C-Class (W203) 2001-2007, C160, C180, C200, C220, C230, C240, C270, C280, C300, C320, C230K, C350, Coupe

Why isn't the C230K faster?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Rate Thread
 
Old Feb 18, 2004 | 09:23 AM
  #1  
czachari's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
From: Stamford, CT
2003 C230
Why isn't the C230K faster?

I used to own a Mitsu Eclipse GSX with 210hp and 210ft/lb torque. It reliably did 0-60 in 6.2 secs. It weighed 3400lbs and it had the driveline losses of AWD. Why is the C230K so slow? It has almost the same HP and torque, weighs less and has less of a driveline loss.

CZ

p.s.

When chipped the C230K gets up to the same hp and torque as the Mitsu. Shouldn't it also get in the same 0-60 territory?
Reply
Old Feb 18, 2004 | 09:45 AM
  #2  
mctwin2kman's Avatar
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,753
Likes: 0
From: York, PA
2003 C230K Sport Coupe, 1986 190E 2.3
Mercedes are geared for passing power and over 100 MPH operation. The C230K has 189HP and about 195 or 197 ft/lbs of tourque. The C320 will do numbers around what the Eclipse you are talking of and has a 215 HP engine. Not sure of the tourque numbers there. Remember though Benz's are geared for driving at high speed for the Autobahn. If you want 0-60 you need to spend more and get an AMG version or a class with a V-8 in it.
Reply
Old Feb 18, 2004 | 12:43 PM
  #3  
Buellwinkle's Avatar
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,211
Likes: 2
From: Laguna Niguel, CA
A big part of the reason is the 6-spd that forces you to shift just before 60. Many cars manufacturers take this arbitrary number into consideration when designing gear ratios to look as good as possible in the magazine tests. It's not MB's priority as much as other brands to do the best in 0-60 mph sprints. What's probably a better measurement of aceleration is 1/4 mile ET. Also, maybe your coupe can't keep up with an Eclipse but mine has no problems at all

Actually the car of my dreams is a Honda Civic GX, can beat out a Ferrari Enzo on my commute, yet it's 0-60 is only about 10 seconds. Why, because it can do 70mph in the carpool lane (California allows zero poluting vehicles to use the car pool lane with a single occupant) while the Ferrari is stuck in bumper to bumper traffic.
Reply
Old Feb 18, 2004 | 04:02 PM
  #4  
czachari's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
From: Stamford, CT
2003 C230
Did a quick power to weight ratio calc

My 4 most recent cars


03 C230K Sport Sedan (6-speed) 17.10 lbs/HP 0-60 ~7.2 secs
01 BMW 740i Sport (5-speed Auto) 14.65 lbs/HP ~6.1 secs
99 BMW M Coupe (5-speed) 13.1 lbs/HP ~5.1 secs
95 Mitsu Eclipse GSX (5-speed) 15.85 lbs/HP ~6.2 secs





CZ
Reply
Old Feb 18, 2004 | 04:13 PM
  #5  
tifosiv122's Avatar
MBWorld Fanatic!
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,364
Likes: 13
From: New Jersey
SLS AMG | S65 AMG | GL550
Originally posted by Buellwinkle
Actually the car of my dreams is a Honda Civic GX, can beat out a Ferrari Enzo on my commute, yet it's 0-60 is only about 10 seconds. Why, because it can do 70mph in the carpool lane (California allows zero poluting vehicles to use the car pool lane with a single occupant) while the Ferrari is stuck in bumper to bumper traffic.
LMOA...but the guy in the Ferrari is getting a Hummer by a model type chick while waiting in traffic!

Erik
Reply
Old Feb 18, 2004 | 04:46 PM
  #6  
Buellwinkle's Avatar
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,211
Likes: 2
From: Laguna Niguel, CA
Originally posted by tifosiv122
LMOA...but the guy in the Ferrari is getting a Hummer by a model type chick while waiting in traffic!

Erik
Exactly, making him even more late to work.

What I would love to do is get the GX for the tax credits and carpool lane priviledges and then convert it to run on gasoline.
Reply

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 


You have already rated this thread Rating: Thread Rating: 0 votes,  average.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:44 AM.