pawe

No speed limiter on your car?

victorb623

I guess so. I think you can go above 130mph. No engine / ecu mods

Glyn M Ruck

No speed limiter on my car. A C240 in SA trim does just under 240 km/h flat out - indicated about 243. 230 is easy & all day in SA's wide open spaces - so I believe your 140 m/h claim. It's all in the aerodynamics, very well matched gearing & willingness to rev. That is my argument for decent tyres on the 240. It's not the most powerful Benz by a long shot but is still capable of cruising pretty quickly.

These cars are stable as a rock flat out.

cpbeasley

Hey Victor,

Where you from buddy?

victorb623

Bay Area - SFO

splinter

Was not discounting victorb623’s 140 mph claim.
Do find it quite impressive that ~168 SAE net horsepower @ 5,700 rpm and a final drive ratio of 2.87 (.83 x 3.46 crown & pinion) can push yours to almost 240 km/h (149 mph)!

No doubt the sedan’s .27 coefficient of drag (.31 in AMG trim) and relatively small frontal area contribute substantially to that figure.
Don’t flirt with Vmax too often around my neighborhood, but the mechanical and aerodynamic directional stability features engineered into this chassis do indeed perform admirably.
Rather like a destroyer crossing a sailboat’s wake.

http://autospeed.com.au/cms/article.html?&A=108676

Glyn M Ruck

Yeah splinter - when I saw the claims in SA brochures I though I have to try this once the vehicle is fully run in. I frankly did not believe it. We all drive too fast on the open roads in this country although they are clamping down & about to launch a license point system. Even a stock C200 runs pretty much the same speed.

This is of course at coast - at our higher inland altitudes everything wheezes a bit.

It never ceases to amaze me when getting into lesser cars how much faster they feel as if they are going when pushing them.

The W203 is no Porsche but for a compact family sedan it pretty stable with little feeling of speed.

pawe

I believe the 140mph claim. I too didnt have any problem reaching 130 and the car was really stable even with minimum steering vibration but I felt really comfortable on the wheel at that speed.

cpbeasley

This is a bit off topic, but just wanted to give props to the w203 high speed stability in comparison to my old 02 F-body, Camaro SS.
It easily pegged the speedo at 159mph (obviously speed limiter removed), but at the cost of the car feeling as if it were ready to vibrate apart... I recall tiny window leaks having enough air rush in as if the windows were down, the steering wheel jarred your joints, and air pockets easily shifted the car about... I would compare it to feeling like driving a brick down the highway at those speeds.
+1 w203
-1 f-body

fookoo303

That's awesome. It makes me wish i had stuck to my original plan of becoming a mech Engineer so i can play with the wind tunnel on campus.

Glyn M Ruck

splinter - I meant to comment that I'm pretty sure that the .27 cd was with the early nose like my car has without the deeper skirt of later models & probably fitted with 195 tyres on 15" rims that were the norm on early Classics. At worst it would have been with 205's. People don't realise how tyre width screws cd (and adverse effects on rolling resistance)

splinter

Didn’t know you had a wind tunnel on campus. Excellent! Can you call in a favor from a colleague to eavesdrop on a test session?
Me thinks you’ll be well served earning your BSEE degree. There are plenty of those highly-remunerative positions available ‘round here.




Indeed. Don’t know the specifics contributing to the Cd figures posted. They were pilfered from MBUSA’s 2004 retail marketing booklet, published in late ‘03. It’s probably safe to assume the cars subjected to testing had their tinwork, tires and other variables/tolerances conveniently arranged just so in order to minimize drag. Almost certain they weren’t measured on the then-available (USA specification) chassis; they were almost high enough to safely straddle a 6x6. MB finally saw fit to install shorter RoW springs here -per relaxed DOT/NHTSA requirements- with its 2004.5+ ‘sports suspension’ #486/949 option. As you’re well aware, relatively minor alterations of ride height and rake can manifest dramatic changes in drag and lift.

Pontiac got in a bit of hot water with our FTC after advertising remarkably low drag figures on its 3rd-generation F-Body. Seems they’d dropped the front end’s ride height well below allowable production specification. The Court ruled that they be sold in that configuration or GM was to revise its claim. Not wanting to replace undercarriages during the warranty period owing to ham-fisted operators, they ultimately relented and subsequently published a revised figure. The EPA nailed ‘em for surreptitiously -contrary to the owner’s manual recommendation- using low-viscosity crankcase oil during fuel consumption testing, too. 5W-30 has long since been deemed de rigueur.

Yes, increasing tire width negatively contributes not only to increased drag, but also rolling resistance. Given proper selection, it’s a worthwhile opportunity cost in many instances. Mine already has enough straightaway speed; enhancing its lateral and longitudinal traction proved a worthy compromise. As an aside, the first time I went really fast was riding shotgun through California’s wine country aboard a new ’69 911S sporting 6” Fuchs and Michelin 185/70VR15s. Doing so may have contributed to my ongoing mechanical preoccupation.

Bob clark

Hi, I need some info from you people that already own c240's.
I have a chance to buy an 03 c240 with 4matic. It has about 75000 miles in it and I have never seen a cleaner car. I can get it for $8,000.
Is this a good deal? Any problems that I should be looking for?

Thanks
Bob

panzafio

Bob, for the most part, our 2002 c240 V6 has been decent. When my wife first got it, the ECU went bad in the first couple of months and was handled under warranty along with a brake pressure sensor and one other thing. Maintenance was included at the time, so soon after I started doing oil changes and brakes myself to save money. Its pretty easy too. I started driving it six years ago when it had 70000 miles. It has 189456 to date. Since I have had it I went thru two batteries, 2 belt idlers, an alternator, a camshaft position censor, two motor mounts, drive shaft suport and bearing, 2 transmission flushes, and the big one, had to replace the rear differential because it had a loud whining noise. I just ordered $1000 of suspension parts for the second time since I have had it. Just keep in mind that oil changes are too bad if you do them yourself. Hopefully if you find a trustworthy independent MB mechanic you might be ok. Anytime something major has go wrong, it was a minimum $1000 a pop. If the car is immaculate that $8000 sounds pretty good. Me personally I would have bought a BMW in place or our C240. Good luck. Panzafio

ChristyNava

I love what you have done with the car it looks classic and cleannn!!

ChrisBrown

I'm at 161,000 miles and just changed my front brake pads and rotors last night. The front rotors were the original rotors. They had to go.

The car hasn't left me stranded yet.

samaritrey

Wow 161,000 have you applied for the high mileage award yet? if you do it now you might get it before 195,000 miles lol (takes a long time to get but for some reason once they decide to send it they overnight it )