'03 E320 vs '89 300E

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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
-->> T.G. Lambach <<--" <"T.G. Lambach at NoHamorSpamcomcast.net"> wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"-->> T.G. Lambach <<--" <"T.G. Lambach at NoHamorSpamcomcast.net"> wrote in message

Are they 2-stroke engines?
Reg: Harri
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Apr 14, 10:45 pm, snipped-for-privacy@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Guenter Scholz) wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

    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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(Guenter Scholz)

Snip....
So it will fit in my SLK :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

    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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(Guenter Scholz)

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

    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.

    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.

thanks for that, hugely appreciated your 'heads up'.
cheers, guenter
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:>>The SLK320 won mainly because of two things: 1) it is more

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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
...... 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.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Right, but driving the boxster "S" for me is aerobic exercise :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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" < snipped-for-privacy@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
news:f05gph$1s0$ snipped-for-privacy@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

    Dory, I was ready to purchase one and took the one who must be obeyed along... mistake. Should have given it to her for a birthday present :-) Seems only a practical sedan will do ... I then decided on a 2003 E320 (the newer style, and I like to buy a bit older since I'm cheap) didn't particular like it and TOWMBO thought it was on the gaudy side inside wht with all the wood trim, swoops etc, I liked it, but who am I to argue. I've now decided to get the A/C on my 300E (89) fixed.... that was her major problem with it since she in fact likes the 2nd gear start and the fairly plain/practical inside along with lot's of room and very quiet engine. Sooooo, maybe I'm allowed to buy 'her' a little sports car like the SLK 320 .... she's going to NY with our daughter for 10 days soon and I'm planning to possible have something at home when she get's back and try to weather the storm....
- cheers, guenter
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
2nd gear start is easily done in newer MB... just keep it in W position as opposed to S mode.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Come to think of it, didn't we discuss this before?
Anyway, I think the more recent E and other class interiors (don't know in what year it started, but after 2001) is very smart. The E320 is VERY practical, isn't it?
If I ever get rid of my CLK that's probably what I would go for.
Thing is, I do 5K miles or less.
My wife has our old 190E and she sometimes mutters about a newer car, but come September it'll be back down to a handfull of miles a week because our son is starting at a school to which we are unlikely to drive very often, using the Underground instead.
Still, I asked a couple of service managers at my Merc garage and they advised to avoid A-Class before about 2003/4 and C-Class.
(I only asked about smaller cars.)
B-Class has no issues, they said. Scathing about older As, as you can see.
DAS
For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling
--
"Guenter Scholz" < snipped-for-privacy@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
news:f0bnmm$l2l$ snipped-for-privacy@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I suppose it's a computer to blame.
300E has a siple mechanical accelerating pedal but new one has electrical and a computer between pedal and engine.
I had before a really great 190E 2,6 but now there is a E240 with V6 engine.
Reg: Harri
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.