ahwang

After driving 400km, I found out some performance difference between the 2.3L and 1.8L. Obviously, 2.3L has better power and torque in the first 2500rpm. The acceleration in 2.3L is pretty even from 1000rpm to 6000rpm. The 1.8L has slower pickup in the first 2500rpm (actually quite weak, compared with, like Corolla 1.8L), but after 2500rpm the engine is smooth, quiet and powerful. The higher rpm the engine runs, the more and more power the engine delivers. Unlike the 2.3L, the 1.8L has some characteristics of turbo-charged engine. If compared with Audi 1.8T, our 1.8L Kompressor outperforms the Audi's in the performance, smoothness and quietness.

By the way, anyone has Audio 10 english manual? If someone has, please send a copy to my email: andrewhwang@telus.net
Thanks!

latent

I Disagree, My previous car was a Audi A3 1.8T. Whilst I think the MB has pretty good acceleration, The Audi is both smoother and quieter than my MB 1.8. What I can't get use to is engine noise at idle. I expected this to be even better than the Audi - but no way. Also, when accelerating, the engine seems to rev too high and noisy for my liking.

There are many things I love about my MB 03 coupe, but I wish it was a smooth as my old Audi!!!

hokusbenz

again, i am glad i got my '02 2.3 liter. the 1.8 cant touch it. if i wanted a japanese- like high revving engine i would have bought a japanese car.

Apollo

I wonder how these engines will stand the test of time. Mercs have always had a reputation for engines that last forever.

tberry

I agree about engine idle smoothness....Audi 1.8t is better compared to my 2.3 at least anyway. To be honest the MB 2.3 sounds like crap at cold start up then a bit better when warmed up and sounds great when its moving. Whats the deal? both audi and MB have DOHC (20v vs 16v I believe) and both have variable valve timing correct?

session

i thought the MB was SOHC?

edit: nope... the 1.8L is DOHC and i assume the 2.3L is the same. my mistake.

tberry

I think MB uses SOHC for v6 and v8+ engines (could be wrong about the v6). SOHC are more reliable but DOHC has more power (yes very vague and general statement). If u look at some MB v8 they're like SOHC 2 valve per cyclinder...........sound like old technology but I think thats why they last 4evr. I got the 2.3L instead of 1.8L b/c its been around for like 7yrs i think. Also the supercharger on 2.3 is made by Eaton and 1.8L is made by MB.

Lynn

The current V engines are all SOHC with three valves per cylinder. MB is showing the 2.3 as a DOHC with four valves per cylinder, although I thought it was three per cylinder. The 1.8 is a DOHC 16 valve.

yodlebenz

i'm reading this from my window sticker which i happened to have in my desk drawer...

2002 C230K

---------------------

2.3L DOHC Supercharged/Intercooled 16V-I4
Sequential Multipoint Fuel Injection

192 HP @ 5500 RPM
200 lb/ft tourque at 2500-4800 RPM

----------------------

Lynn

I don't know why I thought the 2.3 was a three valve engine. Four is better.

viper

Four is only better if the valve train uses it effectively. Some four valve engines are junk.

Lynn

I was assuming that DCX might employ a couple of people who know what a flow bench is and how to use it.

vadim

Does your sticker actually say "lb/ft"?

tberry

Doesnt it say in the manual something like 208ft/lb of torque?

yodlebenz

Just double checked...

verbatim:

200 lb-ft of Tourque @ 2500-4800 RPM


edit:

should it say something else??
i just glanced at a few Road & Track and Car & Driver issues i have here. In the reviews, torque is always expressed as:

lb/ft @ xxx RPM

GTIDAN

I know it may sound strange........but I've come to like that tractor sound at idle. It's unique to the car.
That odd noise at startup is just the cat warming up. In the morning I wait until that noise goes away before driving off...about 30 seconds or so.

Outland

And 5 is better still...assuming youve got the air to flow. Quite frankly, the way the 2.3L in the MB performs/behaves, it feels like a large displacement pushrod motor....gobs of low end torque, but feels like its not breathing well enough at high RPM....just what you'd expect on say, a big two valve pushrod v6.

With numerous DOHC motors, the reverse is true...no or little low end grunt(granted, some of this is due to lack of displacement and a short stroke...) but surprising HP on the top third of the tach...most Hondas fall into this category. On many DOHC motors the lack of low end torque is enhanced by TOO MUCH breathing at low RPMs...this reduces air velocity and scavenging. IIRC, the MB 2.3 has variable valve timing...is it on the intake or exhaust side? I don't think it has both...its an older design.

GTIDAN

The 2.3 has varible timing on the intake side only while the 1.8 engine has it on both intake and exhaust.

You can see the electronic connection on your 2.3 when you open the hood. You'll notice that it's on the intake side.

Mike T.

Mine says 280 Nm, or 207 lbs-ft.

200 is what the 2002 sales literature says, but it's not a correct conversion of the 280 Nm figure into imperial measurement. For example, the new 1.8 L engine is rated at 192 lbs-ft (260 Nm), which is a conversion factor of 0.7384615. Applying that conversion factor to 280 Nm results in 207 lbs-ft.

Conclusion: the 2.3 L engine does have 207 lbs-ft of torque, just as the manual says. The old brochures are wrong.

Maybe by publishing a lower torque number in the sales material, they were trying to create more of a marketing "comfort zone" around the C 320 and its not-much-better 221 lbs-ft...

Outland

Ive come to love most aspects of the C230, its truly a unique and endearing little car , but I despise the cold start up noise, and would really enjoy a little less of that sound just off idle.. I do agree about the sound it makes at higher RPM, I love the turbine sound of the supercharger!