Kleemann C32K Performance
Thread Starter
Newbie
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
From: Huntington Beach, CA
Kleemann C32K Performance
Does anyone here have the Kompressor engine from Kleeman on their W203?? I am thinking about putting one on my 320, but want to make sure the performance I get is ALMOST equal to that of a C32. Any specs on 1/4 mile or 0-60 times?
Regards,
Alan
Regards,
Alan
Super Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles
Re: Kleemann C32K Performance
Originally posted by alee337
make sure the performance I get is ALMOST equal to that of a C32. Any specs on 1/4 mile or 0-60 times?
make sure the performance I get is ALMOST equal to that of a C32. Any specs on 1/4 mile or 0-60 times?
Former Vendor of MBWorld
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 807
Likes: 0
From: Colorado
Re: Kleemann C32K Performance
Originally posted by alee337
Does anyone here have the Kompressor engine from Kleeman on their W203?? I am thinking about putting one on my 320, but want to make sure the performance I get is ALMOST equal to that of a C32. Any specs on 1/4 mile or 0-60 times?
Regards,
Alan
Does anyone here have the Kompressor engine from Kleeman on their W203?? I am thinking about putting one on my 320, but want to make sure the performance I get is ALMOST equal to that of a C32. Any specs on 1/4 mile or 0-60 times?
Regards,
Alan
2002 C32 K- 330HP 325 lbs/ft.
0-60- 6.0 seconds
0-100- 15.4 seconds
0-130- 27.8 seconds
Street start 5-60- 6.4 seconds
Standing 1/4 mile- 14.5@97 mph
Top Speed- 134
Braking 70-0- 167 Feet (stock brakes)
Roadholding (300 ft. dia. skidpad)- .80 g (Kleemann Suspension)
Now you can compare to the C32 on the Mercedes Website.
Thread Starter
Newbie
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
From: Huntington Beach, CA
Thanks for the info guys. =)
Hmmm....my stock C320 (auto) is SUPPOSEDLY running a 6.9 from 0-60 (as stated on MBusa.com).
I can't justify spending almost 5 figures on a supercharger to get 330bhp and run 6.0 flat. Just seems a little odd to me that the power increase here (215hp vs. 330hp) does not create a more dramatic change in speed performance.
Oh well...guess I'll have to wait till my W211AMG arrives and waste money on that instead.
Alan
Hmmm....my stock C320 (auto) is SUPPOSEDLY running a 6.9 from 0-60 (as stated on MBusa.com).
I can't justify spending almost 5 figures on a supercharger to get 330bhp and run 6.0 flat. Just seems a little odd to me that the power increase here (215hp vs. 330hp) does not create a more dramatic change in speed performance.
Oh well...guess I'll have to wait till my W211AMG arrives and waste money on that instead.
Alan
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,596
Likes: 0
From: NY/NJ
Re: Re: Kleemann C32K Performance
Originally posted by CoryU
Straight from Car and Driver Magazine:
2002 C32 K- 330HP 325 lbs/ft.
0-60- 6.0 seconds
0-100- 15.4 seconds
0-130- 27.8 seconds
Street start 5-60- 6.4 seconds
Standing 1/4 mile- 14.5@97 mph
Top Speed- 134
Braking 70-0- 167 Feet (stock brakes)
Roadholding (300 ft. dia. skidpad)- .80 g (Kleemann Suspension)
Now you can compare to the C32 on the Mercedes Website.
Straight from Car and Driver Magazine:
2002 C32 K- 330HP 325 lbs/ft.
0-60- 6.0 seconds
0-100- 15.4 seconds
0-130- 27.8 seconds
Street start 5-60- 6.4 seconds
Standing 1/4 mile- 14.5@97 mph
Top Speed- 134
Braking 70-0- 167 Feet (stock brakes)
Roadholding (300 ft. dia. skidpad)- .80 g (Kleemann Suspension)
Now you can compare to the C32 on the Mercedes Website.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,596
Likes: 0
From: NY/NJ
Originally posted by alee337
Thanks for the info guys. =)
Hmmm....my stock C320 (auto) is SUPPOSEDLY running a 6.9 from 0-60 (as stated on MBusa.com).
I can't justify spending almost 5 figures on a supercharger to get 330bhp and run 6.0 flat. Just seems a little odd to me that the power increase here (215hp vs. 330hp) does not create a more dramatic change in speed performance.
Oh well...guess I'll have to wait till my W211AMG arrives and waste money on that instead.
Alan
Thanks for the info guys. =)
Hmmm....my stock C320 (auto) is SUPPOSEDLY running a 6.9 from 0-60 (as stated on MBusa.com).
I can't justify spending almost 5 figures on a supercharger to get 330bhp and run 6.0 flat. Just seems a little odd to me that the power increase here (215hp vs. 330hp) does not create a more dramatic change in speed performance.
Oh well...guess I'll have to wait till my W211AMG arrives and waste money on that instead.
Alan
Might as well save the $10k and get a C32 //AMG or like you said... save up for the W211 E55 //AMG.
Trending Topics
Super Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
From: From Oxnard; living in Ocean View Hills, San Diego, CA
'01 C320 SS
Re: Re: Re: Kleemann C32K Performance
Originally posted by Silver_Lana
Wow.... those numbers seem really off for a 115 HP bump in power. I was expecting much more. :sad:
Wow.... those numbers seem really off for a 115 HP bump in power. I was expecting much more. :sad:
if you've experienced various vehicles with different h.p.; adding 100h.p. to your setup WILL knock off about 1 sec. of YOUR 0-60 times...if you can hook up without assistance from ESP....
1985 Toy Supra [Thorley headers, HKS P-flow, Exh] 210hp
1988 Toy Supra [HKS Stage 3 [circa 1990] 325hp@22psi
1994 Honda Civic EX Turbo [Rytek/DPR] 280hp
1999 Honda Civic EX [Stocker]
Last edited by CHATMANR; Mar 11, 2003 at 08:48 PM.
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
8 Oddball Mercedes Ideas That Actually Made it to Production
Verdad Gallardo
Dubai Tuner Gives the Mercedes G-Class An Entirely New Look
Verdad Gallardo
Six Gift Ideas Your AMG Loving Dad or Grad Will Cherish
7 Craziest Things AMG Gas Ever Built
Verdad Gallardo
New Electric Mercedes-AMG GT 4-Door Coupe Unveiled: 10 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
6 Mercedes Models That Did NOT Age Well (But Are Somehow Still Cool)
Verdad Gallardo
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Super Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 581
Likes: 4
From: Dallas
C32 AMG
I've noticed that, in several magazines - they would compare "stock" to "modified", and the 0-60 times would not drop as much as I would have thought, given the horsepower increase.
I guess there must be more to it than just power?
I guess there must be more to it than just power?
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,596
Likes: 0
From: NY/NJ
Originally posted by jswedberg
I've noticed that, in several magazines - they would compare "stock" to "modified", and the 0-60 times would not drop as much as I would have thought, given the horsepower increase.
I guess there must be more to it than just power?
I've noticed that, in several magazines - they would compare "stock" to "modified", and the 0-60 times would not drop as much as I would have thought, given the horsepower increase.
I guess there must be more to it than just power?
Former Vendor of MBWorld
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 930
Likes: 0
Originally posted by jswedberg
I've noticed that, in several magazines - they would compare "stock" to "modified", and the 0-60 times would not drop as much as I would have thought, given the horsepower increase.
I guess there must be more to it than just power?
I've noticed that, in several magazines - they would compare "stock" to "modified", and the 0-60 times would not drop as much as I would have thought, given the horsepower increase.
I guess there must be more to it than just power?
Which brings me to my second point- the C32K VS C32AMG scenario. The KLEEMANN makes 20 less HP and almost 50 lb/ft less power than the AMG. That alone would make things pretty even- but there is more going on. AMG utilizes a much faster shifting program in the EGS controller than a standard C class. Upshifts happen 33% faster at a higher RPM than a standard C class, more torque through the entire rev range and -BOOM- you can drop a second in 0-60 easily.
Our system is close but not the same- it represents the opportunity for people who have chassis that there is no AMG option for to have a better performing car (E320-4matic, ML320 , G320, CLK320, etc). Remember that our V6 system was available almost two years before AMG was available to anyone. Odd too, that AMG's system is so close to our own.
I will be the first to admit that if you had to choose between a C320 with our SC and a C32AMG, the C32AMG is the obvious choice.
Super Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 988
Likes: 0
From: Encino
2002 C230K
There is a non-linear relationship of power to acceleration if all other things are equal.
Almost a Member!
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
I brought up a topic just like this about a month ago and got similar responses, saying take c32 over kleeman c32k. I thought it was unusual that the c32 was a whole second faster with such similar power ratings but i guess a difference of 50 in torque is white a lot. Also amg did other modifications besides the supercharger such as including certain lightweight parts and the transmission is much better.
Super Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 581
Likes: 4
From: Dallas
C32 AMG
The point I was trying to make was that often, in car magazines, a "modified" car (say for example a 450 hp Supra) will be only a couple of tenths faster than a stock one. I've always wondered if the engine REALLY put out the power the tuner said, or if other factors (wheel slip, etc) were involved. Factory cars seem to improve with horsepower they way one would expect (C240 vs. C320 vs. C32, for example)
I don't have the equation with me right now (I'm sure someone can find it? It was in Road & Track a couple of years ago) but there is a quick-and-dirty formula for estimating quarter-mile time sbased on horsepower, weight, etc.
It comes down to horsepower and acceleration are related in a square relationship - twice the horsepower will give you .707 (inverse square root of 2) the quarter mile time.
Of course, it's really rough, doesn't take into account drag, etc.
I don't have the equation with me right now (I'm sure someone can find it? It was in Road & Track a couple of years ago) but there is a quick-and-dirty formula for estimating quarter-mile time sbased on horsepower, weight, etc.
It comes down to horsepower and acceleration are related in a square relationship - twice the horsepower will give you .707 (inverse square root of 2) the quarter mile time.
Of course, it's really rough, doesn't take into account drag, etc.
