Well I finally got the video off the camcorder. For the people who know the debate watch the file and see what you think. For those who do not, this video is here to prove that the higher hp C230k is actually slower than the less powerful C240. Hard to believe but the video proves this statement accurate.

Clearly this shows that the C240 is faster than the C230k in 4 out of 4 freeway pulls. The speeds range from 40-60 and the races end between 110 and 130. Each time the C240 pulls ahead or closes the initial gap right away and then leaves the C230k far behind by the end of the race.

Both cars are at WOT from start to finish.

Thanks for watching.

Click on the link, then select the file for download, then select the free service (unless you have an account with the host), then it takes a bit for the file to download.

http://rapidshare.de/files/1966248/C230k_vs.mp4.html

 

sorry,
going to bed. Maybe tomorrow.

YAWN !!!

 

not that I don't believe, but I hardly see anything, can't even see the C240 badge on the trunk.... plus you got two people in the C230.... just my 2 cents... but again thanks for the video

 

Man that sucks. I figured a C230k would take a 240. Not by alot but at least take it. Not only did it lose every race, it was blown away! Did u have a full tank of gas? Maybe you forgot to take out your family's set of bowling *****? At any rate, I know the C230k isn't a speed demon but I figured it would hold up better then shown. I'll think twice about pulling away fast for any car now......especially a c240. lol

I am gonna have to try this for myself too. Thanks for the video.

 

I haven't drive any C230 nor C240, but my E class has that 2.6 litre (albeit 5 kw more powerful than C), freeway pull is amazing, but dead start pull is cr@p

 

both valid points. it was a c240 loaner car from a local so-cal dealership. no way to prove it unless we can dig up the rental contract. the owners E320 was in the shop for 45 days and that was his loaner.

yes the C230k has 2 people but I tip the scales at a porky 146 lbs and the driver is a whopping 140 even. So yes there is more mass in the C230k but then again the spare in the C240 is larger and the car it self is heavier.

but the way in which C230 falls to the C240 shows that we are not talking about the # of passengers but instead a real performance difference.

FYI both cars had the same amount of fuel. We evened them out before doing the video.

 

I have a few questions, first off what year is the c230k and is it a 6speed or automatic? I just wanna know which of the engines it's running.

Oh and btw i can't seem to get the video to dl, goes to some page and there's nothing there to make it dl the vid, but i will take ur word on it

 

the link doesnt have anything? cant find where the videos at?

 

dude dont worry, i drive a c230, and i keep up with 325i and a c320 no problem

off the line, they are faster, but once i get to 2nd, and espicially 3rd gear, im pulling away from them... i hve a stock motor, with the eisienmann exhaust

 

Can't DL the video at work, but I'm not all that interested to begin with...wasn't Narc supposed to post it? I've been arguing the entire time 6-speed C230 vs. 240. Show me a 6-speed 230 vs. the 240 (without the blatant weight piling in the c230, I don't care how much one more person weighs, why have them in there at all?? part of the 230's advantage is its 300 lb lighter curb weight, spare tires and all...you cut that in half and added nearly 5% to the weight of the vehicle) and then I'll take a look...

Kudos for producing a video, though, legit or not. :p

 

You have to go to the bottom of the page and click 'Basic' download.

I have to say that unfortunately this video really proves nothing. I can show you a video of a guy on a motorized scooter beating a Camero in a quarter mile (I do have that somewhere, if you'd like to see it), but that doesn't say much.

I'm open to the idea that the 240 is faster than the 230 at higher speeds. Going from an I6 to an I4 I can appreciate that possibility.

What would really impress me, if anyone has the time or the money, is to dyno both cars together, so we could compare the charts. Also, a strict 0-speed limit (130, I think) test on a track in the middle of the day would be nice, as opposed to a in-the-dark on-the-freeway in-the-middle-of-the-night test.

You may, of course, flame away at this point. But I warn you; I don't care. I don't care to race my car. I don't care that my car isn't faster than a 240. What I do care about is that my car can go farther than yours. And with gas prices as they are, that really does matter. And I care to defend the numbers. Unless someone can show me how a more powerful, lighter car cannot outrun a less powerful, heavier car, by the numbers, than film away. You're just wasting your film.

 

Hey, I'm in your camp--I think it's obvious by now =)

Although the 2002 1/4 miles times are intriguing.

2001 C240
0-60: 8.7
1/4 Mile: 16.7
1/4 Speed: 85

2002 C230
0-60: 7.8 auto
1/4 Mile: 15.7
1/4 Speed: 89

These are the only numbers I could find. On another message board, no less. But supposedly stock anf official published numbers (no personal run, in other words).

That means at the 1/4 the C240 is more than 8 car-lengths back.

A race starting with moving vehicles is a little different, as the off-the-line handicap of the c240 becomes irrelevant (a "handicap" race, if you will).

60-89 for c230 (beginning at WOP from 60) = 7.9 seconds
60-85 for c240 (beginning at WOP from 60) = 8 seconds, adjust to 89 = 8.4?

The 240, although 8+ lengths behind at the 1/4 (1 second) from a dead start, has managed to close the acceleration gap beyond 60 by a half-second. IF the trend continued beyond 89, the C240 might eventually overtake the 230, although there is no evidence of this and no evidence it would happen before the governor kicks in. I'm not going to start assuming acceleration in ft/s^2 for either car, because if I calculated the constant accel to this point the 240 would never overtake as a matter of simple math.

This doesn't settle 05 vs 05, or even more to my point the shortened 6-speed 230 vs. 240, which I am now even more convinced would thoroughly demoralize the 240 from any speed to any speed, but it's enough for me stop arguing. I've effectively proven, objectively, the c230 is the 0-60, 1/4 mile, 0-89, and 60-89 champ. I'm not conceding, just acknowledging there's now a small possibility that I and several others may have been wrong for a "handicap" race beginning at 60 beyond 90 mph, despite all the dynamics and physics implications. That being said, even IF (and IF is still on the order of about a 5% chance) there is a small advantage at higher speeds, when I'm zooming into tight spots and changing lanes abruptly I'll trade that fractional second for stability and sure-handedness in a heartbeat. Not getting around too many people with the 240's school-bus suspension rolling you all over the place. :v

I hope this settles this (for the older models at least...ugh). Using simple math and unbiased performance numbers, there's not much to argue with.

Cheers.

 

Question: a C230 is 3280lbs (auto) and a C240 is 3360lbs , thats 80lbs difference stock vs stock. if you have two ppl in the car, wouldnt you still put an ext 65-75 lbs extra ? how much does the other driver weigh ?

 

del bomber,

the 2002 c230k has a different motor... which is faster than the 240.

2003 till now is up in the air


~fk

 

Yeah, I qualified it with that statement. Although with the times I've seen for the '05 C230, the same should generally apply with the chances of the 240 pulling this off increasing.

I have seen published 7.6 auto 0-60 and 16.0 for the quarter at ~ 88 mph. Didn't use these because I can't document. Like I just said, it's makes things a bit more interesting, assuming C240 times have not changed.

 

I think he wanted to equalize as much as possible since the 240 is heavier that added bit of flyweight in the 230 shouldn't matter. Afterall you did state it yourself. Auto vs auto and almost equal weight seems the way to do it. But yet you are arguing apples to oranges; 6-spd vs auto, lighter weight, etc.

 

Ok, Popular Mechanics for 2005 c230:
2001 C240
0-60: 8.7
1/4 Mile: 16.7
1/4 Speed: 85

2002 C230
0-60: 7.8 auto
1/4 Mile: 15.7
1/4 Speed: 89

2005 C230
0-60: 8 seconds
1/4: 15.9
1/4 speed 87.5

60-87.5 C230 = 7.9
60-85 C240 = 8.0 ~ 8.2 to 87.5

C240 is .8 seconds back at 1/4, or 103 ft which is equivalent to 7 car lengths

From 60-87.5, the C230 is accelerating at an avg rate of 5.1 ft/s^2
From 60-87.5, the C240 is accelerating at an avg rate of 4.9 ft/s^2

From 60-87.5 the 240 is accelerating slower than the 230, however it has closed the acceleration gap to within .2 ft/s^2 versus 1 ft/s^2 from 0-60. Thus, the C230 is starting to pull away slower.

So if, say at somewhere between 100-110 mph it actually begins accelerating faster than the 230, can it do it at a rate to overtake the distance behind the C230 by the time the governor kicks in, which has been pulling away since the beginning of the race?

0-130 this is still no contest. Same for 60-90, 60-100. C230 is king. There's just too much distance to make up. The numbers bear this out. But in a handicap race starting at 60, like I said before, there is a slight chance the 240 could prevail, as the 230 would pull ahead now only .5 lengths by the time it reached 87.5. By the time they reach 100, it's likely about 1-1.5 lengths. Beyond that, all pure speculation...

So now we have 2005 versus same engine in 2005 c240. I'm acknowledging the possibility, albeit a slim one. Simple math + independent performance numbers = guilty for the C240, with a slight to decent chance for parole.

 

Equalize? Cars are pitted against eachother based on their power-to-weight ratio, If you start loading up the lighter car with more weight, it completely defeats the purpose!

 

But based on published figures that added little bit of weight in the 230 is still less than a 240. Plus the 230 has the hp advantage. So, all in all your statement about power to weight still favors the 230 in this case.

 

Right, but why put the C230 as a greater disadvantage to its stock weight than the C240? Why add a load of nearly 10% (two passengers) to the 230 and only a load of 5% to the 240? It's not fair, and completely invalidates the results.

 

heh good math, I was too lazy to calculate, heh

 

this video IS prett lame, i have to agree it proves NOTHING, first of all, it sounds like the car thats videotaping have 2 or more passanger, and we all know DEAD WEIGHT slows down the car,
and sounds like the car inside is an automatic, what iff the other car is a manuel, note that auto tranny takes out more hp out from the crank,
and you cannot tell if the other car is stock or chipped.
or maybe, MAYBE it was a hot night, and the c230 has been driving all night long already, hot weather reduces the performance of any forced induction engine.

 

I won't even bother to watch the video. It's a complete waste of time. As stated earlier, you can make any car faster than another car in one of these vids. TOO MANY VARIABLES! Show me a video of 0-XXXmph between equally equipped non-modified cars driven by their owners (trusted members of this forum?) on a clear daylight track, with no passengers, or else show me NOTHING!
We can all move on now, nothing significant to see here

 

Here is another guidline you can follow...

As a rough estimate, they say for every 100 lbs added to a car it needs 22 hp to maintain the same rate of acceleration. With a 140lb person in the car that would mean you need about 30 more hp to maintain the same acceleration. That puts you at an equivelant of 159 hp with only a driver. Add in other variables such as how long the C230 was running and whether the intercooler is heatsoaked, and what else was in the car, it is possible that the C240 can be faster, because it does have more displacement and you cut the C230s power by 16% just by having the other person in the car

 

IMHO, racing is 60% driver and 40% car when they are similarly equipped. I don't beleive that the video's would really prove anything. I raced a newer C240 in my 1995 C 280 w/80K on it at the time and smoked his ***, but it's very possible he didn't know how to drive his car.