I’ve been wondering about one thing for quite sometime now. Why isn’t Mercedes Benz putting the M266 into more of it’s cars? Where does the engine come from? Is it a Mercedes Benz development used solely in vehicles like the A-class and B-class or is it shared with other cars like Chryslers? As far as I know, Chrysler inline-4 engines use the GEMA engine (4B11) found in Mitsubishi, Hyundai and Chrysler cars.
The M266 comes in a few displacements, but one of the most notable ones is the M266 Turbo (M266.980), found in the Mercedes Benz B200 Turbo. Unlike Mercedes Benz’s other inline-4, the M271 Kompressor which uses a supercharger, the M266 Turbo uses a turbocharger. It is mounted transversely and is mated to either a 6-speed manual or an AUTOTRONIC CVT gearbox, sending power to the front wheels. It uses a BorgWarner K03 turbocharger. The M271 is a longitudinal rear wheel drive design.
Here is a comparison table between the M266 and the M271. The M271 specs used in this comparison is of the W204 C200K specifications. The M271 comes in different specs like different boost levels, which result in different performance statistics. Note that the W204 C200K’s M271 is not the most powerful M271 around, with factory tuning of course – the W203’s C230K has a slightly higher power output (192hp).
| M266 | M271 | |
| Capacity | 2034cc | 1796cc |
| Cylinders | Inline-4 | Inline-4 |
| Valvetrain | 8 valve SOHC | 16 valve DOHC |
| Configuration | FF | FR |
| Head | Aluminium alloy | Aluminium alloy |
| Block | Aluminium alloy | Aluminium alloy |
| Bore x Stroke | 83 x 94 | 82 x 85 |
| Power | 193 @ 5,000 | 184 @ 5,800 |
| Torque | 280Nm @ 1800-4850rpm | 250Nm @ 2800-5000rpm |
| Induction | Turbocharged | Supercharged |
Based on the comparison table above, which engine looks like the better performer to you? I’m not sure why Mercedes Benz has two inline-4 engines. It should just pick one and stick to it, economies of scale are better that way.
Maybe the M266 could be adapted to rear wheel drive, or the M271 could be adapted to front wheel drive, though I think the former is easier, plus the M266 is a newer engine anyway and its performance looks better to me. However some might be turned off by the 8-valve SOHC valvetrain design, but then again what does that matter when the performance results are there? Power peaks earlier in the rev range, and torque has a wider spread and kicks in lower and stronger.
DaimlerChrysler is currently using three different inline-4 engines in it’s cars, the GEMA 4B11 engine, the M266 and M271. There is no place in the world’s automotive industry for inefficiency. Everyone is sharing components – a recent example would be BMW and Peugeot sharing a common engine with different configurations for the MINI Cooper and a few Peugeot models.
These are just my thoughts – if anyone knows these two engines in further technical depth and know why both need to exist, please do share in the comments for the benefit of all motorheads!
Looking to sell your car? Sell it with Carro.
i guess m266 using soft turbo, sufficient enough for 8 valver
early torque for this characteristic,
power peak to just 5000rpm suit for smaller turbo,
no idea about m271 since paul said varies level of boost,
m271 has smaller displacement, but powerful enough though lower than m266, prhaps winner in power per road tax,
justa guess,
nite…
Aik? The supercharged rpm respone at 2000??
The turbo at 1800??
Yup, like protonGL said sure it a soft turbo one. Must be a large superchare there.
Saver in roadtax? For me it still not a money saver if it consume fuel like water.
i still have no idea why the m266 turbo has to exist. To me, its actually the odd one out, as it suddenly appeared among all the kompressors and transverse mounted as well. I was guessing that it might even be a direction change for them, but the new c-class came, and not a turbo in sight… hmmm?
if the m266 didnt exist, the M271 makes more sense. like how bmw does with the 323, and 325, they keep the same engine, but at different levels of tune to differentiate the different spec levels in the C-class, in this case, the 180k and 200k. If economies of scale are anything to go by, i believe the former 2 models are the ones that will sell the most for mercedes.
paul, what is the different between the turbocharge and the supercharge?
The M266 sounds like an old engine – being SOHC plus 8-valves – fitted with a turbocharger. A tech-feature in Autocar hailed it as the next gen (higher efficiency) turbo engines for Mercs. However, its absence from the new C-Class W204 is both baffling and mysterious!
I have driven the B200T and I must admit liking its powerband better than my M271-powered E200K. Strangely, the M266 came across as a little coarser than the M271…but the turbo kick is unmistakable and intoxicating.
And Paul, M271s are all-aluminium (block too) now – since the facelift of E-Class and C-Class.
perhaps the goal here instead to have a big 2.5 litre normally aspiratd,
they want a smaller engine but yet have a muscle without being a revvy sporty young at heart character, its more of a coventional application,capable of load and towing capability,
well not sure about efficiency but this lesser sporty forced induction of this smaller engine just could save a bit of fuel when the car is under load or idling, or town speed ,in other word at low low boost, its character is more toward smaller engine for fuel consumption,
well m266 is specially dsigned for this purpose, perhaps
and m271 simply is to be varies simply by plug an playing since its form of a modern enough form for various specification,
strange though m266 remind me of a volvo 940 GL Harmony engine , almost decade ago, –
Very interesting table. In the interest of fuel economy, more SOHC engines are appearing. Aluminium block lightens the weight and a light boost turbo provide maximum torque at low rpm. Further indication to its fuel economy priority. The M266 has a lot of tweaking potential!!! An after-market re-chipping of the ECU can easily liberate another 30hp.
The M271's 1798cc size is obviously catered for countries with unfriendly road taxation practices. We should adopt Australia's practice… roadtax based on number of cylinders but we can only dream about it. G will never sacrifice so much $$$ for the rakyat.
paul, how about fuel consumption? maybe that's a consideration in their product planning. i suspect though that merc is not very experienced at doing turbos so maybe they OEM the 266 from someone else.
on another note, who's sharing CAMPRO?! sigh…
I think fuel consumption is the same with the M 271. SOHC 8 valve vs 16 valve DOHC… this is just an assumption
I would still favour the bigger M266. If you just look at the power outputs, it reaches peak power (and torque) lower on the rpm band, which means only one thing, more responsiveness in urban environments where you wont be likely to rev around at 6000rpm all day long.
Once you force feed an engine, the issue of 16v DOHC and 8v SOHC is not as significant anymore, since you are already operating a positive displacement engine. On a N/A engine, a 16v Twincammer will breathe better. A SOHC engine is smaller and lighters leading to better packaging and fuel consumption.
As for road tax, even for malaysia, the 1.8 and 2.0 is only off by a $100 ish per year. Not exactly significant if you can afford a $200+ K car.
Turbo cars usually (but not always) better on fuel, as power is not used to power the supercharger. The compressor itself is lighter on a turbo.
I find that bigger CC cars usually tend to be better than one expects on the FC issue. When I upgraded from SOHC 1.6 to SOHC 1.8 on my car, the 1.8 gave better FC, due to the fact of the better low end torque, which would allow me to stay on 5th more of the time.
Reasons for not sharing??
It could be for packaging reason. Look at Honda, The F20C (followed by the F22C) in the S2000 is used ONLY in that car, whereas the Accord 2.0 & 2.4 uses a totaly different engine. Capacity ain't far but yet not shared.
Could also be rotational direction. If I'm not mistaken a F20C has opposite direction to the K20, so if you place the K20 logitudinally the car will have reverse and one fwd. Maybe teh Mercs are like that too?
Could be either one..
I wouldn't go as far as accusing MB of not parts sharing After all the AMG 5.5 litre and/or the newer 6.3 litre V8 are found in SL, SLK, CL, CLK, CLS, C, E & S bodyshells..
Mercedes might use the engines in future models, dono, hm. Interesting comparison, the M266's specs looks more attractive though, only the displacement will be a bit of a turn off if economy is important (road tax, fuel consumption).
I came accross an article in one of the local car magazine about MB opting for turbo charging in replacing supercharing in future .. very interesting article, maybe i can go look out what mag is that and post it here.
I know this is an old thread. But cant help myself to reply. I strongly believe the M266 is design for cvt. Unless anyone can give list of cars with M266 paired with non-cvt. Another reason for me is, M266 is for fwd and m271 is for rwd.
To respond to one of the comment here, m271 is always built from aluminium. The prior 2003 c class used m111 (red colored top engine color) which is non-aluminium (steel block? Not sure). Its nothing to do with facelifted or not.
So for c class (w203):
1999 to 2002: m111 engine
2003 to 2006: m271 engine
1999 to 2003: pre facelift (blurry headlamp, big speedometer)
2004 to 2006: facelift (clear headlamp, 2 dial speedo and rpm)
Of course some may find prefacelift with clear headlamp but that has been changed etc.
B class with cvt probably the worst car that merc has produced. It is due to the cvt. Other than that, no issue.
I totally agree that m271 is smooth but never ride in a b class.