renncpe

It is official the 2.3 liter 4 cyl is not going to be produced in 2003. I understand that there will be a C320 coupe non supercharged. IMO it’s time to snap up the 2002 230k coupe while you can (price value and performance).

Randy

young

very interesting! do you have pricing info?

<font size=1><b>c230k
MSRP $25,595
Base Number of Cylinders: 4
Base Engine Size: 2.3 liters
Base Engine Type: Inline 4
Horsepower: 192 hp @ 5500 rpm
Torque: 200 ft-lbs. @ 2500 rpm

c320
MSRP $37,595
Base Number of Cylinders: 6
Base Engine Size: 3.2 liters
Base Engine Type: V6
Horsepower: 215 hp @ 5700 rpm
Torque: 221 ft-lbs. @ 3000 rpm

c240
MSRP $31,195
Base Number of Cylinders: 6
Base Engine Size: 2.6 liters
Base Engine Type: V6
Horsepower: 168 hp @ 5700 rpm
Torque: 177 ft-lbs. @ 4700 rpm

C180 (from UK site)
Engine Specifications
Number of Cylinders 4
Number of Valves 16
Displacement [CC] 1998
BHP 129
Maximum Torque [Nm/RPM] 190@4000 </b></font>

if i may hazard a guess, the 240 engine is put in as a more direct replacement?

Scylas

where did you get this info?

renncpe

Young we don't even have official priceing on the new SL yet. It's always the last thing to come out . If I get any hard facts I will post them. If I were to guess the c180 would replace the current c230k in price point. Makeing the C320 an upgrade in systems and pricelike the diffrence between the c240 and c320 sedans. But at best that is a guess.

Randy

renncpe

Mercedes has distributed this info to the dealers.

Randy

Scylas

nt

AndrewK

Thats too bad... I think the C180 renncpe might be referring to is a new generation of Mercedes Kompressor. From MMBSPY's new SLK page, it describes the new 1.8 as a 'KPI', or Kompressor Petrol Injection, which I think is just another term for gasoline direct injection w/a supercharger. Claimed output is 163 hp in one version, and 200 hp in another version. However, it says the 163 hp will be avilable in 2005, and all others in 2004 (in the SLK). So its questionable whether the KPI 1.8 will be the 1.8 in the '03 coupe.

Maverick666

I better go out there and buy one of each color... collect them while supplies last...

C230K

Randy, will they keep the same body style. I know when Volvo came out with limited production cars, down the road it cost like hell to get body parts. It's hard to believe that MB would only rn a car for two years. Oh well will be interesting to see what happens.
Tom

renncpe

The body style will not change just the power plant.

Randy

Vince

How much will this effect the resale value of the car?

sal

That's a real good question Vince, especially when i'm still waiting for mine to get in.

gab

C180K coupe will hurt the C230K resale value while C320 coupe will help a bit. I guess it will start at least 32K bone stock with probably leather standard. 6sp from the SLK i think will be offered very likely

Mike T.

I'd be surprised if Mercedes abolishes the C 230 K in North America, as they're on the cusp of introducing an new version of the C 230 K in Europe. It has about 2% less power and 7 % less torque, but has 7+% improved fuel efficiency.

Maybe federalizing it is too expensive and it's easier for them to throw the gas-guzzling 3.2 L V6 lump in (under EPA rules, the same engine in a lighter car obviates the need for another vehicle certification process). But I doubt amateur tuners will be tempted by the 3.2 engine. The 2.3 is far easier to hop up.

renncpe

I think that the C230 coupe, should be fine the resale should hold up well againt the smaller brother C180 coupe. We will have to see were Mercedes prices the pair.

Randy

vadim

Yes, that was one of the reasons I got the 230K... having done some research and knowing that it's easily tunable to ~230hp....

MB-BOB

Mike, I took my daughter for a 40-mile trip today... equal parts interstate highway and city traffic. Average speed= 35 MPH, average fuel economy= 24.3 mpg. On day-long trips, I have seen 27.4 mpg. No "lump" in my book.

In short, I have NO problem with the fuel economy of the 3.2L engine. Perhaps it's not as good as the 4-cyl in the Coupe, but it's a reasonable price to pay for an additional 23 HP. I don't really worry about fuel costs, anyway. I know I get better mileage than 85% of the other drivers here in Texas (who drive 16mpg 3-4 ton SUVs).

You've been doing a lot of reading about the C-Class cars, and ignoring most of what Lynn posts to you in responses. Do you own a Mercedes? Ooops, never mind. I remember now. Your profile says you drive a Peugeot 404. That explains everything...

Mike E

Being that my Sports Coupe is yet to arrive, the rumors swirling around regarding possible changes caused me to stop and consider the implications. I'm not a car hobbyist. My knowledge about cars and the car industry is very limited. Even so, based on my own general observations over time and the info presented by folks on this forum I've been able to convince myself that there's little reason to second guess my choice to purchase a 2002 C230K. (My order is due to arrive in 2 to 3 weeks)

Here's what I've told myself about the possible changes that have me maintaining my confidence (But then I also told myself that the Rams were going to win the Super Bowl!)

1. The C class Sports Coupe will continue to exist for some time as it appears to be off to a very successful start.

2. There may not be any changes at all.

3. If there are any changes, those changes would have to allow Mercedes to maintain the entry level marketing position for this model which seems to be a big part of the initial success.

4. The new CGI 1.8K engine would be a good way of accomplishing #3. At 170 HP and 185 Ft/Lb torque and, I'm assuming, a slight reduction in weight the power to weight ratio for the car with this engine would be close to the 230K version. Although the power to weight would be a little lower, there would be a noteworthy improvement in gas mileage to justify the drop off. These parameters would be in line with the entry level positioning. I'm also assuming that such changes would allow Mercedes to keep the pricing very near the current level.

5. If the 320 V6 is offered in the Sports Coupe it would have to be positioned as an up-market alternative to the entry level offering. Looking at Mercedes pricing structure on their other vehicles, it would seem that a base level V6 Sports Coupe would be priced at least $5,000 above the 4 cyl version. This would put it close to $31,000. There is also a good chance that the V6 version would not be available with the 6 speed manual. (Making the automatic mandatory would be one way to create and justify the price difference.)

If any of my speculating proves to be accurate, I think the C230K Sports Coupe represents an equal, if not better, price value relationship than the two imaginary versions described above.

Now everyone can let me know how far off the mark you think I am!!!

SoCal240/6

That is an odd thing for them to do, I wonder if they just had a bunch of old C 230K Sedan engines around they had to use up?

Otherwise it seems odd to make a car/engine package available for such a short amount of time. I'm not sure I've ever heard of that.

I would not be happy if I bought a C230. I think it will hurt resale value. The new models will, as always, be highly touted as "new and improved" by MB, which, of course makes the old model . . . well, you know.

Esp. if they manage to smooth the engine out some with the new CGI engine.

Mike T.

Bob,

No I don't own a Benz, and I won't until either the CDI or CGI engines in the C become become available in Canada. The V6 is just too thirsty for me. I like efficient vehicles, even if they are expensive to buy.

You may not like the Pininfarina-built Peugeot 404 Coupé with Kugelfischer mechanical fuel injection, but I do. It gets good fuel economy too, as a bonus.

The Mercedes V6 is not too efficient, compared especially to BMW. Here are some official fuel consumption figures from European market brochures:

C 240 manual: 11.1 L/100 km (21 mpg US) overall
325i manual: 9.0 L/100 km (26 mpg US) overall
Guess which one has more power?

C 320 auto: 10.8 L/100 km (22 mpg US) overall
330i auto: 9.6 L/100 km (25 mpg US) overall
Closer, but the BMW has a significant performance edge.

The C 230 K averages 9.9 L/100 km in the same test, not bad considering its performance is far superior to that of the C 240.

I like the C Class sedan body more than the BMW 3, but the present C Class sedan engine choice in North America is, umm, slim and not to my liking. A C 230 K sedan would be a good stopgap...

The new C 200 CGI sounds great - I can hardly wait to drive one.

When you refer to my ignoring Lynn's responses to what I've been "reading", what are you referring to? I've been posting info on the new CGI engines, listing fuel economy comparisons and giving my opinion on the V6 engines. Please be more specific, Bob. Are there some factual errors there? Something I've missed?

MB-BOB

From the "2003 Rumors" thread...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mike T.
Apparently the 2.3 Kompressor engine is being revised by lowering power to 192 HP from 197, with torque going down from 280 Nm to 260 Nm. The tradeoff is a reduction in fuel consumption by 0.7 L/100 km. So if you're power-hungry, I guess the 2002 model is the one to buy. I would prefer the modest performance drop in exchange for the better fuel consumption.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lynn's response...
Mike T., I'm not an expert on automobile engines, nor do I want to be. If you say MB is in the process of lowering power, Lynn's response was that the 4-cyl coupe engine, as sold from day one in N.A. ALREADY is rated at the "lowered" 192 HP, 270 Nm (200 lb-ft) of torque. This leads me to think that your information about "being revised by lowering power..." is dated.

Speaking of dated, I'm also not sure I'd want a car with mechanical fuel injection, as it reminds me of Chevrolet's introduction of mechanical fuel injection on its Corvette, 35 years ago (circa 1967). I believe electronically regulated systems are the state of the art today. I'm glad you like your Peugeot. I'd buy a Saab before buying a Peugeot, but that's just my opinion. At least Saabs are sold in the US.

I was also interested in your other posts about "smooth" and harmonically balanced engines. I've always been told (but have no opinion) that horizontally opposed "boxer" engines were the most intrinsically balanced motors. Although I hope I'm not encouraging any Porsche trolls to chime in here, either.

young

at risk of being caught in the crossfire here... while i did some research for potentially the new c-coupé engines, i noticed these.

for some reason, the UK site lists the C230K engine as follows:
Number of Cylinders 4
Number of Valves 16
Displacement [CC] 2295
<b>BHP 197</b>
Maximum Torque [Nm/RPM] 280@2500-5000

and the Global English site
No. of cyls./arrangement 4/in-line
Total displacement (cc) 2,295
<b>Rated output (kW at rpm)1 145/5,500</b>
Rated torque (Nmat rpm)1 280/2,500-4,800

i don't know the conversions between metric and crappyamerican so i don't know if the numbers agree.

AndrewK

its about 1.36 kw/hp if I figured correctly, and about .74 nm per lb-ft. The answer to the bunch of old 230K engines laying around is no. The current 230K is substantially reworked compared to the old 230K for an additional 7 hp and certification as a low emmisions vehicle. It also sounds a little less gruff than the old one.

Lynn

young, there are several units for horsepower. And you thought Fahrenheit and Celsius or miles and kilometers were bad enough. Here are a few. there are more. There is SAE gross hp which was used until sometime in the seventies. Now there is SAE net hp, which takes into account the losses to various accessories such as air con compressor, water pump, power steering pump, alternator, etc. Europe has the same problem. The Brits had a standard similar to SAE gross, but now use a metric hp. The German use DIN (German Industry Normal) hp was was slightly different. There are differences not only in the scale of the units of hp, but in the condititions under which it is measured.

The EC now has everyone using kilowatts, which is probably the best unit to use. My point is there is not now and never has been a standard worldwide definition of a unit of hp.

Anyway, 145 kilowatts converts to 197.1 metric hp, and 194 US hp. So there is only two US hp difference between the Euro engines and the US engines. Hell, rounding errors or a slightly different conversion factor can account for that.

Here is a handy little tool I use all the time.
http://www.convert-me.com/en/

Mike T.

Bob, you should have read further down that thread - I believe that I said that it's a new EU version of the C 230 K engine, which has revised power, torque and fuel economy figures.

What I did not say, and maybe should have , is that it's a new type of engine, although not direct injection like the CGI, with a displacement of 1.8 litres. Yes, the model with the 192 HP version will STILL be called the C 230 K. There will also be two other versions of this 1.8 L engine without direct injection (source: "Neue Motoren bei Mercedes" from Autouniversum.de, late last week):

- C 180 K (143 HP, 220 Nm) which drinks 1 L/100 km less fuel than the present, slower C 180 sedan (non-supercharged of course)

- C 200 K (HP not mentioned, but likely around 160, 240 Nm), which is supposedly 11% more fuel efficient than the present C 200 K

My response to Lynn was that the US version of this engine (1.8 L C 230 K), if there is one, will likely be rated at 187 HP, going by the difference in the HP ratings of the present 2.3 L C 230 K cars between Europe and North America.

So Mercedes is doing a wholesale revision of its engines, beginning with the 4 cylinder models. Plus the nomenclature of the different models is also becoming even more obtuse. Anyway, I hope I've explained this clearly enough this time.

I am not offended that you don't like Peugeots, that's fine with me. Yes, electronic fuel injection is more efficient than mechanical injection, particularly with respect to pollution control. But that doesn't make me dismiss all cars that went before, many of which were quite nice, like my 404 and the German equivalent, the 190 SL. Classic cars have class - I like them.

The Corvette came out with fuel injection in 1963, not 1967, plus there were a couple of mechanically injected US cars in the late 1950s (Ford and Chev). Also, Saabs have been more or less Opels since GM acquired them some years back. The last purebred one was the old 900 series that started life in 1968. They are OK cars, though I'd take a 406 Coupé every time, if I could buy one. Peugeot SA is the most profitable car company in the world right now, and the sixth largest, so they're doing OK. It'd be nice if they sold cars here again, but evidently they don't need the North American market to be successful.

About engine balance, there is a good website about it (forgot the URL), plus MOTOR magazine did a superb article on the matter a couple of decades ago. Boxers are like all other engine layouts - they have advantages and disadvantages. The main benefit is a low centre of gravity, plus they are theoretically smoother than some other layouts.