Again, my C230 is in the shop for a few days, and I have a 2000 C230K loaner. The loaner ( with 25,000 miles ) has power to spare compared to my 2002 coupe...the loaner's acceleration and torque is amazing .
I'm beginning to wonder why my coupe , with the same engine, doesn't perform as well . Does power come with age or beauty ?

 

I've always heard that MB engines take longer than most to fully break-in and live up to their potential.

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.

 

They gave me a 2000 230K loaner a while back. It had 80k and didn't feel any more powerful then my coupe with a stick. It rode and drove like it was new though (happily surprised). I test drove an auto coupe before I bought my car and I hated it. Way too unresponsive. I too think the 2000 230k felt better than the auto coupe.

 

comparison is auto 2000 C230K sedan with auto 2002 C230K coupe

 

as far as respnsiveness, didn't the 2002 C230 have athrottle cable, and the new coupe have a DBW system?

 

what's a dbw .. electronic ?

 

sorry, DBW is drive by wire. On the coupe when you hit the gas there is no throttle cable there like in older cars. The gas pedal sends a signal to the ECU which inturn, gives the car fuel. On older cars you hit the gas, and that opens the throttle body.

For the most part DBW systems are slower to respond to pedal travel.

 

thanks, that explains it. When I step on the gas pedal in my coupe, I guess I'm really just sending a signal to the computer, and the computer decides how fast the car goes based on some conditions.

 

you got it.
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.

 

The 2000 C230K had an electronic drive by wire throttle, so I dont think thats the difference.

 

2000 C230 auto - 3250 lbs
2002 C230 auto - 3340 lbs

The 2000 should feel a bit more lively. Its 90 lbs lighter.

 

It's only got 185 HP, not 192. Hmmm...

 

So reviewing your posts, it seems like the acceleration and feel should be nearly the same for the 2000 C230K sedan and the "new" 2002 C230K coupe.
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 got to be the transmission gearing or the rear end gearing. I'd bet the 2000 has lower (numericaly higher) rear end gears.

 

yeah Avlis I think your right.

 

Wish I had said that in the first response to this post...

I want my props!

 

Your right Tommy!

 

Rear-end ratios
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

 

Oh :o :o

 

So, TRENCH, what does it all mean ( the ratios ) ? Which car will accelerate quicker in what gear ?

 

They're essentially the same, so gearing isn't the answer.

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

 

Thank you, TRENCH, and thanks for getting us back on topic.