![Bugatti Bird-gate Followup: Driver identity revealed <b>[*UPDATE:</b> Now with actual crash video!]](http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/11/bugatti-veyron-swim-1258147199_143x85.jpg)
Mercedes-Benz to introduce fully turbocharged lineup by 2010
When it comes to increasing fuel economy, turbochargers are the replacement for displacement. The combination of highly efficient snails and smaller engines provides the power people expect, while reducing the overall weight of the vehicle. Like other automakers that have realized that forced induction is a suitable stop-gap for improving fuel economy, Mercedes-Benz is in the process of developing turbo'd engines that will proliferate throughout its lineup in the next two and a half years.
Thomas Weber, a Daimler board member in charge of research and development told Automotive News, "All our vehicles will have turbocharged engines in series production by the end of 2010 at the latest."
Mercedes is joining BMW and Audi by investing heavily into forced induction, primarily to cope with new fuel economy standards in the U.S. and Europe. But turbos are only going to take them so far. Mercedes plans to introduce hybrids into its lineup towards the close of the decade, beginning with the S-class sedan in 2009. According to Weber, zero-emission vehicles are the automaker's long-term goal and Daimler intends to push heavily towards fuel-cells and electric-powered vehicle in the future, including an electric smart fortwo which will go into production sometime in 2010.
[Source: Automotive News – Sub. Req.]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Sharone 1:24PM (7/17/2008)
Turbocharging is the wave of the future it seems, as far as controlling emissions and getting decent MPG is concerned in IC engines.
On other forums people insist that even Ferrari are looking at forced induction for their future cars. Now we have to see what Toyota do with Lexus.
I only hope that all these turbos are reliable enough to survive an Arizona summers. Gasoline motors run hotter than Diesels.
Reply
Frank 2:23PM (7/17/2008)
Subaru Legacy GT ... very reliable, and one of the most fun cars i've ever driven, so fun, in fact, im buyin one - imo turbos are infinitely more fun if u like a manual and kno how to drive.
Geeky1 4:20PM (7/17/2008)
I don't think the reliability of turbocharged vehicles is an issue, really. I think the problem is that, by nature, they need to be cared for slightly differently from naturally aspirated and supercharged engines.
My family has 5 turbocharged vehicles; of the 5, the only two that get a 30 second-1 minute cooldown period before being shut off belong to me. I have the same problem with customers at work; they refuse to let the car idle a bit before they shut it off... All they have to do is put it in park (or neutral or whatever), unfasten their seatbelt, get their stuff and THEN shut it off and even that would be an improvement. But they won't do it.
I also think that in a lot of cases oil change intervals are too long and oil capacities are too low; this is unlikely to be a problem for Mercedes as they have a history of using a LOT of oil in their engines (8qts for the 3.2L/24 valve V6, 8.5 for most of the V8s, more for the V12s) but other companies (VW/Audi, Subaru) use much less (4.5qts in both my STI and the 1.8 Turbo VW motors) and, I think, push the oil change intervals too far.
In short, if people would learn to operate the car properly and change the oil regularly, they wouldn't have any problem. But that seems to be asking a bit too much of the average American driver these days.
why not the LS2LS7? 1:50AM (7/18/2008)
Don't sweat the cooldown. I've had my A6 2.7T for 8.5 years now and I rarely give it a cooldown. It has a separate electric coolant pump that circulates coolant through the turbo bearings for a little bit after shutdown. Companies do have to pay for warranties, if the engine needs special treatment to last, they'll recommend it or make the computer do it for you.
Also, it takes 7(!) quarts of oil.
MikeW 3:12PM (7/18/2008)
Only 7 quarts for the 2.7tt
Toyota recommends 6.5 quarts for the 2gr-fe
AkulaX1 1:25PM (7/17/2008)
This whole fuel dilemma is pissing me off. First of all just because car has turbos instead of a big N/A engine does not necessary make it fuel efficient. It's the way you drive a car. If you gun it every second then doiiiiiiiii you going to waste gas. If you float drive then it will be as efficient to the max. Stop this fuel BS stop powering up this whole fuel crisis and stop feeding its bs to everyone else. Enough is enough.
Reply
baffledu2 2:23PM (7/17/2008)
C.A.F.E. - C.A.F.E. - C.A.F.E.
Stupid is as stupid does !
The requirement that the automakers spend billions (NHTSA estimate upwards of 47 billion by 2012 car makers say more) putzing around with hydrocarbon technology in an effort to stretch oil when they have already spent billions getting ready for the hydrogen economy is sheer insanity.
immase 10:37AM (8/22/2008)
Bafledu2
Yes it is stupid!!! The thing is... Oil companies dont want Hydrogen to be produced. They dont want it as a substitute for energy!!! They will do whatever they can to kill the hope of future with Hydrogen! Like they did with electric cars!
Oil is the main platform that sustains the economy of the world.
The "owners" of the world are too greedy to give up profitting on oil.
HotRodzNKustoms 1:25PM (7/17/2008)
Just nitpicking
"The combination of highly efficient snails and smaller engines provides the power people expect, while reducing the overall weight of the vehicle."
While reducing overall weight of the vehicle? So bolting on an entire turbo system to your 4 banger or 6 or 8 or whatever magically reduces weight? I know some of you will say that a turbo 4 weighs less than a 6, but a NA 4 weighs less than a turbo 4.
Reply
Bungle 1:38PM (7/17/2008)
I don't see any problem with that statement. I don't think that the author is referring to people who install aftermarket turbo systems (which obviously increases weight), but to manufacturers who would opt for a smaller, lighter turbocharged 4-cylinder engine in a particular model rather than an NA V-6 or V-8.
why not the LS2LS7? 1:39PM (7/17/2008)
Agreed. This doesn't tell the whole story. To get real efficiency, they're going to have to partially reverse the power war, and that can be done without turbos.
You can use turbos to make really small engines work well or you can use them to make normal engines even more powerful. The latter isn't terribly fuel-sipping, but yet it is what companies like Mercedes seem to specialize in. Twin-turbo V12? Check. And yet you can't buy less than a 3.0L DOHC V6 in their lowest-end sedan. Besides just running to forced induction, M-B needs to rationalize the power points in their lineups a bit.
Val 2:18PM (7/17/2008)
Ah, but you see, MB sells C180 in europe... Along with E200, E200 CDI, A150 and many many more. Thing is, in europe people care about economy since fuel is more expensive, but they still want to drive a nicely built luxury car. In the US on the other hand, it is impossible to sell them for a few reasons. First, luxury is associated with a big powerful engine, not ride quality or interior design and materials. How is a luxury company supposed to sell cars if people are offended if they buy a $100 000 car and the next Joe has the same brand for 27k? No brand value there. Second, a small engine automatically means the car is not safe, since you cannot accelerate fast enough to merge on the highway (another reason why E200 is never used on german highways, people take out their AMG versions if they need to make a longer trip).
It's like the excuse everybody gives to Ford and GM about the trucks and SUVs. That is what the people demanded, that is what we gave them. Same thing. On the other hand, when a non luxury manufacturer like VW offers a classicaly designed and understated sedan, filled to the brim with high-tech features that only Bentley has, people frown and laugh, because it has VW as a badge and is "overengineered". Lexus cars on the other hand are not toyotas and are underengineered probably, to sell so well. (Only in the US though)
Torrent 1:26PM (7/17/2008)
Turbocharging is like the new thing.
Reply
Torrent 2:18AM (7/18/2008)
Low ranked. Isn't that nice......
Don't act like I'm in the wrong for saying Everyone is starting to turbocharge cars these days...
David 1:30PM (7/17/2008)
WOW! M-B, BMW and Audi are seeing turbos as the future, only 30 years after SAAB did...
Reply
UH2L 1:33PM (7/17/2008)
Exactly. Saab was right all along.
why not the LS2LS7? 1:42PM (7/17/2008)
To be fair, turbocharging was not the answer back then. Those oil-cooled turbos were often disasters. When liquid-cooled turbos came along in the 80s and intercoolers became standard, then turbos really came into their own. But I think just like GM smeared Diesel with their unreliable 5.7L engine, turbos needed some time to recover from public perception.
The DSM 2.0T and the VW/Audi 1.8T did a lot to turn turbocharging to respectability in the US. The Buick Grand National didn't hurt either.
Viktor 1:45PM (7/17/2008)
At least they don't use cast-iron engines from the 80's..
The main point with turbocharing when it comes to fuel efficiency isn't about reducing weight. It's about having an engine with less friction compared to an equally powerfull NA-engine which results in better fuel economy under normal driving when you're only using little of the available boost.
AkulaX1 2:07PM (7/17/2008)
You are all stupid. It's all about air burned with fuel mixture. Keep it simple idiots.
416Hammy 3:03PM (7/17/2008)
Yes! Saab got it right!
Dentists of the world rejoice!