CynCarvin32

Ok I have a C230k and it is a great car. I love driving it on a daily basis and in no way am I bashing the car. I just had an observation and I wanted to bounce it around this forum a little.

So last night an associate and I were driving home and I decided to see how much quicker my C230k was when compared to his 2004 C240 loaner vehicle. So on the freeway we did a pull from say 55 to 110 mph. Now given the performance specs, the C230k should slowly walk away but this night was not what I expected.

The C240 checked out and pulled 4-5 car lengths by the time we reached 110 mph. As I sat there in pure shock I asked to run it again and this time I lost again to with the same margin of victory for the C240.

So we got off the freeway and did a 0-60 run on an empty stretch of frontage road. The C230k jumped out of the hole faster and reved through first and second far more quickly but as we neared 80 mph (and ended the race) the C240 was door to door with a head of steam pulling itself away.

What is wrong with this C230k? The car is equal to a family members C230k in performace so clearly my car works fine. I think MB has made the C240's numbers look slower to increase the sales of the C230k. The 230k is a better car and its sport chassis and body kit make it a must have over the C240 but this performance gap was shocking.

I could have a weak car but I doubt it. I thought my C32 was weak but after going to the track with some friends my car ended up being the fastest of the group. I just think that the C230k is not as quick as mb claims.

I am going to talk to the owner of one of the reputable MB tuners to see if he has noticed any issues with this 1.8L 4 cyl during his research. One possibility is that the 91 oct. gas causes the motor to detonate at high rpm and this leads to a subsequent retardation of ignition timing. This would cause a loss of power but I never thought a C230k ran that much boost. My C32 had an issue with gas quality at times but my SL and E55 run just fin on California donkey **** gas. Could it really be detonation causing this issue?
Any thoughts?

Again I love the car but just found this rather shocking.

I can walk away from 325ci and 325i's but C240's leave me asking for more. That is very odd.

Thanks In Advance.

DiamondNoir2K5

Maybe your buddy is a better driver than you?

cracker123

I did notice this also, my new 05 C230 is slow pulling up at high speeds, but I remember my old 01 C240 did very good after 60-70 speed range.

Buellwinkle

I've driven both and off the line the 1.8L C230 beats the C240 hands down by a wide margin but once at speed the C240 and the engine gets above 3,500 rpm, the C240 is at least equal to the 1.8L C230. This is where the 2.3L C230's do better, more grunt at freeway speeds.

BabyBenz6spd

Are you guys talking about Manual C230 vs. Manual C240? or manual vs. auto?

I guess the Supercharged 1.8L I-4 give the C230 a lot of Mid range power, but once in the high end, the boost from the supercharger kinda drops (Thus, not as powerful) (Max 189HP@ 5800RPM and 192ft/Ib 3500-4000RPM for Max Torque)


Btw, which gear is the strongest gear for 6spd manual? Is it 3rd?

CitronC230K_03

first gear is strong IMO, but very short!
ive driven both a C240 and i own a C230. ive driven both stick and autos for both engines and own a 6sp 1.8L. i prefer the 6sp 1.8, but thats me. the V6 2.6 litre is a very smooth engine with a nice amount of low end torque. not as noisy as the 1.8L either.

Frank B

I have not driven the C230 except in a short test drive. I own a 2003 240 4MATIC and I have been very pleasantly surprised at its power especially at higher speeds. At about 80mph it really comes into its own. To bad we don't have the roads here to drive at autobahn speeds. I really think my 240 performs much better than you would expect from its rated power.

I also find that the six in the 240 revs very freely and smoothly. I had a 2001 Audi S4 tiptronic and although it was faster I have not found the letdown I expected when I switched to the C240.

Goldeni245

I have a chipped 1999 c230k, i smoke both w203 230k's and 240's all the time.

jan ken po

That's like saying, "Hi, I'm Carl Lewis, and I smoke 9th graders in the 100meters, all the time."

CitronC230K_03

apples and oranges!

Buellwinkle

I had a W201 diesel, I used to smoke everybody.

CitronC230K_03

i had a C123 diesel and W124 diesel and did the same!!!!

Saprissa

...and that is why, I chose a C320 !!

prodigy1387

Guest0001

If you think the C240 is quick after 50 mph you should see my C320 :p

But yeah As much I dont like the C240 it starts pull after 40-50 mph. Problem is the acceleration is not too good. I remember i had a loaner and it was quiet and sufficient at higher speeds.

Rememer 0-60 is decieving... After 60 is a WHOLE new ball game.

CHATMANR

FrankW

except mine doesn't have the "0" in the back...

anywayz, I thought the C240 pulls decent on the freeway, but off the line it's not that great compare to the C230k I've driven. The C230k has to work a little harder on the freeway around speed like 70-90.

CitronC230K_03

yes it does! its noticable from the smooth high end abilty of the 2.6L.

Anaheim_Drew

O.K you smoke those W203 model cars...with your chip.....

But you still get SPANKED by us C320's and take a royal *** KICKING from a C32.....

So you smoke two models, get spanked by one and take andAss kicking by another........... Not to impressive

C280Sportster

Don't be sure...

A properly modded C230k (2.3l) is a sleeper. Someone posted a dyno of a stock 2.3l kompressor engine and it was putting out 204 HP, I believe that's about 10 more than listed on MBUSA. Seems Mercedes likes to under rate their Kompressor motors. A few people on mbworld have very fast modded C230k sedans and coupes.

Plus the W202 version is lighter than the W203 and the W202 C230k has a granny like 3.27 rear axle. In defense of the W203 C320, comparing a modded engine vs a stock isn't fair.


Back on topic, on paper the new 1.8l kompressor motor puts out near C230k power, if a C240 is keeping up with him, what gives? Something in the gearing maybe, or is this stick vs auto?

Goldeni245

take a chill pill, i wasn't bragging, i was merely stating some facts. And I think I would know, my CLK320 beats my C230K all the time.

Anaheim_Drew

Chill pill? You said bragging not me
Question..........
You say you know because your CLK320 beats your C230k all the time? How do you know? You can't drive both at the same time. What about driver skills? Just messing around.......Time for another chill pill

LaZyC230K

I notice that c230k kinda underpower, after i driven the car for a while. My brother once drove my c230k and vs his friend's 04 civic si. And i was shock that the civic si/manual have smoked my c230k but with tracsion on and din not apply both brake and gas for luanch. The c230k are also 30hp more then the civic. even he is a manual, does it really matter that much? But oh well, after all.. my mbz is not for streen races anywayz.

Thanks

elchinocache

remember that the civic is a whole lot smaller and lighter than the c230. have u ever been in side one of those things? the doors feel so flimsy, its like the car is made out of tin foil. Where as our mb's are nice and solid. and also it depends on the driver and which car is auto or stick, cause i remember when i had a celica, i used to smoke people just because i knew when to drop the clutch and at what rpm. SO its a bunch of factors, but i'm not surprised your c230 got smoked by a civic si, there decently fast.

CynCarvin32

Ok I have a auto C230k and it has 1800 miles. I use 15-50 mobil 1 (its always reving to redline - id say 20-40 times a day so I like a high weight oil) and and I broke the motor in for 1000 miles before gettin into the rev band. But no i was not as careful with this car as I was with my other MB's.

The C240 was a auto with 8k miles. Both cars have the same 3.46 rear end s this comes down to power and weight. The C230k weighs less and has more power and torque and this is why I am so confused.

I have had many C240's as loaner vehicles in the past and I know they do well once up to speed (off the line they are slower than most construction trucks -- esp if it is a hot day witht he ac on!). I had 1 C240 loaner for 45 days and I put 6000 miles on it during that period so I know the car well. I simply thought the C230k would pull well on the freeway given its peaky style motor.

As for the guy who is happy with the W202 I am glad you like the car. While it may be powerful I would not call the old motor a paragon smoothness while the new version is equal to the american and japaneese 4 cyl motors of the 21st century. Yes its faster than the new balance shaft 1.8L motor but it truely sounds terrible and has terrible vibrations. Put a coin or two in your ash tray and hold the car at 5700 rpm... it should vibrate like crazy! Not that its a bad car, I like the C230k special edition from 2000 for it was the best of what the 4 cyl W202 had to offer and it drove extremely well. Just a little rough around the edges. A honda civic with 3k in mods will leave you for dead so its all relative.

I guess I am trying to get at this... Is my car working correctly or are the 2004 and 2005 C230ks using a different fuel map that leans out too much after extended periods of load? I know the 2003 C230k's were very strong and they used to pull very strong well into the power band (while my car seems a bit weeeeezy up top).

Thanks for the input!Ok I have an auto C230k and it has 1800 miles. I use 15-50 Mobil 1 (its always revving to redline - id say 20-40 times a day so I like a high weight oil) and I broke the motor in for 1000 miles before getting into the rev band.

The C240 was a auto with 8k miles. Both cars have the same 3.46 rear end s this comes down to power and weight. The C230k weighs less and has more power and torque and this is why I am so confused.

I have had many C240's as loaner vehicles in the past and I know they do well once up to speed (off the line they are slower than most construction trucks -- esp. if it is a hot day with he ac on!). I had 1 C240 loaner for 45 days and I put 6000 miles on it during that period so I know the car well. I simply thought the C230k would pull well on the freeway given its peaky style motor.

As for the guy who is happy with the W202 I am glad you like the car. While it may be powerful I would not call the old motor paragon smoothness while the new version is equal to the American and Japanese 4 cyl motors of the 21st century. Yes it’s faster than the new balance shaft 1.8L motor but it truly sounds terrible and has terrible vibrations. Put a coin or two in your ashtray and hold the car at 5700 rpm... it should vibrate like crazy! Not that its a bad car, I like the C230k special edition from 2000 for it was the best of what the 4 cyl W202 had to offer and it drove extremely well. Just a little rough around the edges. A Honda civic with 3k in mods will leave you for dead so its all relative.

I guess I am trying to get at this... Is my car working correctly or are the 2004 and 2005 C230ks using a different fuel map that leans out too much after extended periods of load? I know the 2003 C230k's were very strong and they used to pull very strong well into the power band (while my car seems a bit weeeeezy up top).

Thanks for the input!