boull

Hey,
i have a brake service due soon.

i have OEM brakes set. i was thinking upgrading the Discs to 330mm (the OEM are 300mm).
i do not intend to go for bigger calipers (keeping my OEMs)

my question is: is it possible to increase the diameter of the discs and keep the calipers and use normal OEM pads? Would they cover the extra diameter (30mm)?

(would the mercedes badged calipers from a W203 fit a W209 -- assuming i am using a 330mm diameter disc?)

Thanks.

Glyn M Ruck

A lot of parts are interchangeable but you need to keep your caliper & disc set matched & the caliper mounting on the STEERING KNUCKLE correct. So the swap is all or nothing. Presume your car still has the standard sliding caliper for a 240? You say OEM so I presume so.

The other thing to consider is brake balance. If you upgrade the front then you need to do the rear to match the front or you will undo all the hard work Benz has done in achieving optimum front to rear balance.

Good luck

boull

Thanks Glyn for the feedback...
i don't think i would go for the 330mm ...
i was rechecking the sizes of the brakes and the original size is
Front Power 300-mm X 28-mm Ventilated Disc and Rear Power 290-mm X 10-mm Solid Disc Brakes

so i guess i`ll keep on going with the same ones...

AS u said, So the swap is all or nothing...

Balance was another thing i didnt think of.

Thanks again

boull

How to know how many pistons are located on the caliper? (Hope my question was formulated correctly)

Glyn M Ruck

Depends on the caliper. Ranges from one on your sliding caliper to 6 on some AMG models. You need to know the caliper P/N.

Some fun. Pics from Steve - our MBenzNL sponsor.





These are mainly 4 & 6 piston calipers. Easy to see on AMG calipers - not so easy on other models.

boull

What is the possibility that Santa has a profile on this forum and is reading my thread now & thinking...."He sure was a good boy this year & deserve the AMG Caliper"

Santa are you here?

Thanks Glyn... u just helped completing my wish list for this year !

Glyn M Ruck

See my edit above regarding identification!

2ng

german ****

boull

LOL +1

mikata

Drooool

ahmadk

boull just go with the calipers and rotors from the 05 c230k

Glyn M Ruck

That is certainly an option but don't expect miracles. They look better but don't really improve braking. The pad area is almost identical to what you have. If you go this route you don't have to upgrade the rear because the front is not really improved. Consider it cosmetic. The front Sport Pack rotor will probably increase fade resistance a little & improve dust evacuation.

2MCHCAR

+100

Looks like I'm calling Steve when I'm ready for the 6/4 pot upgrade!

boull

I`m not.. the looks of the 2003 calipers are like an old can of Tuna. the 2005 seems nice... i dont have any additions to my engine so it is a plain 240 engine with not a single modification so the extra braking might not be needed. as u said, consider it a Cosmetic change. the only thing i wanted was to a a bigger rotor, but as u previously explained that can unbalance the braking system. either go for the whole upgrade or don't.



One more thing, i found a dealer here who has EBC & STOPTECH.
anyone familiar with these?

Sorry to say i was interested in the R1's & some Akebono pads, but we don't have them here and the shipment would cost big $$.


Thanks everyone for the help.

Glyn M Ruck

Yeah - The 2003 brakes are not pretty. I've just sold my stock C240 so I certainly know what you mean. The facelift Sport Pack brakes are made by Brembo for Merc & look very nice.

Don't apologise about your 240 engine. It's one of the toughest Benz has ever made. A friend in KL Malaysia has just sold one with over a million Km's on it & no major repairs.

Here's my old car.

Frank Rizzo

Hey B
I had EBC pads all around on my '08 R32 and I loved them.
I tracked my car a LOT and had no issues with EBC's and found them much better than Hawk pads for a daily driver.
I had the Redstuff pads first, but also bought a set of Yellows later. I thought I would change to the yellows for the track, but ended up never taking them out - used them for the daily drive...no problems.

You most likely only need the Redstuff EBC's. they are ceramic and cut the brake dust down by 80%

bheng

OT question about brakes.

i noticed that the c32 amg has 300 mm brake discs and clk320 has 290mm brake disk. but both are 2 piston. can it be possible that its a "beter" 2 piston on the c32 vs the 320 and will it throw off the brake bias that much if i switched to it vs left it stock?

Glyn M Ruck

It's all a matter of hydraulics - ratio of master cylinder to caliper cylinder/s in displacement while taking into account boost. Then ratio back to front.

Can one set of two cylinder calipers be better than another? - Yes in the correct circumstances.

What will fitting C32 calipers do to brake bias? Who knows without knowing bore & displacement of the one caliper vs. the other. Plus area of pad in contact with the rotor in both cases.

I think the question you have to ask yourself is - are you looking for a cosmetic change or a real change in performance without messing up the bias.

boull

Frank Rizzo, thanks for sharing the experience concerning the EBC pads. i was thinking going for rotors as my primary change, yet it all comes down to how much i am going to be quoted for a rotor+pad change for the whole car. as you said i took a look & for me i wont need more than the redstuff.

THanks again

according to yahoo autos, i was taking a look @ the brake specs and this is what they show:

C240 - 2005
Front Power 300-mm X 28-mm Ventilated Disc and Rear Power 290-mm X 10-mm Solid Disc Brakes

CLK320 - 2004
Front Power 300-mm X 28-mm Ventilated Disc and Rear Power 290-mm X 10-mm Solid Disc Brakes

C32 AMG - 2004
Vented Discs
f brake size x 345 mm / x 13.6 in r brake size x 300 mm / x 11.8 in

where did u get the info that the C32 has the same diameter as the CLK?(just asking)
i know that the HP between both is roughly around 130HP difference. so the C32 would need much braking power than a CLK to stop. at least i am thinking about it in a logical point of view (i might be totally wrong)

boull

the 240 Engine is amazing, yet for a 2.6L engine 6Cyl, i thought it would have more than 170Hp. but i guess this is all related to engine serving more years+miles...

isnt it true that we have much in common with the 203 class, for instance between the CLK240 & the C240, the braking is the same.. same piston number , same diameter for rotors... etc?

bheng

It was more of a cosmetic change than anything else. I guess with bit of a performance aspect

How can i find out the size difference of the master cylinder of a c32 vs a 320

you are correct. I was only referring to the rear brake discs. the difference is 10 mm and one is ventilated and other is not. currently debating if its worth hunting for c32 rears but it looks like im going to need to hunt for a master cylinder too.

Rudeney

Yes, for all practical purposes, the W209 is a coupe version of a W203 (even though the W203 also had a hatchback coupe model, too). Many parts are interchangeable. I also agree with your assessment of the 2.6l V6. We have a C240 and it can at time seem underpowered by today's standards. Then again, compared to compact cars of 12 years ago when it was introduced, it wasn't too bad. Really, the 2.6l has some decent power at certain RPM's. In our case, it has been the perfect engine for our teenager - not too powerful to get her in trouble, but not too slow that she's worried about pulling out in traffic. And yes, it's a great engine - basically just a "destroked" version of the 3.2l V6 in the 320 (which is also a great engine).

Glyn M Ruck

One should remember that the CLK is based on a modified & lengthened W203 platform so they have much in common as Rudeney says.

I have never seen the respective displacement of Benz master cylinders & calipers published. Will keep my eyes open for you.

The silky smooth, free revving little 2.6 needs to be revved to perform & it is happy to do that. In W203, 209 & 211 form it's blessed with well selected gearing for it's power & torque curve. It's not an engine that is understood by drivers accustomed to stump pulling torque. European motoring scribes always rated the C240 & C270 CDi as the best 203's & the 320 as the worst.

mikata

Hi Glyn, I've read few of your posts and it seems to me that you know one or two things about Mercedes cars. Thanks for contributing

Just out of sheer interest, do you remeber why the 320 was rated the worst?
Not fuel efficient? Not efficient in all areas?

Thanks!

Glyn M Ruck

This was a precis of reviews over time for W203 in Europe.

Being Europe I suspect that fuel consumption was the largest criticism & complaints on 2000-2002 models which were horrendous. Complaints were never engine related. Rather quality & build. M112 engine was great!

https://mbworld.org/forums/attachmen...class-w203.pdf