Gears & Weight
SLK/R170: engine spc SLK230 compared to C230
Thread Starter
Newbie
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
From: Vancouver, Canada
slk 99
engine spc SLK230 compared to C230
I've got a 99 5 speed 230 SLK kompressor and recently had a chance to drive an auto C230 while my front bumper was getting resprayed (those stone chips were starting to bug me!). I noticed that my SLK230 seems to have alot more grunt (power/torque)than the C230. Am I imagining this or are these cars tuned differently/or have they got diffferent engine specs. Maybe it's a auto/manual difference. Anyone have any ideas.
-Rob
-Rob
Super Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 837
Likes: 0
From: Happy Boston, MA
2002 SLK 320
The CLK is only 250lbs heavier than the SLK... that's like having a big passenger in your SLK. This is not the cause of the performance edge of the SLK.
The issue here is "compression ratio". Basically, the more the air is compressed in the cylinder, the more energetic the gas/air mixture will be - and hence - the more powerful the 'explosion'. The result.... MORE POWER!
The SLK has a compression ratio of 9:1 - that is, when the piston is fully depressed into the cylinder, the air has been compressed to 9x it's original pressure. The C230K has a compression ratio of 8.7:1. That's close on 5% less compression than the SLK. With the increased power due to an increased compression ratio and some smart engine management, your SLK230 is capable of generating more horsepower.
Here's the comparison:
Horsepower:
SLK230: 192lb @ 5500rpm
C230K:189lb @ 5800rpm
Torque:
SLK230: 200lb/ft @ 2,500 rpm
C230K: 192lb/ft @ 3,500 - 4,000 rpm
0-60mph (automatic gearboxes)
SLK230: 7.0s
C230K: 7.5s
The issue here is "compression ratio". Basically, the more the air is compressed in the cylinder, the more energetic the gas/air mixture will be - and hence - the more powerful the 'explosion'. The result.... MORE POWER!
The SLK has a compression ratio of 9:1 - that is, when the piston is fully depressed into the cylinder, the air has been compressed to 9x it's original pressure. The C230K has a compression ratio of 8.7:1. That's close on 5% less compression than the SLK. With the increased power due to an increased compression ratio and some smart engine management, your SLK230 is capable of generating more horsepower.
Here's the comparison:
Horsepower:
SLK230: 192lb @ 5500rpm
C230K:189lb @ 5800rpm
Torque:
SLK230: 200lb/ft @ 2,500 rpm
C230K: 192lb/ft @ 3,500 - 4,000 rpm
0-60mph (automatic gearboxes)
SLK230: 7.0s
C230K: 7.5s
Super Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 569
Likes: 2
From: Chandler, Arizona - USA
'02 SLK32 AMG
If you mean the C230 sportcoupe, here are the differences that matter:
Vehicle: '99 SLK230 / '03 C230
Weight: 2,975 lbs / 3,250 lbs
Differential: 3.46:1 / 3.26:1
Peak Power: 185hp @ 5300 rpm / 189hp @ 5800rpm
Peak Torque: 200 ft-lbs @ 2500-4800rpm / 192 ft-lbs 3500-4000rpm
So, there's a bunch of little things that add up to make the SLK feel quicker (of course, it IS quicker, too). The difference in peak hp doesn't make any difference in the "grunt" that you feel.
I disagree with beantownrich about the compression ratio. It's the power and torque curves of the engine that matter. How you get there is irrelevant. Not to mention that he quoted figures for the '01-'03 SLK230. The compression ratio of the '99 SLK230 was 8.8:1 and the peak horsepower was 185hp.
Vehicle: '99 SLK230 / '03 C230
Weight: 2,975 lbs / 3,250 lbs
Differential: 3.46:1 / 3.26:1
Peak Power: 185hp @ 5300 rpm / 189hp @ 5800rpm
Peak Torque: 200 ft-lbs @ 2500-4800rpm / 192 ft-lbs 3500-4000rpm
So, there's a bunch of little things that add up to make the SLK feel quicker (of course, it IS quicker, too). The difference in peak hp doesn't make any difference in the "grunt" that you feel.
I disagree with beantownrich about the compression ratio. It's the power and torque curves of the engine that matter. How you get there is irrelevant. Not to mention that he quoted figures for the '01-'03 SLK230. The compression ratio of the '99 SLK230 was 8.8:1 and the peak horsepower was 185hp.
Thread Starter
Newbie
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
From: Vancouver, Canada
slk 99
Picture of my 99 SLK230
All,
Thanks for the spec differences on the SLK230 and C230 coupe. Here is a photo of my SLK230. It's got the AMG Sport package from MB. I've put some racing pedals on, but apart from that it's basically Stock.
-Rob
Thanks for the spec differences on the SLK230 and C230 coupe. Here is a photo of my SLK230. It's got the AMG Sport package from MB. I've put some racing pedals on, but apart from that it's basically Stock.
-Rob
Super Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 837
Likes: 0
From: Happy Boston, MA
2002 SLK 320
Originally posted by Brian_R170
I disagree with beantownrich about the compression ratio. It's the power and torque curves of the engine that matter. How you get there is irrelevant. Not to mention that he quoted figures for the '01-'03 SLK230. The compression ratio of the '99 SLK230 was 8.8:1 and the peak horsepower was 185hp.
I disagree with beantownrich about the compression ratio. It's the power and torque curves of the engine that matter. How you get there is irrelevant. Not to mention that he quoted figures for the '01-'03 SLK230. The compression ratio of the '99 SLK230 was 8.8:1 and the peak horsepower was 185hp.
Super Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 569
Likes: 2
From: Chandler, Arizona - USA
'02 SLK32 AMG
Re: Picture of my 99 SLK230
Originally posted by rghinzel
Here is a photo of my SLK230. It's got the AMG Sport package from MB. I've put some racing pedals on, but apart from that it's basically Stock.
-Rob
Here is a photo of my SLK230. It's got the AMG Sport package from MB. I've put some racing pedals on, but apart from that it's basically Stock.
-Rob
Trending Topics
Thread Starter
Newbie
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
From: Vancouver, Canada
slk 99
Thanks,
It's the same as your previous SLK. I do have the solid charcoal interior. I'm really pleased with the vehicle. The 5 speed is great. I've driven manuals all my life and it's up there with the best. How do you find the new '02 SLK32 AMG'. Nice back drop in the picture. Looks like you've got some nice open roads to take the car out on.
-Rob.
It's the same as your previous SLK. I do have the solid charcoal interior. I'm really pleased with the vehicle. The 5 speed is great. I've driven manuals all my life and it's up there with the best. How do you find the new '02 SLK32 AMG'. Nice back drop in the picture. Looks like you've got some nice open roads to take the car out on.
-Rob.
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
6 Mercedes Models That Did NOT Age Well (But Are Somehow Still Cool)
Verdad Gallardo
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
Super Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 569
Likes: 2
From: Chandler, Arizona - USA
'02 SLK32 AMG
Originally posted by rghinzel
How do you find the new '02 SLK32 AMG.
How do you find the new '02 SLK32 AMG.
Super Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 591
Likes: 3
From: Mid-Atlantic USA
W203 & W204 3.0L 4matics & MR2 Supercharger
rghinzel: Was the C230 a Kompressor motor ? Safe to say they gave you a car off the lot as a loaner ? Also do you remember what year the C-Class was ?
NP
NP
Super Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
The 2002 C 230 K coupe, im readin this from my Window sticker is
192 HP@ 5500 RPM
200 Ft-Lb Torque @ 2500-4500 RPM
I do know that the older slk compressors and old c class had a clutch on the SC unit. This was eliminated in 1999 and changed the horse power from 185-192 final.
The airbox also had a revision over the years, now for modern day slk it is similar to c coupe.
192 HP@ 5500 RPM
200 Ft-Lb Torque @ 2500-4500 RPM
I do know that the older slk compressors and old c class had a clutch on the SC unit. This was eliminated in 1999 and changed the horse power from 185-192 final.
The airbox also had a revision over the years, now for modern day slk it is similar to c coupe.
Super Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 569
Likes: 2
From: Chandler, Arizona - USA
'02 SLK32 AMG
Originally posted by x15jq
The 2002 C 230 K coupe, im readin this from my Window sticker is
192 HP@ 5500 RPM
200 Ft-Lb Torque @ 2500-4500 RPM
I do know that the older slk compressors and old c class had a clutch on the SC unit. This was eliminated in 1999 and changed the horse power from 185-192 final.
The airbox also had a revision over the years, now for modern day slk it is similar to c coupe.
The 2002 C 230 K coupe, im readin this from my Window sticker is
192 HP@ 5500 RPM
200 Ft-Lb Torque @ 2500-4500 RPM
I do know that the older slk compressors and old c class had a clutch on the SC unit. This was eliminated in 1999 and changed the horse power from 185-192 final.
The airbox also had a revision over the years, now for modern day slk it is similar to c coupe.
BTW, anybody know why the power and torque rating of the 2003 C230 Sportcoupe is lower than the 2002 model? And since the SLK230 uses the same engine, why wasn't it's power/torque decreased as well? I see that they lowered the compression ratio form 9.0:1 to 8.7:1 and the fuel economy increased by about 10%, but the 0-60mph performance isn't listed on the website for the 2003 C230 sportcoupe.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,184
Likes: 0
From: New York
2011 E550 Sedan
2002 c230k has a 2.3L with an output of 192 hp, while for the new 2003's they put in a new 1.8L engine with an output of 189 hp. Supposedly the new engine is better as in smoothness and fuel consumption, but the 2.3L has a higher torque and a nicer grunt.
I also drive a SLK 230 for mostly dates (only need a 2 seater) and it definitely feels quicker when going from 0-60 compared to the c230k. BTW the SLK i'm talking about is a 2001 version.
I also drive a SLK 230 for mostly dates (only need a 2 seater) and it definitely feels quicker when going from 0-60 compared to the c230k. BTW the SLK i'm talking about is a 2001 version.
Last edited by Tai230K; Nov 13, 2002 at 08:15 PM.
Super Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 569
Likes: 2
From: Chandler, Arizona - USA
'02 SLK32 AMG
I didn't realize that the US-spec C230 Sportcoupe was using the new 1.8L GDI engine! Now it makes sense. Too bad M-B doesn't make a 2.3L GDI engine, but I guess it would kick butt on the 3.2L V6, wouldn't it.
BTW, Shouldn't they call it the C180 Sportcoupe? Of course, then they would have to change the name of the C240 to C260 and the CLK55 to CLK54, and the S600 to S550, etc.
BTW, Shouldn't they call it the C180 Sportcoupe? Of course, then they would have to change the name of the C240 to C260 and the CLK55 to CLK54, and the S600 to S550, etc.
Super Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 591
Likes: 3
From: Mid-Atlantic USA
W203 & W204 3.0L 4matics & MR2 Supercharger
Woo hold on there was no way MB would dump the clutch on the SC unit WHY ? MPG would plumet(about 8 MPG). Where did you get this info.
The HP was 185 from 1998-2000
Then in 2001 MB bumped the compression up from 8.8:1 to 9.0:1 and HP jumped to 192.
The C230 Coupe was new in 2001 and got the same engine as the SLK that year. The Coupe has 192HP@5,550 RPM the SLK 192HP@5,300 RPM both car used SIM 4 engine management that year.
In 2002 both Kompressor motors got a liquid-to-air intercooler.
In 2003 the C230 Coupe got the 1.8L Kompressor motor with 189HP@5,800 RPM.
The 2003 SLK230 got the 2.3L Kompressor with 192HP@5,500 RPM but I don't know what happened to the liquid-to-air intercooler.
There were changes in engine management from year to year and I don't know how much the final drive comes into play here.
All stats come from www.MBUSA.com and represent USA spec cars only.
NP
The HP was 185 from 1998-2000
Then in 2001 MB bumped the compression up from 8.8:1 to 9.0:1 and HP jumped to 192.
The C230 Coupe was new in 2001 and got the same engine as the SLK that year. The Coupe has 192HP@5,550 RPM the SLK 192HP@5,300 RPM both car used SIM 4 engine management that year.
In 2002 both Kompressor motors got a liquid-to-air intercooler.
In 2003 the C230 Coupe got the 1.8L Kompressor motor with 189HP@5,800 RPM.
The 2003 SLK230 got the 2.3L Kompressor with 192HP@5,500 RPM but I don't know what happened to the liquid-to-air intercooler.
There were changes in engine management from year to year and I don't know how much the final drive comes into play here.
All stats come from www.MBUSA.com and represent USA spec cars only.
NP
Super Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 591
Likes: 3
From: Mid-Atlantic USA
W203 & W204 3.0L 4matics & MR2 Supercharger
Originally posted by Brian_R170
I didn't realize that the US-spec C230 Sportcoupe was using the new 1.8L GDI engine! Now it makes sense. Too bad M-B doesn't make a 2.3L GDI engine, but I guess it would kick butt on the 3.2L V6, wouldn't it.
I didn't realize that the US-spec C230 Sportcoupe was using the new 1.8L GDI engine! Now it makes sense. Too bad M-B doesn't make a 2.3L GDI engine, but I guess it would kick butt on the 3.2L V6, wouldn't it.
2003 C230 Coupe 1.8L:
Fuel and ignition system SIM 4 engine management. Integrated sequential multipoint fuel injection and ignition with individual cylinder control of fuel spray and spark timing. Electronic throttle.
Intake system Variable intake and exhaust valve timing. Intercooled supercharger.
2003 SLK230:
Fuel and ignition system Integrated sequential multipoint fuel injection and ignition with individual cylinder control of fuel spray and spark timing and antiknock. Electronic throttle. SIM 4 engine management.
Intake system Variable intake-valve timing. Intercooled supercharger.
NP
Super Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 569
Likes: 2
From: Chandler, Arizona - USA
'02 SLK32 AMG
Originally posted by Nektopoli
rghinzel: Was the C230 a Kompressor motor ? Safe to say they gave you a car off the lot as a loaner ? Also do you remember what year the C-Class was ?
NP
rghinzel: Was the C230 a Kompressor motor ? Safe to say they gave you a car off the lot as a loaner ? Also do you remember what year the C-Class was ?
NP
The last time a C230 was sold in the USA without a supercharger was the 1998 C230 sedan.
Super Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 591
Likes: 3
From: Mid-Atlantic USA
W203 & W204 3.0L 4matics & MR2 Supercharger
Re: engine spc SLK230 compared to C230
Originally posted by rghinzel
I've got a 99 5 speed 230 SLK kompressor and recently had a chance to drive an auto C230 while my front bumper was getting resprayed (those stone chips were starting to bug me!). I noticed that my SLK230 seems to have alot more grunt (power/torque)than the C230. Am I imagining this or are these cars tuned differently/or have they got diffferent engine specs. Maybe it's a auto/manual difference. Anyone have any ideas.
-Rob
I've got a 99 5 speed 230 SLK kompressor and recently had a chance to drive an auto C230 while my front bumper was getting resprayed (those stone chips were starting to bug me!). I noticed that my SLK230 seems to have alot more grunt (power/torque)than the C230. Am I imagining this or are these cars tuned differently/or have they got diffferent engine specs. Maybe it's a auto/manual difference. Anyone have any ideas.
-Rob
NP
Super Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 569
Likes: 2
From: Chandler, Arizona - USA
'02 SLK32 AMG
Re: Re: engine spc SLK230 compared to C230
Originally posted by Nektopoli
Brian_R170: I didn't know they gave him '03 C230 Coupe as a loaner.
NP
Brian_R170: I didn't know they gave him '03 C230 Coupe as a loaner.
NP
Super Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 591
Likes: 3
From: Mid-Atlantic USA
W203 & W204 3.0L 4matics & MR2 Supercharger
Originally posted by altai1083
2002 c230k has a 2.3L with an output of 192 hp, while for the new 2003's they put in a new 1.8L engine with an output of 189 hp. Supposedly the new engine is better as in smoothness and fuel consumption, but the 2.3L has a higher torque and a nicer grunt.
2002 c230k has a 2.3L with an output of 192 hp, while for the new 2003's they put in a new 1.8L engine with an output of 189 hp. Supposedly the new engine is better as in smoothness and fuel consumption, but the 2.3L has a higher torque and a nicer grunt.
NP
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,465
Likes: 0
From: SF Bay Area
2002 C230 K
Originally posted by Brian_R170
BTW, Shouldn't they call it the C180 Sportcoupe? Of course, then they would have to change the name of the C240 to C260 and the CLK55 to CLK54, and the S600 to S550, etc.
BTW, Shouldn't they call it the C180 Sportcoupe? Of course, then they would have to change the name of the C240 to C260 and the CLK55 to CLK54, and the S600 to S550, etc.
The M271 engines should appear in the W171 SLK. I guess they decided it wasn't worth sticking them in the W170 for only a single year, probably more for servicing issues rather than a question of fitment.
Originally posted by Nektopoli
Woo hold on there was no way MB would dump the clutch on the SC unit WHY ? MPG would plumet(about 8 MPG). Where did you get this info.
Woo hold on there was no way MB would dump the clutch on the SC unit WHY ? MPG would plumet(about 8 MPG). Where did you get this info.
Originally posted by Nektopoli
In 2002 both Kompressor motors got a liquid-to-air intercooler.
In 2002 both Kompressor motors got a liquid-to-air intercooler.
Cheers, BT
Almost a Member!
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
From: St. Petersburg, FL
SLK 230
Not that it's anything scientific, I raced my friend with a C230 (I have an SLK 230). He has an 03 and I have a 99. We both have a stick shift. Only thing was I had a passanger. Both times we raced I was able to pull ahead on him.... and the second time I even gave him the 'jump'.
I drove the C230 that same night and I didn't like it as much as my SLK. It didn't seem to handle as well...
Just my .02....
I drove the C230 that same night and I didn't like it as much as my SLK. It didn't seem to handle as well...
Just my .02....
Super Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 591
Likes: 3
From: Mid-Atlantic USA
W203 & W204 3.0L 4matics & MR2 Supercharger
The supercharger clutch was eliminated at the beginning of the 2001 model year. It was removed from supercharger because of the incorporation of completely new bearing technology within the supercharger itself. This allowed two improvements, the parasitic losses from the supercharger were lessened, plus the supercharger wasn't as noisy (the clutch was partially on there to reduce NVH as well). After the new bearing design it was no longer necessary to uncouple it when the engine was idling. An added bonus, the omission of the supercharger clutch meant an overall weight reduction for the M111 engines.
NP
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,465
Likes: 0
From: SF Bay Area
2002 C230 K
Originally posted by ibjhb
Not that it's anything scientific, I raced my friend with a C230 (I have an SLK 230). He has an 03 and I have a 99. We both have a stick shift. Only thing was I had a passanger. Both times we raced I was able to pull ahead on him.... and the second time I even gave him the 'jump'.
I drove the C230 that same night and I didn't like it as much as my SLK. It didn't seem to handle as well...
Not that it's anything scientific, I raced my friend with a C230 (I have an SLK 230). He has an 03 and I have a 99. We both have a stick shift. Only thing was I had a passanger. Both times we raced I was able to pull ahead on him.... and the second time I even gave him the 'jump'.
I drove the C230 that same night and I didn't like it as much as my SLK. It didn't seem to handle as well...
Originally posted by Nektopoli
Now this means that the engine intake is always pressurized and the air bypass system can be done aways with, it will be a few years before anyone can really say is this will be a good thing.
Now this means that the engine intake is always pressurized and the air bypass system can be done aways with, it will be a few years before anyone can really say is this will be a good thing.
Cheers, BT
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,184
Likes: 0
From: New York
2011 E550 Sedan
Originally posted by ibjhb
Not that it's anything scientific, I raced my friend with a C230 (I have an SLK 230). He has an 03 and I have a 99. We both have a stick shift. Only thing was I had a passanger. Both times we raced I was able to pull ahead on him.... and the second time I even gave him the 'jump'.
I drove the C230 that same night and I didn't like it as much as my SLK. It didn't seem to handle as well...
Just my .02....
Not that it's anything scientific, I raced my friend with a C230 (I have an SLK 230). He has an 03 and I have a 99. We both have a stick shift. Only thing was I had a passanger. Both times we raced I was able to pull ahead on him.... and the second time I even gave him the 'jump'.
I drove the C230 that same night and I didn't like it as much as my SLK. It didn't seem to handle as well...
Just my .02....
Also, the SLK Revs a bit higher than the c230... dunno why... same engine....
