Well have you tried the Juice box yet? Its cheap, and from people who have run it say it works on a lot of the issues. Mod trust me its not the engine its the tune there will be a new tune shortly out. But in the mean time try the Juice box, it has good reviews.

 

That sounds excessive .... under what conditions do you get that much shift delay? How many miles on the car?

I think this is the Juice box:

Juice Box?

Notice it does not bring the boost/torque in quicker.



______________ *** All Members, New and some Old *** _______________

please click on User CP at the top left of page, just below the thread title. Then add the following to either Profile and/or Signature , selecting buttons on the left side of that page:

year, model, if it's a diesel, Sport or Lux, 4MATIC or RWD, Location (city & state), and non-US country if applicable.

This helps others respond to issues, like tires, spring options, part sales, etc. Thanx

.

 

On 3/4 throttle upshifts. Car has 1700 miles. I think I will try the JB+. It's only $300 out the door. Perhaps my expectations are off for a MB but my friend's new Sonata turbo has almost no noticeable lag and considerably more power. That said, it's not a car I'd consider buying for a whole bunch of of other reasons.

 

Hmm...
Ive got the C250 CGI 2011 model. This car goes quite good. There is a lag in the turbo which is annoying some times, but this car is not built for that purpose.
Remember, MB is more for luxury focused while BMW is more sports focused.
I test drove the BMW 328 before I bought this car and it can be quite stressful.
BMer had sharper steering and more responsive engine.

Now for about a year driving the C250, it is a very enjoyable car. You have to know when to change the gear selection on manual mode if you are in a hurry. This will help keep the desired RPM you require to get the car going quick.

From my experience, this thing is 5spd tranny, but this thing can be a bit of a beast if played correctly.

joe....

 

remember the true behavior of a new tune can't be seen on a dyno chart. user reports on the juice box says less lag and more power.

 

What grade oil do you run? 0W-40?


.

 

Comparing with the Sonata Turbo is almost legit, except it starts with a 2.4L eng vs 1.8L, and the turbo is modestly sized so you have 269 ft-lbs from 1750-4500 rpm. Cars weigh the same, so ignoring the turbo, it will pull better from idle with the 33% larger displacement.

To Do, imho:

1) try another C250 or three at your dealer, and ignore him on the test drive and just do the things that bother you. See if it's just your car. If so, demand another.

2) based on the JB dyno curve, which will show any off-the-line improvement, it looks like they just work on the turbo control. Take a look at the Sprintbooster for same $$$ . This is a white paper on an older MB, but it's likely MB still uses the same droopy pedal-motion vs TB-motion.
(see fig-1 and fig-3) :


SprintBooster White Paper


3) if the C250 turbo has typical OEM sleeve bearings (vs ball bearings), consider running the MB approved Castrol Edge Syntec (european) 0W-30. Dealers normally run Mobil1 5W-40. Note that in the latest owner's manual, 0W-30 and XW-40 were included in the same column, representing the widest approved temperature range.

.

 

As you put more miles on the car, I bet you will see improved response. Tight motor, 4cyl....my 300 feels quicker at 22k than it did at 12k, so it stands to reason. I have some horrible dead spots though, too, whereby I feel like I have to give 3/4 throttle after some quick side-street turns, in order to even move. Must be something to do with the ECU mapping in quick stops/hard low-speed turns....no idea, but I get it in the V6.

As it's a lease, I'd drive it as hard as possible, leave it in S, and see if you get better results after another 500 miles or so.

 

Displacement does not always equate to greater horsepower. Take the EVO to the STI for example we have a 2.0 vs 2.5 litter and they produce the same from the factory and the 2.0 is actually more HP friendly than the 2.5 litter engine.

 

I'm more interested in low end torque, as that and the response issue are the subjects. Need to find some dyno charts, by OEM or others.

From OEM websites:

WRX STI

305 hp - @ 6000 rpm
290 ft-lb @ 4000 rpm

EVO GSR

291 hp - @ 6500 rpm
300 ft-lb @ 4000 rpm

Of course this says nothing about turbo lag or how well the engine pulls from a stop.

.

 

Either way there in the same ball park. I just got to wait untill a week before I put on the JB and than I can tell you guys my thoughts on it, if it tackles the problems that we are complaining about. I am sure it will give me more than enough power on the bottom end where I will be satisfied. Coming from a 600 whp car I quite enjoy this little bugger.

 

Same impression here from driving all of the new 2012 C Class variants and all of the AMG's as well on an MB race track meet day.

In one bracket I drove (on the track) a C250 petrol, diesel and then a C350 petrol back to back and then on the same bracket even compared them to a new 2012 SLK 350 and both the 350's felt 'flat' compared the the forced inducted 250's.

They are obviously quicker, but from the drivers seat they really didn't feel that way and just seemed no where near as much fun or strong compared with the torque rush that happens with the forced induction 250's.

 

Turbos like track days. I've had 3 turbos in 2 cars on the track .... no turbo problem!

.

 

Great!

It would be nice to do some before and after elapsed-times for test runs. I have done many on other cars. A couple conceptual ideas, with details to suit you:

On flat road, minimal traffic:

1) cruise in 3rd gear, about 2000 rpm, lift at pedal and go @ 50%, check time to gain say 30 mph.

2) same thing from dead stop. Use temporary pressure gage to check boost. Measure time to 10 psi.

To show what I mean, check out my test on my Saab Turbo (rip) :

saab-8v-Intercooler-test

.

 

My wife just got her 2012 C250 sedan and it came with the POS V6 instead of the 4cyl turbo. Too bad

 

In Canada, the C250 4MATIC comes with a 2.5L V6, the RWD gets the turbo.

The turbo engine delivers 201 hp @ a low 5500 rpm, and 228 ft-lbs @ 2,000 - 4,300.

The V6 has same 201 hp at a higher 6100 rpm, and a low 181 ft-lbs@ 2,900 - 5,500

.

 

Yup. And it's a pig on gas. Even worse that her old 2012 C300 4matic.

 

imho, between the C250 sport and the C350 sport, the C350 is really the better deal. The P1 option is standard in the C350 and a wood trim choice is also a no-cost option. If you add those options to the base price of the C250, there is only a USD 2,950 difference between the C350 and the C250. And that difference gets you larger front and rear rotors and the 3.5 V6 with 12.2:1 compression yielding 302hp and 273 ft lbs of torque starting at 3,500 rpms. The 7-speed autobox is also much better mated to the 6 cylinder (e.g., as in the E Class.)

P1 is an option most people would want anyway (split rear seats, premium HK sound system with sat radio and CD changer, power lumbar, 14 way power driver seat and memory, heated seats, power steering column adjust, etc..) The marketing of the C250 at base pricing makes it look a lot cheaper than the C350, but it really isn't. It's how MBUSA gets people into the C Class.

Someone in the family is shopping this week and they're coming from a IL6 BMW. They prefer n/a motors and with some top end and smooth acceleration. They ruled out the 4 cylinder C Class and ruled out the 3 series BMW since there is no choice in motors with the 328i (only if you go with the 335i. And even then there are no more of the famous n/a IL6 motor options with BMW.)

ymmv, but I think the C350 is the way to go. And the difference in mpg is pretty negligible. C250 4 cylinder: 21 city 31 highway; C350 6 cylinder: 20 city 29 highway.

 

The actual fuel diffrence is quite dramatic as most guys are seeing well above that with spirited driving. Also dont underestimate the tuning prowess that 1.8T has, in its future gobs of power on the cheap.

 

fwiw, I was describing it in the context of a basic street car and daily driver. I don't consider the C Class as something worth tuning (expect the C63, of course.) And if I were ricing out a turbo I'd go Audi or BMW and get the better chassis that is inherent with those models. The Baby Benz is more of an all around daily, imho.

And if mpg was the determining priority, then there are many other brands to choose from for optimum frugality. The MB 4 is not the best in its segment in respect to mpg. Again, the buyer is coming from an IL6 BMW (E46) and fuel consumption isn't a major concern. But smooth pedal response and n/a type acceleration and power band characteristics is the priority here. As I said, ymmv.

 

hook up a manual boost controller and turn the boost up! thatll help get you going...

 

I wouldnt call putting a aftermarket Tune a ricer Move! Its funny how with the small Kompressors modifying them was not considered rice, just because its a turbo now its rice.

 

How do you know those two chassis are better? Do you have reference links to chassis stiffness tests ... torsion and bending? Just "opinion" is ok too.

That is the six cylinder non-turbo. Agreed, one less variable (boost control) to make things difficult. But with gas prices high, (partly due to someone punishing all the gulf drillers for the mistakes of ONE bad apple) turbos are going to be more avaialable than just in the VW/Audi camps.

.

 

"Better" chassis in the sense of driving dynamics. Actual empirical 'stiffness?' Not sure on that one although I'm sure the data is out there somewhere. But in subjective 'tests' the BMW/Audi Quattro end of the spectrum have a better feeling in cornering capabilities, steering input, and overall tactile feel. This is also noted all the time in published reviews. And in skid pad testing (g numbers) and slalom speeds, they do come out ahead. It's always been their forte. I imagine much of it has to do with weight distribution, too (esp for BMW which is known for its close to 50/50 relationship from front to rear.)

But that said, it's always a trade off between stiffness/handling and comfort/handling. BMW has softened things up a bit lately as a response to being a direct competitor to the C Class and that "ultimate driving machine" slogan is starting to lose some of its credibility, imho. And for overall daily driving I'd prefer the C Class (as I already mentioned.) However, for a car I'd be tuning (both motor and chassis) and want to use as a canyon tosser, I'd personally be going with BMW/Audi (Quattro) as a better (for that purpose) platform.

I'd probably argue that the current availability of small 4s with turbos has less to do with real consumer demand as it does with meeting federal regulations. CAFE rules require fuel economy across the fleet. Both BMW and Mercedes build gas guzzlers (including their M and AMG division products) and building and selling more small motors with better EPA mpg numbers reduces the monetary fines. Daimler paid out a huge amount in fines (over USD 55 million) over the past couple of years and BMW paid even more. Daimler execs have made public statements about concentrating on reducing those fines.

The eco nannies (start/go), transmissions with more cogs (and new formulas for more viscous transmission fluids), direct fuel injection with higher compression ratios, new liners and honing techniques for cylinder walls, etc., etc. is all part of getting a number or two knocked off of the EPA mpg rating for the entire fleet. Consumer concern over gas prices is really more of a secondary issue, although the printed EPA numbers do help with marketing to a certain demographic.

 

According to the latest car and driver the C250 had a faster slalmon the the BMW and Audi and they referred several times of the C to have the stiffer chassis.