What an odd car…. Mercedes A180
Discussion
Car-Matt said:
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.
Nope, no good going up mountains.
They are very good on the flat though
Monkeylegend said:
Car-Matt said:
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.
Nope, no good going up mountains.
They are very good on the flat though
300bhp/ton said:
Monkeylegend said:
Car-Matt said:
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.
Nope, no good going up mountains.
They are very good on the flat though
Ford 1 litre ecoboost turbo, and the Peugeot 1.2 litre Pure tech turbo.
Monkeylegend said:
Car-Matt said:
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.
Nope, no good going up mountains.
They are very good on the flat though
if its a 70bhp fiesta then its not going to perform well......... however the 140 will perform excellently.....for example.
By the way the further up a mountain you go the better a small boosted engine will be over a bigger N/A one of the same power....
All of the modern small blown engines i've driven have performed as, if not better than i expected.
I suspect this is just unrealistic expectations and a misunderstanding of lag and boost threshold.....
Car-Matt said:
make model and variant?
if its a 70bhp fiesta then its not going to perform well......... however the 140 will perform excellently.....for example.
By the way the further up a mountain you go the better a small boosted engine will be over a bigger N/A one of the same power....
All of the modern small blown engines i've driven have performed as, if not better than i expected.
I suspect this is just unrealistic expectations and a misunderstanding of lag and boost threshold.....
Posted the engines above.if its a 70bhp fiesta then its not going to perform well......... however the 140 will perform excellently.....for example.
By the way the further up a mountain you go the better a small boosted engine will be over a bigger N/A one of the same power....
All of the modern small blown engines i've driven have performed as, if not better than i expected.
I suspect this is just unrealistic expectations and a misunderstanding of lag and boost threshold.....
Being hire cars they should be quick though, but not going up mountains.
Edited by Monkeylegend on Thursday 31st January 15:02
Max_Torque said:
JERK.
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....
This is one of the big reasons why I like my Mini Cooper S so much because it always feels quick(it actually isn't quick because it only has 189bhp). The tyres do struggle for grip in anything but bone dry conditions, and It also doesn't feel turbocharged like some of the much older 2 litre turbo engines I've driven in the past. 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....
For a small engine I do find it pretty impressive, I remember the 2 litre turbo in my old 200sx needing servicing every 6k miles/6 months. The Mini needs servicing every 19k miles/2 years, modern turbo engines are impressive in fairness.
Monkeylegend said:
No, you can feel the turbo come on boost. It's the hills that kill it, as I say they are very impressive on the flat.
Ford 1 litre ecoboost turbo, and the Peugeot 1.2 litre Pure tech turbo.
Something doesn't add up there.Ford 1 litre ecoboost turbo, and the Peugeot 1.2 litre Pure tech turbo.
The Ford engine makes 148lb ft at 1400-4500rpm, while the Pug is 170lb ft at 1750-3000rpm. Neither will be coming on boost at 3500, in fact in terms of toque the Pug is past it's best by 3500rpm.
300bhp/ton said:
Monkeylegend said:
No, you can feel the turbo come on boost. It's the hills that kill it, as I say they are very impressive on the flat.
Ford 1 litre ecoboost turbo, and the Peugeot 1.2 litre Pure tech turbo.
Something doesn't add up there.Ford 1 litre ecoboost turbo, and the Peugeot 1.2 litre Pure tech turbo.
The Ford engine makes 148lb ft at 1400-4500rpm, while the Pug is 170lb ft at 1750-3000rpm. Neither will be coming on boost at 3500, in fact in terms of toque the Pug is past it's best by 3500rpm.
Mind you the 1:9 hairpin gradients don't help much either.
300bhp/ton said:
Something doesn't add up there.
The Ford engine makes 148lb ft at 1400-4500rpm, while the Pug is 170lb ft at 1750-3000rpm. Neither will be coming on boost at 3500, in fact in terms of toque the Pug is past it's best by 3500rpm.
I've found that they drive like turbodiesels, but without the racket and stink, and a slight better powerband. Absolutely hopeless at very low revs, a very useful midband, but all our of ideas surprisingly quickly. Ideal for how most people drive, who think any engine will explode past 3000RPM anyway. The Ford engine makes 148lb ft at 1400-4500rpm, while the Pug is 170lb ft at 1750-3000rpm. Neither will be coming on boost at 3500, in fact in terms of toque the Pug is past it's best by 3500rpm.
300bhp/ton said:
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.
Very well summarised sir. 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.
Krikkit said:
Steering wheel vibration is a lane departure warning system - intended to reduce inattentive lane changes.
The throttle "switch" will be there as part of the speed limiter (cruise feature). Set it to 30mph and it won't let you exceed it, unless you push the pedal through the little clicky detente.
The jerky changes at high RPMs are down to trying to reduce emissions - very annoying. I recently drove a newish Fiesta which had a similar map, and getting a smooth change without using the clutch to reduce the revs was almost impossible, the revs simply won't drop by themselves fast enough.
In fairness to the dash display you have your speed and RPM clearly shown, even if you don't connect a phone/enter sat-nav etc etc.
The handbrake is a good point, although packaging benefits massively under the rear axle not having to route the cables around. I should also point out that all Mercedes in RHD have the handbrake on the right going back to... I think the w123?
Your points about the wheel and seats are interesting, sounds like it's all show and no comfort.
The W201 190 was the exception, a conventional handbrake.The throttle "switch" will be there as part of the speed limiter (cruise feature). Set it to 30mph and it won't let you exceed it, unless you push the pedal through the little clicky detente.
The jerky changes at high RPMs are down to trying to reduce emissions - very annoying. I recently drove a newish Fiesta which had a similar map, and getting a smooth change without using the clutch to reduce the revs was almost impossible, the revs simply won't drop by themselves fast enough.
In fairness to the dash display you have your speed and RPM clearly shown, even if you don't connect a phone/enter sat-nav etc etc.
The handbrake is a good point, although packaging benefits massively under the rear axle not having to route the cables around. I should also point out that all Mercedes in RHD have the handbrake on the right going back to... I think the w123?
Your points about the wheel and seats are interesting, sounds like it's all show and no comfort.
Edited by Krikkit on Wednesday 9th January 11:49
My A180 AMG-Line (petrol, auto) finally arrived last week.
So far I'm really liking it and find some of the criticisms (not just here) strange - it's priced (in this guise) the same as the Ford Focus ST-line X and comparing it to that I'm really happy.
The interior is lovely, even with the twin 7" screens which are bright, clear and responsive. They do everything the larger screens do and note that if you use CarPlay it fills the 7" but not the 10". I don't especially like the black roof-liner. I added the brushed aluminium (the only option I did) for the dash/doors which lifts the interior a bit. I don't get the comments of "cheap storks" some reviews point out - they feel just fine to me. I find the pedal position fine and the seats comfortable - if a bit low.
The engine is a bit rough in 2nd and 3rd but not too bad. MPG is between 40 and 50 so far. The VW 1.5 Eco ACT in my previous Leon was quieter though. At least it doesn't have the huge delay the VW DSG did setting off.
The cars focus is slightly confused in my opinion - a sporty driving position with very low ground clearance but with somewhat soft suspension. At least my teeth aren't shaken out traversing the fine quality of our roads, although you do have to take speed humps very slowly - Mercedes quote 105mm clearance fully loaded, I measured 155mm empty. The A180 AMG-Line does get multi-link rear suspension, which wasn't a given.
No front parking sensors on the base AMG-line model, which will take some getting used to as you cannot see the front of the car.
So far, so good.
So far I'm really liking it and find some of the criticisms (not just here) strange - it's priced (in this guise) the same as the Ford Focus ST-line X and comparing it to that I'm really happy.
The interior is lovely, even with the twin 7" screens which are bright, clear and responsive. They do everything the larger screens do and note that if you use CarPlay it fills the 7" but not the 10". I don't especially like the black roof-liner. I added the brushed aluminium (the only option I did) for the dash/doors which lifts the interior a bit. I don't get the comments of "cheap storks" some reviews point out - they feel just fine to me. I find the pedal position fine and the seats comfortable - if a bit low.
The engine is a bit rough in 2nd and 3rd but not too bad. MPG is between 40 and 50 so far. The VW 1.5 Eco ACT in my previous Leon was quieter though. At least it doesn't have the huge delay the VW DSG did setting off.
The cars focus is slightly confused in my opinion - a sporty driving position with very low ground clearance but with somewhat soft suspension. At least my teeth aren't shaken out traversing the fine quality of our roads, although you do have to take speed humps very slowly - Mercedes quote 105mm clearance fully loaded, I measured 155mm empty. The A180 AMG-Line does get multi-link rear suspension, which wasn't a given.
No front parking sensors on the base AMG-line model, which will take some getting used to as you cannot see the front of the car.
So far, so good.
I went into the MB dealership in Guildford just to have a look around at Mercs new offerings and there was an A35 in there, I decided to have a look and was very unimpressed with the quality of the leather seats, the stitching looked very poor and it was as if it was made in some sort of textile shop. The is very nice to look at and be in but I think I’d much rather live with a Golf GTI/R, it just felt a lot more functional and durable. I much preferred the interior of the C class, definitely felt like a proper Merc where as the A didn’t.
Thank god I wasn’t on intending on buying a car as the level of service was appalling, nobody approached me, nobody even smiled or said hello!
Thank god I wasn’t on intending on buying a car as the level of service was appalling, nobody approached me, nobody even smiled or said hello!
Gassing Station | Mercedes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff