PJmak

watch the damn video will you

v0ac

All-wheel vented disc brakes help the C43, which by the way is over 200 lb heavier than the BMW M3, stop in record braking distance. Its 112 ft stopping distance from 60 mph is good enough to topple a Ferrari F355.


112 ft makes sense to me...that video is bull**** even their 0-60mph time is weird lol.

still..112ft for a 10 years setup and still is better or equal to some of the best car on the planet !

BenzMaster19

I go with factory tested numbers, not from a dam video thank you very much,, like VOac said, "that video is Bull****"!

C43AMG

Why is the video BS? It was done by Motorweek.How do they benefit from providing "false" information? Did the video seem "altered" by you ?

BenzMaster19

Well for starters, the quarter mile and 0-60 times are way off! the quarter mile for a C43 is 14.4 seconds at 99 MPH, and the 0-60 is right around 5.8 seconds..... and aswell the braking listed is 60-0 in 112 feet, which makes perfect sense.

C43AMG

You still didn't answer the question.....How was thw video BS? Did you feel - the cones were too far apart? The car never got up to 60 mph? Qualify your statement that the video was BS.

PJmak

to get those times, you need good tires, a good driver who knows how to launch, and good track conditions


Im sure these guys dont spend all day on one car trying to get the best time


they get in the car, punch it and document w\e they get

BenzMaster19

And Thats why I stick with factory numbers, and not some "out of the house" road tests... If the factory numbers are 112 feet, your telling me these guys got a stopping distance in the 90's?? BULL. If 112 feet beats a Ferrari F355, then what does a stopping distance in the 90's beat??

PJmak

New cars are tested from 70mph from what I know so you cant really compare


Plus I doubt a braking test requires much skill

steve s

u all realize most of the work on a single attempt during 60-0 braking has to do with the master cylinder and the tires (and the driver's leg/foot speed) right?

MarcusF

Quote:

Originally Posted by PJmak

to get those times, you need good tires, a good driver who knows how to launch, and good track conditions

Let's suppose you're right and MotorWeek's numbers are dead on the mark. Lets look at what else MotorWeek said. According to them the 1998 C43 is two tenths of a second faster to sixty than the same year vee-six powered CLK. HUH? Two tenths? That is a MotorWeek link, right? Does two tenths of a second faster than a CLK320 sound right to you? Not half-a-second faster. Not even "half" of half-a-second faster. THAT is one reason why people aren't drinking the MotorWeek Kool Aid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PJmak

New cars are tested from 70mph from what I know so you cant really compare

Take a look at this PDF. It's got sixty to zero braking specs for a 2003 Enzo.

It says 109 feet from 60 MPH. Not 70MPH. Not 80MPH. Sixty. Do you really think a C43 can stop in almost 15% less distance than an Enzo Ferrari?

Don't get me wrong. There's no harm in having believed something you thought was from a good source. AND the C43 does have fantastic brakes. But come on man, give it up. The facts are in front of you - MotorWeek is wrong.

PJmak

ok the facts are in front of me but the video is in front of me as well

What could have gone wrong in the video? The car obviously did what it did

You think these guys just did a careless test on the car??

Yea it sounds unreal for a little c class to brake that good but you never know.

These cars were called "AMG specials" back in the day and they have racing background plus they are hand built

Also enzo uses ceramic brakes. Those stop way quicker once they get heated up so im sure the car is capable of more than that

steve s

are u sure about that? mind if u take a look at ur setup? cuz that c43 u posted in the link with 95 ft of 60-0 from motorweek has the same calipers as the blue ones up top, single piston sliding ones..

jayrasheed

PJ
Man, its really unreal to have a 1.6 ton merc on skinny 225 rubbers upfront out brake the master of all cars in braking the Porsche 911
by such a margin, which back then couldnt do better than 113ft. 1 foot more than the AMG and thats amazing by itself.
even the new Boxter S needs 105 Ft.

As for the Vid what if it wasn’t at 60MPH just being at 55 will make all the diff in the world when it comes to braking distance.

After all this is a heavy Merc, and i respect that its one of the first (36 included here) mercs to have a brake system you can still trust after several high speed stops, cause thats what counts. come real life i doubt any of us will stop in just 112ft, a drop of cat **** will stretch that a few feet, let alone bit of dust.

jayrasheed

BTW Ceramic Tech brakes dont make u stop any shorter they just stand all the abuse you can throw at them and they are lighter than ur avg setup.
But browse the Porsche forums, and u'll see that they aren't as good as ppl think they are. Its the stupendous price that has ppl thinking they must be way better.

C43AMG

Just to set the record straight.The candyapple blue powdercoated calipers in the post are mine from this thread - https://mbworld.org/forums/c36-amg-c...-calipers.html

BenzMaster19

Heck! if you check out Motorweeks video on the 99 C230K they state that it's just about as fast as the C36!!!!
Ok so lets get this straight, the performace of both the C43 and C36 are just about equal 0-60, and quarter mile, SO are you telling me Motorweek is basically saying a C230K is just as fast as BOTH the C36 and C43 AMG's?? OMG what bull**** Motorweek IS. Pathetic.
That video is right here, the part is at 1:20. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoJ5r1iYjkE

steve s

i know (looks good btw ).. just pointing out that both u and the motorweek c43 have the sliding calipers. wanted to double check if PJmak really has 4-pistons calipers as he stated c43 should have.

mbsickness

Alright to get to the original poster's question. Here is a picture of the 1996 C36 calipers. The numbering matches the piston sizes so I assume that is the purpose of the markings.

jayrasheed

Below is a reply from another thread on this forum, i am interested in the last part abt the custom AMG Calipers. My AMG is 1995 and has AMG logo like the silver pic on the first page here. The ATE 4-pistons shown in the last reply here look like ur avg w124 320 4-piston calipers, or maybe the SL ones. so in the end are the AMG calipers any better or are they just the same with the Logo added?

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve s
even between the 3 years the c36 was built, there were huge variations.

here are some numbers in the u.s.
1995, 444 sold, list msrp $49,800, 268 hp 4-sp
1996, 338 sold, list msrp $51,000, 268 hp 4-sp
1997, 236 sold, list msrp $51,925, 276 hp 5-sp

some had sl600 front brakes (4-piston), some had e420 front brakes (single piston ate sliding crap)

You are wrong on the "Brakes" part of your post,,,
The '95's had their own Custom AMG brakes/calipers, and the '96 and '97's FRONT brakes were from the SL600, and the REAR brakes were from the E420.

AMGC

Congradulations a PO painted your calipers red

The blue calipers are C43 calipers not Pre or post 96 C36 calipers.

I wonder how long my turbo'd Cossie 190 with C36 4 piston front calipers and a new E420 brake master cylinder would take to stop

jayrasheed

no no no no i haven't painted them red me self, i got the car that way, and they seem to be factory painted as the paint looks old and buffed but still hasn't chipped.

and it aint the first C36 i see with red calipers front and rear. the only other colors i have seen are silver also showing AMG logo, and the unpainted ATE stuff (no AMG logo).

ps: PO stands for?????

C43AMG

Previous Owner

steve s

i understand what the "literature" says.. sl600 front, e420 rear. i've already posted this a long time ago. in fact, here is the thread from 2002: https://mbworld.org/forums/c-class-w...s-c36-c43.html

however, this is what i have


rotors are these, 2104210712


pads that correspond to these are listed as A0044200220, not the A0054200220 listed in the dealers computer database nor the mbusa technical database.

so clearly, i don't believe i have the sl600 brakes in the front. hence, why i said some may have had e-class front brakes. the first 3 number of the part number stamped on the rotor seems to indicate it's from 210 as well.

and no, nobody's replaced them with something else. i'm the first owner, 30k original miles on it. (surprisingly, as i've never had front brake pads last 30k, rears maybe, fronts no)

MarcusF

Part number 2104210712 appears to have been superseded by part number 2034210312. 2034210312 is a rotor for a C230 (2002-2005), C240 (2001), and C320 (2001). They list for $63.

For discs, I show an early C36 as using a WA2024210112 on the left and a WA2024210212 on the right. They list for $190 each. I show the later C36 as using a 2104211712 (either side). Those list for $104 each. The early C36 calipers appear as WA2024210198 on the left and WA2024210298 on the right. $1100 each. Later C36 calipers appear as 0014203383 for the left and 0014203483 for the right. Those later calipers list for $950, and also fit a 1997 E420.

0044200220 pads appear as SLK230 (1998-2004) parts. Mercedes-Benz of Annapolis supplied the prices and applications. There may be other applications for those parts.