Find Reviews by Make:
In addition to offering hybrid options across its lineup, Mercedes-Benz will mount a three-cylinder engine in certain vehicles by 2012, reports Motor Authority. Mercedes R&D Boss Thomas Weber does mention that there’s a slight hitch to the plans, namely that “Mercedes is currently looking for a partner to help develop the new three-cylinder engine.” In what appears to be a case of car-before-horse(power), Weber confirms that this undeveloped engine will appear in future iterations of the C-Class, B-Class, A-Class and Smart ForTwo. The American market is not expected to receive three-banger benzes, although a 1.4-liter Kompressor engine is being considered for the C-Class.
31 Comments on “Three-Pot Merc in the Works...”
Read all comments
My initial thought is that this is aimed at keeping the cars (extremely) competitive in the Euro CO2-derived tax stakes rather than any real merit as far as having a three-banger over the existing and well-working fours.
I think once gas makes it back up toward $5 here, there will be room in every automaker’s lineup for smaller cars with more fuel efficient powertrains. Even premium marques. Although a 3 cylinder Mercedes might be a tough sell.
Yeah, thats what I’m looking to buy! A three cyclinder wuenderauto who’s headlight costs more to replace than the engine AND has the cache of a 1992 Ford Festiva.
toyota have a 998cc 3 cylinder DOHC 12v in their euro only Aygo mini
i’m pretty sure suzuki and hyundai also have them in the works for their line of super minis
what’s the big deal? a 3 cyl motor is like half a v6 and mercedes have plenty of those
Its the output that will matter. BMW is also considering blown 3s and 4s that will deliver anywhere up to 300hp for the new 1 and 3 series. With the right technology, less cylinders does not necessarily mean gutless econobox.
Tony JZX: “what’s the big deal? a 3 cyl motor is like half a v6 and mercedes have plenty of those”
Correct, a 3 is simply half a v6. ‘Course, the next step–splitting a 3 in half–would be a bit harder.
Seriously, wouldn’t a 3 run awful rough? Seems like an opposed twin-cylinder, being inherently balanced, would have much less vibration.
What’s the big deal? Call GM. They’ll show you how to slice a cylinder off an existing four-banger (or two cylinders off of an existing five). In about 3 years, you can switch to a 240-degree crank and talk up how wonderful your “New, Even Firing L-3” is. For marketing purposes, call it “The Iron Baron.”
I’ve always preferred six or more cylinders. There are some good four-bangers out there (VW 2.0 turbo comes to mind, plus anything from Honda), but the noise feels out of place in an upscale car.
carguy: +1
Check out the Merc “Diesotto” engine. In prototype form the 1.8 liter 4-banger does 238hp and 400Nm. Oh yeah, and gets 39 mpg out of an S Class.
50merc,
I recall an article from a motorcyle magazine, long ago (1978?), about the Yamaha 750 triple. Apparently, that configuration is (or can be) fairly well balanced.
But it probably wasn’t as smooth as a BMW opposed twin motorcyle of the day.
This makes me miss my Subaru Justy
Why not just license a bike 4 banger? They are way more balanced than any three cylinder will ever be. 3 cylinders in a Mercedes makes about as much sense as a 2 cycle Trabant engine in a BMW.
The symmetry is wonderful. Didn’t Daimler Benz own DKW for a time before it was sold to VW?
what’s the big deal? a 3 cyl motor is like half a v6 and mercedes have plenty of those
That’s very similiar to what GM said when the great idea factory introduced the Cadillac Cimarron in 1982. So what that’s its a Cadillac, the standard of the world with legendary V8 luxury and performance, a four cylinder is half a V8 isn’t it? Its like saying a Hamburger should be sold in all the high end restaurants because hey, it’s chopped steak!
If Mercedes ever produced a three cylinder car in the US, it would lose its highly vaunted luxury and snob status. Notice Toyota hasn’t introduced their 3 banger in any Lexus I’ve heard of. And they won’t either.
BTW, isn’t “Merc” short for Mercury? There’s a brand who could get away with a luxury three cylinder.
I suppose a good 3-banger would be ok, if it wasn’t engineered for maximum cost savings — Metro/Swift engines tend to shake themselves apart in the long term, for example.
@dolorean23: “Merc” is only refers to Mercury among the hotrodding crowd, I think. As it is, everything sold as a Mercury after the 1970 Marauder isn’t really relevant, ever.
i think mercedes gave up any pretensions of a
‘total’ luxury brand by introducing the A class and that infamous ‘moose’ rollover test
in my opinion if toyota could get away with releasing a Lexus IS150 or some kind of luxury hatchback they bloody well would
this tough economic climate means manufacturers would do just about anything to gain some market share
Porsche are thinking about dropping a Audi 4 cyl. into the Boxster for some quick bucks…
The Smart ForTwo has always used I3 engines, including the one sold in the US:
http://www.smartusa.com/smart-car-technical-specifications.aspx
An I3 with a turbo would be appropriate for the A and B, and maybe even C classes.
Mercedes is famous for its unbalanced, odd, bulletproof I5 engines, they might as well use an I3 engine also.
Small I4 engines make a lot of power per liter in sport bikes because the low reciprocating weight lets them rev well past 10,000 rpm, but they are not good for torque and fuel economy.
There are good, fuel economy based reasons to use an I3 engine.
On the other hand, Mercedes switched from Inline-6 to V6 engines in the late ’90s purely out of penny pinching.
I find that 3 cylinder engine is actually smoother at higher revs than a four but a bit rougher just above idle. Something to do with the increased side-to-side rocking of a 3 but the absence of forward and backward movement.
TonyJZX beat me to it, the Aygo’s engine is a peach. It sounds like a quarter of a Ferrari V12. Whether or not the notoriously conservative (boring) Mercedes buyers will appreciate such a characterful engine type remains to be seen.
If Mercedes are looking for an engine partner, Toyota would be a good place to start.
Three cylinder Mercedes? I don’t think so. Unless it’s about the size of a Mini and insanely luxurious.
I too thought the headline was referring to Mercury’s, but then I remembered how TTAC keeps telling us that Mercury will soon be dead.
Mercedes already has a 3 cylinder car, it’s called the Smart.
Okay, here’s it’s called the (not so)SmartforTwo and is powered by a Mitsubishi engine.
Why the morons and Penske and SmartUSA won’t bring over the turbo 3cyl diesel and pair it to the 6 speed automatic, LIKE THEY DO THERE, is beyond me.
Yep, no_slushbox is right about ‘stupid’ car. In Canada they sold diesel 3-banger with all but 40 hp. Triumph, I think, makes bikes with a 3-cylinder engine. Would be fun to see Merc trying to unload S-Class or a Maybach with a 3-banger.
Tata Nano has to do with 2-cylinder and they can’t build ’em fast enough.
And 50 years ago BMW sold Isetta with boxer two.
i didn’t read this correctly
the C-class is a big bloated pig – it weighs anything from 3,400 (c180) to almost 4,000lb (c63) so unless they think it’s good to put a 1.4 litre three cylinder twin charged turbo diesel in there i doubt this pig will fly…
i could see a hybrid three cylinder diesel with some wacky electric motor like the Prius but that would be front page news rather than some hype about a mere 3 cyl. motor
Say goodbye to the adorable V8 noise.
I believe VW/Audi produced L3 engines. I think the A2 was available with a 1.2 TDI. I’m not sure what VW products were equipped with the L3 engine.
Let’s see, three cylinder vehicles I have owned:
Geo Metro
BMW K75C
Triumph T150V Trident
Triumph T309 Trident (still have it, has 101K on the clock and is running wonderfully)
Triumph T309 Speed Triple
Triumph T509 Tiger
The three cylinder motor is a very underutilized design, and I’ve had nothing but good luck with them.
I’ve ridden Yamaha XS750’s and XS850’s in the past – very nice touring bikes. Unfortunately, the American market wanted screaming four cylinder road burners.
Oh yeah, don’t forget the old Kawasaki triples. Two strokes, but you haven’t lived until you’ve dumped the clutch on a H-2 or KH750 (same bike, depends on the year).
Porsche are thinking about dropping a Audi 4 cyl. into the Boxster for some quick bucks…
I’m not so surprised. Didn’t they already do that back in the late ’70s, with the original 924?
——–
Mercedes is famous for its unbalanced, odd, bulletproof I5 engines, they might as well use an I3 engine also.
Not even pretending to be an engineer, I’ve always wondered why most automobile and truck engines have an even number of cylinders. My gut instinct tells me that it has something to do with the ability to achieve balance by always having another cylinder traveling in the exact opposite direction, reaching TDC at exactly the same time as another one reaches BDC, but I’ve never known for certain.
Considering they showed an S-Class proposal that was more than adequately powered by a 1.6 4-cyl that produced a big jump in fuel efficiency, maybe they are considering an E-class three. Only half joking here. Why couldn’t a premium brand apply premium exotic engineering to accomplish this?
Here is what I do not understand. Back in the 50s there were lots of small fours. The original Mini started at 850. Fiat also had an 850. What is the point of a three?
A 3 cylinder engine has roughly 87% of the friction of a 4 cylinder of the same capacity and stroke, and is slightly lighter. It also has larger pistons, which in the case of small engines gives you smaller thermal losses. So for all those reasons you could expect slightly better economy.
It is also significantly cheaper to make.
On the other hand, it has a balance problem. A 4 cylinder basically jumps up and down, at 2/rev. A 3IL rocks at 1 per rev, and it is much more difficult to design around the rocking motion than the jumping up and down.
They do sound nice tho.
So why not arrange the cylinders radially or “somewhat radially”? Would that make it doable, or am I way off here? I’m not an engineer, so I have no idea.
Sure, you could do the cylinders radially at 120 degrees apart (or certain fractions of that), but that would take up more space and probably require a separate head for each cylinder, which would make the intake and exhaust manifolds “interesting”.