Rumorpile: Mercedes-Benz Heads Back To The Inline-Six Engine

Cool! I love a good I6! I wish Cadillac would ponder such a move so as to have unique engines from other GM brands!

Interesting that they are making it modular. Isn't how the GM Atlas engines were? I-6, I-5, I-4?

Pretty bizarre, anachronistic move.

Pretty bizarre, anachronistic move.

Next thing they'll do is move back to that old-tech DOHC valvetrain too! You know.. the design that is actually older than pushrod-OHV.

So how does this about-face mesh with their 'nuttin' better' tagline (or whatever it is); they discontinued the inline motor for the better-packaged V6, now they're dropping that to go back.

Maybe it's for manufacturing simplicity/cost savings of parts sharing w/ a family of inline engines. Also, like BMW, they get some exclusivity to having an in line 6 in a world where V6s appear in everything from mainstream appliances to luxury cars.

Maybe it's for manufacturing simplicity/cost savings of parts sharing w/ a family of inline engines. Also, like BMW, they get some exclusivity to having an in line 6 in a world where V6s appear in everything from mainstream appliances to luxury cars.

That's probably it. Since Benz is moving to FWD and Inline-4-cylinder with turbocharging, it's probably cheaper for them to add two more cylinders to the block, turbo-charge it, and throw it in an S-Class than it would be for them to build a whole different family V6

I am confused, if MB is going to pinch pennies by building 3,4,6 inlines on the same architecture, then will there be no V8 and V12 in MB future?

If MB decides to make V8 and V12 by vee-ing two 4s and 6s of this new architecture, respectively, why not vee the two 3s and make a V6? Or is there going to be a brand new architecture for V8 and V12?

This would be a good move, inline sixes are smoother than V6s. They get the benefit of better refinement and it makes it easy to share the inline 4 and 6 cylinder architecture. They already announced this is the last year of the E550, their V8s are going to get limited to the GL, S and SL class and AMG cars.

This would be a good move, inline sixes are smoother than V6s. They get the benefit of better refinement and it makes it easy to share the inline 4 and 6 cylinder architecture. They already announced this is the last year of the E550, their V8s are going to get limited to the GL, S and SL class and AMG cars.

Maybe they will build a straight 8 from this architecture...

I still sit here wondering how mercedes justified abandoning the "better" inline 6 when they did.

I still sit here wondering how mercedes justified abandoning the "better" inline 6 when they did.

I think it was because they downsized and cheapened the E-class and created the smaller CLK coupe in the mid 90s, they needed the smaller packaging of a V6 for those models, as well as the SLK and ML s which were under development then...

I am confused, if MB is going to pinch pennies by building 3,4,6 inlines on the same architecture, then will there be no V8 and V12 in MB future?

If MB decides to make V8 and V12 by vee-ing two 4s and 6s of this new architecture, respectively, why not vee the two 3s and make a V6? Or is there going to be a brand new architecture for V8 and V12?

The V12 is going to continue on for this generation of the S-class, but it is just a revised version of the same V12 they have had for years, basically making it meet emissions standards. Maybe they will combine two of the new inline 4's, rumor is they are planning a 4.0 liter V8 for the 2016 AMG C-class, that V8 could be re-tuned for use on the S-class and GL. A twin turbo 3.0 liter V6 is supposed to replace the V8 E-class and it is likely that it replaces the V8 in the ML and CLS also. They are looking for better fuel economy, and BMW and Audi are also heavily using turbo sixes in most of their cars now.

I wonder if this means an inline six turbo diesel will be coming to replace the 3.0 V6 diesel. That could be interesting.

I still sit here wondering how mercedes justified abandoning the "better" inline 6 when they did.

Probably because at the time they had a lot of V8s, and they probably sold more V12s in the 90s when gas was cheaper, so having all the engines in V formation was easier. But now that gas is $8-9 a gallon in Europe and they have CAFE and Euro emissions requirements and smaller engines can make more power, they are in downsize mode.

Times change, Cadillac put a V8 in everything they made back in 1995, now 2 of their cars have 4-cylinders and the only V8 is the Escalade and CTS-V.

I still sit here wondering how mercedes justified abandoning the "better" inline 6 when they did.

Probably because at the time they had a lot of V8s, and they probably sold more V12s in the 90s when gas was cheaper, so having all the engines in V formation was easier. But now that gas is $8-9 a gallon in Europe and they have CAFE and Euro emissions requirements and smaller engines can make more power, they are in downsize mode.

Times change, Cadillac put a V8 in everything they made back in 1995, now 2 of their cars have 4-cylinders and the only V8 is the Escalade and CTS-V.

By Jove! A reasonable comment from SMK!

'Times change' - sure, but I was addressing configuration, not cylinder count.
I can see the 'all Vee engines' argument, tho. I guess the Vee's days are numbered even at Daimler

They can get rid of the V since most of their products are rear drive and the A-class platform cars are FWD and 4 cylinder. A company like GM or Toyota will need to keep the V6 because their SUVs an cars like the Avalon and Impala have a V6 and an inline 6 likely wouldn't fit. BMW and Mercedes have a product line conducive to inline engines, and probably 85% of BMW and Mercedes sold here and around the world are 4 or 6 cylinder, and most of the ones in Europe are diesel. When the V8 and V12 are 15% of sales that could be done on a different architecture because they are going to charge a lot more for it anyway.

Imagine the CTS and ATS with a 3.0 liter twin turbo straight six with around 340 hp and 340 lb-ft instead of the 3.6 liter V6 shared with the Impala.

Imagine the CTS and ATS with a 3.0 liter twin turbo straight six with around 340 hp and 340 lb-ft instead of the 3.6 liter V6 shared with the Impala.

Would be nice...and w/ a straight 6 they would probably need a longer front end, which is always a good thing..

If it makes sense for MB to follow BMW with I4, I6, etc. Why not have GM go with a V4, V6 and V8. Packaging of these pushrods would be tight, very fuel efficient and allow room for TT of each engine.

Imagine the CTS and ATS with a 3.0 liter twin turbo straight six with around 340 hp and 340 lb-ft instead of the 3.6 liter V6 shared with the Impala.

Would be nice...and w/ a straight 6 they would probably need a longer front end, which is always a good thing..

I doubt it. The CTS front end is pretty long already.

Imagine the CTS and ATS with a 3.0 liter twin turbo straight six with around 340 hp and 340 lb-ft instead of the 3.6 liter V6 shared with the Impala.

My thought exactly!

If it makes sense for MB to follow BMW with I4, I6, etc. Why not have GM go with a V4, V6 and V8. Packaging of these pushrods would be tight, very fuel efficient and allow room for TT of each engine.

I would like to see GM do something like that as well create a true family of engines. They could do a more simple multi sized version of Alpha with the drive line mounted like in a RWD car but driving the front wheels or the rear wheels or all four! Position the front axle before the engine and send the power to what ever end is required for each model!

If it makes sense for MB to follow BMW with I4, I6, etc. Why not have GM go with a V4, V6 and V8. Packaging of these pushrods would be tight, very fuel efficient and allow room for TT of each engine.

I would like to see GM do something like that as well create a true family of engines. They could do a more simple multi sized version of Alpha with the drive line mounted like in a RWD car but driving the front wheels or the rear wheels or all four! Position the front axle before the engine and send the power to what ever end is required for each model!

I think GM is missing out on a Great Marketing Campaign by not pointing out the Corvette V8 Engine DNA found in the new EcoTech Family of V4 & V6 engines.

Race Proven Tough!

Car and Driver just compared the CTS and the 3 Germans, the BMW got a 10 in engine, the Cadillac 3.6 and Mercedes V6 got a 7 and they criticized both for being harsh at high revs and lacking refinement. The straight six is the superior engine, this is why Mercedes is going back to it. Combined with the 9-speed transmission that should give Mercedes and advantage over BMW.

Imagine the CTS and ATS with a 3.0 liter twin turbo straight six with around 340 hp and 340 lb-ft instead of the 3.6 liter V6 shared with the Impala.

Would be nice...and w/ a straight 6 they would probably need a longer front end, which is always a good thing..

I doubt it. The CTS front end is pretty long already.

I wonder if the firewall to radiator length is enough for a straight 6, though...a bit longer than a 4..

If BMW can fit a straight six in a 180 inch long 3-series, then it should fit in a 195 inch long CTS. But I can't see GM making a straight six because it would have no use for Chevy or Buick and they aren't really in the habit of making Cadillac exclusive engines anymore, unfortunately.

If BMW can fit a straight six in a 180 inch long 3-series, then it should fit in a 195 inch long CTS. But I can't see GM making a straight six because it would have no use for Chevy or Buick and they aren't really in the habit of making Cadillac exclusive engines anymore, unfortunately.

True...it's not like the olden days where GM had distinct engines for each division...always wondered how they pulled that off, seems like it would very expensive to do..

^ It was a LOT cheaper without FED certification, plus they were just rolling with the way the Divisions did things since coming on board. Once the Fed starting getting both hands into things up to the shoulders, forget it.

Aside from Cadillac, most only had 2 engines max until the '60s, and I think it took about a decade for the economics of Divisions having up to 5 or 6 (or more) engines (Chevy) for Corporate to push for cross-Divisional sharing. Actually it started with the intermediates in '61 a bit, but the 4-Division-wide practice was another lovely hallmark of the 1970s.

^ It was a LOT cheaper without FED certification, plus they were just rolling with the way the Divisions did things since coming on board. Once the Fed starting getting both hands into things up to the shoulders, forget it.

Aside from Cadillac, most only had 2 engines max until the '60s, and I think it took about a decade for the economics of Divisions having up to 5 or 6 (or more) engines (Chevy) for Corporate to push for cross-Divisional sharing. Actually it started with the intermediates in '61 a bit, but the 4-Division-wide practice was another lovely hallmark of the 1970s.

..and it seems it was with the X-bodies in '73 where they got really serious about badge engineering a model across 4 divisions..same car w/ minor trim differences, shared 6 cyl..though they each retained their divisional V8s for a while.