Germancar1

Well you really can't blame them for not telling you their exact plans though. They know that if they said a SLK63 was coming the SLK55 would become a lame duck to a lot of people and since the SLK is relatively new they aren't going to say much about its future yet.

I remember when Mercedes denied that the CLS "Vision" was going into production, yet 9/10 times any concept tagged "Vision" winds up in a showroom sooner or later, most of the time sooner.

About the only thing I can't figure out with MB engine wise is when/if they're going to put the new V8s in the ML/R and if so (well I know they are) which V8, the 4.6 or the 5.5L? Oh, that and when does the S450 show up? The rest is easy to figure out when you look at how they typically do things.

We all know the new 6.3L V8 is a hell of an engine, but with "only" 515 hp in the CLS/E63 (yes a E63 is coming and will be shown at the NY auto show), the new engine is lacking torque to move the new S/CL and current SL down the road faster than the current 5.5L SC engine. Mercedes has openly led on that they're moving away from supercharging for various reasons, and that turbocharging is the wave of the future. You just know they're like bench testing a turbo'd version of the new AMG V8. There is an outside chance that it may be a 6.0L version of the 6.3L with direct-injection to really make some serious torque with better fuel consumption compared to the awesome (but thirsty) 5.5L SC V8. All they have to do is make some software changes to get more out of the 6L V12 in the "65" models to make room for the new turbo V8. The SL65 is capable of 885lb-ft of torque now, but is limited to protect the tranny/driveshafts etc.

M

Teck

But damn I'm working for DaimlerChrysler!

About the S450, on my "official" sheet the S450 will relased in september 06 I'm not sure about the ML and R class. Latest new on this engine was that they will putt a 4.6 l engine in those cars and not a 5.5 b/c of fome "old" AMG's (R171 etc.)

Torque is a big problem for MB trannys and that's why they limited torque like you said. They've blown some trannys while testing the 6.5 bi-turbo engine.

Our first E63 will be delivered in Mai/June 06 to our first customer can't wait to see/hear the car in person!

Germancar1

Holy smokes you work for DCX!!!!

So the S450 arrives in Sept huh? That is interesting. So we get a R450 and ML450. Very, very interesting....!

M

Teck

lol yep DCX that's why I was so confused!

Yes S450, S500 4Matic, S420 CDI in Sept 06 and S320 CDI 4Matic and S450 4Matic in December 06.
ML420 CDI is coming in August 06

Germancar1

I just noticed you're in Switzerland, not the U.S. so I'm wondering how that timetable shakes out for the U.S. market? Any ideas? I know we're getting the S5504Matic (the same as your S500) this fall, but no one here knows a thing about the S450.

M

Teck

I actually gave you the release/production months I got from a timetable.
Here's a pic and some infos about the M 273 E55 S500 engine
5461 cm3 / V8, 90°
285 kW / 530NM


Some info about the 450 engine
4663 cm3 / V8, 90°
250 kW / 460 Nm

Germancar1

Oh ok, got it. I can't see the pics in that last post.

M

Shinigami

True true, but it's still only speculation.

Still, it's fun to talk about it

Germancar1

It sure is! I love guessing what Mercedes will do next, and most of the time I'm right!!!

M

Teck

hmmm....strange ....what about this pic?

M272E55 V12

Chriska

The 7G-tronic tranny was designed for a max. torque of 700NM, should be plug-and-play for AMG but they keep ignoring customer demands.

Regards
Chris
Germany

Shinigami

That's why I said it's reaching the limits

At full load, the 6.2 liter engine is developing the torque that the gearbox is capable of keeping in check. In theory, a 63 should be a plug and play job
I do think it'll come out, just not sure when. Most likely for the face lift (in 12-18 months time).

John Long 55

So the non AMG 5.5L engine in the S500 will make more KW and NM than the hand built 5.4L AMG engine in the SLK55?

fredfromny

The Non AMG engine in the SL550 will make more HP and torque. Thats progress. But ours is tried and true.
There may or may not be oil burning issues with early models a la
the 350 V6 engine.
And it may be a while before a decent supercharger kit for that engine is available.

John Long 55

Fred it's a sad sad day when MB fans worry about MB releasing new engines with concerns such as you have mentioned. Even sadder that your concerns are justified based on MB's recent track record. I don't think anyone buying a Hyundai with a newly developed engine would worry about oil burning issues...

fredfromny

Computer simulations are all well and good. But hundreds of miles of testing can't compete with hundreds of thousands of miles of real life driving. Problems are always inevitable, but how a company deals with them is the true mark of brand quality. When BMW had a sludge problem with some straight sixes they extended the power train warranty to 10/100,000 on the spot. A company like Audi on the other hand had to be hauled into court for owners to be compensated for a known defective timing belt tensioner on early 1.8T engines.

John Long 55

I don't believe that the general public should accept that "Problems are always inevitable" The German car industry with the exception of Porsche certianly has quality problems and a poor response to solving them. In the last 5 years and with the exception of Ford's powerstoke diesel i can't think of a Japanese or US manufacturer who has put a car on the market with such major issues as you mention.

JD Power's survey in German shows all Japanese brands and some US brands as being more reliable than MB, BMW and Audi... sad but true...

Yellow R1

One guy on an SLK55 forum mentions an oil burning problem with the 350 powerplant & you take this as "fact"?

I'm a pretty avid car reader & could not find a SINGLE issue pertaining to oil burning (nor the 3.5L powerplant itself). For grins, I also ran an internet query - nada? I may not have access to Fred's info, but I have never seen, read, nor heard (from speaking with other SLK350 owners) of any excessive oil burning issues. Maybe there is an oil issue but I've not heard of it (nothing on this forum either). If it is an issue - its pretty invisible.

FWIW, Mercedes Benz is not going to enter full production on a new powerplant without THOROUGHLY performing reliability testing (for example, when you see a new car "spyshot" which has a new engine, its a "mule" undergoing stress testing in different true world environments). This represents a fraction of all the testing that takes place on new powerplant and/or chassis introduction. Excessive oil burning would be an easy/quickly identifiable problem to locate during testing. Ths sounds like a fish story. Maybe someone can post some objective data - I just haven't seen it.

FWIW - Japanese cars do have problems. The Mazda RX-8 burns oil more than any other car produced in the last 30 yrs (although some of it is indeed due to port oil injection as part of its rotary combustion process- its still excessive....even by Mazda's standards). See ya.

-Matt

dsb

Matt,

I love my SLK55. I love everything about it. Why do I have it? I originally had a '05 slk350. I went through 5 qts in 5000 miles. I did not track this car at all. I followed the standard break-in period. However, it consumed enough oil that MB requested to replace the engine. I worked with my dealer and the MB rep and after 1-1.5 months, they decided to buy back the car full retail with no proration. They truly took care of me and kept me as a customer. In return, I upgraded to the 55 and have never looked back. I can attest that there were a handful of people (many on these forums) that suffered from the oil consumption issues. It seems to have been addressed as no one speakes of it anymore. I'm not sure what the real issue was, but it doesn't matter now. I have my 55. Life is good.

Dan

John Long 55

My search engine had a lot more to say...

http://www.benzworld.org/forums/foru...osts=29&fid=27

I guess your theory about MB's testing is just a nice theory

fredfromny

As I stated, thousands of miles of new engine testing is not the same as millions of actual driver miles. There are numerous TSB's on the oil burning issue that involves some early SLK350's. There is a fix involving new valve stem seals. Many customers have received new engines. Not every engine has the same break in conditions (temperature, fuel quality, driving style, etc.) so it would be impossible to forsee every possible scenario. The fact that Mercedes has quickly corrected the problem and has satisfied many of their customers is testament as to why it isn't well known.
Cheers!

Yellow R1

Theory? err, no. Reliability testing of not only the complete car but its component systems is a MAJOR requirement prior to production release and its not unique to MB. Its common practice (and sense). Do you really think a multi billion dollar corporation is going to just do a "simulated" engine design via desktop CAD & then produce it without any DOEs, testing, business case, etc, etc? Do you have the slightest idea how expensive it is to fix an automotive problem AFTER it occurs? Rel testing is standard practice & has been in place for decades. The automotive industry has even more stringent quality standards than other commercial markets (ISO & QS9000 are quality derivatives of the US auto industry which are the standards not only they, but their entire supply chain must adhere to....my company is one of them & we get audited to these standards annually.)

Now, I read the below bulliten. Its not a "defect", rather, results from improper engine break in while the engine "seats" (ie the valves, rings, etc) and its hardly "uncommon" for ANY engine to consume a bit more oil when brand new - happend with my Mom's Jag & even my SLK55). Once the engine "seats" (ie is broken in properly), oil consumption returns to normal.
A slight increase in oil consumption during break in is hardly a "defect". Its a common function of piston powerplants while the engine seats. Some people that do not wrench on cars may not know this fact, but its VERY common.

Fred, agree with your post - "how" a firm deals with an issue for speedy help & resolution is a major key to success & customer satisfaction. Thanks for the post/Bulliten!

-Matt

fredfromny

Many auto manufacturers release new products to limited markets (namely non-US) and in limited numbers for that very reason. That and our litigious climate. Most of the 2004 Euro SLK's were 200's so maybe there were too few 350's to notice the problem or occurence.

Many of these TSB's seem to be written by attorneys and not engineers.
Their CYA language should be taken with a grain of salt. They tend to use nebulous descriptives like "may" and "might" and imply consumer negligence to protect themselves from liability. Some customers were going through a quart of oil every 500 miles.

Hopefully some manufacturers even read online forums to catch early problems before they spread. But it must hard to seperate the wheat from the chaff with such a tough crowd.

Cheers!

dsb

Matt,

I've met you. I appreciate your valuable input on this forum. I hold you in high regard. That being said, the 350 consumption problems were not all due to "improper engine break-in." Some probably were. I know you were not making an absolute statement that they were all improperly broken-in either. I just want to make it clear that many, including myself, babied their car during and even after the initial 1000 miles. I still had the problem. 5 qts, 5000 miles. It never slowed down. There was some design flaw. They must have addressed it. Too many people with the same problem means there was something going wrong with the first '05 slk350's. Otherwise we are only to assume that the '06 owners are all better than the '05 owners at properly breaking in their engines.

Dan

PS, I DO drive my slk55 at excess speeds now. Of course, I am at 6K miles and have long since passed the break-in period. NO OIL CONSUMPTION. NOTHING ADDED EVER!

Yellow R1

I've still not read anything in print that indicates a 350 powerplant design flaw nor excessive oil consumption being a SYSTEMIC issue (ie found in large numbers and/or across multiple lines - ie E, ML, C classes etc). I have indeed read about defective C6 Z06 engines (cylinder walls being too thin/cracking), Ford GT suspension flaws, and some others. I have not seen anything on the MB 3.5L quattrovalve powerplant using excessive oil. I ain't some all knowing car "god", but if it were as widespread as some of the people in this thread percieve it to be, MB would have issued a formal recall and/or the issue would "likely" have been published. This does NOT mean you & others did not experience excessive oil consumption. It just "looks" to me from the lack of objective documentation (from MB or an established 3rd party such as R&T, C&D, Motor Trend, Automobile, Car, etc), that the frequency was (past tense) isolated & not widespread.

Dan, I have no axe to grind - I don't work for Mercedes. I just follow documented/published results in favor of an internet car forum as a more objective information source to indicate a systemic/serious quality flaw from a major car manufacturer. If someone has some objective data - I'm all eyes & ears. In any case, it looks to me that if it were a systemic problem, MB must have fixed this "gremlin" because the powerplant has been out for more than 16 months & there seems to be a lack of "repeat" occurences.

FWIW, this is a car forum where info & opinions are exchanged. I hardly take anything personal for differing points of view. Its just not a big deal. People can agree to disagree and/or also learn from one another. That being said, during the next SLK car drive, you better keep your 55 in front of my S7 or you will be smelling mucho tire smoke for your insolence Dan! (that my man, was a joke ).

See ya,
-Matt