is it true? No 6.3 engine in the SLK?
#26
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Dallas TX
Posts: 4,846
Received 290 Likes
on
203 Posts
2013 650i Coupe, 2010 IS250 AWD, 1999 S500
Originally Posted by Teck
Thanks, then I need to talk with our officialls again but not that friendly as usual
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
#27
MBWorld Fanatic!
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!
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!
#28
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Dallas TX
Posts: 4,846
Received 290 Likes
on
203 Posts
2013 650i Coupe, 2010 IS250 AWD, 1999 S500
Originally Posted by 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!
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!
So the S450 arrives in Sept huh? That is interesting. So we get a R450 and ML450. Very, very interesting....!
M
#29
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by 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
So the S450 arrives in Sept huh? That is interesting. So we get a R450 and ML450. Very, very interesting....!
M
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
#30
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Dallas TX
Posts: 4,846
Received 290 Likes
on
203 Posts
2013 650i Coupe, 2010 IS250 AWD, 1999 S500
Originally Posted by 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
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
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
#31
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by 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
M
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
#33
Super Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLK 55 AMG
Originally Posted by Germancar1
Well part of it is just looking at Mercedes history and some of it can be gleamed from recent interviews of AMG/MB officials.
Still, it's fun to talk about it
#34
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Dallas TX
Posts: 4,846
Received 290 Likes
on
203 Posts
2013 650i Coupe, 2010 IS250 AWD, 1999 S500
Originally Posted by Shinigami
True true, but it's still only speculation.
Still, it's fun to talk about it
Still, it's fun to talk about it
M
#35
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by Germancar1
I can't see the pics in that last post.
M
M
M272E55 V12
#36
Originally Posted by Shinigami
...However, it is true the 6.2 liter engine does develope more torque, and this is reaching the limits of the 7G gearbox.
Regards
Chris
Germany
#37
Super Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLK 55 AMG
Originally Posted by 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
Regards
Chris
Germany
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).
#38
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLK55 black, heads, cam and tune
Originally Posted by Teck
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
5461 cm3 / V8, 90°
285 kW / 530NM
Some info about the 450 engine
4663 cm3 / V8, 90°
250 kW / 460 Nm
#39
Originally Posted by 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?
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.
#40
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLK55 black, heads, cam and tune
Originally Posted by 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.
There may or may not be oil burning issues with early models a la
the 350 V6 engine.
#41
Originally Posted by 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...
#42
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLK55 black, heads, cam and tune
Originally Posted by 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.
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...
#43
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'93 RX-7, SLK55
Originally Posted by 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...
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...
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
#44
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: sac, calif.
Posts: 1,164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'06 slk55
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
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
#45
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLK55 black, heads, cam and tune
Originally Posted by Yellow R1
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?
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.
-Matt
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.
-Matt
http://www.benzworld.org/forums/foru...osts=29&fid=27
I guess your theory about MB's testing is just a nice theory
#46
Originally Posted by Yellow R1
One guy on an SLK55 forum mentions an oil burning problem with the 350 powerplant & you take this as "fact"?
-Matt
-Matt
Cheers!
#47
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'93 RX-7, SLK55
Originally Posted by 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
http://www.benzworld.org/forums/foru...osts=29&fid=27
I guess your theory about MB's testing is just a nice theory
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
Last edited by Yellow R1; 04-13-2006 at 11:16 AM.
#48
Originally Posted by Yellow R1
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.
-Matt
-Matt
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!
Last edited by fredfromny; 04-13-2006 at 12:46 PM.
#49
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: sac, calif.
Posts: 1,164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'06 slk55
Originally Posted by Yellow R1
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.
-Matt
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.
-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!
#50
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'93 RX-7, SLK55
Originally Posted by 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!
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!
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