Mercedes-Benz engines vs. BMW engines
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 474
Likes: 1
From: NYC
Maybe some at www.bmwm5.com could answer.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,061
Likes: 326
From: 2000 ft over the FL coast in a B-17
Various
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.
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.
Last edited by RJC; Jul 28, 2003 at 09:39 PM.
Trending Topics
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
From: Indiana
1986 560SEL, 97 BMW 740iL
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.
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
10 Most Reliable Mercedes-Benz Models You Can Buy Used
Verdad Gallardo
Thread Starter
Super Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
N/A
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?
Could this mean BMW is better at engines?
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,107
Likes: 0
From: The Magic City
C63
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
Super Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 679
Likes: 0
From: McLean, VA
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...
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...
Newbie
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Originally posted by ChrisC32
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
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
Newbie
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
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.
Super Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 988
Likes: 0
From: Encino
2002 C230K
Originally posted by 325is Dude
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.
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.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,061
Likes: 326
From: 2000 ft over the FL coast in a B-17
Various
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.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,537
Likes: 2
From: Arizona, USA
W205 C300
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.
Last edited by E-Klasse; Aug 5, 2003 at 08:17 PM.
Almost a Member!
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
From: Austin, Texas
1991 300E
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
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
Almost a Member!
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
From: Austin, Texas
1991 300E
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.
http://www.ukintpress.com/engineoftheyear/bestperf.html
At the bottom you will see this engine outshone engines from Audi, BMW, Ferrari, Porsche, and Honda.
Last edited by EiknujZneb; Aug 9, 2003 at 02:42 AM.
Super Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 891
Likes: 0
From: Southern California
Read sig
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
but if you really wanna see my answer....
wait till 2006-2008 and look at the M3,M4,M5,and M6
