300E performance upgrades
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 2,494
Likes: 17
From: REHOBOTH BEACH DE
88-300CE TWIN TURBO, 99-C43, 05-G55K, 71-280SL, 94-E320 CAB, 08 CLK63 BLACK SERIES
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
e400
The early 300CE with the 3.0 Inline 6 SOHC was about 3195 lbs. Thats what car "Pumpish" owns and drives. I do argue everything, because there are so many ways to increase hp and torque even without the purchase of new parts.
The car is 199 torque and does 0-60 in 8.3 seconds or so. My friends car has 139 torque and does 0-60 in 7.1. Its all about how the engine is tuned.
If i get my engine stroked, and changed around the gear ratios, the car will definately run in the low 7s if not high 6s.
The engine in a W124 is what you would call an "oversquare" engine, which means the bore is higher than the stroke, which means the car is tuned more for top speed than it is for acceleration. So, get the engine stroked for more acceleration. But keep the Bore slightly higher than the stroke, because Oversquare engines loose less hp during the transfer from the crank to the rear wheels.
Then change up the gear ratio's which will slow down the car's top speed, but will speed up the acceleration a good bit. After those two upgrades it should be running a good 7.4 0-60 and top speed maybe 120 or so.
After that, a custom ECU, or an ECU tuning can trick the car into thinking there is more air in the engine, causing it to send more gas into the engine for a larger combustion. Also a new ECU will make the car much more responsive, so a rolling start would be much faster, because the car would not lag as long as usual.
Ok now id say 7.2 0-60..maybe 7.1 if im lucky
After that get a custom CAI that is larger. Also Cold air is less dense than warm air, so more air can fit into the engine.
After that get some performance spark plugs and wires for the best combustion possible. The bigger the spark the more power. Won't make a big difference, but maybe 3-5 hp.
After all those upgrades id say i could do 0-60 in about 6.8-7.
The car is 199 torque and does 0-60 in 8.3 seconds or so. My friends car has 139 torque and does 0-60 in 7.1. Its all about how the engine is tuned.
If i get my engine stroked, and changed around the gear ratios, the car will definately run in the low 7s if not high 6s.
The engine in a W124 is what you would call an "oversquare" engine, which means the bore is higher than the stroke, which means the car is tuned more for top speed than it is for acceleration. So, get the engine stroked for more acceleration. But keep the Bore slightly higher than the stroke, because Oversquare engines loose less hp during the transfer from the crank to the rear wheels.
Then change up the gear ratio's which will slow down the car's top speed, but will speed up the acceleration a good bit. After those two upgrades it should be running a good 7.4 0-60 and top speed maybe 120 or so.
After that, a custom ECU, or an ECU tuning can trick the car into thinking there is more air in the engine, causing it to send more gas into the engine for a larger combustion. Also a new ECU will make the car much more responsive, so a rolling start would be much faster, because the car would not lag as long as usual.
Ok now id say 7.2 0-60..maybe 7.1 if im lucky
After that get a custom CAI that is larger. Also Cold air is less dense than warm air, so more air can fit into the engine.
After that get some performance spark plugs and wires for the best combustion possible. The bigger the spark the more power. Won't make a big difference, but maybe 3-5 hp.
After all those upgrades id say i could do 0-60 in about 6.8-7.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,450
Likes: 1
From: British Columbia, Canada
1987 560SL
Isn't COLD air more dense???
You already know everything.
Why are you posting?
Just do your mods and show us the results!
You already know everything.
Why are you posting?
Just do your mods and show us the results!
The early 300CE with the 3.0 Inline 6 SOHC was about 3195 lbs. Thats what car "Pumpish" owns and drives. I do argue everything, because there are so many ways to increase hp and torque even without the purchase of new parts.
The car is 199 torque and does 0-60 in 8.3 seconds or so. My friends car has 139 torque and does 0-60 in 7.1. Its all about how the engine is tuned.
If i get my engine stroked, and changed around the gear ratios, the car will definately run in the low 7s if not high 6s.
The engine in a W124 is what you would call an "oversquare" engine, which means the bore is higher than the stroke, which means the car is tuned more for top speed than it is for acceleration. So, get the engine stroked for more acceleration. But keep the Bore slightly higher than the stroke, because Oversquare engines loose less hp during the transfer from the crank to the rear wheels.
Then change up the gear ratio's which will slow down the car's top speed, but will speed up the acceleration a good bit. After those two upgrades it should be running a good 7.4 0-60 and top speed maybe 120 or so.
After that, a custom ECU, or an ECU tuning can trick the car into thinking there is more air in the engine, causing it to send more gas into the engine for a larger combustion. Also a new ECU will make the car much more responsive, so a rolling start would be much faster, because the car would not lag as long as usual.
Ok now id say 7.2 0-60..maybe 7.1 if im lucky
After that get a custom CAI that is larger. Also Cold air is less dense than warm air, so more air can fit into the engine.
After that get some performance spark plugs and wires for the best combustion possible. The bigger the spark the more power. Won't make a big difference, but maybe 3-5 hp.
After all those upgrades id say i could do 0-60 in about 6.8-7.
The car is 199 torque and does 0-60 in 8.3 seconds or so. My friends car has 139 torque and does 0-60 in 7.1. Its all about how the engine is tuned.
If i get my engine stroked, and changed around the gear ratios, the car will definately run in the low 7s if not high 6s.
The engine in a W124 is what you would call an "oversquare" engine, which means the bore is higher than the stroke, which means the car is tuned more for top speed than it is for acceleration. So, get the engine stroked for more acceleration. But keep the Bore slightly higher than the stroke, because Oversquare engines loose less hp during the transfer from the crank to the rear wheels.
Then change up the gear ratio's which will slow down the car's top speed, but will speed up the acceleration a good bit. After those two upgrades it should be running a good 7.4 0-60 and top speed maybe 120 or so.
After that, a custom ECU, or an ECU tuning can trick the car into thinking there is more air in the engine, causing it to send more gas into the engine for a larger combustion. Also a new ECU will make the car much more responsive, so a rolling start would be much faster, because the car would not lag as long as usual.
Ok now id say 7.2 0-60..maybe 7.1 if im lucky
After that get a custom CAI that is larger. Also Cold air is less dense than warm air, so more air can fit into the engine.
After that get some performance spark plugs and wires for the best combustion possible. The bigger the spark the more power. Won't make a big difference, but maybe 3-5 hp.
After all those upgrades id say i could do 0-60 in about 6.8-7.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 2,494
Likes: 17
From: REHOBOTH BEACH DE
88-300CE TWIN TURBO, 99-C43, 05-G55K, 71-280SL, 94-E320 CAB, 08 CLK63 BLACK SERIES
Paid $53K and still own it, although it is far from stock.
You argue everything because you know nothing...
An argument is only rational if it's based on fact not the opinion of one as you.
The car is 199 torque and does 0-60 in 8.3 seconds or so. My friends car has 139 torque and does 0-60 in 7.1. Its all about how the engine is tuned.
If i get my engine stroked, and changed around the gear ratios, the car will definately run in the low 7s if not high 6s.
If i get my engine stroked, and changed around the gear ratios, the car will definately run in the low 7s if not high 6s.
The engine in a W124 is what you would call an "oversquare" engine, which means the bore is higher than the stroke, which means the car is tuned more for top speed than it is for acceleration. So, get the engine stroked for more acceleration. But keep the Bore slightly higher than the stroke, because Oversquare engines loose less hp during the transfer from the crank to the rear wheels.
Nothing to do with the basic engine design.
The engine is a low rpm design.
You read too much, but fail to comprehend
Then change up the gear ratio's which will slow down the car's top speed, but will speed up the acceleration a good bit. After those two upgrades it should be running a good 7.4 0-60 and top speed maybe 120 or so.
Performance figures with the standard 3.07:1 rear gearing.
After that, a custom ECU, or an ECU tuning can trick the car into thinking there is more air in the engine, causing it to send more gas into the engine for a larger combustion. Also a new ECU will make the car much more responsive, so a rolling start would be much faster, beca?
Ok now id say 7.2 0-60..maybe 7.1 if im lucky
You will be extremely "lucky" to locate something that never existed !
After that get a custom CAI that is larger. Also Cold air is less dense than warm air, so more air can fit into the engine.
After that get some performance spark plugs and wires for the best combustion possible. The bigger the spark the more power. Won't make a big difference, but maybe 3-5 hp.
After all those upgrades id say i could do 0-60 in about 6.8-7.
After all those upgrades id say i could do 0-60 in about 6.8-7.
No more response from me, just wanted to establish facts..
I'll leave you to "stroking" to attain cheap power..
Just stop before you go blind !!
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
10 Most Reliable Mercedes-Benz Models You Can Buy Used
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes Teases Updated EQS With Steer-By-Wire and a Yoke
Verdad Gallardo
8 Mercedes Models With Poor Reliability Records
Verdad Gallardo
Super Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 622
Likes: 3
S500
I don't know why everyone is arguing with him. Clearly he knows more than the collective of those who are active on the forum and have gone threw mb life experiences. I'm all for $30-40 /hp. I'd love to see the results so I can sell the twin turbo set up that costed thousands of dollars that's in my convertible and go his route. Perhaps I can put some money back in my pocket.
On the less sarcastic side. Spend the next month searching all the mercedes forums on this topic, dating back as far back as they go. This has been talked about to death. You'll get your answer there. Just make sure your pocket/bank account is ready for what's required.
On the less sarcastic side. Spend the next month searching all the mercedes forums on this topic, dating back as far back as they go. This has been talked about to death. You'll get your answer there. Just make sure your pocket/bank account is ready for what's required.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,450
Likes: 1
From: British Columbia, Canada
1987 560SL
With your other mods, that must be some car!!
Super Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 622
Likes: 3
S500
Had the kit installed last year or the year before, can't quite member. The cars lots of fun now.
Just had the exhaust redone on the weekend. Installed the muffler that came with the kit and new cat. It put a whole new smile on my face. Amazing what happens when it breathes properly.
Still have to deal with the transmission (reverse is going) and a full engine rebuild. But I figure it's the mistress I don't have / mid 30's midlife crisis mobile !!!
Just had the exhaust redone on the weekend. Installed the muffler that came with the kit and new cat. It put a whole new smile on my face. Amazing what happens when it breathes properly.
Still have to deal with the transmission (reverse is going) and a full engine rebuild. But I figure it's the mistress I don't have / mid 30's midlife crisis mobile !!!
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 2,494
Likes: 17
From: REHOBOTH BEACH DE
88-300CE TWIN TURBO, 99-C43, 05-G55K, 71-280SL, 94-E320 CAB, 08 CLK63 BLACK SERIES
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
e400
RBYCC...
The Inline 6 in our cars is meant to be a high revving engine. But whatever your clueless so im done arguing with you.
Does anyone know how fast the stock 93' 300E 2.8L 24V DOHC is 0-60?
I always find numbers in the mid 8s. Even seen a few that say it is like 8.8 0-60.
But i dont believe any of those numbers, i think my car feels much faster than that. Or maybe i just can't accept the truth.
The Inline 6 in our cars is meant to be a high revving engine. But whatever your clueless so im done arguing with you.
Does anyone know how fast the stock 93' 300E 2.8L 24V DOHC is 0-60?
I always find numbers in the mid 8s. Even seen a few that say it is like 8.8 0-60.
But i dont believe any of those numbers, i think my car feels much faster than that. Or maybe i just can't accept the truth.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,968
Likes: 3
1990 300ce 24v I6
8.5 to 8.8 appears to be the accepted range for M104 Coupe/Sedan.
I get about that if i time it myself which isn't too bad considering I'm on snow tires and this car is 20 years off the production line.
If I recall correctly, the m104 r129 320SL is good for about 8.4ish 0-60 which (given its greater weight is almost the same as the 300ce) I'm going to peg mostly on its 3.69 final drive and MAYBE, MAYBE, slightly less restrictive exhaust. Normalize the 4010lb 320sl weight to the 3505lb 300ce and you've got a car that should do about 7.8ish (I think).
C36 AMG weighs also about the same as the 300ce and it is good for about 5.9 0-60. So, figure you get the 3.69 rear diff and get the car with about 279hp/289ft-lb and maybe copy the r129 320SL exhaust and I'd gander you'd be about the high 5s range (more likely low 6s).
I get about that if i time it myself which isn't too bad considering I'm on snow tires and this car is 20 years off the production line.
If I recall correctly, the m104 r129 320SL is good for about 8.4ish 0-60 which (given its greater weight is almost the same as the 300ce) I'm going to peg mostly on its 3.69 final drive and MAYBE, MAYBE, slightly less restrictive exhaust. Normalize the 4010lb 320sl weight to the 3505lb 300ce and you've got a car that should do about 7.8ish (I think).
C36 AMG weighs also about the same as the 300ce and it is good for about 5.9 0-60. So, figure you get the 3.69 rear diff and get the car with about 279hp/289ft-lb and maybe copy the r129 320SL exhaust and I'd gander you'd be about the high 5s range (more likely low 6s).
Last edited by Saijin_Naib; Mar 30, 2010 at 02:15 PM.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 2,494
Likes: 17
From: REHOBOTH BEACH DE
88-300CE TWIN TURBO, 99-C43, 05-G55K, 71-280SL, 94-E320 CAB, 08 CLK63 BLACK SERIES
8.5 to 8.8 appears to be the accepted range for M104 Coupe/Sedan.
I get about that if i time it myself which isn't too bad considering I'm on snow tires and this car is 20 years off the production line.
If I recall correctly, the m104 r129 320SL is good for about 7.5ish 0-60 which (given its weight is almost the same as the 300ce) I'm going to peg mostly on its 3.69 final drive and MAYBE, MAYBE, slightly less restrictive exhaust.
C36 AMG weighs also about the same as the 300ce and it is good for about 5.9 0-60. So, figure you get the 3.69 rear diff and get the car with about 279hp/289ft-lb and maybe copy the r129 320SL exhaust and I'd gander you'd be about the high 5s range (more likely low 6s).
I get about that if i time it myself which isn't too bad considering I'm on snow tires and this car is 20 years off the production line.
If I recall correctly, the m104 r129 320SL is good for about 7.5ish 0-60 which (given its weight is almost the same as the 300ce) I'm going to peg mostly on its 3.69 final drive and MAYBE, MAYBE, slightly less restrictive exhaust.
C36 AMG weighs also about the same as the 300ce and it is good for about 5.9 0-60. So, figure you get the 3.69 rear diff and get the car with about 279hp/289ft-lb and maybe copy the r129 320SL exhaust and I'd gander you'd be about the high 5s range (more likely low 6s).
For your edification as Zach continues to prove himself dumb as dirt
Below is a road test of a UK 1988 300CE.
I've experienced both the M103 and M104 off the showroom floor.
The M103 coupe with the standard 3.07 rear gear is quicker then the M104.
The gearing in the transmission combined with the rear took advantage of the torque band of the M103.
Tell chucklehead that an engine that produces max power from 440RPM to 5700 RPM is far from a high RPM motor...
Claims by Roman of 8000 + RPM are as good as a You Tube video.
The valve train was never designed for high RPM...
RPM does nothing if it greatly exceeds the power peak...just slows you down.
Incredible how guys like Zorro thought you didn't make sense at times...even with the worse criticism you took on this forum, you learned
Ed A.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 2,494
Likes: 17
From: REHOBOTH BEACH DE
88-300CE TWIN TURBO, 99-C43, 05-G55K, 71-280SL, 94-E320 CAB, 08 CLK63 BLACK SERIES
You are probably one of the most uninformed, arrogant little snots, that has ever posted on this forum.
You ask questions and you answer them yourself.
Know everything, but know nothing...
Good luck with whatever you try to build...
Only thing that will ever run fast in your life will be your mouth..
................
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,968
Likes: 3
1990 300ce 24v I6
Brett
For your edification as Zach continues to prove himself dumb as dirtBelow is a road test of a UK 1988 300CE.
I've experienced both the M103 and M104 off the showroom floor.
The M103 coupe with the standard 3.07 rear gear is quicker then the M104.
The gearing in the transmission combined with the rear took advantage of the torque band of the M103.
Tell chucklehead that an engine that produces max power from 440RPM to 5700 RPM is far from a high RPM motor...
Claims by Roman of 8000 + RPM are as good as a You Tube video.
The valve train was never designed for high RPM...
RPM does nothing if it greatly exceeds the power peak...just slows you down.
Incredible how guys like Zorro thought you didn't make sense at times...even with the worse criticism you took on this forum, you learned
Ed A.
For your edification as Zach continues to prove himself dumb as dirt
Below is a road test of a UK 1988 300CE.I've experienced both the M103 and M104 off the showroom floor.
The M103 coupe with the standard 3.07 rear gear is quicker then the M104.
The gearing in the transmission combined with the rear took advantage of the torque band of the M103.
Tell chucklehead that an engine that produces max power from 440RPM to 5700 RPM is far from a high RPM motor...
Claims by Roman of 8000 + RPM are as good as a You Tube video.
The valve train was never designed for high RPM...
RPM does nothing if it greatly exceeds the power peak...just slows you down.
Incredible how guys like Zorro thought you didn't make sense at times...even with the worse criticism you took on this forum, you learned
Ed A.
That report seems to be more than rigorous enough for me to trust its word.Do you have something similar for the m104 coupe? I'm trying to track down what exactly differs between the m104 powered 300ce and the m104 powered 320sl because given the 320sl's weight gain over the 300ce, it is just as quick if not faster. If you normalize for weight it'd be much faster than the 300ce.
Can the 3.69 rear diff really do that? Or is the transmission itself geared differently to accommodate the 3.69 better? I'm assuming that just straight swapping onto my current trans would leave me a bit short in each gear, correct?
Eh, I don't mind people thinking I don't make sense. I probably didn't most of the time. Enthusiasm > knowledge leads to those kinds of situations. Once I read what was given and did some fact-checking I accepted what I could and learned. I try not to take anything at face value so it takes me a bit to trust what people say. Just how I am
Last edited by Saijin_Naib; Mar 30, 2010 at 02:19 PM.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 2,494
Likes: 17
From: REHOBOTH BEACH DE
88-300CE TWIN TURBO, 99-C43, 05-G55K, 71-280SL, 94-E320 CAB, 08 CLK63 BLACK SERIES
Thanks for that scan Ed. Its hard for me to believe that the m103 gets to 60 faster being that it is about 30-40hp shy of the m104 but That report seems to be more than rigorous enough for me to trust its word.
Do you have something similar for the m104 coupe? I'm trying to track down what exactly differs between the m104 powered 300ce and the m104 powered 320sl because given the 320sl's weight gain over the 300ce, it is just as quick if not faster. If you normalize for weight it'd be much faster than the 300ce.
Can the 3.69 rear diff really do that? Or is the transmission itself geared differently to accommodate the 3.69 better? I'm assuming that just straight swapping onto my current trans would leave me a bit short in each gear, correct?
Eh, I don't mind people thinking I don't make sense. I probably didn't most of the time. Enthusiasm > knowledge leads to those kinds of situations. Once I read what was given and did some fact-checking I accepted what I could and learned. I try not to take anything at face value so it takes me a bit to trust what people say. Just how I am
That report seems to be more than rigorous enough for me to trust its word.Do you have something similar for the m104 coupe? I'm trying to track down what exactly differs between the m104 powered 300ce and the m104 powered 320sl because given the 320sl's weight gain over the 300ce, it is just as quick if not faster. If you normalize for weight it'd be much faster than the 300ce.
Can the 3.69 rear diff really do that? Or is the transmission itself geared differently to accommodate the 3.69 better? I'm assuming that just straight swapping onto my current trans would leave me a bit short in each gear, correct?
Eh, I don't mind people thinking I don't make sense. I probably didn't most of the time. Enthusiasm > knowledge leads to those kinds of situations. Once I read what was given and did some fact-checking I accepted what I could and learned. I try not to take anything at face value so it takes me a bit to trust what people say. Just how I am
Most I the tests I have are on Euro or UK cars...
The 1991 300CE-24 was tested at 0-60 / 7.9 seconds, 0-100 / 20.3 seconds and 144.1 mph top speed.
This is the early M104 with the CIS...
This is what you need to consider.
1988 300CE Euro M103 188HP @ 5700RPM / 191.6 Torque @ 4400RPM
1991 300CE-24 Euro M104 220HP @ 6300RPM / 195 Torque @ 4600RPM
Torque always equals HP @ 5250 RPM.
The M103 has more low end power hence quick acceleration.
The Euro M103 had a four speed auto where the M104 had a five speed auto.
The four speed 722.3 had a better second gear ratio 2.41 / 2.25, third the same at 1.44.
If you compare with the M103 AMG 320CE : 245HP @ 5750 / 239 Torque @ 4500.
0-60 7.3 / 0-100 18.9 / 15.4 @ 91 1/4 mile.
The same test shows the 3.0 M103 300CE
0-60 8.5 / 0-100 23.8 / 16.6 @ 86 1/4 mile.
So not much real world difference between the M103 and M104.
Both 0-60 7.5 to 8 and around 16@ 86-90 1/4 mile.
Torque is what makes a low rpm engine move the vehicle...
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 3
From: Long Beach, Ca
lots of cars
This argument sounds like the old ford 302 vs chevy 350 I used to have with the chevy guys. Fords have low end torque, while chevy has more top end hp potential. At the end of the day, reaction times are what really matter.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 2,494
Likes: 17
From: REHOBOTH BEACH DE
88-300CE TWIN TURBO, 99-C43, 05-G55K, 71-280SL, 94-E320 CAB, 08 CLK63 BLACK SERIES
I'm answering your PM to me in public..
You probably are a nice young man, very precocious and borderline annoying with your resolve.
You" have what you have" and the quest for "cheap" power has been attempted by many, with no real gains, only money spent that could have been used a bit more wisely.
I drove all of the variants when they were fresh off the showroom floor, and you know what...they were and still can be relatively quick.
Go back to my earlier post and consider spending your hard earned money on checking compression and fixing any vacuum leaks ( which I know you have ).
Basic auto shop 101...poor compression = low power, same for vacuum leaks.
If these prove out and are within spec then run some injector cleaner through the fuel system and get all the parts necessary to get the car back to factory spec.
Just the parts will run several hundred dollars..
Now you have a solid base line to play with...
You may discover that it is much faster then what you presently have...
Also if you want to go fast then stay with the 15" rims and put on a set of good ( but not necessarily expensive ) performance tires...Falken FK-452's or General UHP's....
A larger rim and tire will add to the unsprung weight and slow you down...
I believe the new Car and Driver did a test on a VW...it was .2 and 2mph faster in the 1/4 on the 15" over the 18" setup...
Difference between "show" and "go"....
Learn not to throw money away on a car...get the most bang for your buck, and with an older Merc it's getting it back to the same tune that it left the factory with...
Good luck
Ed A.
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
e400
Ok Thanks. I have Yokohama AS430 tires on it right now, which are good performance tires right?
So, lets say i get all this things fixed and run some injector cleaner though it, are there any upgrades that could give me even like 15-20 hp?
Also my car has absolutely HORRIBLE response time, what do i do about that? Like if im going 35, and i want to pick up to 50 or so. The only way to do that quickly is to floor it and make it downshift.
I just want my car to keep up with a 2007 Civic Si. They have a 0-60 time of 7.2 or so. And my car is apparently 8.4 or so.
So a race up to about 80..will my car keep up? Stock i mean
I mean i know my car would start fighting back at 100 or so. Cause mine is like 35 seconds 0-124 mph, and a civic si is 42s.
So, lets say i get all this things fixed and run some injector cleaner though it, are there any upgrades that could give me even like 15-20 hp?
Also my car has absolutely HORRIBLE response time, what do i do about that? Like if im going 35, and i want to pick up to 50 or so. The only way to do that quickly is to floor it and make it downshift.
I just want my car to keep up with a 2007 Civic Si. They have a 0-60 time of 7.2 or so. And my car is apparently 8.4 or so.
So a race up to about 80..will my car keep up? Stock i mean
I mean i know my car would start fighting back at 100 or so. Cause mine is like 35 seconds 0-124 mph, and a civic si is 42s.
Last edited by zach1328; Mar 30, 2010 at 08:06 PM.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,968
Likes: 3
1990 300ce 24v I6
Drop about 700lbs off the body of the car and you should more than keep up.
Lb/HP Ratio on this car is meh.
For facts sake:
Civic 2007 SI:
2.0 L 197 hp (147 kW; 200 PS) I4
2,886 lb
Ratio: 14.72
w124 m104:
3.0 L 217 hp
3,505 lb
Ratio: 16.15
w124 m104 Lightened (to Civic SI Weight):
3.0 L 217 hp
2,886 lb
Ratio: 13.29
w202 m104 C36 AMG:
3.6 L 276 HP
3,550 lb
Ratio: 12.86
To get the same Lb/HP ratio as the Civic SI, you need to drop to 3,178lbs. That should be doable without having to have the sheetmetal replaced by CF.
Now, if you had the C36 AMG powerplant/drivetrain and managed to rip off 700lbs or so you'd end up with this.
w124 m104 Lightened (to Civic SI Weight):
3.6 l 276 HP
2,886 lb
Ratio: 10.46
Now, THAT is the car I want to be driving
Lb/HP Ratio on this car is meh.
For facts sake:
Civic 2007 SI:
2.0 L 197 hp (147 kW; 200 PS) I4
2,886 lb
Ratio: 14.72
w124 m104:
3.0 L 217 hp
3,505 lb
Ratio: 16.15
w124 m104 Lightened (to Civic SI Weight):
3.0 L 217 hp
2,886 lb
Ratio: 13.29
w202 m104 C36 AMG:
3.6 L 276 HP
3,550 lb
Ratio: 12.86
To get the same Lb/HP ratio as the Civic SI, you need to drop to 3,178lbs. That should be doable without having to have the sheetmetal replaced by CF.
Now, if you had the C36 AMG powerplant/drivetrain and managed to rip off 700lbs or so you'd end up with this.
w124 m104 Lightened (to Civic SI Weight):
3.6 l 276 HP
2,886 lb
Ratio: 10.46
Now, THAT is the car I want to be driving
Last edited by Saijin_Naib; Mar 30, 2010 at 08:34 PM.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 9,734
Likes: 65
From: Hotlanta
AMG
Mind if I jump in? I purchased a 1991 300ce (used) in 1995, and owned it for 12 years. I loved that car. One of the best cars I've ever owned.
I would still own it today if I had no children.
I may still have a copy of the article from the early 90s magazine test on the 24-valve M104 with the CIS injection. The 0-60 was 7.7 and the top speed 147.
To the OP: The cheapest way to extract more power is to sell your 2.8L and buy a 400E.
....damn I miss my CE.....
I would still own it today if I had no children.
I may still have a copy of the article from the early 90s magazine test on the 24-valve M104 with the CIS injection. The 0-60 was 7.7 and the top speed 147.
To the OP: The cheapest way to extract more power is to sell your 2.8L and buy a 400E.
....damn I miss my CE.....
Last edited by Chappy; Mar 31, 2010 at 09:08 AM.
