bore vs stroke (M111 C200K, M111 C230K, C240, C32, M271)
Thread Starter
Almost a Member!
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
bore vs stroke (M111 C200K, M111 C230K, C240, C32, M271)
C200K (M111 Kompressor 1,998cc)
- Bore 89.9mm x Stroke 78.7mm (Compression ratio - 9.5 : 1)
C230K (M111 Kompressor 2,295cc)
- Bore 90.9mm x Stroke 88.4mm (Compression ration - 9.0 : 1)
C240 (V6 2,597cc)
- Bore 89.9mm x Stroke 68.2mm
C320 (V6 3,199cc)
- Bore 89.9mm x Stroke 84.0mm
New C180K, C200K, C230K (M271 1,796cc)
- Bore 82.0mm x Stroke 85.0mm
Compression ratio varies from 10.2, 9.5, 8.7 :1
Boost pressure varied to obtain outputs of 142hp, 163hp, 192hp
Is the M111 engine block in the C200K and C230K the same ?Apparently the M111 in the C200K and C230K have slight differences in the bore diameter. I was hoping to stroke out my C200K to the bigger C230K through swapping the crankshaft- not possible now ? It seems odd that there would be a 1mm difference in bore diameter ..... The longer stroke in the C230K would give me the low end torque that I crave for in my C200K.
The C230K seems to be running at a lower compression ratio than the C200K, more head-room for boost for those intending to move to custom turbo applications ?
Wondering if MB uses a common parts bin since there are some similarities.....bore diameters between the C200K, C240, C320 > common piston parts etc etc, even older MB engines that will allow engine displacement increase ?
It would be cheaper than a Brabus , MBK custom rebore etc ....
- Bore 89.9mm x Stroke 78.7mm (Compression ratio - 9.5 : 1)
C230K (M111 Kompressor 2,295cc)
- Bore 90.9mm x Stroke 88.4mm (Compression ration - 9.0 : 1)
C240 (V6 2,597cc)
- Bore 89.9mm x Stroke 68.2mm
C320 (V6 3,199cc)
- Bore 89.9mm x Stroke 84.0mm
New C180K, C200K, C230K (M271 1,796cc)
- Bore 82.0mm x Stroke 85.0mm
Compression ratio varies from 10.2, 9.5, 8.7 :1
Boost pressure varied to obtain outputs of 142hp, 163hp, 192hp
Is the M111 engine block in the C200K and C230K the same ?Apparently the M111 in the C200K and C230K have slight differences in the bore diameter. I was hoping to stroke out my C200K to the bigger C230K through swapping the crankshaft- not possible now ? It seems odd that there would be a 1mm difference in bore diameter ..... The longer stroke in the C230K would give me the low end torque that I crave for in my C200K.
The C230K seems to be running at a lower compression ratio than the C200K, more head-room for boost for those intending to move to custom turbo applications ?
Wondering if MB uses a common parts bin since there are some similarities.....bore diameters between the C200K, C240, C320 > common piston parts etc etc, even older MB engines that will allow engine displacement increase ?
It would be cheaper than a Brabus , MBK custom rebore etc ....
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
From: Sydney, Australia
01 C200 Kompressor, 02 C32 AMG
I’ve got pulley upgrade with my C200K … yesterday I took my car to service cos I got the Check engine light came on, they fixed the problem and they wrote this on the work paper “ …This C200K has 30-40% above average acceleration!!… What engine mods have been done?….” Hehehehe…obviously the pulley really does work 
I’m interested to see if this conversion is doable …. In the mean time you might want to consider pulley upgrade
I’m interested to see if this conversion is doable …. In the mean time you might want to consider pulley upgrade
Thread Starter
Almost a Member!
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Which pulley kit did you go for Bajaiman ?
I've got the Carlsson pulley installed but still feel the car lacks urge ...... Carlsson claims 204ps at the crank for their kit....
So I'm now looking at stroking the motor but it seems the bore size for the M111 in the 230K is 1mm larger - wondering if we can use the crankshaft from the 230K and if it would be a straight swap.
Also whether the ECU would be adaptive enough to take care of the fueling requirements since the compression ratio is now around 9:1 and I'm assuming there might be other parameters that I've overlooked.
I'm trying to look for a crankshaft from the wreckers unless Kineda would bear to part with his crankshaft once his C32 swap is complete....
I've got the Carlsson pulley installed but still feel the car lacks urge ...... Carlsson claims 204ps at the crank for their kit....
So I'm now looking at stroking the motor but it seems the bore size for the M111 in the 230K is 1mm larger - wondering if we can use the crankshaft from the 230K and if it would be a straight swap.
Also whether the ECU would be adaptive enough to take care of the fueling requirements since the compression ratio is now around 9:1 and I'm assuming there might be other parameters that I've overlooked.
I'm trying to look for a crankshaft from the wreckers unless Kineda would bear to part with his crankshaft once his C32 swap is complete....
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
From: Sydney, Australia
01 C200 Kompressor, 02 C32 AMG
I've got Kleemann ring pulley. I think my Kleemann puts out less HP than your Carlsson claimed HP from their pulley.
I might just wanna do chip and intercooler upgrade if this C230K conversion is not possible. As long as I can keep up with my friends 3.2L V6 Vectra then I'm happy
I might just wanna do chip and intercooler upgrade if this C230K conversion is not possible. As long as I can keep up with my friends 3.2L V6 Vectra then I'm happy
Thread Starter
Almost a Member!
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
yeah the intercooler and chipping might be my next power project, though I'm kinda leaning towards cams - but I'm worried that it might be rough for the idle.
MBK Tuning has cams for the M111 200K and so does Renntech I believe.
But first I've gotta get my suspension sorted out - I've got a set of Carlsson springs and Koni Yellows but my mechanic is missing a tool to take apart the stock damperners from the springs.
The crankshaft swap would be interesting ... at least that would put us on the level with those pullied C230K
If only someone has part numbers for the C200K vs C230K crankshaft / con-rods / pistons - we might be able to work something out.
C200K (M111 Kompressor 1,998cc)
- Bore 89.9mm x Stroke 78.7mm (Compression ratio - 9.5 : 1)
C230K (M111 Kompressor 2,295cc)
- Bore 90.9mm x Stroke 88.4mm (Compression ration - 9.0 : 1)
The stroke in the C230K is longer - thus displacing the 300cc more, someone said longer stroke engines have more low end torque (which is what I'm after) whereas performance high revving engines (high end HP > variable cam timing engines) tend to have "square" engines - bore and stroke the same dimensions.
Although I don't see how this relates to what we are seeing above in the M111 engines other than a bigger displacement correlation to torque and horsepower.
By the way, since you have the M111 C200K engine - does yoursupercharger part number correlate to 111 098 10 37 ?
I've picked up from other threads that the C230K guys have 111 090 03 80
If it is true, then it might mean that we have the Eaton M45 while the C230K has the M62
MBK Tuning has cams for the M111 200K and so does Renntech I believe.
But first I've gotta get my suspension sorted out - I've got a set of Carlsson springs and Koni Yellows but my mechanic is missing a tool to take apart the stock damperners from the springs.
The crankshaft swap would be interesting ... at least that would put us on the level with those pullied C230K
If only someone has part numbers for the C200K vs C230K crankshaft / con-rods / pistons - we might be able to work something out.
C200K (M111 Kompressor 1,998cc)
- Bore 89.9mm x Stroke 78.7mm (Compression ratio - 9.5 : 1)
C230K (M111 Kompressor 2,295cc)
- Bore 90.9mm x Stroke 88.4mm (Compression ration - 9.0 : 1)
The stroke in the C230K is longer - thus displacing the 300cc more, someone said longer stroke engines have more low end torque (which is what I'm after) whereas performance high revving engines (high end HP > variable cam timing engines) tend to have "square" engines - bore and stroke the same dimensions.
Although I don't see how this relates to what we are seeing above in the M111 engines other than a bigger displacement correlation to torque and horsepower.
By the way, since you have the M111 C200K engine - does yoursupercharger part number correlate to 111 098 10 37 ?
I've picked up from other threads that the C230K guys have 111 090 03 80
If it is true, then it might mean that we have the Eaton M45 while the C230K has the M62
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,744
Likes: 1
Originally posted by moondragon
By the way, since you have the M111 C200K engine - does yoursupercharger part number correlate to 111 098 10 37 ?
I've picked up from other threads that the C230K guys have 111 090 03 80
If it is true, then it might mean that we have the Eaton M45 while the C230K has the M62
By the way, since you have the M111 C200K engine - does yoursupercharger part number correlate to 111 098 10 37 ?
I've picked up from other threads that the C230K guys have 111 090 03 80
If it is true, then it might mean that we have the Eaton M45 while the C230K has the M62
Thread Starter
Almost a Member!
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by moondragon
By the way, since you have the M111 C200K engine - does yoursupercharger part number correlate to 111 098 10 37 ?
I've picked up from other threads that the C230K guys have 111 090 03 80
If it is true, then it might mean that we have the Eaton M45 while the C230K has the M62
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't.
Lynn, you're right - I've relooked the eaton website again and they recommend that the M45 be used on 2 litre - 2.5 litre engine application. So at least we have a common supercharger between the M111 C200K and C230K.
I'm still puzzled with regards to the different numbers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by moondragon
By the way, since you have the M111 C200K engine - does yoursupercharger part number correlate to 111 098 10 37 ?
I've picked up from other threads that the C230K guys have 111 090 03 80
If it is true, then it might mean that we have the Eaton M45 while the C230K has the M62
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't.
Lynn, you're right - I've relooked the eaton website again and they recommend that the M45 be used on 2 litre - 2.5 litre engine application. So at least we have a common supercharger between the M111 C200K and C230K.
I'm still puzzled
with regards to the different numbers
Trending Topics
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
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
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
