BAD300

Are the 300CE Coupes really some 240kg's heavier than the 300E sedan's? That's a helava weight difference when factoring in power-to-weight ratio with a project build Very interesting..........


Many websites have differing weights. For example. One site will state the 300E kerb weight is 1390kgs. Another 1450kgs. Yet another 1490kgs. Very frustrating. The coupe however can't be 1630kgs now surely That's heavier than the LWB 300E in the 1500's!

the_widebody

could be, maybe the stiffening required when they removed the b pillar?

RBYCC

Tim

My USA ( A/C, sunroof, all options ) 1988 300CE is about 3700lbs / 1680kg with a bit of petrol in it....
Weighed it in order to accurately dial in the dyno...

Ed A.

BAD300

Ed. You haven't by any chance weighed in a 300E sedan?

bsmuwk

Is that with you or the dyno operator in it or no?

RBYCC

Car alone with almost a full tank of gas....and had fairly heavy 18" AMG replica rims.

I show actual test weight of a Euro 230CE at 3415lbs....
Euro/UK/World cars probably lighter as most don't have A/C or even sunroof.

Mercedes published the curb weight for the USA 1988 300CE at 3310lbs / 1500kg....which is lower then the actual weight of the Euro 230CE !!!
The coupe if I recall was about 70lbs heavier then the sedan due to additional body shell reinforcing....

The published curb weight of the USA AMG 300CE 3.2 was 3415lbs....
Published curb weight for the USA 1987 W124 AMG Hammer was 3636lbs...

3700lbs for a USA C124 is pretty close...

zach1328

Depends. The newer models with the 2.8 or 3.2L m104 engines are slightly heavier than the M103 models.
I've got a 1993 300E 2.8 sedan and i believe the curb weight is about 3450 lbs, and the 3.2l is slighter heavier at over 3500 lbs.

I believe the Coupe's actually do weigh more because they have to reinforce the frame of it which adds a lot of weight.
Although the 300ce manual does have like a 7k redline which is kind of nice.

If you're that worried about the weight of the car, you can easily take out 100lbs of stuff that isnt needed in the car. In addition, you could go on a diet and loose 50lbs..That takes care of 150lbs of the car/driver.

Then you can go buy a nice set of carbon fiber rims for probably a mere $5,000 and shed another 15 lbs or so. Fill up your tires with hydrogen instead of oxygen.

Just keep in mind when trying to shed weight off a car, all of the little things add up.
1) Take out the spare tire (hope you dont get a flat when its out)
2) Take out the Jack and tools etc
3) Take out the back seat (i dont know if you can do this on the coupe?)
4) Take out the first aid kit (the 20 year old band-aids probably dont stick anymore anyways)
5) Lighter rims/put hydrogen in the tires
6) Take out the 6 disk changer in the trunk
7) Take out those heavy *** rubber floor mats
Anyways, the list goes on and on. Don't not buy a 300ce just because it is heavier than the sedan. Even though its heavier, it will still beat the 2.8l sedan.

bsmuwk

Thanks for that info!
Shame all the best looking wheels/tires for these cars weigh a couple hundred pounds in themselves.




I can only imagine how quick of a ride it these machines would be if these engines weren't lugging around near 2 tons.

BAD300

Not my BBS rims haha.......cost me though


Don't know about near 2 ton man? I'm getting alot of folk with reliable info supporting 1390-1450kgs as the kerb weight for the sedan. Ed yes, about 30kgs more for the coupe. 1500 easily for the wagon. That's still a far cry from 2 ton but yeah bsmuwk, ain't light either granted! They need the TT from Mossleman or turbotechnics yes

To put it into a bit of perspective though. The later (97') Volvo 850 R's are near to 1500kgs with a 2.3L 5 cyl turbo engine putting out 240 horses stock. The pathetic 1600kg Holden Commodores down here of the mid 90's to early 00's, sporting the show horse supercharged 3.8L V6 (Buick engine). Get this! The modified HSV version puts out a measley 245bhp. Same power as the modified 5.0L V8! Compare that to the Volvo on a power-to-weight ratio basis.......Why would you bother?

Slightly off track but back in the start of the 70's here in OZland. The Police & Government of the time 'blackbanned' Ford Australia from producing the 500 "Phase 4" GTHO Falcon XA's, (500 was the necessary requirement production figure to meet in order to enter the Bathurst race, known back in the 70's as the Hardy Ferodo 500. Would've been around 400bhp for the street. As a result. 72' model XA Bathurst special models just sold as a GT with HO options but mainly suspension orientated NOT engine output!

Come ahead to now & wth? Now it's open slather to manufacturers to belt out muscle cars to whatever power they like in competitive spirit! So much for concerns about economy & road speed.......The current model Ford XR6 Turbo's (from 08'-now) are putting out well over 400bhp @ present. Now that's not bad for a production straight 6 . Even the older models put out respectable geegee's. Not to mention the Chev-powered L2 500+bhp brutes that are found in the most expensive limited HSV Commodore now produced. Been recorded @ 290kph (190+ mph)

So much for ways in lowering the road toll ey...........

bsmuwk

Ed's US coupe weighed in at 3700lbs, that's close to 2 ton.

RBYCC

Other then the W201 there are not many light weight Mercs.

Consider my W209 Black Series....composite fenders, carbon fiber, no back seat, no spare and it still weighs about 3800lbs

You have to also think about the conservative power ratings of Merc motors...
The 1988 300CE would run to 60 in a seven second range with only 188HP

QVHK

I happened to have an article about the 1988 300CE from a UK magazine "Mercedes Enthusiast"; June 2006 edition. It states "......Physics says that weight has no effect on top speed, and weight was the coupe's dirty little secret. Stylish pillarless construction in the best Mercedes coupe tradition gave a visual lightness that belied the heavyweight engineering involved. It simply wouldn't be a Mercedes if it didn't feel as though it had been chipped from a solid block, and that meant a great deal of bracing with extra metal. The long door aperture combined with the entire side window area meant a very large hole on each side of the car, and the engineers went to great lengths to compensate for it. The penalty was a weight of 1,400kg, the same as the 4-door 300E sedan." The article went on to point out the price difference between the CE and sedan. "....Nobody bought a 300CE on a budget. You could buy a 300E in the States for $33,900, whereas the 300CE would have set you back $53,880. That is a hike of 59%! The bottom line for our coupe in July 1988 was GPB 34,988.70." What this means is that the CE does not have weight advantage over the sedan, but it is certainly equally if not more solid than the 4-door siblings.....

bsmuwk

LOL.


I'm just glad I've put a stickshift in my coupe - changes the driving expierience completely.

BAD300

Thanks for the write up Yes. No doubt I like the thud of each door heard when it closes. However, I wasn't talking about 'top speed'. I was referring to power-to-weight when considering acceleration/performance when modifying a car. Not something for the purest! Weight does indeed play a part obviously in this case.

BAD300

Still getting figures moreso between 1380-1450kgs for the 12V sedan, depending on the year. 24V's are heavier.

The 12v coupes are only 20-30kgs more with the 89' models weighing in @ 1480kgs tops. This is being confirmed via paperwork though, not by weighing them as far as I know........

QVHK

To: BAD300 Er, yes. The statement "Physics ....." is part and parcel of the paragraph in the article that addressed the weight issue of 1988 300CE compared to the sedan version. Certainly weight is an issue on pick up and acceleration. I have heard that a Smart42 could smoke an Alfa Bera at traffic light start up. To: bsmuwk I too have converted the transmission to stickshift and also changed the differential so it is now a totally different car, but I agree that the car can still lose some weight to be more nimble. Would wish to upgrade the front brakes to E320 4-pot version but the sheer weight of the OEM clippers and disc makes me think twice.....

Ortolan

Ed, there must be some differences between markets. My 1989 300CE was built for the Hong Kong market and has all the same options as you (including that unusual twin turbo option code!) yet only weighed 1450kg when I shipped it to Canada with me. I'm fairly confident in the weight because that and volume (11.959CBM) determine how much money the freight company charges. Mind you, the petrol tank was running on fumes so that's probably an extra 50kg there. I also have the later M104 HFM retrofit engine which I assume would be heavier than the stock M103. Not only that but also heavy AMG alloys (17"), bigger 500SL iron brakes, thicker swaybars all of which would add weight over the OEM parts. This makes me think the kerb weight (full petrol tank) for my car when sold new must have only been 1450kg.

the_widebody

fight fight fight

zach1328

Im pretty sure 1380 kgs is about 3,050 lbs. 3,050 is not an accurate weight for our cars unless it has no extra features. Even if it lacks the features, 3,050 lbs is still pushing it.
A more accurate weight would be about 1430-1450 kgs for some of the lightest models of the 300e.

http://www.peachparts.com/300e.htm

If you read over that you will see it says weight ranged from 3,195 lbs for the older 300e's with the M103 SOHC to over 3,500 lbs for the later model E320's with the DOCH M104.
There are so many things that can change the weight of the car though, so the only way to find an accurate number is to go out and weigh every different car.

Even that old 6 disc changer in the back of my car probably weighs a solid 10 lbs.

And although the later model 300E's with the DOHC weigh about 150-200 lbs more, they have a decent bit more HP and Torque over the earlier ones.
M104 2.8L : 194 HP and 199 TQ
M104 3.2L : 217 HP and 229 TQ
M103 3.0L : 177 HP and 188 TQ

Because of the weight difference the earlier models do have generally quicker 0-60 times(3.2L is about the same 0-60, but the 2.8 is a few tenths of a second slower), but after the newer M104's get going off the line, they are pretty quick.
Newer ones with the M104 really seem to stuggle from about 0-20, 40-50, and 70-80, other than those speeds they move rather quickly.

Rolling start, I'd rather be in the M104 than the M103.
If your going for more handling than performance, then perhaps the earlier model 300e is better, but only because of the 200 lb weight difference. Around the track many people would rather take 200 lbs off their car than to add 20 hp. (although if you can do both, im sure that'd be nice too )

BAD300

@ bsmuwk, Ed's coupe is not a stock Mercedes production coupe so you can't bring it into the equation dude! Purpose of this thread was to compare the kerb weights of stock sedan's & coupes! Ed's CE is a purpose modified, twin turbotechnics clone that obviously weighs much more than a stock early M103 300CE & no Ed you can't bring the mossleman or TT's into the equation, even if they were sold new to customers lol......I probably didn't make it clear enough either but was just comparing the I6's really. Of course the V8's would be heavier.

@ Ortolan & Zach, this is what stumps me I trust Ed's figures posted for his car as he is an honest guy who has gone to the trouble to weigh his car! I just don't understand the HUGE discrepancy of weights in various articles.

I think we have established early 300E's/CE's are in lighter vehicles period! The coupes, heavier still! Cab's etc etc...... Paperwork/articles/member's have stated anywhere from 1390-1500 for the early 300E sedan. Ed states the US CE @ 1500kgs. So lets take 20-30kgs off for the early 300E = 1470-1480. So. For arguments sake & to shorten this post lolol.....that's a far cry from 1680, being the weight of Ed's mean-*** coupe haha...Ed I luv your coupe. Priceless!!!! Anyway......

So, Even subtracting the "bit" of fuel Ed mentioned. Say.....1655? Huge difference! Over 150 odd kgs (340lbs) & what if the 1400kg figure is indeed true? Although I too doubt it.....your taliking around 250kgs (550 odd lbs!!!) difference when compared to Ed's coupe. Even when taking into account the extra add-ons Ed's coupe sports ie: twin chargers & other dealer options it came with. Not to mention only "a bit" of fuel was mentioned lol.......not a FULL tank guys.....that's alot of weight!

Can't wait til' I get mine home & take it to a weigh station myself Although, I have many add ons. Most are light-weight but still, will not be anywhere near stock weight. Especially engine bay add ons. Wheels are light weight BBS.

@ QVHK, again, thanks for info as it further supports the coupes greater build strength in the design which makes for a sturdy track car, if intent was to build a HP vehicle. Whereby the intent however was to build the lightest, quickest accelerating drag car. The extra 20-30kgs would indeed be taken into account. I was merely concerned with confirming the extra weight, as depicted in all the articles, was in fact legit? Concerning those breaks you mention, surely the extra weight would be negligible in the greater scheme of things when purpose would be to pull the car up quicker? But that would depend upon model & hp output of the particular car in mention I guess along with modification performed?

Further, In street performance applications. Small weight increase necessary to enhance performance characteristics would certainly be a viable trade off. For example. Due to the 2 1/2x stock power output my particular 300E, may @ this stage be expected to handle, along with the heavier bolt ons, I will definitely be using the 4 pot 24V break set up on my 12V 300E. Although only a minor upgrade. It is a straight bolt-on mod & @ least ensures car will actually pull up with those extra geegee's pushing @ it.

P.S. from reading even these few posts, it suggests the original article I read that initiated me starting this thread in the first place was perhaps taking figures from different market sources? This would explain the HUGE discrepancy you get with different articles out there. Thanks guys for all the useful input Think we all agree the CE is heavier, but stronger lol

Cheers,
Tim

RBYCC

B.J.

I was working from memory on the 3700Lb weight...
Attached is the base line pre turbo install dyno pull with the weight shown as 3625lbs/1647kg..

The USA 1988 sales brochure indicates the 300CE at 1500Kg/3300lbs...

Looks like +147kg/323lbs is unaccounted for....add full tank of gas, spare tire, heavier 18" AMG repro rims and tires and it's getting close.
Ed A.

https://mbworld.org/forums/attachmen...1&d=1294669536

BAD300

ooooops.....I missed the statement of the twin turbo in your post & embarrassingly also in your sig. How I don't know Think I was bit taken aback by Ed's stated weight.

Ed. How is this possible then, seeing as though Ortolan went to the same trouble to ensure the correct weight for shipping? He clearly states having heaps of heavier components (not to mention the same TT hardware as you) & yet it STILL manages to weigh far less then yours? Even if you did indeed have a full (you stated "a bit" in prior post Ed haha ) tank of fuel? What about the US stock CE coupe you stated too @ 1500kgs

We all need to half fill our tanks. Take it down to a weigh station/bridge & have a weigh-in day like a bunch of boxers weighing in for a title fight I reckon that's the only sure-fire way we can be certain.......

P.S. This weight thing all came about really due to myself needing a reality check on work I'm having done to my 300E sedan. Looking @ factory boosted Volvo's & Beemas etc & comparing the power output they have from factory as well as the potential for upgrades etc. My focus on power-to-weight was obviously a big part of the comparisons. BHP meant nothing. What was most important was the power/reliability aspects of each makes' engine & drivechain, also limitations of the car ie: FWD v's RWD (very different performance characteristics & limitations of driveline for instance when considering further hp modifications on a FWD vehicle etc), balanced against the weight it had to lug around.

Put bluntly, for far less than what it is still going to cost me to get the 87' 300E finished & out of the workshop. Take into account it still needs to be registered, along with future expense for it's engineers' cert' later on etc etc, I can sit my sorry *** down in a low mileage 97', super luxurious, sporty Volvo 850 T5/R, factory 2.3L 5 cyl turbo coupled to a five speed producing 180 odd fly-kw's (250 fly-hp), full rego, RWC (cert' for reg here), in VGC & it's kerb weight is 'round the 1500kg mark...... Can you see why I had the reality check on cost v's power-to-weight ratio??? The 300E is supposed to be lighter than even this Hense this thread!!!

Lastly, it is true to say the 300E will have alot of new parts & greatly improved modifications done to it that you really can't compare to a stock boosted car. Also putting out power far in excess of the Volvo & carrying similar weight = mmmmmmmm

zach1328

Im sure the weight differences in the articles is because mercedes made the W124 between 1986 and 1995. A 9 year period is a pretty long time so the W124 had slight changes over the years. Some years had more options available, some years came stock with more features etc.
Basically speaking, there are so many different W124's out there.

On another note, every article im sure weighed there cars in different ways (assuming they even weighed it on their own, rather than just re-searching it). Some may have had full tanks of gas, and some may have had minimal gas in the tanks. Some may be fully loaded, and some may not have any features.

Also, W124's are generally old cars. Most people that write those articles are probably more writers than they are car enthusiats. Which means much of their information isn't from knowledge, but rather from research. And because these cars are old, there isn't as much on-hand info about these cars as there used to be.

One other thing:
Your BBS LM's, even though they don't make the car that much lighter are a pretty good performance upgrade. Wider tires give the car improved handling and steering response, and also keep the car tracked much better. Only downside is, lower profile tires can't flex as much around corners, which means it can be easier to throw the back end out.

The BBS LM's should also give quicker braking and quicker 0-60 times. They are wider, so most people would think they actually slow the car down, BUT, they should actually be more aerodynamic than the stock rims. And, because the brakes arn't blocked by the old rims, they can breathe better. Thus keeping the brakes cooler, and helping the car stop quicker.

I don't think i've ever seen your car on here, so if you don't mind can you post up some pictures maybe?

BAD300

Thanks Zach for that info

I only mentioned the BBS light-weights Zach due to Ed mentioning his 18" wheels being heavier than stock. Mine are approx 9kgs each rim.

Pretty sure you know the car Zach but it may be from another forum? Anyway, glad to wack a few pics up below.Also. I'll put link to the project thread on this forum:





https://mbworld.org/forums/e-class-w...g-project.html

the_widebody

just fit the 129 sl500 front sway bar will sort that out by producing more under steer

true, heavy wheels blunt performance significantly, i swapped down from cast 19" to forged 18" and the difference is amazing on ride, accell braking and corners, the best mod anyone could do is fit lightweight wheels, before doing any other mod at all.

they will certainly reduce top speed, probably not by much though because they will cause more wind resistance

this you need to explain, i am sure that wider rims will make the car less aerodynamic because the frontal area of the car will be increased.

i am sure i have read somewhere about this being a factor in the top speed runs of the hammer back in the day, i think jono was involved in the conversation, but cant remember the full SP