Auto 05 c230 vs 03/04 c240 4 matic
Finally, a rational argument. But these engines are intercooled, mitigating the otherwise increased heatsoak effect of a supercharger.
ps: don't forget that on ctc230k dynos he had K&N upgraded filters, that's a reported 3-5 hp gain over stock...
Last edited by Narcissus; Jun 3, 2005 at 04:15 PM.

ps: don't forget that on ctc230k dynos he had K&N upgraded filters, that's a reported 3-5 hp gain over stock...
...but his Torque peaked at 145, not 110. And it was at 7500 rpm, way off from MB's spec. I think ct's dyno is hardly representative of all C230s.
...but his Torque peaked at 145, not 110. And it was at 7500 rpm, way off from MB's spec. I think ct's dyno is hardly representative of all C230s.
Ahh yes sorry, you are right, I was referring to his 110 torque at his HP peak....
Sheesh. All this moaning and groaning over 2 SLOW *** cars that weren't even designed to race. I've owned a few with my daily 2-liter diesel 1-series for crying out loud.
The Best of Mercedes & AMG

trying to strip of weight so your car wont be slower than grandma's C240?
Come on... either buy the amg badge and not he plate frame or put the bloody 0 back on. That looks terrible.
trying to strip of weight so your car wont be slower than grandma's C240?
Come on... either buy the amg badge and not he plate frame or put the bloody 0 back on. That looks terrible.
Next thing we know you'll be bragging about burning a corvette on his spare tire.
tardjar
Bragging about a 4matic, we're the one laughing, the c230k barely beat a c240 4 matic with like, 80% drivetrain loss
Last edited by Narcissus; Jun 9, 2005 at 12:18 PM.
Thats like crap telling poop it stinks!!!
...according to this thread, shiit would argue it smells better than both! :p
Why, why, why are people arguing about the C-230 and 240? Way too much idle time on our hands fellas.
Nick







