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..

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.

on another note, who's sharing CAMPRO?! sigh…

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.

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, –

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.

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.

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.

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…