ProjectC55

Yep! I will be next on the list to order those. They look SWEET!

I wonder if those are 19's?

e30t387

if you read the specs from what they say the back lip is bigger then the front i will post pics when they arrive.

e30t387

i believe they are 18x8 front 18x9 rear.

c55m8o

could you please weigh them when you get them? Front & rear? I'd like them for my old 560SL, but hoping they're not 30'ish lb'ers.

thanx

FLYNAVY

Sorry, w204 was a typo on my part. Anyway, I still assert that you don't know what you are talking about. Inferring that 55 mph is the optimal fuel efficiency speed for any car is a little ridiculous. First and foremost, cars are geared differently. Do you know the gear ratios for YOUR car? How about mine? What rpm is your little 1.8 spinning at when you cruise down the freeway? Mine is just puttering along in the 2k rpm range generally, cruising at freeway speed. This can and does account for differences between seemingly comparable cars. More importantly, remember, fuel efficiency in terms of "gas mileage" is a ratio of fuel burn / miles covered. Speed = rate you cover miles; fuel burn is a function of engine speed most importantly and of course displacement, fuel mapping, etc all play into that particular fuel burn at a particular rpm. So you can see that for every engine, there will be a different volume of fuel / unit time being burned at a given engine speed. So while you may burn less fuel at 55 mph per unit time, you are also covering less ground per unit time. If by chance you burn only a marginally greater amount of fuel per unit time at, say 65 mph, you could theoretically increase your "gas mileage" because you are covering a lot more ground per unit time than you were at 55 while only burning a little more fuel. In my case, my motor is still just barely coming alive at 70 mph. Yes I am burning less at 65, or 55, but I'm not using that much power to just stay there. I'm not stomping on the loud pedal and using all the power my 4.3L's can provide (the BIG fuel burn), and I am simply maintaining the speed that I have already accelerated to. If I only use 50% of my rated HP to get up to speed, and then maintain a comparably low power level to cruise at speed, then I am likely not burning a whole lot more gas than your 1.8 which may be generating just as much power to stay at speed as mine is depending on your gearing (power from a specific amount of fuel being burned is roughly the same between our cars, not accounting for differences in compression efficiency and of course drivetrain losses, etc which could differ between cars).....not to mention that you will need to use nearly all of your available power to get up to speed quickly (in which case you also burn extra fuel w/ full throttle enrichment, etc). Also, I never said I was running A/C (although I was at a very low level). Not sure why you are convinced that I am lying....feeling a bit argumentative are we?

FLYNAVY

Replied to your PM, actually I will be using it in the w201

SeeKlasse

with a 5spd manual. whats the final drive on that?

C43AMG

Got it, thanx , my bad.

SeeKlasse

look here, thats the speed! when a car receives its highway rating, they take that rating at the crossroads of drag vs cruising speed to obtain optimal gas mileage. this mileage is acheived almost always at mid to high 50's. as a fellow engineer, you should know that drag increases exponentially with speed. in addition to learning this (just recently mind you, you seem like youre 50 and havent stepped foot in a college in years) academically, i can also attest to this fact from my experience as a road or mountain biker. you cant go too fast because wind drag starts accumulating at a very agressive rate, and you must find a sweet zone that matches your cadence or youre not going anywhere without a struggle.

FLYNAVY

You are correct in saying that parasite drag increases exponentially w/ speed as its own independent factor, but you have to look at the ratio at which this increase in drag (and resultant increase in fuel burn to overcome it) compares to the corresponding increase in distance covered per unit time over the speed range of concern (say 55 to 65 mph). This will tell you whether parasite drag is a limiting factor in this speed range. Just from first-hand experience (throwing all theory aside) I've tested my car specifically and have not found my optimum fuel efficiency to be anywhere near 55, or even in the 50's......not that 76 mph is the most efficient speed (it is prob in the low 60's), but it is kind of irrelevant anyways since that is the gas mileage I actually saw going 76 on the freeway

FWIW I am actually relatively fresh out of the classroom myself, though I vowed to never return to either engineering, or engineering school

FLYNAVY

Its uses a 3.27 LSD from a 16v 190e

e30t387

when i talked to the guy he said they weight somewhere in the 20lb's mark so thats good enough for me , as long as they dont weigh as much as the monoll i had im happy.

RBYCC

Sometimes "engineers" live in a world of "theory" which doesn't take into account the variables of the real world...

I'll back what you are concluding by my recent experience.

Drove my C43 to Charleston SC in early May.
One way about 610 miles, 450 of those miles being I95.
Speed limit on I95 in the Carolins is 75 MPH.

Drove an average of about 60MPH on the way down and got about 20MPG.
Hot footed on the return and averaged over 70, with I95 more over 80 and realized 23 MPG...:y

F14Tomcat

Time to put my $0.02 in!

We bought our '96 C36 in June, 2000. It had just over 47K miles on it (~950 miles, or 1 week left on the original warranty!). We have never had the wire harness replaced, nor are we aware that it was replaced before we bought the car. I'll pass 141,300 miles by the time I get home tonight. Oil changes every 4k miles (the car came with dinosaur oil, and we still use it). Other scheduled maintenance when required (brake fluid, coolant flush, tranny fluid, etc). The only real "major" problems have been:
- Timing chain was loose/rattling (they conveniently "discovered" this one month after our extended warranty expired... )
- After some a/c repairs, they installed a new thermostat which required a software upgrade to the climate control, and they didn't do it/didn't know about it, so for about a month, the auxiliary cooling fans would come on every 20-30 seconds and stay on for minutes at a time. They replaced the thermostat two more times before they figured that one out.
- Fuel level sender went south, had that replaced. It's weird driving on an "Empty" fuel tank all the time, especially after a fill-up!
- Currently have a freon leak in the a/c compressor. They filled up the freon again, and if it gets us through the summer, fine. This we won't be fixing.
- EGR valve got clogged, just had that (and all related parts) replaced.

Other than that, the car has been very reliable, and an absolute joy to drive. We had the fuel injector cleaning service done maybe 4 years ago, but it didn't seem to make a noticeable difference at all to me. I installed Green filters in both cars about 2 years ago, and the C definitely seems peppier in the low RPM range.

The only other "problem" is the MB paint job. We have upwards of a dozen spots on the C where the paint has bubbled/chipped, and you can see rust underneath. The biggest one is about the size of a nickel. And this on a car I detail (wash/clay/wax) twice a year. And the finish is peeling in places on all four Monoblock IIs.

Did I mention we get 24-26mpg highway? I don't have any hard numbers since I haven't calculated in a while.

Would I trade it for a C43? Nope, got the W209 CLK55 for that!

Edit: Just saw Wes's C43 for sale. Now that C43 I'd trade for!

FLYNAVY

No fair

c55m8o

I would tend to agree! But also, I feel obliged to say, he'd mentioned to me how atypically reluctant he was to part with this particular vehicle (unlike all the others he had parted with in the past)... and further had found another way to raise funds so would not be parting with it! So I still have a chance to drive in it.

Dr. C36

why would you trade for W209 CLK55? Personally I'd MUCH rather have the W208 CLK55, its lighter, has more potential, bulletproof reliability, more masculine design etc.

just my honest opinion, thats all

c55m8o

Read it again... as is in his profile to the left, he has a W209 CLK55, & a C36... no need to 'dis' his W209! (especially if you ever drive one!)

ProjectC55

How does it have more potential and what are you comparing when you mention reliability?

ProjectC55

That sounds good to me!

ECTurboGSX

I drive almost exclusively highway and track my mileage and I get around 24 MPG driving 75-80 MPH. I got 26-27 MPG when I bought the car and was driving it home from Alabama because I was only doing about 65 since the tags were from my other car and the MAF was slowly failing at that point.

F14Tomcat

F14Tomcat

That's great news! Wes put so much into that car, it would be a shame if he had to sell it already.

F14Tomcat

I changed my signature picture as well!

e30t387

am also selling mine now since im 23 live on my own and still make payments on the c43, and gas is killing me, any sugestions , i guess since i owe on it id have to trade it in to a dealer wonder how much their gonna rape me.