M.L.X.

Got my maintenance A done today for my '03 C230K sedan.
They gave me '02 C230k coupe for a loaner.
Dang that thing was FAST!!!
Why such a different feeling between the two models?
From what I understand the engine is slightly bigger with 3 more ponies under the hood than my sedan but according to specs, my car is actually lighter so...
I was kinda shocked by the difference in pick up...
what gives?

Matt230K

The engine in the '02 has a wider and flatter torque curve and will feel faster off the line than the '03. The '03 1.8L engine needs to rev up a bit more before it creates peak power. It's actually quite noticeable.

nevide

you need to treat the 03 engine as a manual if you have an auto to feel the power. You need to use the slapshift and keep the rev on the 2800+ range and you'll see it come alive. If you just go by the ECU shift pattern, darn thing is a snail. I use the ECU shifting only when it's crowded and it's never crowded here.

Tai230K

the 1.8L in the sports sedan doesn't give the car enough pickup. Highway driving it's fine but other than that, it doesn't have the head jerking acceleration the 2.3L has.

c230_kS

talking about the 1.8L car during traffic... the gear change is horrible. u step on gas gently and the car just roll faster when the rpm drops and you have to eventually step on brake again ... over and over again...

C230 Sport Coup

Ode to the 2.3.
The engine that shoulda NEVER died.
It blows freakin' DOORS on the pitiful 1.8.
I'm so glad, despite having to work out a few bugs, that I went ahead and bought a first year model in 2002.
Now, put a pulley on that 2.3, and you got what feels like a V8.
Sorry but the 1.8 is a pathetic motor.
Why do yiou think they still put in the $40K SLK?

My commute over a mountain pass in the loaner I had was just pitiful. At the peak of the hill, at 5K rpm, the engine just quit pulling. I mean, that was it.
Not so with the 2.3. Just like the Bunny, it keeps going and going, and accelerating under almost all conditions.

Now, one other thing. The rear end ratio on the 1.8 is the same as the 240. The ratio on the 2.3 is the same as the 320.
With an automatic you really feel the torque, and you the tranny isn't shifting all the time like on the 1.8.
The little 2.3 K has more torque and power than either.
Peak torque at 2K not 4K.

mctwin2kman

The 2005 SLK is getting the 1.8 so bite your toungue. It is still in the old one because there was no since in changing it for the last year of production of the old SLK style. My 1.8 has no problems, but then again I have a 6 speed and the 3.46 rear gears. If the 0-60 times are to be believed it is the same speed to 60 as the 2.3L one, if not a hair faster. But the Auto tranny in any Benz other then the AMG models were not built for quick takeoff, but for passing power and a smooth start off the line.

zimmer26

Anyone know why the 1.8 6 speed sedan is listed at 7.6 and the coupe maintained its 7.2 0-60 figure? Seems strange considering their identical curb weights and 3.46 rears? I don't think they updated the acceleration numbers after the 1.8 came on line for the coupe, the sedan began its life with it so that explains the discrepency, unless anyone can convince me otherwise. Bring your 1.8s to the line and you will be had by a 2.3!

mctwin2kman

I never said it was faster, I said per the numbers on MB's site they say it is. I really don't care how quick it is. I need it for passing power not off the line. If I want off the line I will buy an AMG. I am totally happy with my little engine, it gets great gas mileage and has great power when on the highway. If they wanted this to be quicker off the line they should have used diferent gearing in first and second. First is just to short and it requires you to hit third at around 55 or so MPH so you need to hit third for the 0-60 run. Even worse with the 3.46 gears. You 2.3 L guys get the extra tourque and the rear end that allows for a little better 0-60 run shifting wise. I have driven both and like the 1.8L engine a little better, as well as the fact that I got Bi-Xenons from the factory that was a must for the purchase of the car. So the 2002 was out, as well as they did not have any with the options I wanted when I was buying. Sometimes you have to give a little to get what you want. I did like the idea of a pulley on the 2002 model, but there were other wants that could not be had with the 2002's that were available.

Also I doubt it would be an *** handing moment to race a 2002 and a 2003, there is not that much of a gain on the 2002, especially with the gearing change in the 2003. It would be a close race and mostly dependent on the driver of each car. I am talking stock ones here to, not a pullied against an 03.

dswildfire

the 2005 slk gets the new cgi direct-injection engine. that 1.8 outperforms the m111 in power and the m271 in fuel economy, which is why it is getting it. it will also be getting a 2.2L 250hp engine, and a 3rd with a displacement i can't remember but with a 375hp output.

zimmer26

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mctwin2kman
[B]I never said it was faster, I said per the numbers on MB's site they say it is. I really don't care how quick it is. I need it for passing power not off the line. If I want off the line I will buy an AMG. I am totally happy with my little engine, it gets great gas mileage and has great power when on the highway.

Chill, and you did say it was as fast or a hair faster which is just not right, because you really should be referring to the sedan's numbers as I believe the coupe's must be wrong. As you said the 1.8 is not without its benefits but its just not as strong, 15 lb/ft less torque coming at a higher rpm.

M.L.X.

Relax guys.
No need to start a flame war over nothing.
Both cars have it's benefits and short comings.
I've been driving my car manually as suggested. It's quite fun.
Will have to see how the adaptive shifter or whatever it's called takes it after awhile.

trench

I don't think the US is getting the direct-injection motor (which is technically still an M271), it has something to do with not having high enough quality fuel (just like the diesels). Although, it's possible they may have fixed this, I haven't been keeping up.

C230 Sport Coup

I didn't see any dif in fuel economy. The 1.8 is a SLEV vehicle, whereas the 2.3 is only LEV. I think there's something there, as far as laws and regs go.
Sorry, but I was so happy to get my 2.3 back.
The 1.8 felt fine in the flat, but going over the mountain pass between Silicon Valley and Santa Cruz, it ran out of oomph at 50mph on the hill.
At that point, I had to keep it in a lower gear to keep the revs up, or have the tranny constantly shifting back and forth.
When I got to 5K rpm, well, it just wouldn't go anymore.
This is on a hill, at about a 1500 ft elevation.

So sorry, not trying to flame, just expressing my biased opinion.
I was SOOO glad to get my 2.3 back, and not just for the engine, but for the upgraded suspension I have in it.
And the leather. Ah...the leather.......

If the only vehicle available at the time I bought was the 1.8, I think I may have looked elsewhere. I like the torque.

mctwin2kman

[QUOTE]Originally posted by zimmer26
[B]Hey it is only 8 foot lbs less..... And I am going by the numbers not by experience. By test results in the car mags they are about the same acually. But as for the numbers on MBUSA, they were there prior to the release of the sedan. And the sedan should be slower due to the fact that the car is physically larger than the coupe. It may weigh the same but aerodynamically it is a sedan compared to a two door hatchback. And as far as the faster comment I said "According to the numbers it is the same as the 2002 if not a hair faster" meaning that the manufacturer's numbers were faster to 60 on the 2003 than the 2002. I believe it was stated at 7.5 for the 2002 and now for the 2003 7.2. According to the car mags it is the same if not a hair slower to 60 than the 2002. I really don't care either way as I said. But please if you are going to quote me then read and understand what you are quoting first. I never once said that by my personal experience that either year was faster. I said by the numbers posted. Reading is fundamental my friend and I see all to often in life that everyone skips over the important details and assumes what others are saying instead of reading everything. I was not trying to start a flame war, but if you insist please read before you flame me.

c230_kS

if you have money, just mod the car......hahah.....1.8L can be great too !! since i am an m271 owner i will say that

zimmer26

Who's flaming who here buddy? I was merely suggesting that I believe the numbers posted on the web site are old numbers that no longer apply to the 1.8 liter engine and my reasoning behind that belief is 100% rational. Having said that, the 2002 C230K owner's manual states 207 lb-ft torque @2500-4800RPM, not that I'd expect you to be aware of that, but it is a fact. The acceleration numbers for the 2002 coupe were/are exactly the same which you can see for yourself if you go to features/16 year model overview (which is actually real cool, I think its new.) The sedan actually has a lower drag coefficient (0.27 VS 0.29) than the coupe does meaning its actually more aerodynamic so you can keep trying to debunk my well founded theories with your rants but you'll just end up making yourself look foolish which, by my accounts you've already accomplished rather handily. To be fair, and as I stated earlier the benefits of the 1.8 liter engine ARE numerous:

-higher EPA ratings
-much quieter and smoother engine
-lighter

These benefits have come with a few compromises from the 2.3:

-Less torque that takes 1000 more revs to peak
-3 less hp- (this is made up easily by the weight decrease)
-more reliance on the SC for power due to smaller displacement

btw: I have driven both cars (in auto form) and the 1.8 did feel lethargic and underpowered below 3500 or so, clearly making the manual a better fit to this engine as opposed to the 2.3.

dswildfire

well, crap. i was hoping those engines would get here. they're really sweet.

trench

Me too, the upcoming V6 cgi's look even better.

Actually, the sedan is more aerodynamic than the coupe. The abrupt drop-off in the rear of the coupe causes a lot more drag. However, in 0-60 runs the aero difference is negligible.

By the way, for the rest of the C-classes on the Euro-site the sedan always weighs 10kg (22lbs) more than the coupe if each has the same motor/transmission. I still don't think MBUSA exactly knows how much the C230 sedan weighs, at least it is closer than it was - recall how the site used to say the C230 sedan weighed about 150lbs less.

mdp c230k

I just had an '03 auto loaner coupe for my '02 stick coupe and WOW what a big difference! The '03 auto was much slower under all conditions compared to the '02. It was caught out of its power band most of the time and was slow to kick down gears. I am sooo glad I have the 2.3l engine. The fuel economy is much better on the 1.8 but I'll give that up for a fun ride any day!

mctwin2kman

For one I was going by the numbers posted on the MBUSA website that state 200 ft/lbs of tourque since I do not have a 2002 Owners Manual. Also the 2003 would be as quick if not quicker due to the diferent rear diferential in it. As for the Sedan, who know why the numbers are diferent or what the truth is. If you go by Car and Drivers numbers for both years they are about the same, I do not have them off the top of my head.

As for the flame ****, you stated that I said something I did not which started this whole thing. I was mearly commenting on numbers done by some third party and not MB's numbers. Now if someone wants to come over and run their coupe and mine, then fine. I really would not care who wins or loses just the fun of it all would make me happy and then everyone can shut up on which year is better. As for the fuel economy, the 2003 gained one MPH accross the board, so what I say to that. I looked at both and bought the 2003 because of the options I wanted, not for the fuel economy or the engine. If I wanted speed or power I would have bought a C320 Coupe.

trench

The Owner's manual for 2002 does state 207 ft-lbs from 2500-4800 rpm. I always felt this was another case of MBUSA screwing up, which I think originated when the M111 motor was upgraded (from the version with a clutch-actuated supercharger). According to MBUSA, when the clutch was lost, 7 hp was gained, but the torque remained the same. I think someone just forgot to adjust the torque numbers (which I believe increased from 260 to 280 Nm at this time.)

Outland

In the SLK it supposedly will have an output of 209HP...I think this was up at MB Spy somewhere...I forget. There's still some HP to be found.

Quote:

It is still in the old one because there was no since in changing it for the last year of production of the old SLK style.

This is true. The cost to change the stamping and tooling to make the SLK accept the 1.8, along with the other associated hardware would be too high to justify the expense. Not to mention it would look silly for such an expensive car to loose HP, and go slower.

Quote:

If the 0-60 times are to be believed it is the same speed to 60 as the 2.3L one, if not a hair faster.

Unlikely at best. The 1.8 is nearly a full second slower to 60(7.2 vs 8.1, both 6speed). MB just didn't update the advertising materials.

Ive praised the 1.8 on many occassions for its smooth and quiet operation, but it does leave me wanting for low end grunt. The m111 launches like a V6, the M271 feels more like the supercharged Mini...don't dump the clutch under 3 grand.

GTIDAN

If the 0-60 times are to be believed it is the same speed to 60 as the 2.3L one, if not a hair faster.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure where those numbers came from. The ones I've seen show the 1.8 to be as much as a full second slower to 60.

Back in August 2002 when I bought my 2002 Coupe I had the chance to drive both. The 2.3 felt stronger (both automatics) right from the start and just seem to pull and pull. The deal breaker on the 1.8 was the constant and I mean constant up and down shifting to keep the car somewhere in the power band. It just drove me nuts........

I agree the 1.8 is smoother and quieter running but when the wheels hit the ground it's a no contest as far as I am concerned.

Today I just returned from Laughlin, Nevada back to LA. The drive is about 280 miles with nothing but mountains. Up the grade and down the other side. One rather long grade is just out of Needles where you climb for about 20 miles. I just put the Coupe's speed control at 80. Turned on the XM and cruised my way to the top. Never did the car downshift or feel lacking in power. I could have blown over the top over a 100 with ease. It's fun to be trailing a couple of Hondas and Camrys and watch them slowly, ever so slowly lose there speed as the miles go by. About three or four miles from the top I just cruised on by as those gutless fourbangers dropped down to third gear (how do I know? I used to have a Honda Accord and that's exactly what it did going up this hill). Can't beat that supercharger. As far as I could tell the Coupe never knew there was a hill......

It would be a hard call for me between the C230 and C320. With the 2.3 you have the power of a six and the economy of a four.

278 miles @ 73 MPH average and 30.5 MPG is hard to beat.......

zimmer26

The whole point I was making was the lack of validity in the numbers that you apparently believe are correct, not personal attacks, or is it just a denial thing with you? Whatever man if I wanted to flame you I would have and I'd come with a torch, not a candle. Instead I've actually taken the high road this time and simply gave commentary and level-headed facts about the issue. Judging by your replys, maybe you're having second thoughts about just how important those $770 factory installed bi-xenons were to you huh? Pretty much everyone here (myself included) that actually has experienced both thinks there is a pretty big power difference between the two plants. Recall that the thread was started by an 03 sedan owner who "saw the light" of the 2.3. I really think I've uncovered a clear mistake on mbusa.com and they should address it before people start asking for their money back ala Mazda overstating the RX-8's hp. Oh, did I write that out loud? Their "out" would likely be: we haven't gotten around to updating the numbers for the "new" engine yet- yeah right. This is what looks to be a case of false advertising and the 1.8 coupe owners should stand up and call their asses out on it. Anyone have the brouchure handy for 03/04, what is stated there I wonder?