2.3 Compressor Power
I'm beginning to wonder why my coupe , with the same engine, doesn't perform as well . Does power come with age or beauty ?
Don't know, but another possibility is that the gearing in the slushbox was better for the '00, so that MB geared the '02 more for gas mileage? Just a thought.
Last edited by avlis; Oct 3, 2002 at 09:40 AM.
For the most part DBW systems are slower to respond to pedal travel.
Trending Topics
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Have you ever driven a chevy or a ford. Have you ever noticed that if you are cruising and depress the pedal 1/4 or 1/3 of the way it wont donwshift but the car will kinda "lung" or "jump" forward. The Benz wont do much of that UNLESS you are in a low gear at a high RPM. The Benz will just speed up it won't "jump", like a Camaro or a Mustang would. I belive on the W203 series cars they still had a throttle cable.
http://www.edmunds.com/news/innovati...3/article.html
That will explain more than I can.
So when you buy a new coupe and it feels great, how do you know if your coupe is performing on average ( to other 2002 2.3 coupes) or if your coupe perhaps needs to be "tuned-up" ? I guess as long as a new car is running OK, you just accept it's performance as is.....or do you ?
It's only got 185 HP, not 192. Hmmm...
Wish I had said that in the first response to this post...
I want my props!
It's got to be the transmission gearing or the rear end gearing. I'd bet the 2000 has lower (numericaly higher) rear end gears.
2000 C230K 3.27:1
2002 C230K 3.27:1
Gearbox ratios
2000 C230K 3.93/2.41/1.49/1.00/0.83:1
2002 C230K 3.95/2.42/1.49/1.00/0.83:1
- BT
Must be that the older motor is more broken in - as the power to weight difference should favor the 2002 slightly.
2000 3250lbs+175lb driver/185hp = 18.51 lb/hp
2002 3340lbs+175lb driver/192hp = 18.30 lb/hp
Cheers, BT



