Right, the three valve soc engines returned excellent fuel economy. It seems as if the new gen Vs haven't really been able to match the numbers which is weird because technology should progress in these directions, not regress. I think the 3.5 is even worse as far as mpg... not good MB.

Here's the thing though, if you look how engines have progressed in the recent decades (20 years or so) you will notice that power has increased signifcantly while fuel economy has only improved a little if at all.
Times will probably change with the emphasis on greener products though.

I don't know if its different from an E, but the cruise control did feel at about the same angle as most other cars I've driven.


Yes, big variance within the same road test. Bizzare

I have to agree with their take on how the new C feels, unlike the previous W203 the W204 feels like a real Benz, though with some cheap plastics in certain places. The body and build though are worlds more solid than the W203 ever was though.

M

Another important factor is weight: this has increased over the years too meaning that even if modern engines are more powerful than their predecessors while getting better fuel economy, if they're working in a heavier car the fuel economy benefits go out the window.

MB has a serious weight issue in most of their cars. Fact.

It's the steel that causing the extra weight but that's also why MB are so damn safe and rigid

<<Right, the three valve soc engines returned excellent fuel economy. It seems as if the new gen Vs haven't really been able to match the numbers which is weird because technology should progress in these directions, not regress. >>

I must disagree. My 2008 C300 automatic (now at 7+ months and 5000 miles) consistently shows a 1-3 mpg improvement over my 2001 C320 over the six years and 60K miles I owned it.

Same driving style and general driving environment.

The M112 V-6 was a compromise design with a V-angle chosen so that the 6 and 8 cylinder engines could be built on the same line which then required a balance shaft. And the only reason for three valves was to heat the cat up sooner so as to improve the warm-up emission numbers to satisfy government tailpipe sniffers.

The 4-cam four-valve V-6 with variable intake and exhaust cam timing and a newer FI system SHOULD get better gas mileage and so it does.

All quite silly, in retrospect.

Hmmm, well I was just going by what I remembered to be the EPA rating but now looking back at the numbers; are previous 08 numbers converted to the new standard or are they still on the old system? This could by my lapse in judgement with regards to the seemingly lower numbers of the newer V6. However, as per Edmunds, the E320 got 21/28 in 2005 and the E350 got 20/27 which is marginal at best but doesn't help support the cause for the newer engines being more economical...

It's not really the steel. Most MB's will make use of lighter materials where possible. For example, our E320's trunk lid is made out of plastic to reduce weight.

The things that really drive up the weight in MB's are generally the safety systems and options / features (especially on fully loaded cars) if I remember correctly from an AMS article.

I get ur point,but i think i did read somewhere that MB uses high strength steel for the body structure and suspension which accounts for most of the heavy weight,also if u noticed in extreme accidents MB cars are not that crumbled compared to competition