Celicasaur

Interested to hear opinions on this. Every review I read on this engine is that it's brilliant and blah blah blah, but I personally am struggling to see it. Maybe because I drive a heavy W212 saloon with Pan roof and the fact that N/A engines are usually lower on torque that F/I motors...but wait, this engine has a peak torque figure of 465lbs @ ~5000rpm.

Comparing it to the V10 S85 M5 engine with it's fantastic top end power band, in a straight line drag with an M5, the M5 wins (this according to youtube...i haven't raced an E60 M5 in my car but I have ran very close to an F10 oddly enough...must have had a full car of weight). Of course, the S85's engines ability to rev higher and the fact that it's intake manifold and cams are tuned to deliver a more peaky engine is probably the reason for this, but I'm not sure what the point is....I mean...I would have preferred a more peaky engine (even more than it is) so that when I do decide to go hell for leather on the throttle, the car moves as well as it can. My guess is that this was intentional so as to make the SLS more competitive as the flagship model? But then that revs to 8k as well doesn't it? Yes I know the S85 has two more cylinders, but the fact is that in the real world it makes near enough the same power as the M156 and the real-world low-end torque isn't terribly far off (yes I've driven one)...either that, or the gearing is confusing me.

Low down, does the car really have that much torque (like an E55) to justify not having an amazing top end? Probably not. Anybody who's floored it from ~30mph in 2nd will know what I mean. The gearing is short, so that should help the engine to perform better.

The sound...yes it's lovely and yes it sounds like an inefficient LS motor when revving while stationary. I won't go into reliability...all engines have their weak points. Hell, the C6 Z06 valve guide problem is a perfect example of this. Don't get me wrong, I do like my E63. I think as an all round car it's beautiful inside and out and does pretty much everything that I ask of it (even handling is great). It's just the whole pedestal




So with some of this in mind, what is it about the M156 that I'm lead to believe is so 'great'?

AMGJAY

Subscribed.

kponti

I was about to jump down your throat when I read what the title until I saw what engines you were comparing the M156 to......

You do make a good point if you compare it to engines such as the S85.... Hell even the LS based engines. They do sound good (with the right mufflers, sound just as refined or more so than the M156).
Performance wise, they are right up there or kill the MB engine (LS7, S85) and with mods even worse (LSx and the others due to potential). I guess after weighing all those pros and cons, I opted for the Biturbo myself even though I am a diehard NA fan (until I came into the MB family)

nycphotography

I loved the M156 in my CLK63 cab. It truly was a magical engine. I miss how it behaved like a "traditional" engine. Sane in C mode, at around town RPM's. Easy to forget how much was there untapped, but ready to rev and GO when you want it. But really the appeal to me (and I suspect to most old gearheads) was how it builds through the powerband like an old school race engine, car or motorcylce, does. It gives you options for how to put the power down... lower RPM and higher RPM deliver power and handle different.

The M157, however is in a whole other league. Only a "few HP more", but tons more power delivered across the board, starting barely off idle. But gone is much of the tactile feedback and control of the old NA motor, replaced with a big fat torque hammer. A torque hammer is more fun most of the time. But there is just something inside me the appreciates the feel of an engine with a traditional NA power band.

TLDR; So while I miss my M156 and it's tradional RPM building power band... punching the M157 (usually) makes me forget all about it.

gaspam

from what i have seen , stock to stock e60 m5 and n/a m156 e63 are pretty much dead heat in 0-60 and 1/4 mile..

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...s-of-go-page-4

also M5 is about 400 lbs lighter with a better transmission...

marcolarco52

It sounds incredible...so does the e60 m5 with the right set up.

Rob CL

How can you argue with this, though?

http://www.complex.com/sports/2013/1...m156-v8-eulogy

and

http://500sec.com/amg-designed-engin...on-the-planet/

Celicasaur

...Which again makes me ask, What's so great about the M156?


To be fair, this is a general characteristic of N/A engines (I myself am a die-hard N/A enthusiast). And with 6.2l....you'd kind of expect that.

Also, I'm not necessarily comparing it or moaning about the M157...that's a different type of engine and truth be told, it has nowhere near the noise made about it that the M156 has had.


Interesting....I didn't know this. I always have known of the M5 to be faster especially above ~130mph due to the way the power band and gearing favours higher rpm.

No doubt in this. I can't wait to get headers on mine

Articles like these are the very reason for my question. They go on about it but I don't understand why it's technically so brilliant.

rediesel

The M156 and M159 are the only engines AMG has built from a blank page, everything prior and everything after have been modified from engines found in the existing lineup.

nycphotography

FWIW, that _could_ have been a recipe for disaster. But thankfully it wasn't :-)

kponti

It kinda was...E63 from 2007 through 2010 head bolt issues for example

otakki

Isn't the new M178 also built by AMG from the ground up as well?

BTW, headbolts issue is one major problems. There are also some non-minor ones like tappet/bucket problems.

rediesel

^^^ No the M178 is basically 2 of the CLA45 M133 joined together, that engine is a performance version of the M270.