run forever, and never give you problems. You wont see a BMW 5 series with 600k miles on it in the middle or Saudi Arabia still making its rounds MB's are also widely used as European taxis. I recently read an article that described most of them with 300-600k miles with the engine outlasting the interior itself.

And no, more parts does not necessarily mean less reliable. My 1991 300E has more moving parts than a 1965 Ford mustang, but I garauntee you my car will last longer...

Mercedes Benz uses SC's and Turbos simply because they are more reliable, cost you less, save you gas mileage, and give you bragging rights. Mercedes can build N/A engines, take a look at the w124 Hammer. 5.0 liters NA and around 400 HP? (correct me if I'm wrong). Mercedes just simply chooses not to, for the above stated reasons.

But in no way, shape, or form can you come onto a Mercedes Benz discussion board and try to convince all the loyal followers that BMW engines are better

EiknujZneb

I found the article, the 5.5 liter AMG Kompressor engine won the International Engine of the Year award for 2003. Article here:

http://www.ukintpress.com/engineoftheyear/bestperf.html

At the bottom you will see this engine outshone engines from Audi, BMW, Ferrari, Porsche, and Honda.

Kain

What about the new 500+ horsepower V10 engine coming to the new BMW M5?

AlpharettaC32

Was that engine out when that article was written?

That engine isn't out *now*.

nicosusername

this thread is kinda gay because BMW and Mercedes-Benz should both be Allies....and i dont see a reason to hate BMW or any reason to hate mercedes benz....both are good German vehicles in my opinion

but if you really wanna see my answer....

wait till 2006-2008 and look at the M3,M4,M5,and M6

nicosusername

oh and i am talkin about engines :p