Jump to content
  • 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

     

    Source: Mercedes-Benz Media



    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    7200rpm is pretty high these days for a turbo engine. It's probably a hoot to drive. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    surreal1272

    Posted (edited)

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

    Edited by surreal1272

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    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.

    • Downvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The torque doesn't sound weak, but it is pretty high up in the power band.   It is more usable when it hits low in the RPM range. 

    Share this comment


    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.

    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    surreal1272

    Posted (edited)

    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

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    What I really want to see is the torque curve.... what's the torque output at say 1,500 rpm?  That will say a lot about drivability. 

    • Upvote 3

    Share this comment


    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.

    Share this comment


    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.

    Share this comment


    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

    Share this comment


    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.  

    Share this comment


    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.

    Share this comment


    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.

    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    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...

    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    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.

    Share this comment


    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. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    Share this comment


    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

    Share this comment


    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

    Share this comment


    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.

    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    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.

    Share this comment


    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.




  • Similar Content

    • By Drew Dowdell
      Mercedes-Benz
      Passenger Vehicles
      Nov-19
      Nov-18
      Monthly %
      YTD 2019
      YTD 2018
      Yearly %
      A-CLASS
      1,544
      -
      -
      16,475
      -
      -
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
      B-CLASS*
      0
      0
      0.0%
      9
      134
      -93.3%
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
      CLA
      1,641
      1,832
      -10.4%
      11,056
      20,848
      -47.0%
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
      C-CLASS
      4,469
      5,777
      -22.6%
      45,740
      53,610
      -14.7%
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
      E-CLASS/CLS
      3,689
      5,181
      -28.8%
      36,770
      41,380
      -11.1%
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
      S-CLASS
      1,452
      1,672
      -13.2%
      11,441
      13,492
      -15.2%
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
      SLC
      62
      149
      -58.4%
      1,693
      1,841
      -8.0%
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
      SL
      100
      181
      -44.8%
      1,550
      1,968
      -21.2%
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
      AMG GT
      534
      103
      418.4%
      3,763
      1,389
      170.9%
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
      GLA
      2,461
      2,411
      2.1%
      20,041
      21,739
      -7.8%
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
      GLC
      7,515
      6,199
      21.2%
      67,214
      62,433
      7.7%
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
      GLE
      6,052
      3,988
      51.8%
      44,193
      42,276
      4.5%
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
      GLS
      2,893
      2,761
      4.8%
      19,323
      19,308
      0.1%
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
      G-CLASS
      1,309
      768
      70.4%
      6,532
      3,525
      85.3%
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
      TOTAL
      33,721
      31,022
      8.7%
      285,800
      283,943
      0.7%
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
      Vans1
      3,542
      1,857
      90.7%
      36,650
      34,062
      7.6%
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
      MBUSA
      Combined Total
      Nov-19
      Nov-18
      Monthly %
      YTD 2019
      YTD 2018
      Yearly %
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
      GRAND TOTAL
      37,263
      32,879
      13.3%
      322,450
      318,005
      1.4%
      *Model has been discontinued in the U.S. market.
      1 Mercedes-Benz, Freightliner Sprinter and Metris Vans are sold and marketed in the U.S. by Mercedes-Benz USA and Daimler Vans USA, respectively.
    • By Drew Dowdell
      Daimler CEO Källenius announced on Twitter yesterday that there would be a zero-emission EV version of the Mercedes-Benz G-Class on the way. He continued, "In the past there were discussions whether we should eliminate the model, the way I see things now I'd say the last Mercedes to be built will be a G-Class".
      The G-Class is already one of the most expensive models sold under the Mercedes-Benz brand. The EV version of the G-Class will likely be sold under the EQ brand. 
      An electric G-Class already exists though as Arnold Schwarzenegger and Kreisel Electric have already converted a G-Class to an EV.  It packs dual battery packs for 80-kWh of capacity good for a range of about 186 miles.
      No further details have been released as to when the EV G-Class would be launched. 

      View full article
    • By Drew Dowdell
      Daimler CEO Källenius announced on Twitter yesterday that there would be a zero-emission EV version of the Mercedes-Benz G-Class on the way. He continued, "In the past there were discussions whether we should eliminate the model, the way I see things now I'd say the last Mercedes to be built will be a G-Class".
      The G-Class is already one of the most expensive models sold under the Mercedes-Benz brand. The EV version of the G-Class will likely be sold under the EQ brand. 
      An electric G-Class already exists though as Arnold Schwarzenegger and Kreisel Electric have already converted a G-Class to an EV.  It packs dual battery packs for 80-kWh of capacity good for a range of about 186 miles.
      No further details have been released as to when the EV G-Class would be launched. 
    • By Drew Dowdell
      Rumor has it that the next AMG C63 will be the first of a number of models to ditch their V8 in favor of 4-cylinder hybrid power. According to Autocar, the C63 could also lose a rear-wheel drive option, going instead with standard all-wheel drive. 
      The engine would be an electrified version of the new M139 turbocharged 2.0-liter.  In it's most powerful current form, it is the most powerful 4-cylinder in production anywhere putting out 416 horsepower and 369 lb-ft of torque, and that's without any electric boosting.  The engine was engineered to be mounted transversely or longitudinally and also with an eye on hybridization.
      For the C63, the M139 engine would adopt a 48 volt starter motor similar to the one used in the CLS 53 4Matic.  On that car, the motor provides an additional 22 hp and 184 lb-ft of torque, however in the C63, it would be tuned for even more power to reach up to a total system horsepower over 500. 
      One main advantage to this setup would be a significant reduction in weight over the front axle.  Additionally, the engine/motor combination has a lower center of gravity, that would be expected to improve handling and control. 
      Moving the C63 to a hybrid powertrain is consistent with Mercedes' desire to reduce fleet CO2 emissions.

      View full article
  • Posts

    • All cars are as posted. 1. 1970 Olds 442 W-30 with those rocket wheels instead of the Magnum wheels and preferably no wing...and no vinyl top either...   2.  1969 Plymouth Road Runner  or GTX...preferably a Road Runner so I could honk the horn to hear it go...meep meep.    3. Dodge Challenger Hellcat.  Redeye is optional. I dont care as long as its a Hellcat...   4. 1973 Pontiac Trans Am SD455 with white vinyl interior. 5. 1933 Ford Roadster Hot Rod  with Ford's latest 5.2 liter V8. Not the Voodoo, but the new GT500 V8.   An Ancient Greek mythological themed motif  to compliment the Hot Rod look to it instead of the stereotypical flames and/or skulls...    These would be numbers matching garage queens. Not babied by all means, they'd be driven, but not hard miles.  I wouldnt pamper them too much, but Id be careful as well.    If I was to replace those with clones and restomodded/pro-toured with modern set-ups, then Id daily drive all of them. One week one car, the following car next week and so forth.     
    • Its gots to be all those residual checks that GM cashes in from movie royalties... The Chevy Suburban just got its Hollywood Walk of Fame Star a couple of days ago.... It is said that the Suburban has had a 60 year career and been in over 1750 movies...so...11 billion dollars/per year profit    The year GM went bankrupt, there was a conspiracy against GM and Hollywood stopped re-running  Smokey and the Bandit, The A-Team, Knight Rider...  
    • I have 2 of my muscle cars already. I would certainly entertain a '50s Eldorado Seville and one of the late '50s MoPar supercars, preferably an Adventurer but a 300 Letter Series would be just peachy too.
    • [Wanders off over the moonscape...]
    • Dozens of unique vehicles sell less than 30K per year. Volume is immaterial, profit is the prime consideration. But even then: Luckily, Cadillac, and in turn; General Motors, produces dozen & dozens & dozens of other models. Tesla only builds like 11K Model S per year. Course; they don't make a profit... but they're still building the thing. We've read some wags claim that 'Chevy doesn't make any money; too many low margin models' and 'Buick sales are slowing every year; it can't be making a profit' and 'Cadillac doesn't sell 2 million units/year; therefore they can't be making a profit'. Solid, disconnected thinking there, that. Gee, I don't think GMC is making $11 billion in profit all by itself.
  • Social Stream

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. gmcbob
      gmcbob
      (45 years old)
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • My Clubs

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...