Comparison of 2.3 to 1.8 Engine
02-07-2003, 12:54 AM
#26
Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C240 - 6 speed
I have been watching this thread with interest as I have a 2.3L I4 cylinder engine in my race car. For comparison purposes, the engine design is about 20 years old now. And the car itself is 14 years old (my car that is). Revs to 7800 rpm all day, makes approx 160 ft*lbs of torque and around 190 hp (in stock form). My car is
putting close to that to the rear wheels.
This is ancient Bosch Motronic with no knock sensors and if I remember correctly 11:1 compression ratio. And the S14 motor in the M3 lasts over 100K miles even in race cars.
Just food for thought especially when you pull next to that awesome looking 15 year old M3 on the street. Oh it weighs around 2800 lbs too.
putting close to that to the rear wheels.
This is ancient Bosch Motronic with no knock sensors and if I remember correctly 11:1 compression ratio. And the S14 motor in the M3 lasts over 100K miles even in race cars.
Just food for thought especially when you pull next to that awesome looking 15 year old M3 on the street. Oh it weighs around 2800 lbs too.
02-09-2003, 11:52 AM
#28
Originally posted by Lynn
Buellwinkle is correct. The SLK is not only in its last year in its current form, but it is a low volume car. It doesn't make sense to spend the money to convert it to the 1.8.
MBSPY has the 2004 SLK being equipped with five engines, at least in Europe. In North America, it might be three. There are two M271 four cynliders, SLK180 Kompressor (163 hp) and SLK 230 Kompressor (200 hp) There should be three V-6's based on the M272. They are supercharged 2.2 (211 hp)and 2.7 liter (258 hp) engines, and a 3.0 liter 375 hp AMG engine. Other rumors have the V-6's as the current 320 and SLK32. With the advent of the 350 in other classes, this seems to be untrue.
Buellwinkle is correct. The SLK is not only in its last year in its current form, but it is a low volume car. It doesn't make sense to spend the money to convert it to the 1.8.
MBSPY has the 2004 SLK being equipped with five engines, at least in Europe. In North America, it might be three. There are two M271 four cynliders, SLK180 Kompressor (163 hp) and SLK 230 Kompressor (200 hp) There should be three V-6's based on the M272. They are supercharged 2.2 (211 hp)and 2.7 liter (258 hp) engines, and a 3.0 liter 375 hp AMG engine. Other rumors have the V-6's as the current 320 and SLK32. With the advent of the 350 in other classes, this seems to be untrue.
02-09-2003, 08:15 PM
#29
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: York, PA
Posts: 2,753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2003 C230K Sport Coupe, 1986 190E 2.3
I have a 2000 C230K Sedan loaner this weekend and I can say that the 1.8 is quieter and smoother than the 2.3. There is more pronounced low end torque on the 2.3 but the 1.8 revs faster and I never have a problem shifting and keeping the RPM's above 3000 to enjoy the 1.8's power band. All in all my wife and I like the sound and power of the 1.8. That and you can tell the amount of additional technology to end up in the new C class compared to one 3 years old.
02-09-2003, 09:25 PM
#30
Originally posted by mctwin2kman
I have a 2000 C230K Sedan loaner this weekend and I can say that the 1.8 is quieter and smoother than the 2.3. There is more pronounced low end torque on the 2.3 but the 1.8 revs faster and I never have a problem shifting and keeping the RPM's above 3000 to enjoy the 1.8's power band. All in all my wife and I like the sound and power of the 1.8. That and you can tell the amount of additional technology to end up in the new C class compared to one 3 years old.
I have a 2000 C230K Sedan loaner this weekend and I can say that the 1.8 is quieter and smoother than the 2.3. There is more pronounced low end torque on the 2.3 but the 1.8 revs faster and I never have a problem shifting and keeping the RPM's above 3000 to enjoy the 1.8's power band. All in all my wife and I like the sound and power of the 1.8. That and you can tell the amount of additional technology to end up in the new C class compared to one 3 years old.
Hmmm, that's 2500 posts for me.
02-10-2003, 12:27 PM
#31
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: York, PA
Posts: 2,753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2003 C230K Sport Coupe, 1986 190E 2.3
Steering wheel buttons that the dealer wanted to replace. They cracked 4 days after I got the car. They had to verify that my rear sway bar bushing was not bad too that my memory seats were funstioning properly. The rear end noise was found to be the residual traction control and ESP when ESP is off and driving aggressively, sliding around corners. The seat were found to perform normally, they stop short of the key dependent settings for my short self and wife, it is a saftey feature to not crush a tall person using a short persons key. The airbag and button were replaced for the button problem. That could get expensive for MB if they have to replace the airbag all the time, my work order stated the airbag was replaced, either that or since they remove it to fix it they mark that down. All in all the loaner was nice but loud and less comfortable than our baby, plus had less features than ours.
