[The Automotive Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by gago1101

Hope this translates into MB building real sports cars for the road from the ground up rather than boats turned into high-horsepower cars.

AMG tunes the cars vigorously. They just tune them more towards straight line speed. That seems to be changing, now. The W204 C63 didn't feel like a boat to me. The contrary, actually. People were complaining of the ride being too rough.

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by Rev ///Me

AMG tunes the cars vigorously. They just tune them more towards straight line speed. That seems to be changing, now. The W204 C63 didn't feel like a boat to me. The contrary, actually. People were complaining of the ride being too rough.

Well said. Not to mention the fact that the W204 C63 is faster around the 'ring than the E9X M3 by more than a few seconds.

[gago1101]

Originally Posted by SlowSaloonM3

I'm pretty sure 90% of the ppl on here would take an ///M6 over this boat.

I wouldn't take M6 over anything, it is another unfortunate boat. While SLS black series is not a boat, most AMGs are. the same goes for BMW, all the R&D for say 5-series development is geared towards a luxury sports sedan, not a sports car.

90% of people may take a Ferrari 458 over the SLS black, at least that's what I would do if I wanted to spend that kind of money on a car.

[gago1101]

Originally Posted by Rev ///Me

AMG tunes the cars vigorously. They just tune them more towards straight line speed. That seems to be changing, now. The W204 C63 didn't feel like a boat to me. The contrary, actually. People were complaining of the ride being too rough.

C63 may not seem like a boat to you, but it is one, a very rough choppy boat. With 500 Bhp and 3800lbs, it is as slow as it can get on the track where sports cars do well and boats do not. Take the new Z28 with roughly the same weight and Hp as the c63, it goes around the ring in 7:37. Now that's a sports car, albeit a cheaply made one.

Edit: my Porsche PTT has the same 500 Hp and is about 500-600 lbs heavier, larger and more plush than the c63, but it is faster around the track.

[aus]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

I am a bit puzzled by the thread title though.

Revolutionary turbo tech from MB of all places.


While it is true that MB are not necessarily renowned for their sports cars, innovation has continuously been partof their history. Many technology firsts appeared on MB vehicles. Heck, the two founders independently and concurently invented the gas powered motor vehicle .

I'm referrencing engine tech more than general car tech. I've always been drawn to BMW because of their engines, and //M cars because 100+ HP/Liter is the expectation for //M cars. Don't get me wrong, AMG engines are nice and sound SICK, but IMO, the Corvette engine is more impressive to me given how much power it generates from VERY LOW TECH, and get great mileage- obviously some of that is due to the gearing. The engine is also VERY tunable and there's a ton of power with simple bolt ons.

BMW has made Magnesium bound to aluminum engines, tri-turbo diesels, and were the first that I saw to produced 100 HP/Liter in a diesel. Lets not forget NO THROTTLE BODY in their current engines due to valvtronic. This is just a few engine innovations from the top of my head. I haven't read muc in terms of truely revolutionary engine tech from MB in a while. If there is something, I'd like an update.

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

I am not sure what you want to imply... superchargers and turbos are very different animals.

A supercharger is mechanically connected to the engine so its speed is directly proportional to the engine speed regardless of load. A supercharger compressor spins at a much lower speed than a turbo and therefore needs to be much bigger to supply the same mass flow. Due the larger size of the compressor, the lower rotational speed and how it is driven, the inertia of the shaft has negligible impact on a supercharger.

Since a turbo is free spinning, inertia is extremely important for response time. With the high rotation speeds involved and the relatively small and light compressor and turbine wheels, the weight of the shaft is certainly not negligible here.

This is the reason we don't see that many (not to say none) "split" turbos on high performance applications out there. IMO, it is the avenue of the electric motor/generator on the turbo that allows this concept to work.

I'm think BMW "pre-charge" in the F8x, would help keeping the turbo spinning. I agree that an electric motor would "torque fill" (McLaren term) nicely down low, but the added weight of the battery would be a downer.

Originally Posted by Rev ///Me

MB has been innovating for years now. Stability Control? Traction Control, ABS. They were the first to implement the technologies. MB knows their stuff. They've been innovating with cars like the SLS line of cars, and their Black Series line. It's BMW who's fallen behind.

I agree about the current BMW's not standing out like in the past, but the SLS is pretty fat for a super car, IMO. The engine also doesn't make 100 hp/L.

.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by aus

I agree that an electric motor would "torque fill" (McLaren term) nicely down low, but the added weight of the battery would be a downer.

IIRC, The term "torque fill" used by McLaren applies to a conventional hybrid system where an electric motor drives the wheels, which has nothing to do with the technology discussed here.

[ybbiz34]

Originally Posted by aus

I haven't read muc in terms of truely revolutionary engine tech from MB in a while. If there is something, I'd like an update

Well, just recently they produced the most powerful production 2.0L, 4-cylinder engine ever. Managed to squeeze 360 horsepower out of it and used sand casting for the motor.

It is now found in the A45, CLA45, and GLA45 AMG.

[aus]

Originally Posted by ybbiz34

Well, just recently they produced the most powerful production 2.0L, 4-cylinder engine ever. Managed to squeeze 360 horsepower out of it and used sand casting for the motor.

It is now found in the A45, CLA45, and GLA45 AMG.

Agreed that's an impressvie motor. I haven't driven one yet to see ow the lag is, but it is impressive.

[aus]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

IIRC, The term "torque fill" used by McLaren applies to a conventional hybrid system where an electric motor drives the wheels, which has nothing to do with the technology discussed here.

So you're talking using an electric motor to drive the turbo?
Is that what the KERS system is being used for? I must have missed that.

.

[The Automotive Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by gago1101

C63 may not seem like a boat to you, but it is one, a very rough choppy boat. With 500 Bhp and 3800lbs, it is as slow as it can get on the track where sports cars do well and boats do not. Take the new Z28 with roughly the same weight and Hp as the c63, it goes around the ring in 7:37. Now that's a sports car, albeit a cheaply made one.

Edit: my Porsche PTT has the same 500 Hp and is about 500-600 lbs heavier, larger and more plush than the c63, but it is faster around the track.

You're comparing a Sports Sedan to sports cars? You just lost all credibility my friend. The Z28 is designed as a sports car. The C63's purpose is in no way designed to be a sports car. It's designed to be a sportier take on what is a luxury automobile.The purpose of a C63 is to still give you S class levels of refinement, with everything turned up to 11.It needs to be sporty, but MB can't give up that smooth ride quality. MB designs their cars to be road cars first and second and third. Then, they maybe start thinking about a track session. If the ride is harsh in a Porsche, people are just going to be 'It's a Porsche, what do you expect?' If the ride is harsh in a Mercedes, it's customers will be up in arms because that's not what a Mercedes is or has been about. If you think a AMG is meant for regular tracking, you have completely missed the point. The problem is, your perception of what is and is not a sports car is skewed. The PTT was built to be a sports car. The C63 is being designed from a car that's meant to make sure you have a comfortable drive.

Lets be real here. Today, everything this side of a FR-S and BR-Z or Miata is going to be a boat. With safety standard requirements increasing, that's just the way it's going to be. The PTT is a boat as well, not as much of a boat as an M5, but still a boat.

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by aus

I agree about the current BMW's not standing out like in the past, but the SLS is pretty fat for a super car, IMO. The engine also doesn't make 100 hp/L.

MB did a pretty nice job with the CLA45 engine, most power dense production engine in the world.

[The Automotive Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by aus

I'm referrencing engine tech more than general car tech. I've always been drawn to BMW because of their engines, and //M cars because 100+ HP/Liter is the expectation for //M cars. Don't get me wrong, AMG engines are nice and sound SICK, but IMO, the Corvette engine is more impressive to me given how much power it generates from VERY LOW TECH, and get great mileage- obviously some of that is due to the gearing. The engine is also VERY tunable and there's a ton of power with simple bolt ons.

BMW has made Magnesium bound to aluminum engines, tri-turbo diesels, and were the first that I saw to produced 100 HP/Liter in a diesel. Lets not forget NO THROTTLE BODY in their current engines due to valvtronic. This is just a few engine innovations from the top of my head. I haven't read muc in terms of truely revolutionary engine tech from MB in a while. If there is something, I'd like an update.




I'm think BMW "pre-charge" in the F8x, would help keeping the turbo spinning. I agree that an electric motor would "torque fill" (McLaren term) nicely down low, but the added weight of the battery would be a downer.



I agree about the current BMW's not standing out like in the past, but the SLS is pretty fat for a super car, IMO. The engine also doesn't make 100 hp/L.

.

An engine making 100hp/L doesn't define how good of a car or engine it is. It may make for great for ego jerking at the bar with your friends, but other then that, it means nothing. The SLS BS will keep up with Ferrari F12's around various tracks, and while it's porky, what fat super car can go from 0-60 in 3.5 seconds?

[gago1101]

Originally Posted by Rev ///Me

The purpose of a C63 is to still give you S class levels of refinement.

Really?

FYI, I have owned 2 AMGs in the last 6 years, an 05' E55 and a 12' CLS63 and have participated in 2 AMG driving academy events where I have driven all the available AMG models including the c63 and the SLS. AMGs have an extremely high quality built and refinement level, C63 lacks the latter.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by aus

So you're talking using an electric motor to drive the turbo?

Yup.

See cool videos that explains it (and other rule changes):

It's interesting to see that in the MB promotional video, they still show a more conventional turbo setup (albeit with the electric motor between the turbine and compressor) and not the separated turbo mentioned in the OP. It must still have been a well kept secret at the time.

[CanAutM3]

Found another cool vid, jump to 5:25

[aus]

Originally Posted by Rev ///Me

An engine making 100hp/L doesn't define how good of a car or engine it is. It may make for great for ego jerking at the bar with your friends, but other then that, it means nothing. The SLS BS will keep up with Ferrari F12's around various tracks, and while it's porky, what fat super car can go from 0-60 in 3.5 seconds?

Call it what you want, but not many NA engines can achieve that number. If you don't get that it's a significant achievement, there's nothing I can say to you that'll make you get it.

And a GTR will smoke that 3.5 time. Besides, only magazine posers focus on the 0-60 anymore because at the present power levels, grip is the limiting factor now.

.

[MikeyV]

Originally Posted by ss134

Merc are on a bit of a roll and some of their new cars are getting rave reviews- the A45 AMG has been universally praised for it's handling , suspension and motor. It has trounced the M135i in every comparo I've read despite when optioned the same not being much more expensive.

The A45 was beaton by the Golf R in the lastest BBC Top Gear magazine.

[MikeyV]

Originally Posted by ybbiz34

Well, just recently they produced the most powerful production 2.0L, 4-cylinder engine ever. Managed to squeeze 360 horsepower out of it and used sand casting for the motor.

It is now found in the A45, CLA45, and GLA45 AMG.

But it's not Mitsuibishi sold Evo X FQ-400. Now I may be wrong here and learned funny maths, 400hp is more than 355hp, isn't it?

[pkimM3r]

Originally Posted by aus

Call it what you want, but not many NA engines can achieve that number. If you don't get that it's a significant achievement, there's nothing I can say to you that'll make you get it.

And a GTR will smoke that 3.5 time. Besides, only magazine posers focus on the 0-60 anymore because at the present power levels, grip is the limiting factor now.

.

The s2k did 120hp per liter back in '99. Damn thats 480hp if the s65 did that!!

[son_of_siggy]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

IIRC, The term "torque fill" used by McLaren applies to a conventional hybrid system where an electric motor drives the wheels, which has nothing to do with the technology discussed here.

Same general concept of using the electric motor to do the heavy initial lifting, whether it be getting tires rolling or a turbo spinning. They (McLaren) may not have used "torque fill" in that manner, but I think the terminology still applies.

[F1Venom]

Mercedes > BMW as of these past couple of years.

[aus]

CanAut, thanks for the vids. Good stuff.

Originally Posted by MikeyV

But it's not Mitsuibishi sold Evo X FQ-400. Now I may be wrong here and learned funny maths, 400hp is more than 355hp, isn't it?

We don't get cool cars like that in the US.

Originally Posted by SlowSaloonM3

The s2k did 120hp per liter back in '99. Damn thats 480hp if the s65 did that!!

That car is also appreciating now.

.