'03 E320 vs '89 300E

On Apr 14, 10:45 pm, sch....RemoveThis@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Guenter Scholz)
wrote:
> Hi All
>
> I drove the '03 E320 today and found myself rather disapointed compared
> to my old '89 300E. What am I missing here? it seemed to me that the
> engine was not as smooth, almost a buzzy quality when accelerating...
> definitely not as quiet as my old warhorse. then driving a V6 Camery and
> comparing the two, I didn't think there was all that much difference, ie
> the front wheel drive was rather similar wrt engine noise during acceleration.
> I'm starting to wonder if aluminum based engines are inherently noiser
> compared to the old cast iron ones.... anyway, rather disapointed.
> Anyone have any thoughts?
>
> cheers, guenter

Yeah, I feel the same. My 88 260E is a lot smoother than the newer 97
E320. I also tried a few 2000s Volvos, none can be compared to the 19
year old car.
A sales person from a Carmax recomended me the Lexus. She said after
driving hers, every other car seems to have problems. I didn't have
time to try, maybe you should try and let us know

Cheers, TV
 >> Stay informed about: '03 E320 vs '89 300E 

In article <1176706515.925299.155600.RemoveThis@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Seeker <contact_me_99.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Apr 14, 10:45 pm, sch....RemoveThis@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Guenter Scholz)
>wrote:
>> Hi All
>>
>> I drove the '03 E320 today and found myself rather disapointed compared
>> to my old '89 300E. What am I missing here? it seemed to me that the
>> engine was not as smooth, almost a buzzy quality when accelerating...
>> definitely not as quiet as my old warhorse. then driving a V6 Camery and
>> comparing the two, I didn't think there was all that much difference, ie
>> the front wheel drive was rather similar wrt engine noise during acceleration.
>> I'm starting to wonder if aluminum based engines are inherently noiser
>> compared to the old cast iron ones.... anyway, rather disapointed.
>> Anyone have any thoughts?
>>
>> cheers, guenter
>
>Yeah, I feel the same. My 88 260E is a lot smoother than the newer 97
>E320. I also tried a few 2000s Volvos, none can be compared to the 19
>year old car.
>A sales person from a Carmax recomended me the Lexus. She said after
>driving hers, every other car seems to have problems. I didn't have
>time to try, maybe you should try and let us know
>
>Cheers, TV
>
well, I'm certainly happy to know that I'm not imagining things. T.G
Lambach is probably right on the money with his detailed explanation....
Perfection with the balancing shaft, according to MB, my foot

Now, I did try to see about the Lexus', however they also seem to be
all V6's or V8's.... no inlines that I came across at a nearby dealership.
Possibly Lexus also made the switch to V's. On a positive note, the V's do
seem to have a lot of advantages, cheaper to build, lower emissions, more
torque at low rpm's lighter in weight with the aluminium engine etc...

What really puzzles me though is why MB went with the 90 degree V6 rather
than the 60 degree one.... probably primarily so that tooling costs could
be shared with the V8's... but I can't quite believe that since, after all,
we are talking a premier car brand which is surely not going to squeeze nickels
and dimes ... OK, well, lot's of dollars .... and produce a product which in
some ways is less than desireable.

cheers, guenter
 >> Stay informed about: '03 E320 vs '89 300E 

great explanation, thank you for that. Spend quite a bit of time learning
further details re V's and I's .... didn't know there was that much involved
wrt to these concepts, all affecting performance, cost, emission, etc etc

great post,

cheers, guenter

In article <EKSdnb9QU_FvEb_bnZ2dnUVZ_q2pnZ2d.RemoveThis@comcast.com>,
-->> T.G. Lambach <<--" <"T.G. Lambach at NoHamorSpamcomcast.net"> wrote:
>The M-B V-6 is a 90 degree "V" with a counter rotating balance shaft
>that's supposed to cancel the engine's inherent imbalance. A 60 degree
>V6 needs no counter shaft, cylinders fire every 60 degrees of rotation
>so the motor IS in a balanced state. A V-8 is even smoother as a
>cylinder fires every 45 degrees of rotation. A 60 degree V-12 is even
>smoother. And a straight six has no balance problem either for each
>cylinder fires at 60 degrees and the cylinders are in a single row.
>
>I believe that's the reason you felt the M-B V-6 was harsher than your
>straight six, one of the smoothest sixes, IMHO.
>--
>© 2007 T.G.Lambach. Publication in any form requires prior written
>permission.
 >> Stay informed about: '03 E320 vs '89 300E 

Guenter Scholz schrieb:
> In article <1176706515.925299.155600.TakeThisOut@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> Seeker <contact_me_99.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 14, 10:45 pm, sch....TakeThisOut@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Guenter Scholz)
>> wrote:
>>> Hi All
>>>
>>> I drove the '03 E320 today and found myself rather disapointed compared
>>> to my old '89 300E. What am I missing here? it seemed to me that the
>>> engine was not as smooth, almost a buzzy quality when accelerating...
>>> definitely not as quiet as my old warhorse. then driving a V6 Camery and
>>> comparing the two, I didn't think there was all that much difference, ie
>>> the front wheel drive was rather similar wrt engine noise during acceleration.
>>> I'm starting to wonder if aluminum based engines are inherently noiser
>>> compared to the old cast iron ones.... anyway, rather disapointed.
>>> Anyone have any thoughts?
>>>
>>> cheers, guenter
>> Yeah, I feel the same. My 88 260E is a lot smoother than the newer 97
>> E320. I also tried a few 2000s Volvos, none can be compared to the 19
>> year old car.
>> A sales person from a Carmax recomended me the Lexus. She said after
>> driving hers, every other car seems to have problems. I didn't have
>> time to try, maybe you should try and let us know
>>
>> Cheers, TV
>>
> well, I'm certainly happy to know that I'm not imagining things. T.G
> Lambach is probably right on the money with his detailed explanation....
> Perfection with the balancing shaft, according to MB, my foot
>
> Now, I did try to see about the Lexus', however they also seem to be
> all V6's or V8's.... no inlines that I came across at a nearby dealership.
> Possibly Lexus also made the switch to V's. On a positive note, the V's do
> seem to have a lot of advantages, cheaper to build, lower emissions, more
> torque at low rpm's lighter in weight with the aluminium engine etc...
>
> What really puzzles me though is why MB went with the 90 degree V6 rather
> than the 60 degree one.... probably primarily so that tooling costs could
> be shared with the V8's... but I can't quite believe that since, after all,
> we are talking a premier car brand which is surely not going to squeeze nickels
> and dimes ... OK, well, lot's of dollars .... and produce a product which in
> some ways is less than desireable.

The design problem to be solved is mainly to minimize air resistance at
maximal power. One needs a low hood, a cae in wegde form and a compact
central air and gas supply unit on top of the engine between the cylinders.

The solution looks of courde more like a flat Porsche boxer than the
classic inline 6 with a star or an angel on the hood right in front of
drivers nose.

The W123 280E inline 6 with 185 hp had a maximum speed of 208 km/h
taking 18 litres/100 km.

The W202 C240 V6 with 175 hp makes 230 km/h taking 13 litres at max speed.

--

Roland Franzius
 >> Stay informed about: '03 E320 vs '89 300E 

Yes and Yes!

The V-6 is machined on the 90 degree machines that also make V-8s and
the 90 degree V-6 has less height than if it were a 60 degree motor.

As to the power comparison between a contemporary 240 V-6 and the 1970s
280 straight six --- let's be fair these two motors are 30 years apart!
Different fuel injection, different engine controls and different
transmissions and a lighter weight, and more streamlined, car body.

That's progress.

As to harshness, the 90 degree V-6 and the "sports sedan" trend with
its, IMHO, oversized tires contribute to that feeling. I was considering
buying a new E350 but passed for those reasons.
--
© 2007 T.G.Lambach. Publication in any form requires prior written
permission.
 >> Stay informed about: '03 E320 vs '89 300E 

"Guenter Scholz" <scholz DeleteThis @sciborg.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
news:f0026k$qn6$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> In article <1176706515.925299.155600 DeleteThis @p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> Seeker <contact_me_99 DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Apr 14, 10:45 pm, sch... DeleteThis @sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Guenter Scholz)
>>wrote:
>>> Hi All
>>>
Snip....

> What really puzzles me though is why MB went with the 90 degree
> V6 rather
> than the 60 degree one.... probably primarily so that tooling costs
> could
> be shared with the V8's... but I can't quite believe that since,
> after all,
> we are talking a premier car brand which is surely not going to
> squeeze nickels
> and dimes ... OK, well, lot's of dollars .... and produce a product
> which in
> some ways is less than desireable.
>
So it will fit in my SLK
 >> Stay informed about: '03 E320 vs '89 300E 

In article <sT7Vh.5744$Zm3.1769@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
me <nospam.DeleteThis@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>"Guenter Scholz" <scholz.DeleteThis@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
>news:f0026k$qn6$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
>> In article <1176706515.925299.155600.DeleteThis@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>> Seeker <contact_me_99.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>On Apr 14, 10:45 pm, sch....DeleteThis@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Guenter Scholz)
>>>wrote:
>>>> Hi All
>>>>
>Snip....
>
>> What really puzzles me though is why MB went with the 90 degree
>> V6 rather
>> than the 60 degree one.... probably primarily so that tooling costs
>> could
>> be shared with the V8's... but I can't quite believe that since,
>> after all,
>> we are talking a premier car brand which is surely not going to
>> squeeze nickels
>> and dimes ... OK, well, lot's of dollars .... and produce a product
>> which in
>> some ways is less than desireable.
>>
>So it will fit in my SLK
>

that seems to be the emerging consensus... style and multiple
applications would seem to be the clear winners in a world of trade-offs.

Let me ask you, seeing that I'd like to get a 'fun' car for myself....
SLK or Boxster... darn, can't make up my mind.... I tend to favour an SLK
since I'm a 'bit' familiar with MB's and Boxsters I think will be a royal
pain in the a.. to work on. Also the SLK will probably be a bit more
comfortable (ie softer sprung). Then if SLK, 230 or 320... ??

How did you decide on your 320 if I may ask?

cheers, guenter
 >> Stay informed about: '03 E320 vs '89 300E 

"Guenter Scholz" <scholz.TakeThisOut@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
news:f033r0$5jb$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> In article <sT7Vh.5744$Zm3.1769@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
> me <nospam.TakeThisOut@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>"Guenter Scholz" <scholz.TakeThisOut@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
>>news:f0026k$qn6$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
>>> In article
>>> <1176706515.925299.155600.TakeThisOut@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Seeker <contact_me_99.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>On Apr 14, 10:45 pm, sch....TakeThisOut@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Guenter Scholz)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>> Hi All
>>>>>
>>Snip....
>>
>>> What really puzzles me though is why MB went with the 90 degree
>>> V6 rather
>>> than the 60 degree one.... probably primarily so that tooling
>>> costs
>>> could
>>> be shared with the V8's... but I can't quite believe that since,
>>> after all,
>>> we are talking a premier car brand which is surely not going to
>>> squeeze nickels
>>> and dimes ... OK, well, lot's of dollars .... and produce a
>>> product
>>> which in
>>> some ways is less than desireable.
>>>
>>So it will fit in my SLK
>>
>
> that seems to be the emerging consensus... style and multiple
> applications would seem to be the clear winners in a world of
> trade-offs.
>
> Let me ask you, seeing that I'd like to get a 'fun' car for
> myself....
> SLK or Boxster... darn, can't make up my mind.... I tend to favour
> an SLK
> since I'm a 'bit' familiar with MB's and Boxsters I think will be a
> royal
> pain in the a.. to work on. Also the SLK will probably be a bit
> more
> comfortable (ie softer sprung). Then if SLK, 230 or 320... ??
>
> How did you decide on your 320 if I may ask?
>
> cheers, guenter
>
Bottom line; my wife let me buy it

Actually I looked closely at the boxster, the audi TT and the honda as
well as the SLK.

The SLK320 won mainly because of two things: 1) it is more
comfortable, and 2) creature comfort is much better; it has a folding
HT.

I did not like the audi Fwd/4WD it felt funny and seemed to have
oversteer. The boxster was a much more refined (fun) sports car, but
would not be as practical. The Honda was nice, but under powered (like
the SLK230) and had very little in the way of creature comforts. I
would like to have found an SLK32 AMG, but no such luck (maybe
someday).

I ended up finding a 2002 SLK320 with the sports package, zenons etc.
for under Edmunds trade in value, so I (quick like a bunny) bought it
before my wife had time to reconsider . It is an automatic, so my
wife could drive it, but she won't want to (does not feel safe).

I love the car, but three caveats; 1) it is like riding a motorcycle,
people cannot/will not see you and will pull out in front of you, run
into you changing lanes etc. 2) Do not pull in too far in a parking
space. The AMG bumper is expensive and not very forgiving. 3) With the
top down there is *very* little trunk space.

The exhaust note could be a bit better, and I may have the resonator
removed.

I would like to add the aftermarket one touch top converter rather
than having to hold the switch.
 >> Stay informed about: '03 E320 vs '89 300E 

In article <S19Vh.23452$254.11238@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
me <nospam DeleteThis @nospam.net> wrote:
>

>>
>Bottom line; my wife let me buy it

ahhh, yes. No different here. Moreover I know it will have to be
an automatic, personally want a manual, so that she can drive it 'IF' the
mood might strike her to drive it.... bad back - she says.

>
>Actually I looked closely at the boxster, the audi TT and the honda as
>well as the SLK.
>
>The SLK320 won mainly because of two things: 1) it is more
>comfortable, and 2) creature comfort is much better; it has a folding
>HT.

I guess, the competition between these is to be expected. Your two
reasons are exactly why I'm leaning toward the SLK and the 320 in particular
after noting how rough the 4 cylinders run and the extra zip should wont
hurt - especially since I won't be putting a ton of miles on the car so gas
usage isn't a bit concern.

>
>I did not like the audi Fwd/4WD it felt funny and seemed to have
>oversteer. The boxster was a much more refined (fun) sports car, but
>would not be as practical. The Honda was nice, but under powered (like
>the SLK230) and had very little in the way of creature comforts. I
>would like to have found an SLK32 AMG, but no such luck (maybe
>someday).
>
>I ended up finding a 2002 SLK320 with the sports package, zenons etc.
>for under Edmunds trade in value, so I (quick like a bunny) bought it
>before my wife had time to reconsider . It is an automatic, so my
>wife could drive it, but she won't want to (does not feel safe).
>
>I love the car, but three caveats; 1) it is like riding a motorcycle,
>people cannot/will not see you and will pull out in front of you, run
>into you changing lanes etc. 2) Do not pull in too far in a parking
>space. The AMG bumper is expensive and not very forgiving. 3) With the
>top down there is *very* little trunk space.
>
>The exhaust note could be a bit better, and I may have the resonator
>removed.
>
>I would like to add the aftermarket one touch top converter rather
>than having to hold the switch.
>
>

thanks for that, hugely appreciated your 'heads up'.

cheers, guenter
 >> Stay informed about: '03 E320 vs '89 300E 

"Guenter Scholz" <scholz RemoveThis @sciborg.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
news:f03nbs$dm0$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> In article <S19Vh.23452$254.11238@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
> me <nospam RemoveThis @nospam.net> wrote:


>>The SLK320 won mainly because of two things: 1) it is more
>>comfortable, and 2) creature comfort is much better; it has a
>>folding
>>HT.
>
> I guess, the competition between these is to be expected. Your two
> reasons are exactly why I'm leaning toward the SLK and the 320 in
> particular
> after noting how rough the 4 cylinders run and the extra zip should
> wont
> hurt - especially since I won't be putting a ton of miles on the car
> so gas
> usage isn't a bit concern.
>

Not only that but it is comfortable.

I can drive from RTP, North Carolina to Atlanta (~5 hours) and still
walk when I get there. I knew I could not do that in the porsche or
honda (stiffer suspension), I might have been able to do that in the
audi, but the hard top, heated seats, rear wheel drive and decent HP
etc. on the SLK, sold me.

The 3.2 is a "torque-y" engine and the quasi manual slush box is fun
once you get use to it (I passed some bicyclists today "downshifting"
and braking before I got to them, once it was safe to pass, I could
wind it out a bit selecting the upshift at around 6 grand. It sounded
good. The top was down, life is good. All I need is my hair back

Even with the more comfortable ride, the car corners very well, it
goes where you point it with good manners. It is well balanced and
really "happy" on a back road at about 80 mph I definitely
recommend the "sport" package (wheels). It is fun but *not* a porsche,
though.

I don't drive that much either, but with this car on days like today,
I am looking for excuses. After time, I may be able to get my wife in
the car. She refuses to let me have a motorcycle

Did I mention it is comfortable for a sports car?
 >> Stay informed about: '03 E320 vs '89 300E 

....... all good points. You've sold me on the 320 SLK!

cheers, guenter

ps, did in fact try a Boxster last night... geez, almost had to crawl out of
the seat after the drive, which was pretty 'bumpy' .... I see what you mean
re comfort in the SLK.



In article <AigVh.8267$vD4.2016@bigfe9>, me <nospam.RemoveThis@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>"Guenter Scholz" <scholz.RemoveThis@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
>news:f03nbs$dm0$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
>> In article <S19Vh.23452$254.11238@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
>> me <nospam.RemoveThis@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>The SLK320 won mainly because of two things: 1) it is more
>>>comfortable, and 2) creature comfort is much better; it has a
>>>folding
>>>HT.
>>
>> I guess, the competition between these is to be expected. Your two
>> reasons are exactly why I'm leaning toward the SLK and the 320 in
>> particular
>> after noting how rough the 4 cylinders run and the extra zip should
>> wont
>> hurt - especially since I won't be putting a ton of miles on the car
>> so gas
>> usage isn't a bit concern.
>>
>
>Not only that but it is comfortable.
>
>I can drive from RTP, North Carolina to Atlanta (~5 hours) and still
>walk when I get there. I knew I could not do that in the porsche or
>honda (stiffer suspension), I might have been able to do that in the
>audi, but the hard top, heated seats, rear wheel drive and decent HP
>etc. on the SLK, sold me.
>
>The 3.2 is a "torque-y" engine and the quasi manual slush box is fun
>once you get use to it (I passed some bicyclists today "downshifting"
>and braking before I got to them, once it was safe to pass, I could
>wind it out a bit selecting the upshift at around 6 grand. It sounded
>good. The top was down, life is good. All I need is my hair back
>
>Even with the more comfortable ride, the car corners very well, it
>goes where you point it with good manners. It is well balanced and
>really "happy" on a back road at about 80 mph I definitely
>recommend the "sport" package (wheels). It is fun but *not* a porsche,
>though.
>
>I don't drive that much either, but with this car on days like today,
>I am looking for excuses. After time, I may be able to get my wife in
>the car. She refuses to let me have a motorcycle
>
>Did I mention it is comfortable for a sports car?
>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: '03 E320 vs '89 300E 

"Guenter Scholz" <scholz.DeleteThis@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
news:f05gph$1s0$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> ...... all good points. You've sold me on the 320 SLK!
>
> cheers, guenter
>
> ps, did in fact try a Boxster last night... geez, almost had to
> crawl out of
> the seat after the drive, which was pretty 'bumpy' .... I see what
> you mean
> re comfort in the SLK.
>
Right, but driving the boxster "S" for me is aerobic exercise
 >> Stay informed about: '03 E320 vs '89 300E 

Have you considered a CLK Cab to get even more space? Again, at least the
3.2 l engine. Very popular in London.

It's almost practical, even... at least it's the least impractical of the
impractical cars...

DAS

For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling
---
"Guenter Scholz" <scholz DeleteThis @sciborg.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
news:f05gph$1s0$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> ...... all good points. You've sold me on the 320 SLK!
>
> cheers, guenter
>
> ps, did in fact try a Boxster last night... geez, almost had to crawl out
> of
> the seat after the drive, which was pretty 'bumpy' .... I see what you
> mean
> re comfort in the SLK.
>
[...]
 >> Stay informed about: '03 E320 vs '89 300E