190E

I've been looking everywhere for the 0-60 time for the C320 Sports Sedan in MANUAL TRANSMISSION. Anyone here know what the time is for the stick version?

Fresh

I've been interested in this for a while too but the only answers I received said mercedes manuals aren't very good or the performance gains are small if any over automatic.

Matt230K

It's kinda hard to know this because MBUSA.com does not have a time listed, and there are no magazines that have tested it yet. It might be in the brochures at the dealer. If you can find a time for the non-sport C320, it will probably be the same. And if you can only find automatic times, then subtract a few tenths and that should be the time for the manual. Does the exact time really matter? It depends more on how it drives, it's not a drag car.

190E

i need to know so i can see if it can compete with the BMW 325. my friend just ordered the BMW, i might order the C320 SS soon

Outland

Not exactly the best way to choose a car.

The C230K Sedan is more than a match for the 325...the C320 SS should be overkill.

J P

I'm not so sure about that. Consider that the 325i w/ just 184 hp is as fast (1/4 mile times) as the Jaguar X-Type 3.0 (227 hp, down from 231), Lexus IS300 (215 hp), & Audi A4 3.0 (220 hp).

There are a number of factors: weight, drivetrain efficiency, powerband, & gear ratios.

Dynos on E46Fanatics show the 3-Series engines are underrated (ex. the 330 w/ 200 rwhp = 235 hp @ the crank). Also, BMW's Dual Vanos variable valve timing is excellent, spreading the power throughout (more important than just "peak" numbers).

FrankW

the previous C320 sport was 6.9 sec 0-60 mph (R & D test result)

the new C320 sport will probably do it in 6.5 or less. That's my guess

Outland

I drove the 325 and the 330, the 325 didn't feel(yeah, I know, butt dyno) as fast as the C230 or the C320. Bottom end felt rather absent. The motor does make some nice music when you wind it out with the windows down...its not as nice as say the Boxster's dreamy intake sounds, but still pretty nice sounding.

Quote:

Dynos on E46Fanatics show the 3-Series engines are underrated (ex. the 330 w/ 200 rwhp = 235 hp @ the crank). Also, BMW's Dual Vanos variable valve timing is excellent, spreading the power throughout (more important than just "peak" numbers).

What's the normal driveline sappage on a 3 series? I wouldn't consider 235 out of line for an engine rated at 225...tolerance stackups and differences in internal friction between different units of the same motor can yield dramatic differences in HP. Ive watched motors on the dynos vary as much as 15% despite having identical components and being ran back to back. A well broken in motor tends to gain a few extra HP as well.

Got a link to 325 dyno?

Scylas

325 is a little slower than my c230k (well atleast my friends).. so c320 > 325

BrabusCClass

Hmm. I beg to differ. I raced auto C240's with my 6spd and I can pull on them very hard. Also, on the dyno I made 20+ more wheel hp. Its a lot faster with a 6speed. BTW, this was when my car was stock.

Fresh

That's really good to hear considering the manual tranny is one of the major points i'm considering before getting a c class.
BrabusCClass, how fast would you say your car goes to 60 mph after you mods?

J P

Feel is very subjective, my dad's Infiniti I30 feels very fast but is actually slower than cars that feel less fast. BTW, Motorweek recorded a 15 seconds flat 1/4 mile on a manual 323 (which actually uses a 2.5L) but I quoted the 15.4 s from Car & Driver instead.

http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt1907a.shtml

I believe most manual cars lose 17%, the 3-Series engines mostly lose 11-13%. 200 rwhp @ 15% is 235 hp, @ 17% it's 241 hp. Not all 330 engines dyno @ 200 rwhp (some less) but most do.

BTW, a 10% variance at the crank (not @ the wheels) is allowed by law, anything above that (i.e. 15%) is considered manufacturer deception.

Here is a 325 dyno w/ exhaust, & intake. It was done by a E46Fanatics forum member (not tuners) on a 01 manual 325i .



183 hp @ 15% is 215 hp, @ 17% is 220 hp
191 ft-lbs @ 15% is 225 ft-lbs, @ 17% is 230 ft-lbs

Factory rating is 184 hp, 175 ft-lbs. Unless you think an exhaust, & intake added 31-36 hp, & 50-55 ft-lbs, the engine is underrated.

patronus

Remember that because of the gearing that MB has chosen for their 6-speed, it requires 3rd gear to get to 60mph. Most manufacturers do not require this second shift between 0 and 60. So, the 6-speed MB's may actually feel quicker than their 0-60 times may indicate. This may also explain why a 6-speed feels much faster than the same engine with a slushbox, but is only about a 1/2 second different in 0-60.

I have found that a 0-30 or 0-40 time is more indicitave of what you use in day to day driving and will be a better comparison with this 6-speed and other manufacturer's offerings.

Outland

If its not a stock car, don't even bother to post it. Yeah, intake and exhaust can add significant top end HP. My Saturn SC gained 21HP just from a cool air intake, exhaust and overbored throttle body.

I'd still wager that the C230 and C320 would take the 325.

Yeah, the 2nd gear ratio is too short in the MB manuals...on that I agree. You burn second so quick its not funny. I think this is the most annoying thing about the C class manual. First could be another 3-5mph faster, and 2nd could stretch another 4 to 6mph. That would put you to 60 with one shift- no wasting time on an uneeded shift. I'm sure MB tried to save some bucks by just using the existing C240 transmission with a higher final drive, leaving the internal ratios as they were set up for the lower power C240.

FrankW

stock 325 is slower than C320, A4 3.0, 330i, X-type 3.0, and the IS300.

don't even bother saying that 325 can be just as quick to 1/4 mark if it's modded.

Mike T.

2002 EU brochure lists BMW 325i at 7.2 s from 0-100 km/h (man.)
2002 EU brochure lists M-B C320 at 7.8 s from 0-100 km/h (auto)

If they're still putting the cheater (shorter) rear axle gear in the US version on the M-B (presumably to assauge its targeted owners' p*nis envy at the stoplights), it should be able to be a good match for the 325i in acceleration. The M-B 320 manual should be a tad quicker still and might cleanly win a drag race with a 325i manual.

There can be no question that the BMW has the better engine; smoother, more free-revving, FAR better fuel economy. But the rest of the BMW leaves me cold, especially the downright homely styling.

FrankW

7.8 0-62 mph can't be right.Even the 2002 CLK320, which is heavier, listed 6.9 0-60 time...road and track's 0-60 time for the C320 sport was 6.9 for the manu-matic transmission. I'm sure that the 03 320 sports manual will be quicker than that.

Mike T.

Or if this is not legible enough, go the the M-B International website and verify 0-100 in 7.8 s in the Automatic C320 for yourself.

trench

I've heard that when Mercedes does these acceleration tests they load the car down with some cargo and heavy fuel loads. If BMW does their "official" test with a much lighter load it could account for some of the difference.

- BT

FrankW

that's the 0-100 km/h time. If I can find my 2002 brochure, it'll probably say 7.2 sec 0-60. Either way, I was talking about auto against auto. The 325 IS slower.

Mike T.

All manufacturers in Europe publishing vehicle weights (presumably including "as tested" weights) are supposed to factor that into the published data.

That is what the third disclaimer at the bottom of the M-B spec page posted above says, with reference to vehicle weight only - it does not explicitly state that these were the weights applied at the time of road testing.
- tank 90% full
- 68 kg driver (150 lb)
- 7 kg luggage (16 lb)

So we are not 100% sure that either Mercedes-Benz or BMW test their cars as per the above guideline. It's hard to imagine that their Oktoberfest-fed test drivers would weigh less than 75 kg, and a fuel tank with 10 L of fuel in it as opposed to 63 L is only going to make a difference of about 40 kg.

Interestingly, if you look at the "as tested weights" of cars in the 1960s - at least in the British magazines, who were rather more thorough than the US ones - they tended to be 150 kg heavier than their curb weight as tested, sometimes more. Look at a modern Road & Track - their test drivers seem to all be in the flyweight class (under 50 kg). That is ridiculous!

For the record, here are the BMW 3er performance figures. Those in parentheses are for the automatic versions.

Mike T.

From M-B International site, figures for 6 speed manual C 320:

Officially it is exactly 0.1 seconds faster from 0-100 km/h than the automatic version.

Numbers of cylinders/arrangement V6

Total displacement (cc) 3,199

Rated output (kW at rpm) 160/5,700

Rated torque (Nm at rpm) 310/3,000-4,600

Compression ratio 10.0

Alternator (V/A) 14/190

Acceleration from 0 to 100 km/h (s) 7.7

Top speed, approx. (km/h) 245

Tyre size 205/55 R 16

Fuel consumption (l/100 km):

city/extra-urban/combined 16.9/7.8/10.9

CO2 emissions (g/km) 263

Fuel tank capacity (l), inc. reserve approx. 62/8

Turning circle (m) 10.76

Kerb weight/perm. gross vehicle weight (kg)
1,535

FrankW

only .1 sec difference.

all I can say is MB's own 0-60 mph or 0-100 km/h are under rated. It doesn't do justice to what the cars can actually do. BMW does a better job at doing these type of test. They are more accurate to what the mags can do to their car.

J P

So you think an intake & exhaust added 31-36 hp, 50-55 ft-lbs? Seriously, lets be real. There is no way on any car, much less a naturally aspirited.

I DON'T think the 325i can beat a C320, but I think it can beat a C230.

I never said the C320, & especially not the 330i (I'm not retarded). I said "I'm not so sure about that" referring to Outland on the C230, I did not mean the C320.

Audi A4 3.0 quattro
C&D Feb-02, 15.5 s
C&D Oct-01, 15.4 s

BMW 325i
C&D Jan-01, 15.4 s

Jaguar X-Type 3.0
C&D Feb-02, 15.5 s

Lexus IS300
C&D Feb-02, 15.4 s

All cars tested by Car & Driver using manual.

I never said it's just as fast modded (the 325/330 are NOT mod friendly). It's about as fast in STOCK form.

Again, keep in mind that it's not only about hp, & torque but also: weight, drivetrain efficiency (getting the power to the wheels), powerband (power spread throughout as opposed to "peak" power), & gearing.

Outland

The copy of MT I have here in front of me lists a C320 at 15.0 flat, and the C230(M111 powered) at 15.3....both faster. And the C320 was an automatic. MT also lists the Xtype at 15.9, and the IS at 15.5.