What an odd car…. Mercedes A180
Discussion
chazd said:
I’m sorry but I struggle to take your criticism seriously.
Having had a look at your current fleet (and previous) you can hardly slate a car to this extent and it seems your main gripe is because The A Class has technology!
I mean who complains there is no separate stereo displaying the radio station. Welcome to 2019
I think I was quite honest in my opening post. Having had a look at your current fleet (and previous) you can hardly slate a car to this extent and it seems your main gripe is because The A Class has technology!
I mean who complains there is no separate stereo displaying the radio station. Welcome to 2019
And why would you not want to know what is playing? My smart shows the radio text for digital radio. Which tells you the song title and artist currently playing.
And tbh my main gripes with the A class is the annoying things like the steering wheel, jerkiness and multiple messages saying the same things. So not really the “technology”. Just poor design detail.
I think people will love it or hate it. We had an A200 AMG. I would describe it as “fun” and “connected to the road” and that is something I have never been able to say about Mercedes as I don’t find their cars to be drivers cars. Yes they are trying to lose the old man image. The 10” screen is a marked improvement over the previous iPad screen. The cumbersome obstruction above the twiddle wheel has been replaced with a user friendly touch pad. It’s not a bad attempt at competition with the likes of BMW and Audi. I have owned more than 36 cars over the past 20 years. Not many of those have been Mercedes. A family car it is not for adults. The back is cramped unless you have a baby seat in there. The boot is small. It’s enjoyable to drive though despite the ESP being over zealous. Probably feels a lot faster than it is. Ecomomy wise I averaged 32mpg. Most of that was Sport mode as well.
While the new Mercedes A-Class may not be 100% to my tastes and it certainly had a few aspects that irked me. I have to admit I am impressed with the engine.
In fact, it is probably the first engine I've driven that I can see/feel a clear generation gap from other engines. I've actually driven the A180 in manual guise and the A200 in automatic guise. The latter I also had over night, so managed to get some good seat time and distance covered in. Both being petrol, not diesel engines.
I'll be honest, I was completely ignorant to what these engines were, as the cars aren't the sorts of things I'd typically look at owning. But last night I thought I'd look up some stats.
Surprisingly both of these engines are only 1.3 litres.... I know the trend of smaller displacement and turbocharged has been common over the last 5 years. But if asked based on how they drove, I wouldn't have said they were 1.3's.
The A-Class itself is actually a lot lighter than I'd have thought by looking at it. This may contribute to the overall performance of the cars, but has little bearing on how the engines 'feel' to drive.
The headline figures are not huge, but somehow these cars feel like they drive beyond their base statistics. I mean, lets face it, you could buy a 136bhp Rover 400 some 20 years with a 2.0 na engine and less weight.
The official acceleration stats aren't all that impressive either. 9.2 sec 0-60mph for the manual A180 and a reasonably brisk 8.0 for the A200 auto.
As a diehard lover of manual gearboxes. I will say the automatic did drive better than the manual, the manual just didn't want to be rushed.
But the thing that really stuck me, was how instantly accessible the power is in these vehicles. There is no doubt the A200's engine drove better than the A180's. The A180 just didn't like the high revs much and felt flat towards the red line. The A200's engine, despite being the same engine, was more happy at higher revs. Still a little breathless, but would rev happily enough that you would use the revs.
I know this is all about the turbo and the 7 speed auto in sport mode really complimented this. It made the car/engine feel supremely responsive. Now I'm not a complete turbo newb here. I've owned a Nissan 200SX, Subaru Impreza Turbo, Smart Roadster and my current 2017 plate Smart ForTwo are all turbocharged. The Smart ForTwo's engine also belongs to the Mercedes family and also being a small displacement. None however drive like these new breeds of engine.
In fact, I've never driven an engine quite like it before. I'm used to low end grunt in cars. I have four V8 powered cars, some capable of 95% of their torque from 1500rpm (that's over 300ft-lb). And I also own turbo diesels.
But these new petrols are something else. They are free revving, instant and punchy. And they have the least lag of any turbo engine I have ever driven. The Smart ForTwo feels comparatively "old school" by comparison. The engine in that prefers revs to perform and while it has more grunt than a 1.0 litre na engine. You do notice the lag, e.g. if at 5000rpm, lift off the throttle completely, then put your foot flat to the floor -- count -- one -- two and the turbo kicks in. It's quite predictable and on tight corners you learn to floor the accelerator pedal before the corner apex, so that it starts to actually accelerate at the right point.
But tbh, I could not detect the turbo or lag on these new 1.3 litre engines. The auto probably masks this to some extent. But even in the manual car I couldn't really tell it had a turbo, just a fat end of instant torque.
I am, on reflection, quite gobsmacked how the A200 drove from an engine/gearbox point of view. From pretty much any legal speed the engine would instantly plant you backward in the seat. I suspect a lot of this is more sensation than outright performance, although the speedo would move quick enough to make even this fairly mundane entry model something very easy to overtake in and confidence inspiring. The A-class itself isn't built for driver enjoyment, but this engine certainly has potential to be fun.
And I don't think it's about the headline figures. 163bhp really isn't a huge amount of power. Not even in 1990, let alone 2019. But somehow this little engine when coupled to the auto box would pretty much instantly light up the front tyres of the A-class at any speeds below 20mph. In fact, it was a great demonstration that fwd really is not sufficient for this level of performance. Which is odd, as there are other more powerful fwd cars which wheel spin a lot less. And I don't think it's down to tyre choice. It's how the engine delivers the power.
And that power delivery is just so accessible. That is the real difference. It's not like powerful engines of old that you can plant it in any gear and let it labour through the lower rpms. These engines scream at low rpm, making the power they have just so deployable and easy to access.
On top of this, they also seemed to get great economy. Even driving in the most enthusiastic way in the A200, I still managed mid 30's+ mpg.
One of these engines and yes, even the auto box in a 2 seat rwd sports car weighing in around the 1 tonne mark. Would I think be quite an interesting vehicle. Not something to win ultimate HP wars, but something that would be an immense blast being driven round the mountain roads in Snowdownia and the like.
In fact, it is probably the first engine I've driven that I can see/feel a clear generation gap from other engines. I've actually driven the A180 in manual guise and the A200 in automatic guise. The latter I also had over night, so managed to get some good seat time and distance covered in. Both being petrol, not diesel engines.
I'll be honest, I was completely ignorant to what these engines were, as the cars aren't the sorts of things I'd typically look at owning. But last night I thought I'd look up some stats.
Surprisingly both of these engines are only 1.3 litres.... I know the trend of smaller displacement and turbocharged has been common over the last 5 years. But if asked based on how they drove, I wouldn't have said they were 1.3's.
| A180 | 1332cc Inline 4 | 136bhp | 148ft-lb @ 1460rpm | 6 speed manual | kerb weight 1350kg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A200 | 1332cc Inline 4 | 163bhp | 184ft-lb @ 1620rpm | 7 speed automatic | kerb weight 1375kg |
The A-Class itself is actually a lot lighter than I'd have thought by looking at it. This may contribute to the overall performance of the cars, but has little bearing on how the engines 'feel' to drive.
The headline figures are not huge, but somehow these cars feel like they drive beyond their base statistics. I mean, lets face it, you could buy a 136bhp Rover 400 some 20 years with a 2.0 na engine and less weight.
The official acceleration stats aren't all that impressive either. 9.2 sec 0-60mph for the manual A180 and a reasonably brisk 8.0 for the A200 auto.
As a diehard lover of manual gearboxes. I will say the automatic did drive better than the manual, the manual just didn't want to be rushed.
But the thing that really stuck me, was how instantly accessible the power is in these vehicles. There is no doubt the A200's engine drove better than the A180's. The A180 just didn't like the high revs much and felt flat towards the red line. The A200's engine, despite being the same engine, was more happy at higher revs. Still a little breathless, but would rev happily enough that you would use the revs.
I know this is all about the turbo and the 7 speed auto in sport mode really complimented this. It made the car/engine feel supremely responsive. Now I'm not a complete turbo newb here. I've owned a Nissan 200SX, Subaru Impreza Turbo, Smart Roadster and my current 2017 plate Smart ForTwo are all turbocharged. The Smart ForTwo's engine also belongs to the Mercedes family and also being a small displacement. None however drive like these new breeds of engine.
In fact, I've never driven an engine quite like it before. I'm used to low end grunt in cars. I have four V8 powered cars, some capable of 95% of their torque from 1500rpm (that's over 300ft-lb). And I also own turbo diesels.
But these new petrols are something else. They are free revving, instant and punchy. And they have the least lag of any turbo engine I have ever driven. The Smart ForTwo feels comparatively "old school" by comparison. The engine in that prefers revs to perform and while it has more grunt than a 1.0 litre na engine. You do notice the lag, e.g. if at 5000rpm, lift off the throttle completely, then put your foot flat to the floor -- count -- one -- two and the turbo kicks in. It's quite predictable and on tight corners you learn to floor the accelerator pedal before the corner apex, so that it starts to actually accelerate at the right point.
But tbh, I could not detect the turbo or lag on these new 1.3 litre engines. The auto probably masks this to some extent. But even in the manual car I couldn't really tell it had a turbo, just a fat end of instant torque.
I am, on reflection, quite gobsmacked how the A200 drove from an engine/gearbox point of view. From pretty much any legal speed the engine would instantly plant you backward in the seat. I suspect a lot of this is more sensation than outright performance, although the speedo would move quick enough to make even this fairly mundane entry model something very easy to overtake in and confidence inspiring. The A-class itself isn't built for driver enjoyment, but this engine certainly has potential to be fun.
And I don't think it's about the headline figures. 163bhp really isn't a huge amount of power. Not even in 1990, let alone 2019. But somehow this little engine when coupled to the auto box would pretty much instantly light up the front tyres of the A-class at any speeds below 20mph. In fact, it was a great demonstration that fwd really is not sufficient for this level of performance. Which is odd, as there are other more powerful fwd cars which wheel spin a lot less. And I don't think it's down to tyre choice. It's how the engine delivers the power.
And that power delivery is just so accessible. That is the real difference. It's not like powerful engines of old that you can plant it in any gear and let it labour through the lower rpms. These engines scream at low rpm, making the power they have just so deployable and easy to access.
On top of this, they also seemed to get great economy. Even driving in the most enthusiastic way in the A200, I still managed mid 30's+ mpg.
One of these engines and yes, even the auto box in a 2 seat rwd sports car weighing in around the 1 tonne mark. Would I think be quite an interesting vehicle. Not something to win ultimate HP wars, but something that would be an immense blast being driven round the mountain roads in Snowdownia and the like.
JERK.
No not you 300, but that's what you are feeling, the "jerk" and the German manufacturers are masters in using JERK to make their slow cars feel quick! The small, close coupled turbo DI gasolines now use all the tricks in the book to be able to respond very aggressively to drive torque demands, and use their "modes" to determine the optimum condition to operate at.
For example, in eco, the engine mapping drops any pretense at performance or response and sits at a speed / load comensurate with minimum consumption, ie cam timing to lowest voleff, max egr, wastegate fully open, MBT spart, LBT fuelling, highest gear possible. But pop it into "sport" and the engine can rebalance itself, still making the same torque, but at a condition that allows a much more rapid response. For example, it will swing the cams to best voleff, reduce the EGR as much as possible (within emissions constraints) shut the wastegate and make boost whilst CLOSING the throttle to maintain plenum density. However, now when you snap the throttle open, all that boost and turbine energy is available pretty much instantly to bring the engine to peak torque very quickly. Often at low speed, a transient overboost is also allowed to further increase the inital surge as you open the throttle.
this does two things:
1) provides a lot of JERK, making the car feel quick to the driver
2) often provides a lot of trouble for the front wheels as they suddenly scrabble around trying to do something with all that torque....
No not you 300, but that's what you are feeling, the "jerk" and the German manufacturers are masters in using JERK to make their slow cars feel quick! The small, close coupled turbo DI gasolines now use all the tricks in the book to be able to respond very aggressively to drive torque demands, and use their "modes" to determine the optimum condition to operate at.
For example, in eco, the engine mapping drops any pretense at performance or response and sits at a speed / load comensurate with minimum consumption, ie cam timing to lowest voleff, max egr, wastegate fully open, MBT spart, LBT fuelling, highest gear possible. But pop it into "sport" and the engine can rebalance itself, still making the same torque, but at a condition that allows a much more rapid response. For example, it will swing the cams to best voleff, reduce the EGR as much as possible (within emissions constraints) shut the wastegate and make boost whilst CLOSING the throttle to maintain plenum density. However, now when you snap the throttle open, all that boost and turbine energy is available pretty much instantly to bring the engine to peak torque very quickly. Often at low speed, a transient overboost is also allowed to further increase the inital surge as you open the throttle.
this does two things:
1) provides a lot of JERK, making the car feel quick to the driver
2) often provides a lot of trouble for the front wheels as they suddenly scrabble around trying to do something with all that torque....
I've enjoyed every one of the modern small capacity turbo petrols I've tried, to be honest.
Naysayers always talk about a small capacity engine needing to be worked hard, and how it can never be as good as a bigger NA engine. A couple of miles in the 1.0 Ecoboost Fiesta belonging to my in-laws showed that to be a complete myth. Torquey, responsive and completely effortless. Lag only a factor if you deliberately provoke it. Interesting noise, too.
Naysayers always talk about a small capacity engine needing to be worked hard, and how it can never be as good as a bigger NA engine. A couple of miles in the 1.0 Ecoboost Fiesta belonging to my in-laws showed that to be a complete myth. Torquey, responsive and completely effortless. Lag only a factor if you deliberately provoke it. Interesting noise, too.
The one big issue with the cars I have driven with these small turbo engines is turbo lag and being off boost when going up hills.
Second gear, rev to 5k for example, change up to 3rd, revs drop to below the boost threshold , no boost, foot flat to the floor, you go nowhere so have to change back to second gear, rinse and repeat.
And they are not that economical either.
Second gear, rev to 5k for example, change up to 3rd, revs drop to below the boost threshold , no boost, foot flat to the floor, you go nowhere so have to change back to second gear, rinse and repeat.
And they are not that economical either.
Monkeylegend said:
The one big issue with the cars I have driven with these small turbo engines is turbo lag and being off boost when going up hills.
Second gear, rev to 5k for example, change up to 3rd, revs drop to below the boost threshold , no boost, foot flat to the floor, you go nowhere so have to change back to second gear, rinse and repeat.
Just stay in 2nd then, surely you change gear when it’s appropriate for that vehicle, not whenever you would have changed gear in some other vehicle with a different engine.Second gear, rev to 5k for example, change up to 3rd, revs drop to below the boost threshold , no boost, foot flat to the floor, you go nowhere so have to change back to second gear, rinse and repeat.
fwiw I found it highly enjoyable taking my 1.0 Focus up steep country lanes, revs are there to be used after all.
jamei303 said:
Monkeylegend said:
The one big issue with the cars I have driven with these small turbo engines is turbo lag and being off boost when going up hills.
Second gear, rev to 5k for example, change up to 3rd, revs drop to below the boost threshold , no boost, foot flat to the floor, you go nowhere so have to change back to second gear, rinse and repeat.
Just stay in 2nd then, surely you change gear when it’s appropriate for that vehicle, not whenever you would have changed gear in some other vehicle with a different engine.Second gear, rev to 5k for example, change up to 3rd, revs drop to below the boost threshold , no boost, foot flat to the floor, you go nowhere so have to change back to second gear, rinse and repeat.
fwiw I found it highly enjoyable taking my 1.0 Focus up steep country lanes, revs are there to be used after all.
The boost levels are too high for comfortable driving up hills and can you imagine the fuel economy driving for miles at 5k plus rpm in second gear
I think the advent of the 8 (or more!) speed automatic gearbox has resulted in an interesting outcome, to be honest. Even cars with modest power and torque can accelerate pretty well when there's a gear for every occasion! Combine this with some leaps in turbocharging technology in recent years that allows even small engines to reliably output decent amounts of power, and my old 650i starts to look a little excessive for the resulting get up and go...
Monkeylegend said:
These little engine are revving their guts out pleading for you to change up.
The boost levels are too high for comfortable driving up hills and can you imagine the fuel economy driving for miles at 5k plus rpm in second gear
I literally have no idea what you are talking aboutThe boost levels are too high for comfortable driving up hills and can you imagine the fuel economy driving for miles at 5k plus rpm in second gear
Having driven numerous cars with little boosted engines I really cant think what cars you're actually commenting on.
Max_Torque said:
JERK.
No not you 300, but that's what you are feeling, the "jerk" and the German manufacturers are masters in using JERK to make their slow cars feel quick! The small, close coupled turbo DI gasolines now use all the tricks in the book to be able to respond very aggressively to drive torque demands, and use their "modes" to determine the optimum condition to operate at.
For example, in eco, the engine mapping drops any pretense at performance or response and sits at a speed / load comensurate with minimum consumption, ie cam timing to lowest voleff, max egr, wastegate fully open, MBT spart, LBT fuelling, highest gear possible. But pop it into "sport" and the engine can rebalance itself, still making the same torque, but at a condition that allows a much more rapid response. For example, it will swing the cams to best voleff, reduce the EGR as much as possible (within emissions constraints) shut the wastegate and make boost whilst CLOSING the throttle to maintain plenum density. However, now when you snap the throttle open, all that boost and turbine energy is available pretty much instantly to bring the engine to peak torque very quickly. Often at low speed, a transient overboost is also allowed to further increase the inital surge as you open the throttle.
this does two things:
1) provides a lot of JERK, making the car feel quick to the driver
2) often provides a lot of trouble for the front wheels as they suddenly scrabble around trying to do something with all that torque....
Thank you, very interesting No not you 300, but that's what you are feeling, the "jerk" and the German manufacturers are masters in using JERK to make their slow cars feel quick! The small, close coupled turbo DI gasolines now use all the tricks in the book to be able to respond very aggressively to drive torque demands, and use their "modes" to determine the optimum condition to operate at.
For example, in eco, the engine mapping drops any pretense at performance or response and sits at a speed / load comensurate with minimum consumption, ie cam timing to lowest voleff, max egr, wastegate fully open, MBT spart, LBT fuelling, highest gear possible. But pop it into "sport" and the engine can rebalance itself, still making the same torque, but at a condition that allows a much more rapid response. For example, it will swing the cams to best voleff, reduce the EGR as much as possible (within emissions constraints) shut the wastegate and make boost whilst CLOSING the throttle to maintain plenum density. However, now when you snap the throttle open, all that boost and turbine energy is available pretty much instantly to bring the engine to peak torque very quickly. Often at low speed, a transient overboost is also allowed to further increase the inital surge as you open the throttle.
this does two things:
1) provides a lot of JERK, making the car feel quick to the driver
2) often provides a lot of trouble for the front wheels as they suddenly scrabble around trying to do something with all that torque....
Monkeylegend said:
The one big issue with the cars I have driven with these small turbo engines is turbo lag and being off boost when going up hills.
Second gear, rev to 5k for example, change up to 3rd, revs drop to below the boost threshold , no boost, foot flat to the floor, you go nowhere so have to change back to second gear, rinse and repeat.
And they are not that economical either.
I know exactly where you are coming from. But these Merc engines couldn't be further from this. Literally at any speed from any revs the engines pull incredibly well.Second gear, rev to 5k for example, change up to 3rd, revs drop to below the boost threshold , no boost, foot flat to the floor, you go nowhere so have to change back to second gear, rinse and repeat.
And they are not that economical either.
I pride myself on being sensitive to boost threshold and lag. As it's a particular trait when I compete in off road trials competitions. My preference being an n/a V8 over the turbo diesels, mostly down to the lack of lag. But if I'm brutally honest, even with the manual A180, I really could not detect that had any lag and the boost threshold was so low (1460rpm for peak torque according to the published spec, so the turbo is puffing away a bit before this), that you where never in an off boost situation.
DaveTheRave87 said:
I've spent the last 3 months driving a 1 litre turbo. It's impressive how quick it feels.
However, I'm not fussed about the actual speed. I'm happy enough fooling myself into thinking I'm going fast without troublingRevenue Speed Camera operators.
What impressed with these engines specifically was not the outright power and WOT performance, but how much poke and grunt they had. And particularly how instant, deploy-able and accessible it was.However, I'm not fussed about the actual speed. I'm happy enough fooling myself into thinking I'm going fast without troubling
I've had small turbo engines before, 798cc in my Smart Roadster and 898cc in my current ForTwo. Plus there have been cars like the Charade GTii with a 1.0 litre Turbo. None of these drive in anything remotely close to the same power delivery.
It's the "under the curve" performance of these new engines and how they respond at those revs. Coupled with the 7 speed auto and it is an amazingly different experience.
Gassing Station | Mercedes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff