BoBcanada

Hey guys why did MB decided to drop supercharged engine and go with N/a and than introduce Twin turbo engine.... i dont get it.

E552006

Front Impact Pedestrian crash data.
In other words, in the unlikely event that you hit someone walking in the middle of rush hour traffic, they may have a statistically more significant probability of not being killed dead for their stupid *** decision of walking into oncoming traffic. EU BS.

E55AMG99

That's the party line from MB. More hood clearance to protect the idiot jaywalkers!!!

M&M

Thinking off the top off my head I can think if the following advantages of NA over supercharged:

- More efficient (s/c uses power to make power & power drops off at high rpm)
- Wider powerband
- Better throttle response
- Less sensitive to heat
- Less sensitive to fuel
- Lower underbonnet temps (Which leads to better reliabilty & longer engine life expectancy)
- More reliable (less components that can fail)
- Lower cooling requirements

But the single biggest reason I think is that the OEM's know people mod their cars. Pretty naive of us to think they don't know. So when someone does chip/pulley, they are putting a whole lot more strain on the car than it was orginally designed for with the extra torque. So components will fail prematurely. And who do you think loses money when this person flashes his car back to stock & then goes & claims a new gearbox or whatever?

Audi have been through the same scenario & now their S & RS cars are NA.

So let's say you were the head honcho of AMG.What would you do? You can provide you client base with a better car AND you can save costs warranty claims if this car is not so easy to mod.

And Imp, once again, no need for flames I'm just giving my input on the subject of this thread.

gmdebruyn

it's a european law that mercedes has to comply with. it's easier to hide the turbos down on the sides of the engines rather than a really big/hard super charger on the high end under the hood where joe pedestrian's head is going to bounce against. audi just complied earlier than mb.

i'm sure in CA this will only lead to more litigation and more lawsuits.

Mardeth

I thought it was because of emmissions...

OzE55

??? nocturnal ???

Especially when thinking about the beast. :p :p

benzmodz

I think that the SC engines have hit a wall with pollution control and there is development on next generation engines that more or less rules out most of the SC variants in favour of NA with more power than current SC models.

I am talking about consumer products not the elite guzzlers at the top end - since cars like the SL65 dont conform to any rules ....

cte430

Do we have any real statistical evidence that chip/pulley will shorten life span? what part? etc. Not being a wise ***, just wondering (as you can see from my sig i'm in that boat).

stevebez

I dont think these motors are that stressed at all ... whats more they produce alot of power at low rpm - not requiring you to wring the motors neck to get on the power band ... this is obviously great for longevity.

Not to start any flames or whatever but I would take a 50,000 Mile E55 motor over a 50,000 mile V10 M5 any day ... the M5 would have undoubtedly done more work at higher stress levels (higher Rpm).

The lower revving engine would last longer all else equal....

Just my 2c ...

Rgds Steve.

E55AMG99

More power=more heat=more stress.

E55AMG99

I'd argue that almost half of your points are in favor of a SC and not a NA motor. SC is more efficeint in most driving conditions, wider power band and better throttle response.

AMGE

Secondary reasons are probably
more heat=more problems compared to n/a
s/c = more moving parts compared to n/a
s/c=more pressure on all internals compared to n/a

probably the biggest reason is industry trends where marketing tells engineering to keep not only changing external looks but keep changing engine and drive train combinations all in an effort to bring more new buyers to the product.

cte430

Yeah, I understand that. I guess the answer i'm looking for no one can answer. Will I start having engine problems (and what type of problems) at 50K instead of 75K? I mean, I have the extended warranty. Will I ever get to see 100K on this car with mods?

Rock

Do you have any numbers on owners that modify new AMG cars? I say, it is very, very low and had no impact on the AMG decision to go normally aspirated.

Most AMG owners are mature, well-to-do professionals who believe that the AMG cars come from the factory with all the performance they need (remember, I said most owners).

Finally, I would bet that more owners of NA cars (like the BMW, E46 M3) will modify their cars. If you want proof, go to M3 Forum. A much higher percentage of owners modify. Only a handful of owners on this forum alter their cars. Oh.......and I forgot to mention the 90% of AMG owners who do not belong to this site and didn't even know you could modify AMGs.

C43AMG

FWIW- At our AMG GTG this past weekend at MBHQ we were told by Rob Allan (AMG Product Manager )that AMG decided to go to a NA motor because of the new European requirements for hood clearance with the superchargers and that AMG wanted to build its own motor and not modify an existing MB motor.

xraymd

Same thing he said at Road America in July. If he's sticking to the same story, it might actually be true.

M&M

Err no. Normally aspirated has better throttle response. SC uses power to make power so how can that be more efficient. I don't know about the E55 but I believe the C32's supercharger decouples ar 6000rpm & it runs NA to the redline due to the parasitic loss.

And yeah NA has wider powerband as well. Lo lag & no high rpm power drop-off. But do you seriously believe a forced induction car has better throttle response than NA?

ANd Rock, mild mods on an NA car make almost no difference & would not place the torque on the drivetrain beyond the design parameters. As for the number of people modding cars, do you see how many ads there are in the mags for these products? How many companies are there doing chips/pulleys for the AMG's? Are these companies busy or are they about to shut down due to lack of business?

AMGE

S/C is packin air as soon as engine is started and that pressurizes the whole system and this pressure is a key factor in improved throttle response, so I believe a S/C engine has improved throttle response thru the whole operating range.

M&M

Pressure in the engine is a factor in throttle resonse? Maybe the rest of the world including former McLaren design chief Gordon Murray were wrong when they said nothing can touch the razr sharp throttle response of a tuned NA engine, especially one with ITB's. S/c & especially turbos have mushy response. They doesn't seem to be much difference from 3/4 throttle to 5/8th's throttle to 17/20th throttle. In a tuned NA car (like the E63 will be) there in an endless level of adjustablity in the throttle. It's almost like analog vs digital. Every turbo car I owne felt like it had steps in the throttle. The E55 felt the same to me. Sure there are many different steps & it's hard to tell the difference. But it feels like you apply a minuscle more throttle & the response feels the same. A minuscle amount more, & it feels the same. The you apply just a hair more & you feel a step to the next throttle map.

Nothing is going to beat an NA car for instantaneous throttle response unless you drive a really agricultural NA car.

Vadim @ evosport

Based upon statement above, I see that you have not driven any of AMG kompressor cars.

Neither 32s nor 55s turn-off kompressor clutch at 6000 rpm.

At 1500 rpms kompressor motors make 90% of their max boost (10 psi - 55s, 13 psi - 32s) and trust me the response is instantenous.


IMHO, AMG went with with NA had to do mainly with new Euro safety regulations and MB dumping 3-valve engines and going back to 4-valve.

Without kompressor, 3-valve engines are airflow limited in NA form. They simply do not flow anywhere near what a good 4-valve head can. So even if one were to punch out 3- valve 5.5L to 6.3L it will be limited to low 400Hp due to bad head design.

M&M

Err yes I have driven all of them. And you say the boost arrives at 1500rpm. Well an NA car has response from idle. And I don't know what response you are talking about, I am talking about throttle response. Not response from the engine. It's obvious you haven't driven a car on a circuit. I have a forced induction circuit car & with a high hp car you need to have masterful throttle control mid corner. Driving some of the NA cars around the circuit, it is so much easier to modulate the power coming out of a turn.

And note I'm not saying which is better, there are advantages to both. But NA does have better response. Maybe you haven't driven a good one.

Vadim @ evosport

It is the same thing.

It all has to do with how car is setup. You just have not driven forced induction cars with good traction.

AMGE

MandM
First off in a s/c 211 E55 boost does not ARRIVE as you say at 1500 rpm, 90% of boost arrives by 1500 rpm, this is a big difference.

S/C boost is influencing pressurization as soon as a S/C engine is started and operates all thru the rpm range.

It appears to me you are confused with the difference between s/c and turbo and had you not been jabbing peoples statements I would of let it go, but not this time.

M&M

We are obviously talking about different things. Traction is not th problem. It's balancing the car on the throttle. It's hard to explain, but sometimes 33/48th's throttle is too little & 34/48th's is too much. A forced induction cars throttle is mushy & more like an on-off switch (gross generalisation for dramatic effect).

I've you've ever driven a tuned NA car with individual throttle bodies you will know what I mean. A tuned S2000 springs to mind. You can touch the throttle a hair & the car springs forward. Long before a forced induction car has even got boost in it pipes. After juming from a supercharged car into one like that you will inevitable say the throttle is too sensitive.