2002 C230k vs. 2003 C320
05-08-2003, 09:37 AM
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Croton, NY
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1991 mr2 turbo, 2002 coupe
Well actually its 192hp/200ft-lbs VS. 215/221 and I believe they're within a hundred lbs of each other so I'm sure you can draw your own conclusions. The 2002 6sp coupe runs the 1/4 in ~15.7 per R&T and the C320 sedan (auto) runs it in 15.1. I'd guess the 6sp C320 coupe would be a high 14s car although I don't believe its actually been tested yet.
05-08-2003, 12:32 PM
#5
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 2,465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2002 C230 K
Originally posted by zimmer26
Well actually its 192hp/200ft-lbs VS. 215/221 and I believe they're within a hundred lbs of each other so I'm sure you can draw your own conclusions.
Well actually its 192hp/200ft-lbs VS. 215/221 and I believe they're within a hundred lbs of each other so I'm sure you can draw your own conclusions.
.The V6 is 55 lbs heavier than the M111.
The C320 will be considerably quicker. Now add a pulley to the M111 motor and you've got yourself a race.
Cheers, BT
05-08-2003, 02:01 PM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Croton, NY
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1991 mr2 turbo, 2002 coupe
[QUOTE]Originally posted by trench
[B]It should be 192hp/206ft-lb. for the M111. Every metric figure I've ever seen for this motor is 280 Nm of torque, which is 206.5ft-lb. Yet another mistake perpetuated by MBUSA .
Right, I think the manual actually quotes 208 if I'm not mistaken, but I figured 200 was the generally accepted number here although probably wrong like you said. I wonder what would motivate them to understate this? Good point though.
[B]It should be 192hp/206ft-lb. for the M111. Every metric figure I've ever seen for this motor is 280 Nm of torque, which is 206.5ft-lb. Yet another mistake perpetuated by MBUSA
.Right, I think the manual actually quotes 208 if I'm not mistaken, but I figured 200 was the generally accepted number here although probably wrong like you said. I wonder what would motivate them to understate this? Good point though.
05-08-2003, 02:39 PM
#7
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 2,465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2002 C230 K
Originally posted by zimmer26
Right, I think the manual actually quotes 208 if I'm not mistaken, but I figured 200 was the generally accepted number here although probably wrong like you said.
Right, I think the manual actually quotes 208 if I'm not mistaken, but I figured 200 was the generally accepted number here although probably wrong like you said.
), turns out it actually says:"Maximum torque acc. to SAE J 1349 207 ft.lb/2500–4800 rpm"
Originally posted by zimmer26
I wonder what would motivate them to understate this? Good point though.
I wonder what would motivate them to understate this? Good point though.
Cheers, BT
