Curious about engines. C160, C180, C200 and C230 k's

[SSc180k]

Hiya,

I was just wondering how MB achieve different bhp's from the 160, 180, 200 and 230 when they're all 1800s.

C160k - 120bhp
C180k - 140/143bhp
C200k - 160/163bhp
C230k - 192/197bhp

Is it a different supercharger? Or some kind of restrictor?
Anyone know the differences?

Many Thanks in advance.

 

[GordonTarling]

I don't know all the exact differences, but it'll be different ECU mapping, different injectors and maybe some other things as well. Someone else will know for sure!

 

[SSc180k]

hmmmm... I hope its something as simple as injectors, maybe I could stick some bigger one in. I dont thinks it ECU, I've looked at mapping and it only adds about 7bhp.

 

[shorty]

Theres differances with the 180 , 200 and 230 engines . http://www.mbclub.co.uk/forums/engi...ne-thread-revised-updated.html?highlight=m271
This will help explain

 

[SSc180k]

Thats a great guide, thanks shorty.

 

[grober]

In forced induction engines its relatively easy to increase power by turning up boost and fuelling. However its not quite as simple as that as slight modifications may be needed to allow the engine to reliably cope with the greater demands on it-- such as lowering the compression ratio slightly to accommodate a higher boost pressure, a slightly revised turbocharger, bigger intercooler, recalibrated injectors different engine mapping etc etc However its usually possible to "tweak" any particular engine power to the next level up with only a slight decrease in overall reliability particularly if the extra performance is used in short bursts. Where people go wrong is to increase power several levels up and use it constantly without appropriate modifications to compensate for the increased engine stresses

 

[flt.eng]

Hiya,

I was just wondering how MB achieve different bhp's from the 160, 180, 200 and 230 when they're all 1800s.

C160k - 120bhp
C180k - 140/143bhp
C200k - 160/163bhp
C230k - 192/197bhp

Is it a different supercharger? Or some kind of restrictor?
Anyone know the differences?

Many Thanks in advance.

So what you are saying is, that they all have the same cylinder capacity
ie 1.8 cc. I did'nt realise that.

 

[markjay]

Some W204 C180 BlueEfficiency cars are actually 1.6L, but otherwise yes, the post-2003 four cylinder Kompressor engines are all 1.8L with progressive lower compression ratios and larger superchargers as you move up the numbers scale. Late W204 saw the supercharger replaced with turbo charger for better emissions.

 

[bedwards1966]

I don't quite understand how they can all be 1800cc - why is my 230k classed as 2295cc? Surely it's 2.3, as stated?

 

[tor_ake]

I don't quite understand how they can all be 1800cc - why is my 230k classed as 2295cc? Surely it's 2.3, as stated?

Your engine, beeing an M111 is not affected by the statement in the original post. This thread talks about the 160-180-200-230 badges slapped on the M271 engine from MY 2003 onward.

 

[bedwards1966]

Your engine, beeing an M111 is not affected by the statement in the original post. This thread talks about the 160-180-200-230 badges slapped on the M271 engine from MY 2003 onward.

Ah.
It still seems a bit odd though if they're all the same capacity on the M271, yet being advertised as larger and with considerably more horsepower. I'd have thought that for the difference in power they'd use a bigger engine - some sort of cost saving measures by making one engine then down tuning it for the 'smaller' engine models?

 

[Troon]

Ah.
It still seems a bit odd though if they're all the same capacity on the M271, yet being advertised as larger and with considerably more horsepower.

They're not advertised as larger capacity - that's your inference from the historical convention of the badging. The power differences are real, though.

I'd have thought that for the difference in power they'd use a bigger engine - some sort of cost saving measures by making one engine then down tuning it for the 'smaller' engine models?

Exactly that. They can spend the time and money developing one engine well and selling it at a variety of different price/power points by varying minor hardware and software variables. It's not a particularly new idea: diesels have been doing it for longer still.

 

[tor_ake]

Ah.
It still seems a bit odd though if they're all the same capacity on the M271, yet being advertised as larger and with considerably more horsepower. I'd have thought that for the difference in power they'd use a bigger engine - some sort of cost saving measures by making one engine then down tuning it for the 'smaller' engine models?

Not only cost saving for the manufacturer in this case but also for the customer. The different hardware tunes differ in fuel economy, a C230 uses 10% more fuel than a C180 (highway driving) due to different compression ratio and supercharger making it less efficient for low loads. The engine displacement is only one of a number of hardware factors, and for supercharged engines a not so important one.

 

[BTB 500]

Ironically in the 639 Vito the 116 and 150 bhp versions of the M646 2.2 4-pot CDI both gave better MPG and emission figures than the 95 bhp one?!

Makes you wonder who bought it.

 

[walsi]

Strange one that Bill, i was just been told by a very intelligent person that what you have said is a total impossibility and just can't happen

Cheers Martin

 

[MattDC]

MPG and emissions are all to do with how you drive the car.... always ignore the official figures - if you knew how they test them you'd realise they arent worth looking at....

you should always buy a car that suits your driving style and the type of driving you are going to do. Top Gear Highlighted this when they proved the M3 was more economical than a Prius..... The prius was driven around the TG track and the M3 followed it at the same pace, the M3 was a lot more economical being driven in that scenario....

Why official MPG figures need a reality check

 

[BTB 500]

Strange one that Bill, i was just been told by a very intelligent person that what you have said is a total impossibility and just can't happen

Cheers Martin

LOL!

These are the brochure figures (in l/100 km, manual transmission, no DPF):

109 (95 hp)
urban: 11.8
extra-urban: 7.4
combined: 8.9
CO2: 238 g/km


111 (116 hp) and 115 (150 hp)
urban: 10.6
extra-urban: 6.8
combined: 8.1
CO2: 217 g/km

With DPF all the figures increase a bit but the 109 is still the worst, with the 111 and 115 again being identical.

 

[walsi]

Which just goes to prove more power doesn't always mean worse fuel consumption. Even our 120's are not that bad when you put them against other manufacturers 2ltr vans and drive them at 70mph, we would beat a lot of them and we have a third more cc's and double the power output

Martin

 

[BTB 500]

Interesting ... spotted in the small print that the Vito 109 has a different rear axle ratio (3.727, versus 3.273 for the 111 and 115, and 2.923 for the 120).

So maybe that's got something to do with it, but I still can't see why anyone would ever have bought a 109!

 

[walsi]

To add further to this when i was running 225/45/18 which are very close to the oe specd conti's in size there was no difference in mpg as you would expect but as soon as i went up to 235/55/18 my which is a fair difference in rolling radius my mpg dropped by around 2/3.
Now i thought by raising the gearing it would improve mpg, 2050 revs at 70 as opposed to 2200 but it didn't. It made the speedo under read by 1mph at 70 and it is spot on at 40 but the small one by the mpg is only showing 65 at 70.
So it would appear that maybe you are not running so much boost with the lower gearing to maintain say 70 even though the revs are higher, i know on my 108 which had a boost gauge fitted that if the weather was right i could run at 70 and have no boost on the gauge and would get up in the 40's mpg, so maybe the 109 is so bad because it is working so hard and the 115 is about spot on for the weight of the vehicle, maybe there is a maximum achievable mpg that can be achieved when pushing a certain mass through the air and this cannot be exceeded whatever the power output.
I hope that made some sense, sometimes what is in my brain doesn't translate to writing that well

Martin