Jump to content
Create New...
  • Drew Dowdell
    Drew Dowdell

    Mercedes-AMG Debuts Most Powerful Production 4-cylinder

      ... 416 horsepower in S trim...

    Mercedes-AMG has unvieled their newest and most powerful 4-cylinder engine. Clocking in at 416 horsepower and 369 lb-ft of torque for the S version, it is the most powerful 4-cylinder engine currently in production.  There is also a "base" model of this engine that produces 382 HP and 354 lb-ft of torque.  Peak torque for the S Model is available from 5000 - 5250 rpm while the base version's torque peak comes in at 4,750 rpm and continues to 5,000 rpm. Mercedes says that putting the torque peak higher in the RPM band makes the engine more free revving. Maximum engine speed for both versions is 7,200 rpm. 

    The engine, while still transverse, is rotated 180 degrees to put the turbo in the back up against the firewall and the intake system is positioned up front to make for a lower design with fewer air restrictions.  The turbo itself is a twin-scroll unit and has roller bearings to reduce friction and quicken turbo response.  The engines are hand built by a single craftsman in Affalterbach Germany.  

    No word yet on which vehicles these engines will go in, but its a safe bet to look for them to show up in the Mercedes A-Class, CLA-Class, and probably the GLB-Class.

    Technical data at a glance

     

    Mercedes-AMG
    M 139 2.0 liter turbocharged four-cylinder engine

    Displacement

    1991 cc

    Bore x stroke

    83.0 x 92.0 mm

    Output

    416 hp at 6750 rpm (S-model) 
    382 hp at 6500 rpm (base version)

    Peak torque

    369 lb-ft at 5000-5250 rpm  (S-model) 354 lb-ft at 4750-5000 rpm (base version)

    Max. engine speed

    7200 rpm

    Compression ratio

    9.0:1

    Turbocharging

    One twinscroll turbocharger with roller-bearing compressor and turbine wheels

    Max. charge pressure

    2.1 bar (S-model)
    1.9 bar (base version)

    Mixture formation

    Combined direct and manifold injection.
    1.) Third-generation multiple direct injection. Fast and precise piezo injectors spray the fuel into the combustion chambers at high pressure 
    2.) Additional intake manifold injection with solenoid valves

    Cylinder head

    Two overhead camshafts, 16 valves, adjustable intake and exhaust camshafts, CAMTRONIC valve timing 
    adjustment for the exhaust camshaft

    Max. air mass throughput

    2,645 lb/h (S-model) 2,425 lb/h (base version)

    Engine weight (wet)

    353.8 lbs

     

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    29 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

    Give credit where credit is due. That’s a lot juice for such a small motor. 

    Yes allot of Juice, but pathetic still.

    Still not sold on these overhead cam and in this case dual with high horsepower and weak torque.

    Guess Germans like Italian love their High revving noise over actual grunt of moving.

    Interesting note is that the Quad 4 always had more torque than HP without a turbo and still passed emissions.

    Anyone that drove a Quad 4 could feel the grunt of movement in your gut without having to race the sewing machine engine.

    • Disagree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Why such low (peak) torque compared to peak horsepower?   This is the opposite of what any engine should be.  It's too bad other automakers' 4cyl engines have the same set of characteristics.  Too bad GM will not build a (non-truck) version of the 3800/3900 to replace the 3.6 V6.  Horsepower is great but torque is actually required.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, dfelt said:

    Yes allot of Juice, but pathetic still.

    Still not sold on these overhead cam and in this case dual with high horsepower and weak torque.

    Guess Germans like Italian love their High revving noise over actual grunt of moving.

    Interesting note is that the Quad 4 always had more torque than HP without a turbo and still passed emissions.

    Anyone that drove a Quad 4 could feel the grunt of movement in your gut without having to race the sewing machine engine.

    Except the Quad4 was a hot mess when it came to oil burn. They were absolute maintenance nightmares when they started acting up. Dated a girl in the 90s who a Calais with that engine. Would not wish that maintenance on my worst enemy. 

     

    I do agree about the peak power where the torque is concerned but it’s still no slouch.

    Edited by surreal1272
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    7 hours ago, riviera74 said:

    Why such low (peak) torque compared to peak horsepower?   This is the opposite of what any engine should be.  It's too bad other automakers' 4cyl engines have the same set of characteristics.  Too bad GM will not build a (non-truck) version of the 3800/3900 to replace the 3.6 V6.  Horsepower is great but torque is actually required.

    360ish lb-ft in a front drive car (well all wheel drive) and from a 4-cylinder, that seems like a lot for those circumstances.  Plus an A45 or CLA45 is like a 3400 lb car, not a lot of weight to move.  The 6 and 8 make more torque.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    8 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    I wonder if they'll make a longitudinal version. 

    I think a better application would be the 306 hp version in longitudinal form.  Because that would be good in the E-class and GLE to have a more powerful 4-banger there, vs the 241/255 hp units they are working with now.  I don't think there would be much demand for a 400 hp, 7200 rpm screamer of a 4-cylinder in an C-class, definitely not in an E or GLE.

    Related though, if they can get 400 hp from a 4, they should be able to get 500+ from an inline 6, I think that is an area to explore in pumping the 6 up for the AMG 53's.  There is more in the V8 too, they probably hold these engines back for reliability or emissions.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    On 6/7/2019 at 10:55 AM, surreal1272 said:

    Except the Quad4 was a hot mess when it came to oil burn. They were absolute maintenance nightmares when they started acting up. Dated a girl in the 90s who a Calais with that engine. Would not wish that maintenance on my worst enemy. 

     

    I do agree about the peak power where the torque is concerned but it’s still no slouch.

    Agree that the Quad had it's problems, Yet it was loved for being a motor that could be turbo'd and pushed to over 1200hp / ft-lbs of torque.

    I give props as MB has built a small motor with high HP / torque numbers, yet the Torque is still below the HP and high in the RPM band. This means like a sewing machine engines you have to really rev it to get the performance out of it.

    GM on the other hand built plenty of small motors that could move without reeving the hell out of them.

    • Haha 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    26 minutes ago, dfelt said:

    Agree that the Quad had it's problems, Yet it was loved for being a motor that could be turbo'd and pushed to over 1200hp / ft-lbs of torque.

    I give props as MB has built a small motor with high HP / torque numbers, yet the Torque is still below the HP and high in the RPM band. This means like a sewing machine engines you have to really rev it to get the performance out of it.

    GM on the other hand built plenty of small motors that could move without reeving the hell out of them.

    It is basically like a racing engine, this is tuned for track days and people that want to drive high in the rpm band.   Mercedes makes plenty of engines with low end torque for applications where that makes more sense.  

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    25 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

    It is basically like a racing engine, this is tuned for track days and people that want to drive high in the rpm band.   Mercedes makes plenty of engines with low end torque for applications where that makes more sense.  

    Your missing my point, Building a race engine is one thing, we all know MB will put this into as many auto's as they can to recover development cost.

    Point being, plenty of quality engines have been built with low end grunt that moves plenty quick with decent hp.

    This engine continues what I view as a poor design based on Marketing lies about needing high reving high HP engines with lower torque or very weak torque as most Italian cars have and more and more German cars have.

    High RPM to produce the torque does not make an efficient engine.

    Proof is in the need to Turbo the heck out of the auto's adding a ton of weight and not really getting any more MPG efficiency out other than a smaller engine for lower tax purposes.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    52 minutes ago, dfelt said:

    Your missing my point, Building a race engine is one thing, we all know MB will put this into as many auto's as they can to recover development cost.

    Point being, plenty of quality engines have been built with low end grunt that moves plenty quick with decent hp.

    This engine continues what I view as a poor design based on Marketing lies about needing high reving high HP engines with lower torque or very weak torque as most Italian cars have and more and more German cars have.

    High RPM to produce the torque does not make an efficient engine.

    Proof is in the need to Turbo the heck out of the auto's adding a ton of weight and not really getting any more MPG efficiency out other than a smaller engine for lower tax purposes.

    This engine is for 3400 lb cars with transverse engine and awd.  Limited to 4 models, A-class, GLA, GLA, and GLB.    0-60 times will probably be 4 seconds, not sure what they need more power than this for in a FWD application for compact cars. 

     What does the competition have in this segment?  Cadillac, Lexus, Acura, Audi all have turbo 4's that max out around 260 lb-ft maybe 290.   Where is the 400 hp XT4?  The 400 hp Lexus NX?  The 400 hp BMW X1?   Mercedes is a country mile ahead here.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    58 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

    What does the competition have in this segment?  Cadillac, Lexus, Acura, Audi all have turbo 4's that max out around 260 lb-ft maybe 290.   Where is the 400 hp XT4

    Possible EV  coming to a theatre near you next summer?  Maybe?

    Cadillac IS going all out in EVs, right? 

    And...I really DONT want Cadillac selling us A Class, GLA and GLB type vehicles...

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 hours ago, oldshurst442 said:

    Possible EV  coming to a theatre near you next summer?  Maybe?

    Cadillac IS going all out in EVs, right? 

    And...I really DONT want Cadillac selling us A Class, GLA and GLB type vehicles...

    EVs are expensive, and Audi and Mercedes already have 400 hp EVs now and many more coming.  The volume of the luxury market is still in small to mid size crossover.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 minute ago, smk4565 said:

    EVs are expensive, and Audi and Mercedes already have 400 hp EVs now and many more coming.  The volume of the luxury market is still in small to mid size crossover.

    Exactly...EVs are expensive...

    Like I said...I really dont want Cadillac selling 400 horsepower 4 cylinder XT4s in the first place.   

    Maybe an EV XT4 sized vehicle...  Yeah...I could go for that....because then the price tag will be where I want  Cadillac to  be  in...

    I could forgo a 400 horsepower 4 cylinder  XT4 V.  If EVs are the future, then 4 cylinder petrol engines are a step back for Cadillac. 

    Hey...its impressive those figures...for a 4 banger. Pretty darned awesome.  But, if the market is to shift to EVs, then I want Cadillac looking ahead.  If Tesla could make a name for itself with a Model 3, and the Model 3 is more or less XT4 sized, then I would prefer Cadillac give us a Model 3 competitor rather than what Mercedes is gonna offer with its 400 HP 4 banger. 

    Not taking away what Mercedes is doing....Im just wanting Cadillac to be ahead of the curve. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    26 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

    Some of these luxury brands are claiming 10 EV's by 2025, so if Cadillac wants to be ahead of the curve, they might as well go all in on EV.

    That is what I said...and maybe, THAT is what Cadillac's game plan is. I mean, that is what I understood from Mary Barrra's last 2-3 speeches.  

    Edited by oldshurst442
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    They didn't move the power band higher up to make the engine more "free revving". That's bullsh!t.

    They moved the power band higher up because you can only make so much boost with a turbo before either lag becomes intolerable or detonation sets in. 1.9 to 2.1 bar (28~31 psi) is all they are going to get and one can argue that it is already intolerable -- drive a CLA/GLA45 and you'll see for yourself! It goes like this... full throttle... nothing... coming... buidling... there! Worse yet... Part Throttle... moaning drone... nothing... nothing... coming... starting to build... redline (shift)! Torque is directly proportional to air density (mostly boost) going into the engine. Hence, 350~370 lb-ft is all they are ever going to make. Power on the other hand is a function of torque x rpm. If you want more power, you make that torque higher up. Keep 323 lb-ft around at 6750 rpm and you get 416 hp.

    Edited by dwightlooi
    • Thanks 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I'll favor an approach using GREATER DISPLACEMENT and LOWER BOOST. As I have said before in previous threads, the GM 2.7T four potter is an ideal candidate. Keeping the same boost 1.4 bar (20.6 psi) in a properly sized turbo (Eg. G25-550) and a generous air-to-water intercooler -- instead of the undersized and almost falling off the map conch shell they have on it -- will produce about 420 lb-ft (up from 348 lb-ft). This engine won't be a revver with it's 102mm stroke. But, it doesn't have to be; 6,100~6,200 rpm is plenty when you have 420 lb-ft from 2,200~5,200 rpm and 420 hp @ ~5,300 rpm. Hitting the torque peak at 2,200 rpm, however, makes the car a lot easier and enjoyable to drive.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    18 minutes ago, dwightlooi said:

    I'll favor an approach using GREATER DISPLACEMENT and LOWER BOOST. As I have said before in previous threads, the GM 2.7T four potter is an ideal candidate. Keeping the same boost 1.4 bar (20.6 psi) in a properly sized turbo (Eg. G25-550) and a generous air-to-water intercooler -- instead of the undersized and almost falling off the map conch shell they have on it -- will produce about 420 lb-ft (up from 348 lb-ft). This engine won't be a revver with it's 102mm stroke. But, it doesn't have to be; 6,100~6,200 rpm is plenty when you have 420 lb-ft from 2,200~5,200 rpm and 420 hp @ ~5,300 rpm. Hitting the torque peak at 2,200 rpm, however, makes the car a lot easier and enjoyable to drive.

    Totally agree, would take a bigger motor, less boost over smaller, high boost high reving.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    4 hours ago, dfelt said:

    Totally agree, would take a bigger motor, less boost over smaller, high boost high reving.

    I think GM should have two "Grades" of motors -- Standard and Premium.

    Chevy and GMC uses the Standard Grade optimized for value and economy. Caddies and Buicks should only use the Premium Grade, optimized for performance and refinement.

    The engines can be built on the same production line and share most parts. But the Premium Grade will have things you can never justify to the bean counters for a Malibu or a Silverado. Things like:-

    • Individual Throttle butterflies for a snappier response
    • Dual Injection with port injection for a quieter idle and cleaner intake valves
    • Titanium intake and Sodium filled exhaust valves
    • Titanium Aluminide turbine wheels and ball bearing cartridges for marginally better the turbo response and durability
    • Air-to-water intercoolers for greater efficiency and lower pressurized volume (better response)
    • Forged Steel or Titanium-Aluminide rods and crankshaft.
    • Additional acoustic jacket and coverings for a quieter power train
    • Magnetorologic Engine and Transmission mounts for better isolation without compromising torque capacity.

     

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    4 hours ago, dfelt said:

    Totally agree, would take a bigger motor, less boost over smaller, high boost high reving.

    A bigger motor may not fit in a small car though so this is what you get.  You can't fit a V8 in an XT4 or a Chevy Sonic.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    12 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

    A bigger motor may not fit in a small car though so this is what you get.  You can't fit a V8 in an XT4 or a Chevy Sonic.

    The 2.7T fits where the 2.5 fitted. It'll fit just fine.

    • Thanks 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    4 hours ago, smk4565 said:

    A bigger motor may not fit in a small car though so this is what you get.  You can't fit a V8 in an XT4 or a Chevy Sonic.

    People thought a small block V8 would not fit in a Chevrolet Luv Truck and yet plenty of people swapped out the 4 banger for a V8.

     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    18 hours ago, dfelt said:

    People thought a small block V8 would not fit in a Chevrolet Luv Truck and yet plenty of people swapped out the 4 banger for a V8.

     

    Well, plenty of people believe in NONSENSE and that is not limited to automotive matters. As a general rule, a V8 will fit where an I4 will fit in a longitudinal engine bay. This is particularly so given the very compact -- very short and narrow -- nature of a push-rod V8.

    • Haha 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • google-news-icon.png



  • Community Hive Community Hive

    Community Hive allows you to follow your favorite communities all in one place.

    Follow on Community Hive
  • google-news-icon.png

  • Subscribe to Cheers & Gears

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001 we've brought you real content and honest opinions, not AI-generated stuff with no feeling or opinions influenced by the manufacturers.

    Please consider subscribing. Subscriptions can be as little as $1.75 a month, and a paid subscription drops most ads.*
     

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Interesting another one bites the dust. Mercedes that had in 2021 said it would be an EV only company by 2030 has in their Q4 call stated they will not put an end date on ICE, and they are now aiming to have 50% of global sales as EV. Mercedes Benz ditches plan to sell only EVs by 2030 (msn.com) Mercedes-Benz Group 2023 results*: Cash generation at work | Mercedes-Benz Media
    • I will stand corrected as I see Ford CEO in Dec 15 2023 confirmed that they were moving forward with Google on the Qualcomm Android system in supporting the use of Android Auto and Apple Carplay system.  I lumped Ford in with GM as a year earlier with the Qualcomm Announcement they said they would protect the data by not using the cell phone connectivity. I guess customers have spoken and Ford has changed back to replacing Sync in all their ICE and EV autos with the use of Android Auto and Apple Carplay. That I am very happy about.  I tried to find the story I wrote about the Qualcomm Android Auto system where GM and Ford along with a few others had stated in moving to this system they would protect customers data by not allowing Android Auto / Apple Carplay and would use the software API SDK to create their own software interface.  I did a quick search across the news stories but could not find that story.  Yet THANK YOU, having found the news stories on Ford CEO in December 2023 stating they will stick with the ability to use it is GREAT and I am very happy for that as I think GM is making a BIG BIG BIG mistake. Yet it is a switch that they can flip back on. Hopefully Mary and team will get their act together and turn on the support for Android Auto and Apple Carplay.
    • Ok, so I'll say something about this video. It's mostly pros:  - nice cabin; they even did the Malibu thing with the fabric on the dash - unobtrusive touch screen in terms of its placement and sensibly placed controls  - the hideous diagonal for the cubby under the center stack is gone - much nicer treatment of the rear passenger window where it meets the C-pillar - it no longer looks like a '72 Caprice  - better side profile and rear taillights - we know the 2.5 liter 4 cylinder, assuming it stays the same Neutral: - well, with the hybrid, a CVT comes onto the scene ... if it lasts at least 200,000 miles with diligent maintenance, I can't complain  Cons: - the console height between the bucket seats is a little too high for my taste - the front grille continues on as an appliance; whether in base model form or aggressively styled sporty model form.  It can very easily be "fixed" - thicken the center cross-member where the bumper supposedly is and raise it up a little from the ground.  It's still too much - less is more.
    • Why are you grouping Ford with GM here? To the best of my knowledge, Ford has not announced abandoning CarPlay or AndroidAuto. 
    • Pure semantics (although Honda did, in fact, install their own form of the software) as the bigger point was made and confirmed by your post. GM screwed up six ways from Sunday by going their own way with the software side of things. ZERO background in it prior but "HEY! We're GM! Let's a proven tech and make it absolute hot garbage in form and execution". On a side note... Not four months ago, I caught absolute hell (although less so the last three months because well, you know 😎) for pointing out GMs screw ups, knowing all I had to do was sit back let GM speak for themselves and now here we are. I am not saying GM can't or won't figure this out but the next time a fanfic tells me "That was forty years ago GM", I am going to point to this and the host of other screw ups brought on by GM as my vindication lol. 
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search